Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

'Money Primary' Off to an Early Start

Only a few candidates have actually launched their campaigns, but what's known inside the Beltway as "the money primary" is already well underway among the sprawling field of aspirants for the next Democratic presidential nomination.

Plenty of them have created additional fundraising machinery beyond traditional campaign committees, and Politico is out today with an analysis of how seven of the most prominent among them used these political action committees to try to get a little leg up for 2020 – yet another in the almost infinite ways politicians can leverage the loose rules about money in politics for every possible advantage.


Former Vice President Joe Biden raised the most for his PAC but spent most of that money on his own efforts, perhaps a signal that his team was not clear – at least during the midterm election campaign – what their boss's intentions were about making another presidential run. Candidates often spread their so-called leadership PAC money around in a palpable attempt to secure support at the campaign's earlies stages.

The most prominent announced candidate to date, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, transferred more funds than any of the other aspirants from her leadership PAC to other Democrats or state parties, but Biden's PAC spent just a quarter of its fundraising on others. Warren gave away 85 percent of what she raised. She was followed by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (70 percent), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (56 percent), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (46 percent), California Sen. Kamala Harris (37 percent) and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (36 percent).


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