Mediaboss Marketing

The city of Seattle has just embarked on an unprecedented experiment in campaign-finance reform that forces property owners, through a new property tax, to sponsor the campaign contributions of other city residents. The city attracted nationwide attention in 2015 when it passed the first democracy voucher program, which is just now under way. The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing two property owners subject to the tax, has sued the city, arguing that the First Amendment forbids the city from compelling property owners to fund viewpoints they oppose.

At the start of this year, Seattle began mailing out four $25 vouchers to registered voters. Non-voters and even non-citizens can receive vouchers, too, upon request to the city. The vouchers can be used for only one purpose: campaign contributions for local elected office.

The idea is to give everyone a voice in politics but at whose expense? Heralding the arrival of the vouchers, The Stranger a left-leaning Seattle paper published a gleeful article: How to Get Your Free Money from Seattles New Public Campaign Financing System. It sported an image of money falling from the sky into the hands of waiting voters.

But that money doesnt rain down from above; it comes from the pockets of property owners, who are designated as the cash cows for other peoples political opinions.

This compelled subsidy for political donations violates the First Amendment. Freedom of speech embodies not only the right to speak, but also its corollary: the right not to speak. This includes the right to refrain from funding the speech of another person. After all, money talks, and when your money goes to promote a cause you dont believe in, youre the victim of political ventriloquism. The U.S. Supreme Court has called this a bedrock principle of the First Amendment that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support. This speech tax, by forcing Seattle property owners to support the political views of their neighbors, tramples upon this bedrock principle.

The Supreme Court has upheld neutral public campaign funding in the past, but the democracy-voucher program is an altogether different beast. Since voucher recipients decide which candidates get this money based on their political preferences, the speech tax undermines dissenting views and entrenches popular ones. Unlike neutral public campaign-funding schemes, the voucher program smacks of partisan inequality. As the money flows according to the preferences of Seattle residents, candidates who subscribe to the dominant political view will receive the most largesse. Minority candidates will get outfunded. This does not cultivate the equality of ideas that the democracy-voucher program purports to champion quite the opposite, in fact.

Even worse, the property owners compelled to pay for these political donations will tend to be among the crowd with minority viewpoints. Take, for instance, a major political issue in Seattle: rental housing. Seattle is a city of tenants; 54 percent of Seattle households rent. Seattle politicians have catered to this major constituency through recent measures like a renters commission, caps on move-in fees, and the mayors recent proposal to prevent landlords from rejecting renters because of a criminal history. For the most part, these measures clash with landlords political and economic interests.

Yet landlords and other property owners must now foot the bill for political speech that favor these kinds of measures. Take Jon Grants campaign for city council. Grant, the former director of the Tenants Union of Washington State, is a committed tenant advocate. If elected, hell pursue policies such as tenant collective-bargaining rights and rent control that will further undermine landlords interests. Grant has received $129,000 in voucher money, doubtless from many renter constituents. But landlords and other property owners are the real, involuntary source of that money; theyre forced to fund a candidacy at odds with their rights and basic interests.

We shouldnt shrug off this problem just because we might like the viewpoints favored by the vouchers, or because we cant work up sympathy for property owners. Reserving freedom of speech for popular views would obliterate the core purpose of the First Amendment to shelter the dissident. Yet the speech tax forces the dissident to power the megaphone of the majority.

It gets worse. Plenty of mom-and-pop landlords who rent out Seattle property live in surrounding King County. They have a stake in Seattle politics, but as non-residents, they cant receive vouchers themselves. A landlord who has owned a house in Seattle for 20 years cant get vouchers, yet she must pay for the campaign contributions of a University of Washington freshman who moved into the city last month.

We treasure the First Amendment because it upholds human dignity the power to shape our identity by what we believe and express. That dignity is sullied by a government that forces its people to serve as unwilling vessels for beliefs that repel them. As Thomas Jefferson said, To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. The supporters of the voucher program want to force property owners to underwrite partisan political donations in the name of democracy. I dont think that word means what they think that word means.

Ethan Blevins is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the challengers to Seattles democracy-voucher program.

More:
Seattle's 'Democracy Voucher' Plan: Coercive and Unfair | National ... - National Review

Hillary Clinton referenced The Handmaid's Tale , Margaret Atwoods 1985 novel about a dystopian United States, in a speech at Planned Parenthoods 100th anniversary gala on Tuesday night.

To paraphrase Margaret Atwood, We can never let them grind us down, Clinton said, according to the Huffington Post .

She continued: "We come tonight to celebrate the last 100 years, the progress that so many generations have fought so hard for and what a time it is to be holding this centennial, just ask those whove been watching The Handmaids Tale , a book I read and was captivated by years ago," she said, according to the Huffington Post.

The novel, which Hulu recently adapted into an online show, takes place in a society where women are second-class citizens, stripped of their constitutional rights. Women who are capable of having children are made into "handmaids," bearing children for members of the upper class whose wives are infertile. The novel primarily follows the story of a handmaid named Offred, who is comforted by a Latin phrase that translates as Dont let the bastards grind you down roughly the same saying Clinton referenced during her speech.

