Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats in Michigan and a handful of other states need to win some statewide races by 2020. Otherwise, they risk ensuring Republican majorities for another decade--even if Democrats get more votes at election time.

Thats according to David Daley, author of the Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal Americas Democracy. Daley appeared on Michigan Radios Stateside to discuss the book last year. A new paperback version was just released with an epilogue analyzing the 2016 presidential election.

Ratf**ked lays out what Daley calls theREDMAP plan, a surgical by Republican operatives effort to re-draw district lines to the partys advantage after the 2010 census.

Daley says that effort was wildly successful. For proof, he points to Michigan, which he calls one of the most gerrymandered states in America.

In 2012, Democrats in U.S. House and State House races received more votes than Republicans statewide.

Yet Republicans hold large majorities in both delegations: a 63-47 majority in the State House, and 9 out of 14 seats in the U.S. House. Daley attributes that to the REDMAP effort.

Republicans drew masterful lines after the 2010 elections when they took control of the entire state, Daley said. And by having complete control, they were able to draw exactly the lines they wanted without any Democrats in the room.

The technology and the information that mapmakers have at their disposal now is so much better than at any time in the past, you can draw unbeatable lines that last for an entire decade. And thats what has happened so far in Michigan.

In 2012, Daley says Democrats once again received more votes than Republicans in total statewide races. Yet they lost seats in the state legislature.

What changed in between there [and 2008]? The district lines changed, Daley said. And they changed surgically.

Daley says Democrat Mark Schauer, who unsuccessfully challenged Rick Snyder in the 2014 governors race, knows this better than most. He says Schauer was effectively re-districted out of his West Michigan district, as Republicans sought to create a solid majority of safe Republican districts through creative, but very strategic, mapmaking.

Schauer is now working with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, chaired by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, an effort to reverse the bleeding that happened when Republicans gained seemingly bulletproof majorities in state legislatures and on U.S. House maps in a number of key states, including Michigan.

The Democrats really fell asleep at the switch in 2010, and they did not understand what was happening, Daley said. Now Democrats need a strategy to counter that at the state level, and while people like Schauer are aggressive advocates for the cause, hes not sure if Democrats as a whole are on the ball.

I am not completely convinced the party has a winning strategy, or that they have much of a strategy right now at all, Daley said. They have to really rebuild the party in places where it has atrophied and been completely hollowed out. And I dont see those efforts underway right now.

Daley warns that if Democrats "cant find a way to get a seat at the table in redistricting after 2020, they will not have another shot at these maps until 2031."

There are a couple of alternative possibilities, though. Michigan is one of a handful of key states with citizen-led efforts to tackle gerrymandering, and that effort cleared one hurdle this week.

The Board of State Canvassers approved ballot language from the group Voters Not Politicians. They advocate a ballot proposal that would put re-districting power into the hands of a non-partisan committee. The group now has 180 days to gather more than 315,000 signatures to put the measure closer to the 2018 ballot.

Daley calls that effort, and similar initiatives in other states, an incredibly positive development.

You are now seeing in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in North Carolina, a real renewal of efforts to be sure that our elections are fair, that our votes matter, and that politicians do not have the power to choose their own voters, he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court could also weigh in on the matter. Daley says courts have never set a standard for when partisan gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, that gives it an opportunity to do so.

Whatever happens, Daley says partisan gerrymandering of any kind is deeply dangerous and toxic for a democracy. People want their elections to be fair.

Here is the original post:
Author: Democrats--or someone else--need to take on Michigan gerrymandering by 2020 - Michigan Radio

As a journalist, I like to think I know a little something about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Like most students in the United States, I studied the Bill of Rights in grade school and learned the First Amendments protections by rote: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition and the press. (That last one is now my bread and butter.)

In later years, I dove a little deeper by reading landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in college like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in which the court found in 1969 that black armbands worn to protest the Vietnam War were protected symbolic speech.

That was the same year the court decided Brandenburg v. Ohio, and determined that government could not punish public speech, including that of KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg at a 1964 Klan rally, unless it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to spur such action.

Im no constitutional scholar, but I do know that protections exist even for hateful speech, the kind reported extensively in the aftermath of the white nationalist rally last weekend in Charlottesville, Va., where ensuing violence claimed the life of 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer.

Even though most Americans would agree that the racist rhetoric spewed by Neo-Nazis, the KKK and other hate groups is vile and unsettling, many of us would likely also agree that it, too, must be shielded by the First Amendment to avoid creating an environment ripe for censorship and censure.

There it is, folks, the slippery-slope argument. End of story.

Well, not quite.

Im getting sort of sick and tired of all the absolute-constitutional-rights talk. Theres nothing absolute about constitutional rights, said Justin Brooks, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego.

