Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump campaign fights a rival fundraiser, and watchdogs cry foul

The Trump re-election campaign warned donors not to get duped into giving to a friendly-seeming political organization – and in the process violated federal law, a pair of campaign finance watchdogs allege.

The campaign urged supporters this week to steer clear of solicitations from so-called "scam PACs," fundraising operations that raise money only to perpetuate their own existence and feather the nests of their operators. The warning came after revelations that the Presidential Coalition has raised $18.5 million since 2017 (with branding suggesting collaboration with Trump) but only spent 2 percent of its revenue on political activities. The rest went to support the super PAC's leader, David Bossie, a former Trump deputy campaign manager and still one of his most high-profile conservative allies. The details about the group's operation were reported by the Campaign Legal Center and Axios.


"Their actions show they are interested in filling their own pockets with money from innocent Americans paychecks," the Trump campaign said, without mentioning the Presidential Coalition by name. "We encourage the appropriate authorities to investigate all alleged scam groups for potential illegal activities."

The same warning also underscored that there are only four authorized fundraising committees and one "approved" super PAC, America First Action, raising money for the president's re-election.

Mentioning America First Action, without specifying there's a $5,000 donation limit to super PACs, violated federal law because doing so was seemingly a solicitation for unlimited contributions, Campaign Legal Center and End Citizens United alleged in a complaint filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission.

"If candidates are not punished for working hand-in-hand with super PACs, campaigns will stretch the legal boundaries until there is no way to prevent the corruption of candidates beholden to big money," Adav Noti, CLC's chief of staff, said in a statement.

Whether such a technical violation will draw the attention of the FEC, which routinely deadlocks on far more egregious violations, is unclear at best.


Read More

U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less