Mediaboss Marketing

While 19 states have passed legislation banning or restricting abortion since the Dobbs ruling, other efforts have fallen short. Voters in Kansas last year rejected a proposed amendment that would have said there is no right to abortion under the state constitution, while in Michigan, voters approved an amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, citing the number of Michigan State University students who registered and voted on Election Day, has credited the Michigan referendum with helping her to win what was expected to be a tight race by more than 5 percentage points.

"One thing we've learned since Dobbs is that abortion is not a partisan issue," said Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who specializes in reproductive rights. "Abortion rights are pretty popular even among Republicans, but what tends to happen in states like Ohio is that Republicans tend to win broadly because people don't vote just on that issue. Theres the gerrymandering plus this mismatch between what individual Republican voters think about reproductive choice and how the Republican politicians vote when they get in office.

You might expect some type of compromise position to arise in some of these states, Hill said. I think that some of the Supreme Court justices imagined that was the world we'd end up in and its been just the opposite, especially in red states, where politics has pulled those legislatures toward more and more extreme abortion bans.

Anit-abortion groups aligned with Republicans, such as the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, have argued that Republicans shouldnt shy away from advocating for their position on abortion. The group is advocating for all Republican presidential candidates to support limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy and to advocate for that standard nationwide.

Read more:
A year after Dobbs leak, Democrats still see abortion driving 2024 ... - Roll Call

I think we should find out where members stand on this indicted member of Congress, said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), among those who pushed the caucus to pursue a full House vote to expel Santos. I think we need to definitely make sure that our concerns are registered through a vote.

But other House Democrats took a different view, according to both people who addressed the closed-door meeting on condition of anonymity. Some more senior Democrats, whom both people interviewed declined to name, argued that forcing an expulsion vote could set a bad precedent echoing McCarthys position.

The Democratic split over how to handle the Santos vote illustrates the enduring generational divide within a caucus thats growing younger and more progressive after decades of leadership by an octogenarian trio. Just because House Democrats have new leaders this Congress, however, doesnt mean their senior members counsel doesnt hold weight.

The caucus didnt formally whip the vote on Garcias proposal.

Ultimately, House Republicans stayed unified as they voted to refer the Garcia measure to Ethics. The final tally was 220-202, with seven Democrats voting present. While five of the Democratic present votes came from members of the Ethics panel, two others joined them: swing-seat Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Prez (D-Wash.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Santos told reporters after the vote that he approved of the referral to the Ethics panel.

This is the appropriate way to do this. I think that this was the right decision for all of us and I look forward to continuing to defend myself, he said. Shortly after, he cut off his remarks when progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to heckle him, shouting resign!

The spectacle continued, with Bowman getting into an argument with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before Ocasio-Cortez intervened and pulled Bowman away.

Republicans who serve on the ethics panel did not join their Democratic counterparts in voting present, with some arguing their vote was a referral and not a judgment.

Some of Santos fiercest GOP critics publicly endorsed McCarthys plan to move the matter to the famously slow-moving ethics committee, which is already conducting an investigation into Santos campaign-trail fabrications and finances.

Moving this expulsion resolution to the ethics committee, in an expedited fashion, will get George Santos out of Congress as quickly as possible. And I think that that is necessary, Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. I expect that the Ethics Committee will expedite the hearing.

First-term Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), who has called on Santos to resign, sounded a similar note in a statement Wednesday.

To many Democrats, though, sending the matter to the Ethics panel was the effective equivalent of tabling the issue altogether. And they would only need a simple majority of the House to vote down McCarthys efforts to refer the bill to committee a much more plausible ask while ousting Santos would require a two-thirds majority.

Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) made the case to his California colleagues in a closed-door meeting Wednesday for voting against sending the measure to the ethics panel. It would be the easy way out for the speaker, he said in an interview after the meeting.

He doesnt have the votes to table, Aguilar said of McCarthy. And so hes trying to send this to Ethics to give his members who have called for George Santos to resign an opportunity to vote with the team.

McCarthy and GOP leaders acted quickly to help dissuade their handful of anti-Santos New York Republicans from any temptation to vote for Garcias expulsion plan. During a private Tuesday meeting first reported by POLITICO, McCarthy laid out the process to the Empire States GOP delegation, arguing that the ethics panel referral makes more sense than tabling the expulsion measure or allowing it to come to the floor for a vote.