Now, I am not suggesting this dystopian future is around the corner, Clinton continued, but this show has prompted important conversations about womens rights and autonomy. In The Handmaids Tale , womens rights are gradually, slowly stripped away. As one character says, We didnt look up from our phones until it was too late.

It is not too late for us, Clinton said, but only as long as womens rights advocates keep fighting.

Clinton has kept a relatively low profile since losing the presidential election to Donald Trump in November. But now, Clinton is "back to being an active citizen and part of the resistance," she said at the gala, according to The Hill.

Follow this link:
Hillary Clinton - fortune.com

Chelsea Clintonis hitting back at a FOX News hosts comments about her mother, Hillary Clinton.

Fox Newss The Fivecontributor Lisa Boothe said in a Friday segment that the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee would literally sell her daughter to be president, literally sell her only child to be president. Boothe also called the 2016 presidential candidate the most soulless woman on the planet.

Chelsea defended her mom and shot down the nasty statements in a tweet Saturday.

No, she wouldnt. Ive never doubted & always known I was the most important part of her life. Now as a mom Im even more grateful to my mom, the former first daughter and mother to daughter Charlotte and son Aidan, wrote.

RELATED VIDEO:Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: Flashback Moments, 1979 1992

The former Secretary of State shared a photo on Twitter last week of herself modeling a nasty woman shirt created bycomedianSamantha Beeand the online fundraising platformOmazeto benefit Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles.

Support Samantha Bee & Planned Parenthood & buy a Nasty Woman t-shirt! Clinton wrote. President Donald Trump had called Clinton a nasty woman in the explosive third presidential debate in October 2016.

The rest is here:
'No, She Wouldn't': Chelsea Clinton Fires Back After Commentator Claims Hillary Would 'Sell Her Daughter to Be ... - PEOPLE.com

Disclosures stemming from last summers meeting between President Trumps eldest son, a Kremlin-linked lawyer and at least one other controversial Russian figure could prove to be a turning point in the tangled, months-long probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, senior Democrats said Sunday.

The White House dispatched a senior member of the presidents personal legal defense team to the major Sunday news shows to play down last weeks steady drip of revelations about the meeting with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, which was also attended by Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, now a senior White House aide.

The president, meanwhile, took to Twitter to renew his defense of Donald Trump Jr. over the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, returning to familiar twin themes of attacking former opponent Hillary Clinton and castigating the news media over coverage of Russia-related matters.

The tweet referred to a primary debate question that had been provided to the Clinton campaign and not to her then-rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and to emails Clinton deleted from the private server she used while serving as secretary of State. The disclosure about the debate question was drawn from Russian-hacked electronic communications.

Everything President Trump has tweeted about the Clintons>>

In a separate tweet, Trump thanked former campaign official Michael Caputo, who told the Associated Press that he appeared before a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee on Friday and testified that he "never heard the word Russia" during his time on Trump's campaign.

Caputo's appearance, which he said was a voluntary effort to clear his name, came as part of the committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible connections to Trump's campaign.

Trump for months has described investigations of alleged collusion between his campaign and the Kremlin as a DEM HOAX and a witch hunt.

Everything President Trump has tweeted about Russia>>

After an initial White House-sanctioned statement suggesting the meeting was mainly about Russian orphans, the younger Trump acknowledged in emails released last week that the intermediary who set up the meeting described Veselnitskaya as having access to Russian government information that could be used against Clinton. He replied: I love it.

In addition to Trump Jr. and Kushner, the meeting was attended by Paul Manafort, who at the time was a senior campaign aide, and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian American self-described lobbyist with a reported background in Russian counterintelligence.

The fact that the most striking revelations came in the words of the presidents son made it more difficult for the White House to push back against anonymous sources. Even so, Trump again blamed negative coverage for keeping what he has termed a baseless controversy alive.

-- This post contains reporting from the Associated Press

Read more from the original source:
Trump defends his son, accuses Hillary Clinton and attacks the 'fake news' media - Los Angeles Times

Does Russian President Vladimir Putin want to stop hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Western nations the same way he allegedly wanted to harm the electoral chances of 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton? According to two Texas Republican congressmen, the answer is yes.

Its entirely likely that the open letteron this subject sent by Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber on June 29 to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was partly motivated by a desire to shift public attention from President Donald Trumps burgeoning Russian-influence scandal. But the allegations have some support from non-Republicans.

One person who appears to believe that the Russians are interested in stopping oil and gas extraction via fracking, in fact, is Hillary Clinton herself. In a private, paid speech delivered in Canada on June 18, 2014, the former secretary of state denounced phony environmental groups she claimed had been created by Russia to oppose fracking.

We were even up against phony environmental groups, and Im a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia, Clinton said, according to an excerpt from the speech created by her presidential campaign staffers.

It is unclear what region of the world Clinton was discussing, since the full text of her speech has never been made available by Clinton or by tinePublic, the Canadian marketing firm that paid her to deliver it. Ironically, the excerpt that is publicly available was among the tens of thousands of emails released by WikiLeaks, allegedly thanks to the efforts of Russian hackers who copied them from the email account of John Podesta, Clintons former campaign manager.

