Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Cash washes over the vulnerable House Democratic newcomers

The most politically vulnerable first-term House Democrats may have run against the campaign finance status quo in 2018, but they are proving themselves adept at exploiting the system for 2020.

Of the 43 freshmen already identified as targets by the House Republican campaign operation, only eight raised less than $300,000 in the first three months of this year, Politico reports. And none of them raised less than Republicans who have already launched challenger campaigns.


Democrats have a 19-seat majority, and the solid early fundraising by their vulnerable freshmen is one indication the party will have the resources necessary to defend its control.

The biggest funding haul among the newcomers was $874,000 by Josh Harder, who narrowly ousted GOP incumbent Jeff Denham last year in a central California district that is a presidential battleground. Five others, all of whom also ousted sitting Republican House members in purple or red-tinged districts, raised more than $500,000: Antonio Delgado and Max Rose of New York; Joe Cunningham of South Carolina; Katie Hill of California; and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher of Texas.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less