Yet, even after McCarthy defeated House Democrats push to expel Santos, his conferences problematic prevaricator is poised to cause more headaches soon.

The speaker told reporters Wednesday that the ethics panel could come back faster than a court case could with recommended Santos sanctions.

I would like to refer this to Ethics. Ill have a conversation with Hakeem. I would like the ethics committee to move rapidly on this, McCarthy said.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats spar over Santos strategy as GOP punts on bid to expel ... - POLITICO

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., urges Congress to make child care affordable, pass paid leave, support care infrastructure, and raise the debt ceiling on May 17, 2023 in Washington, D.C.

Paul Morigi | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Many workers need to take leave at some point to address their own health needs or to care for a loved one. Yet whether workers have access to those benefits is up to their employer or state.

This week, Democrats in Washington re-upped a push to create a national program to give every worker access to paid family and medical leave.

"After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

More from Personal Finance:70% of Americans "financially stressed," CNBC survey findsAmid economic uncertainty, recession talk, how to save, investWhen taking out a 401(k) loan actually 'makes sense'

A law that lets workers take unpaid time off to take care of their loved ones or their own health the Family and Medical Leave Act recently reached its 30th anniversary.

Now, Gillibrand and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are putting forward an updated version of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave, or FAMILY, Act, first introduced in Congress in 2013, which would provide for paid leave.

"Thirty years ago, we broke ground by enshrining the Family and Medical Leave Act into law, providing unpaid family and medical leave for working Americans," DeLauro said in a statement, referencing the law passed under President Bill Clinton.

"Let's break ground again by making itpaid," DeLauro said.

The new version of the proposal comes after Democrats had previously reduced their proposal to four weeks' leave with the hopes of getting it included in a broader package.

The bill now includes partial income for up to 12 weeks' leave. The typical full-time worker would earn about two-thirds of their normal wages, while low-wage workers would be compensated for around 85%.

The plan covers leave for workers' and family members' serious health conditions, or the birth or adoption of a child.

The new version of the bill would provide leave for workers to address the effects of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Other updates to the bill aim to update the definition of the modern family.

That includes a broader range of caregiving relationships, including spouses, domestic or civil union partners, children of any age and their spouses, parents and their spouses, siblings and their spouses, grandparents and their spouses, grandchildren and their spouses, and other individuals related by either blood or kinship.

After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program.

Kirsten Gillibrand

U.S. senator from New York

The bill would cover any worker who has earned at least $2,000 in the past two years, regardless of whether those earnings are covered by Social Security taxes. It would also eliminate an unpaid waiting period for benefits, which previously made it so benefits were not available for the first five days of caregiving.

The proposal would be paid for through a 0.4% payroll tax that would apply to the Medicare taxable wage base.

Workers would still be able to receive paid leave through state programs, as long as the states can demonstrate they are at least as generous as the federal program.

Research has shown that enacting a federal paid family leave program would have positive benefits.

Workers missed out on roughly $28 billion more in wages between March 2020 and February 2022 compared with the previous two years, research from the Urban Institute has found.

But the challenge is getting bipartisan agreement on a plan. Support for the FAMILY Act in both houses has traditionally been from Democrats, noted Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"To get anything to move in this Congress, you need both Republicans and Democrats," Romig said.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at an August 2020 Washington, D.C., rally organized by the Paid Leave for All cross-country bus tour.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images News | Getty Images

While Republicans have shown interest in implementing paid leave policies, a sticking point between the parties has been how to pay for those plans.

While Democrats have proposed funding paid leave through payroll taxes, Republicans have generally talked about funding such a plan by having people borrow against other benefits, such as Social Security benefits or child tax credits, Romig noted.

Still, there is some reason to be optimistic about paid leave, Romig said.

"While I don't think this particular bill is going to be passed into law this year, I also think there is some real momentum here," Romig said.

Read this article:
As Democrats update their plan for national paid family and medical leave, here's what it could mean for workers - CNBC

Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it. They do not understand the stakes involved.

Take the case of Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

Barnett is Americas leading constitutional conservative. He is the originalists originalist.

It was Barnett who almost convinced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 that Obamacare was unconstitutional.

Barnett is now campaigning against Trump.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that Barnett, and by extension The Federalist Society and its many followers, still do not understand the mortal danger that Trump represents.