Brooks said as much in a post he shared on Facebook last week, along with a photo of tiki-torch bearing white nationalists gathered on the University of Virginia campus. He added, Hate speech should not be protected speech.

The post attracted many responses and prompted a robust debate among friends and colleagues. It also prompted a call from the Union-Tribune.

Brooks said he disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has long held that there is no general exception for hate speech under the First Amendment, but has identified a few well-defined and narrowly limited exceptions that include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and true threats.

(The court) has drawn the line you have to be inciting violence in order for it to be restricted, Brooks said. What bothers me about this discussion is it doesnt recognize how hurtful some of that hate speech is. At a certain point, speech can actually cause harm to individuals.

He said he understands the fear many Americans and the courts feel about the prospect of regulating hate speech, because defining it is subjective. But he argued that it is possible to draw a narrow definition that regulates public displays of hate, based on race, gender, nationality, ethnicity and sexual preference.

There is no doubt that the hate speech promoted by the KKK and Nazis causes harm to the members of our community who are targeted, Brooks said. Therefore, it is appropriate to regulate that speech.

He didnt need social media to know his views on the subject are unpopular, particularly among others in legal community. (See: slippery slope.)

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Jason Kessler, organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, in a lawsuit to keep the far-right groups permit to protest at a downtown park.

In response to criticism, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote a statement explaining the nonprofits decision to represent white supremacist demonstrators in court. In it, he acknowledged that speech alone can have hurtful consequences, but argued that the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate.

Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality, he wrote.

dana.littlefield@sduniontribune.com

Twitter: @danalittlefield

Go here to see the original:
How far do the First Amendment's protections go when it comes to hate speech? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

You know our representatives have gone off the deep end when they begin considering imposing a tax on the First Amendment to raise more government revenue. But unfortunately, thats the reality were now living in.

Recently, the Daily News and Washington Times reported that party leadership is considering replacing the failed border adjustment tax with revenue raisers from former Rep. Dave Camps (D-MI) 2014 tax reform plan. Allegedly, one of the top contenders for replacement is his old advertising tax provision, which would scrap advertisings full deductibility as a business expense and make it only half deductible, with the other half being amortized over a ten-year period.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) are too smart to let this tax go into their soon to be released tax reform proposal. If it arises, they must use their knowledge and instincts to kill the provision, because passing such a tax would undoubtedly be political and economic suicide.

Against Our Founding Values

Perhaps the chief spark of the American Revolution was Great Britains imposition of an advertising tax the Stamp Act on the colonists, which was perceived to be a huge cost burden and an unnecessary limit to residents accessibility of important news. The tax was so unpopular that American citizens began unionizing and engaging in mob violence against stamp collectors. Parliament was forced to repeal the provision after just one year, but the colonists never forgave and never forgot. They ended up declaring their independence and engaging in armed rebellion against their mother country just years later.

Unconstitutional

After the colonists won that war and formed their own country, they established the First Amendment, which served as a safeguard against any future regulations of free speech.

By holding back Americans money for over a decade, the Camp ad tax proposal would be violating that amendment by essentially making free speech a dollar and cents game. Only those who could afford to do without the money would be able to continue.

Its clearly unconstitutional, and as constitutional scholar Bruce Fein at Huffington Post and litigation attorney Christopher Cooke at The Hill have detailed, theres plenty of Supreme Court precedent to prove it. Under the plan, advertising would be treated worse than every other business expense that receives full expensing, making it a clear violation of the First Amendment that would lead to the bankrupting of local newspapers and radio stations. This would keep communities in the dark about whats going on around them, all while adding more monopoly strength to the already-powerful cable news giants. Essentially, it would do exactly what our founding fathers tried to prevent.

Economic Growth Killer

Going against our founding principles and governing documents is bad enough, but the worst part about this tax is that it wont even be successful at what its brainchild intended for it to do fill Washingtons coffers.

There are few things that naturally stimulate the economy more than advertising spending. Reports have shown that annually, ad tax spending generates approximately 16 percent of the United States economic activity, as well as 14 percent of total U.S. employment. Thus, imposing such a tax will reduce federal revenue by hampering the many parts of the economy that are dependent on advertising.

An ad tax was already tried on the state level, and not surprisingly, it failed miserably. After campaigning on not raising taxes, Republican Governor Bob Martinez (R-FL) approved an ad tax, which destroyed $2.5 billion in personal income and washed away 50,000 jobs. The tax actually cost the state money the taxs administrative costs ended up exceeding the tax revenue.The public was rightfully outraged at the taxs futility, prompting the New York Times to report that Martinez suffered political embarrassment in his first year in office by having to shift from ardent support of the tax to advocating its repeal.