Clintons speech was delivered to an audience in Edmonton, the capital of Alberta, the Canadian province that produces more petroleum than any other within the country.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former secretary-general of NATO, has also accused Russia of interfering in European political discussions of fracking. In a 2014 speech delivered in the United Kingdom the day after Clintons address in Canada, Rasmussen told the Royal Institute of International Affairs that he had information that Russia had been funding anti-fracking campaigns in Europe to stop extraction of oil from shale rock. Russia is one of the largest exporters of oil and natural gas in the world.

I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations environmental organizations working against shale gas to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas, Rasmussen said. He did not present any evidence for his allegation.

Fracking debates were also mentioned in the report issued by Americas intelligence community on Jan. 6, 2017, that formally accused Russia of being behind several hacks of the Democratic National Committee as well as the Clinton campaign. That document, released by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) two weeks before Trump assumed office, contained an appendix discussing what it said were extensive Russian efforts to undermine Americans faith in their electoral system and to impact American political discussion.

One of Russias key means of influencing American political debate is through its international television channel, RT. With regard to fracking, the intelligence report said that the network runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health.

According to the report, Russia is interested in reducing oil and natural gas production around the world in order to protect Gazprom, one of several energy-producing companies that are owned by its government or by people connected to Putin.

As in the case of the allegation that Russia hacked the Democrats, the DNI report did not provide specific unclassified evidence for these assertions, even though some evidence did exist at the time it was released.

The ambiguity in various government statements about Russias alleged election interference and its desire to stop fracking in Western nations has allowed partisans on both sides either to dismiss the idea or to make statements that go well beyond the available facts.

In the case of fracking, the letter from Smith and Weber utilizes the Clinton and Rasmussen statements referenced above, pulling them out of context. The congressmens evidence that American environmental groups have taken Russian money to oppose fracking comes from a fake conservative think tank called the Environmental Policy Alliance that is essentially owned and operated by Rick Berman, a Republican lobbyist best known for defending the tobacco industry and attacking Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Bermans group itself does not disclose who its donors are. In 2014, he even boasted to a conference for energy industry executives that contributions to his efforts would never be publicly disclosed. We run all this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity, he said in a leaked speech. People dont know who supports us. Weve been doing this for 20-something years in this regard.

Citing research conducted by Bermans organization, the two GOP congressmen claim that several American-based environmental groups accepted money from an organization called the Sea Change Foundation, which in turn obtained it from a Bermuda-based company called Klein Limited. According to Smith and Weber, the executives at Klein are closely linked to Russian oil and gas companies.

A representative for the Sierra Club, one of the nonprofits accused in the letter, confirmed that her organization had received money from the Sea Change Foundation in 2010 and 2011, but strongly denied that the funds had come from anyone connected to Russia.

We double-check confirmed that the origin of the funds were getting from Sea Change is through a donor, not from Russia, Melinda Pierce, the Sierra Clubs legislative director, told Salon. Its a private U.S. citizen who cares about climate change and has invested in the kind of work that the Sierra Club does to move us off dirty energy to clean energy.

Pierce said she was not authorized to name the donor.

The Sierra Club has acknowledged receiving more than $25 million from Aubrey McClendon, the late CEO of Chesapeake Energy, between 2007 and 2010 to fund its Beyond Coal campaign to close coal-powered electricity-generation plants. The group ended its relationship with McClendon at the end of 2010 under pressure from its members. According to Pierce, the Sierra Club now has policies in place that prohibit donations from individuals or companies affiliated with polluting industries.

In an email to Salon, the Sea Change Foundation confirmed that it had received funds from Klein but said that the money was not supposed to be used for fighting fracking:

Sea Change Foundation acknowledges the Klein Foundations total charitable contribution of $23 million of general support grants it provided over the 2010/2011 time period. This information has been a matter of public record since May 2012 and no new funds have been received from the Klein Foundation since 2011. The Klein Foundation grants were given as general support and no requirement was made that the funds be used for specific projects, programs, or activities of the Sea Change Foundation.

A source familiar with the foundations operations said that the group has not focused on fracking in its environmental advocacy efforts.

Roderick M. Forrest, an attorney representing Klein Limited, strongly denied the GOP congressmens allegations as completely false and irresponsible.

Our firm has represented Klein since its inception, and we can state categorically that at no point did this philanthropic organization receive or expend funds from Russian sources or Russian-connected sources and Klein has no Russian connection whatsoever, he wrote in an email to Salon.

Forrest also appeared to threaten Reps. Smith and Weber with legal action.

The making of false allegations of the nature described is actionable and Wakefield Quin Limited will take such steps as it deems appropriate to prevent the distribution and dissemination of such falsehoods, he wrote.

While Russias RT channel frequently denounces fracking, the countrys largest oil company has signed a deal with ExxonMobil to use fracking asan oil-extraction technique. The CEO of ExxonMobil at the time that deal was negotiated was Rex Tillerson, the current secretary of state.

Visit link:
Is Putin funding anti-fracking groups? Republicans think so and so did Hillary Clinton - Salon