Barnett recently penned a series of tweets that amounted to an argument in favor of Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantisor someone much like him for president in 2024.

Barnett wrote that one can believe both that Trump was a far better President than [Hillary] Clinton would have been & the US is better off he won in 2016 and that Trump is unlikely to win in 2024 and would govern badly if he did.

With TV town hall, Trump suckered CNN right into his sewer | Dick Polman

Barnett added that it would be better to nominate someone else who can win, has demonstrated executive skills and character to govern better than Trump would and would be able to serve two terms if elected.

It is not a bad argument, if a little cool and indirect for mainstream politics.

But it demonstrates that Barnett has not yet come to terms with the tragic mistake he made in supporting Trump in 2016.

No, America is not better off that Trump was president.

Barnett is focused on the newly minted conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court he now enjoys, courtesy of Trump.

In considering various policies that Trump pursued as president, Barnett is ignoring the one unforgivable sin Trump committed refusing to peacefully transfer power after the 2020 election.

Instead of conceding defeat, Trump told his supporters that he had actually won, took arguably unlawful actions to try to stay in power, and fomented a riot at the Capitol when he could not convince Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election result.

Trump left office only because he could not figure out anything else to do.

Pa.s Barletta dumps Trump; calls on DeSantis to run for prez in 24 | Monday Morning Coffee

People forget that the fundamental problem the framers of the Constitution were attempting to solve was the peaceful and continuous transfer of powerthe issue that had led to civil war in Great Britain and throughout world history.

Americas constitutional democracy functioned well in this regard until Trump.

For anyone who loves the Constitution, Trumps actions after the 2020 election disqualify him from ever holding office again.

What makes Barnett think that a President Trump, having resisted once, would yield power after the presidential election of 2028? Trump repeated his big lie about the 2020 election just last week on CNN.

It is true that Trumps first attempt at a coup was clownish and bound to fail.

So was Hitlers first attempt at a coup in 1923.

Because Barnetts campaign against Trump does not point out this danger, it is far too mild to have any effect on Trumps chances.

If Barnett were a patriot, he would write this open letter to the Republican Party faithful:

Donald Trump let us down by attempting to overthrow our Constitution in 2020. He is unfit to be President. If Trump is nominated, I, and many thousands of my fellow constitutional conservatives, will be forced to vote for Joe Biden.

And then Barnett would convince the leadership of The Federalist Society to sign the letter with him.

We Democrats must be willing to match the action I am calling on Barnett to take.

If Trump is still a viable candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination when the Pennsylvania primary comes around, I will change my party affiliation from Democratic to Republican and vote for the Republican candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump for the nomination.

And I hope many of my fellow Democrats will do the same thing, in Pennsylvania and across the country.

Of course, if we do this, we will be hurting Joe Bidens chances of being reelected. If that were the only consideration, Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat.

But Bidens reelection is not the most important consideration.

Any chance that Trump might become president again is a threat to be avoided at all costs.

While I strongly oppose the policies that someone like DeSantis as President would enact, no political loss in our system of government is permanent. If your opponent gains power and executes bad policies, the damage can be undone in the next presidential election.

With DeSantis, and really every Republican with a chance at the 2024 presidential nomination, I can be confident that there will be a next election.

Trump is the lone exception. Trump is the only political figure in America who threatens the end of constitutional democracy.

It is time for Barnett, who helped unleash this threat in the first place, to face that reality and take the necessary steps to prevent it.

But if he will not take that responsibility, then, for the sake of the Constitution, we Democrats will have to step up.

Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes. The first, and best, chance to do that is a Republican primary.

Read more:
If the GOP won't do it, Democrats will have to block Trump's ... - Pennsylvania Capital-Star

PORTLAND, Ore. An Oregon investigation into political contributions made by an executive at disgraced cryptocurrency firm FTX is being referred for potential criminal charges,the Secretary of State's office announced on Thursday.

The investigation stems from a $500,000 contribution to the Democratic Party of Oregon made in October 2022, just before the midterm election. Though the money came from then-FTX engineering director Nishad Singh, he "incorrectly reported" the funds as coming from a Las Vegas-based crypto company called Prime Trust LLC.