Conclusion

Clearly, including the Camp advertising tax in the so-called 2017 tax reform bill would be economic and political suicide, especially for the party that is supposed to be championing limited government and constitutional policymaking. A large portion of the House of Representatives understands this, which is why 124 members signed onto a bipartisan Dear Colleague letter to congressional leaders, stating: The potential for strengthening our economy through tax reform would be jeopardized by any proposal that imposes an advertising tax on our nations manufacturing, retail and service industries. The ball now lies in the Big Six tax reformers hands. Will they do whats best for the economy and the American people, or whats most pleasing to corporate donors and cable news talking heads?

Steve Lonegan is the former Mayor of Bogota, NJ and a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Steve is the former New Jersey Chairman of Sen. Ted Cruzs presidential campaign, a former senior staffer for Americans for Prosperity and the American Principles Project, and a Republican candidate in several high-profile national political races.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

See the original post:
Lonegan: House Leadership Must Kill the First Amendment Tax - Breitbart News

President Trump decided to dismiss Stephen K. Bannon, after weeks of White House upheaval and racial unrest. The ousted chief strategist returned to Breitbart News on Aug. 18. (Peter Stevenson,Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

President Trump took to Twitter on Saturday morning to thank Stephen K. Bannon, his ousted White House chief strategist, and took a shot at his vanquished Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, while he was at it.

I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service, Trump said in a morning tweet. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S

Trump on Friday dismissed Bannon, an architect of his 2016 general-election victory and the champion of his nationalist impulses, in a major White House shake-up.

[Bannons next move: A return to Breitbart News, with more reach than ever]

Administration officials said Trump empowered new chief of staff, John F. Kelly, to fire Bannon in an effort to tame warring factions and bring stability to a White House at risk of caving under its self-destructive tendencies.

Trumps tweet made no mention of Bannons contributions at the White House. It also referenced Bannons arrival after the GOP primary season, a point Trump and other White House officials have made in recent weeks as theyve tried to distance themselves from Bannon.

Having departed the White House, Bannon is returning as executive chairman of Breitbart News, the pugilistic conservative website he helped guide before joining Trumps campaign last August, Breitbart announced Friday.

In a second tweet on Saturday afternoon, Trump wished Bannon well as he returned.

Steve Bannon will be a tough and smart new voice at @BreitbartNews...maybe even better than ever before, Trump said. Fake News needs the competition!

View original post here:
On Twitter, Trump thanks Bannon for his role in defeating 'Crooked Hillary Clinton' - Washington Post

Huma Abedin with Hillary Clinton / Getty Images

BY: Joe Schoffstall August 19, 2017 5:00 am

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has paid Huma Abedin nearly $65,000 from her campaign funds since her November election defeat, Federal Election Commission filings show.

Records show Abedin, Clinton's longtime friend and aide who served as the vice chair of the campaign, has been paid $64,415.10 in salary from Hillary for America, Clinton's campaign committee, since mid-November.

From mid-November to the end of March, Abedin was paid $52,180.65 from Hillary for America. From the beginning of April until the end of June, Abedin was given another $12,234.45 from Clinton's campaign committee.

Abedin is not the only individual who is still receiving payments from Clinton's campaign.

Nick Merrill, Hillary's former press secretary, was still receiving checks from the campaign as of late June, the end point for the latest available figures.

Robert Russo, who was the director of correspondence and briefing for the campaign, now carries the same job title in the Office of Hillary Clinton and is still being compensated from Clinton's campaign committee, as are a number of other staffers.

Clinton has also sent $800,000 from her campaign funds to Onward Together, a "resistance" group that she launched earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon previously reported.

Clinton's political action group will fund a number of other "resistance" groups that have impressed her since the conclusion of the election. Clinton is working with former aides and donors on the project.

"From the Women's March to airports across the country where communities are welcoming immigrants and refugees to town hall meetings in every community, Americans are speaking out like never before," Clintonwrotein an email to supporters in May. "I believe more fiercely than ever that citizen engagement at every level is central to a strong and vibrant democracy."

"In some cases, we'll provide direct funding to these organizations. For others, we'll help amplify their work and do what we can to help them continue to grow their audiences and expand their reach."

Clinton's campaign reported sending the $800,000 check to Onward Together on May 1.

Clinton, who publicly announced the launch of the group on May 15, had already financed Swing Left, Run for Something, and Emerge America, all liberal activist groups, at the time of the announcement.

Emailed requests for comment to the Clinton campaign bounced back as undeliverable.

The rest is here:
Clinton Paid Aide Huma Abedin Nearly $65K from Campaign Funds Since Defeat - Washington Free Beacon