The Oregonian reported earlier this week that Oregon Democrats knew the true source of the funds at the time, a characterization that the Secretary of State's office pushed back against in its statement on Thursday.

"The investigation did not find clear evidence that the Democratic Party of Oregon knew the true donor when they reported the contribution last year," the statement reads. "Instead, the investigation determined that the Party could have taken more care with its compliance."

A final order issued May 11 by the Oregon Elections Division following its investigation suggests that party officials were unsure whether the donation was coming from Singh himself or Prime Trust. While they reached out to Singh to find out, it took several days to hear back. When they did get a response, Singh's representative said that he "prefers Prime Trust (though not strongly) so go w[ith] that," according to the final order.

Party officials obliged, disclosing the contribution under Prime Trust LLC.

State election officials agreed to knock down the fine for this violation from $35,000 to $15,000. Despite the lower fee, the Secretary of State's office said Thursday that the party could pay up to $50,000 if it fails to comply with oversight measures, and the investigation could be reopened if more information comes to light.

Under the settlement between Oregon's elections division and the Democratic Party of Oregon, the party will have to "publicly share steps to prevent future mistakes" and ensure compliance.

"These oversight requirements will serve the public interest through transparency and future compliance with campaign finance laws an outcome that could not have been achieved in court," the Secretary of State's office said.

The decision to refer the investigation to the Oregon Department of Justice for review stems from admissions Singh made in court following the collapse of crypto exchange FTX and related firm Alameda Research.

Nishad Singh admitted under oath in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that he agreed to make political donations in his own name that were funded with money from Sam Bankman-Fried's companies FTX and Alameda, said Alma Whalen, Oregon elections manager.

The U.S. Attorney's office in New York also notified the Oregon Democratic Party that Singh's $500,000 donation was funded with money "wrongfully taken by Sam Bankman-Fried" from FTX and Alameda.

After a 7-month investigation, we believe this is sufficient information to justify a referral to the Oregon Department of Justice to consider prosecuting Mr. Singh under state law for making a contribution in a false name, Whalen said.

The Oregon Secretary of State's office is currently helmed by Deputy Secretary Cheryl Myers after the toppling of erstwhile Secretary of State Shemia Fagan in a scandal over her moonlighting work for an Oregon-based cannabis company that likewise made major contributions to Democratic politics in the state, including Fagan's campaign.

In December, Oregon Elections Director Deborah Scroggin resigned after about six months in the position. In her resignation letter, Scroggin cited a challenging atmosphere for election officials due to misinformation. But Willamette Week later reportedafter speaking with Scroggin that she'd been forced out by Fagan something Fagan's office confirmed.

In January, Fagan appointed her senior adviser, Molly Woon, to be director of the elections division.Despite previously working for the Democratic Party of Oregon, Woon did not recuse herself from the investigation into Singh's donation. She remains elections director in the immediate wake of Fagan's resignation.

Gov. Tina Kotek said that she wanted to wait until after the May 16 special election to appoint a new secretary of state to replace Fagan. As of Thursday, she'd yet to share an update on the search.

Oregon has the dubious distinction of maintaining some of the loosest campaign finance rules in the country, with no limits on the size of contributions and a history of light penalties for wrongdoing. For many years, the state's "limitless" status was backed by wording in the Oregon Constitution and subsequent court rulings, but a sea change began in 2020.

During the November 2020 election, voters approved Measure 107, which amended the Oregon Constitution to allow for limits on campaign contributions. That opened the door for lawmakers to pass campaign finance reform bills something they've since repeatedly failed to do.

In the meantime, Oregon races have become more and more expensive each major election.

RELATED:Oregon Secretary of State disqualifies three campaign finance ballot measures

Hints of FTX-linked influence in Oregon elections first popped up during the 2022 primary, when a relatively unknown candidate, 35-year-old Carrick Flynn, suddenly became the best-funded Democratic candidate for Oregon's new 6th Congressional District.

A PAC funded by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried poured almost $6 million into Flynn's primary campaign. That helped him emerge as a perceived frontrunner in the race, earning him another $1 million from national Democrats' House Majority PAC.

Flynn was defeated by then-state Rep. Andrea Salinas in the primary. Salinas went on to win the general election.

Originally posted here:
Scrutiny of FTX exec's donation to Oregon Democrats referred for possible criminal investigation - KGW.com