Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 868
February 10, 2016
“More corporate money in our elections”: Believe it or not, big money is about to get even more powerful
While there have been two national elections since the Citizens United ruling upended campaign finance law in the U.S., it looks like the 2016 campaign will be remembered as America's first truly post-CU election. Not just in terms of how the candidates are financing themselves, but with regard to what voters care about, too. On the Democratic side, for example, it's clear that Sen. Bernie Sanders' refusal to establish a super PAC — and his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United — has much to do with the popularity and enthusiasm of his campaign. Similarly, there's good reason to think Secretary Hillary Clinton's refusal to foreswear super PACs, as well as her close ties to Wall Street, have much to do with her campaign's rough start. At the very least, the issue was serious enough that Clinton accused Sanders of practicing an "artful smear" with his comments about the donations she's received from the ultra-wealthy. On the Republican side, meanwhile, talk of Citizens United has been more sparing. But there's no denying that Donald Trump's promise that, because of his wealth, he is beholden to no one — and is therefore hated by all the "bloodsuckers" — has much to do with his campaign's early success. Trump has often described Jeb Bush as beholden to donors. It seems to be working. With both sides of the presidential campaign intensifying, and with the IRS making news earlier this week when it comes to dark money (more on this later), Salon decided to call UC-Irvine School of Law's Richard Hasen, campaign finance expert and author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." We spoke over the phone, and you can find an edited version of our conversation below. So Jeb Bush says he'd like the Supreme Court to call a mulligan on Citizens United. Is he our new campaign finance reformer-in-chief? I don’t think so. First, Jeb Bush’s initial comments were unclear as to what he was supporting. He did call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but he also called for unlimited contributions to candidates. So the best reading of what he was trying to say is that he wants unlimited money to come directly to candidates and to others. You wouldn’t need to overturn Citizens United to get that; you would just need an act of Congress. Further, his campaign walked back his comments soon after he made them, making clear that what Bush wants is the standard Republican line right now: unlimited contributions and full disclosure. That would still allow for super PACs, but, presumably, many people that give to super PACs now would give directly to campaigns. Why might Bush be frustrated with the post-Citizens United status quo? Isn't he something of a trailblazer when it comes to operating within the new system? It might be Bush’s frustration that despite [spending] over $60 million to try to pump Bush up as a candidate, it hasn’t had much of an effect. He’s not leading in the polls; perhaps he thinks that if he and his campaign had direct control over that [super PAC] money, they could be more effective in using it. Many candidates feel they would like to be more in control of the message; and they also feel they, personally, would not be corrupted by large contributions, so therefore there is no real danger if the money came directly to them. Does that suggest that the ban on "coordination" between outside groups and campaigns, which most reporters and observers have scoffed at, has more teeth than we figured? The word "coordination" in the English language is different from the word "coordination" as used in federal election laws. Principally, what we are talking about is coordination over running election ads. If you’re a candidate, you can’t tell the super PAC, I think you should run ads in North Carolina and Ohio, or I think you should run ads that focus on my criminal justice reform proposals. But there can be lots of coordination which is not illegal coordination. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has said that a candidate can raise funds for the super PAC as long as the candidate does not ask for more than $5,000. Bush's frustration is about not being able to figure out where the spending should go; but there’s still very close cooperation with his super PAC. Switching gears slightly, let's talk about the IRS's recent ruling on Karl Rove's Crossroads group and whether it should be tax exempt. Is this a big deal? This is a much bigger development in money and politics than the Jeb Bush comments, which look like just another "Jeb Bush is misspeaking" situation. What’s happening with the Crossroads GPS situation is that the IRS appears to have approved crossroad GPS’s application for "social welfare status." What this means is that groups that engage in lots of electoral activity — including maybe running the majority of election ads — can do so, and can shield their donors from public disclosure, without the group having to register as a political committee and without these groups running afoul of IRS guidelines. What's the upshot of granting Crossroads that status? This gives the greenlight to other groups to follow Crossroads model, and I expect we will see not only much more undisclosed money in our elections, but much more corporate money in our elections. Corporations have tended to be reluctant to give money to super PACs because their identities would be disclosed and they'd run the risk of alienating their customers by taking sides in an election. So this will allow corporations to give money to these groups, not have it be disclosed, and to still have an impact on elections and policy. Which will make it even harder to "prove" that a politician is being "corrupted" by a donor. That’s right. But even if you don’t buy into the corruption rationale — and I buy into it somewhat, but not as much as others do — another benefit of disclosure is enforcement. For example, it’s illegal for foreign individuals, companies, and/or governments to contribute to or spend in U.S elections. What if a foreign individual gives money to someone else who gives money to a 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose? It’s going to be much harder to enforce that law. The other thing [it complicates] is letting the public know about who is giving money. Supporting candidates provide valuable information to voters. How so? If I tell you nothing else about a candidate but that that candidate is backed by George Soros or by the Koch Brothers, that may be all you need to know in order to figure out how you want to vote. Busy voters rely on shortcuts to figure out who they should support and oppose; [that's] valuable information to voters, wholly apart from concerns about corruption. Your new book is also about how corruption need not be the only metric by which we measure campaign finance law. You make an argument about political equality, instead. Can you walk me through it? For 40 years, our debate over campaign finances had a very familiar balancing act, and this is thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, which upheld parts and struck down parts of a 1974 campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate. What the court in Buckley has said, and has said many times since, is that when someone challenges a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and association, the court has to balance those First Amendment rights on the one hand with the government’s interest in preventing corruption — or it’s appearance — on the other. Right. That was the balance the Court said it was focused on in the Citizens United ruling. So the reason we have super PACs — and the reason corporations can give money to these groups and the reason individuals can spend unlimited sums independent of candidates — is this idea from the Supreme Court that independent spending cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. I argue that, even if it’s true, there’s another interest that should justify reasonable limits on elections. That interest — and this is the central argument of "Plutocrats United" — is political equality. The idea that one person should not have significant political power over another simply because they are wealthy. Any examples of how that kind of inequality plays out in real life? Think about why it is that Jeb Bush is still a viable candidate. The only reason he’s still a viable candidate is because some very, very wealthy individuals gave millions and millions of dollars to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. That’s not buying him the election, but it’s buying him additional chances. With the Rubio debate [gaffe] over the weekend, we’ve already seen stories [saying] that maybe Jeb is getting another chance. The only reason that Jeb is still getting that chance is because a few wealthy people like him. Any candidate who didn't have his enormous financial resources could not keep his campaign going if it was performing as poorly as has Bush's thus far. What the money is doing is helping to influence who’s a viable candidate and who can potentially get elected. It’s also influencing public policy, especially in the shadows. What do you mean by "in the shadows"? There's one example I’ve been talking about recently. It didn’t make the book because it’s too recent, but it’s the perfect example of money influencing policy. Congress recently passed a 2,000-page spending bill — the omnibus spending bill that funds the government for the next year. Buried in those 2000 pages, the New York Times reported, were 54 words, inserted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Those 54 words give a $1 billion tax break to gaming and real estate interests that support Harry Reid. So this is how money can have a great effect on policy outcomes, not just one electoral outcomes. 
While there have been two national elections since the Citizens United ruling upended campaign finance law in the U.S., it looks like the 2016 campaign will be remembered as America's first truly post-CU election. Not just in terms of how the candidates are financing themselves, but with regard to what voters care about, too. On the Democratic side, for example, it's clear that Sen. Bernie Sanders' refusal to establish a super PAC — and his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United — has much to do with the popularity and enthusiasm of his campaign. Similarly, there's good reason to think Secretary Hillary Clinton's refusal to foreswear super PACs, as well as her close ties to Wall Street, have much to do with her campaign's rough start. At the very least, the issue was serious enough that Clinton accused Sanders of practicing an "artful smear" with his comments about the donations she's received from the ultra-wealthy. On the Republican side, meanwhile, talk of Citizens United has been more sparing. But there's no denying that Donald Trump's promise that, because of his wealth, he is beholden to no one — and is therefore hated by all the "bloodsuckers" — has much to do with his campaign's early success. Trump has often described Jeb Bush as beholden to donors. It seems to be working. With both sides of the presidential campaign intensifying, and with the IRS making news earlier this week when it comes to dark money (more on this later), Salon decided to call UC-Irvine School of Law's Richard Hasen, campaign finance expert and author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." We spoke over the phone, and you can find an edited version of our conversation below. So Jeb Bush says he'd like the Supreme Court to call a mulligan on Citizens United. Is he our new campaign finance reformer-in-chief? I don’t think so. First, Jeb Bush’s initial comments were unclear as to what he was supporting. He did call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but he also called for unlimited contributions to candidates. So the best reading of what he was trying to say is that he wants unlimited money to come directly to candidates and to others. You wouldn’t need to overturn Citizens United to get that; you would just need an act of Congress. Further, his campaign walked back his comments soon after he made them, making clear that what Bush wants is the standard Republican line right now: unlimited contributions and full disclosure. That would still allow for super PACs, but, presumably, many people that give to super PACs now would give directly to campaigns. Why might Bush be frustrated with the post-Citizens United status quo? Isn't he something of a trailblazer when it comes to operating within the new system? It might be Bush’s frustration that despite [spending] over $60 million to try to pump Bush up as a candidate, it hasn’t had much of an effect. He’s not leading in the polls; perhaps he thinks that if he and his campaign had direct control over that [super PAC] money, they could be more effective in using it. Many candidates feel they would like to be more in control of the message; and they also feel they, personally, would not be corrupted by large contributions, so therefore there is no real danger if the money came directly to them. Does that suggest that the ban on "coordination" between outside groups and campaigns, which most reporters and observers have scoffed at, has more teeth than we figured? The word "coordination" in the English language is different from the word "coordination" as used in federal election laws. Principally, what we are talking about is coordination over running election ads. If you’re a candidate, you can’t tell the super PAC, I think you should run ads in North Carolina and Ohio, or I think you should run ads that focus on my criminal justice reform proposals. But there can be lots of coordination which is not illegal coordination. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has said that a candidate can raise funds for the super PAC as long as the candidate does not ask for more than $5,000. Bush's frustration is about not being able to figure out where the spending should go; but there’s still very close cooperation with his super PAC. Switching gears slightly, let's talk about the IRS's recent ruling on Karl Rove's Crossroads group and whether it should be tax exempt. Is this a big deal? This is a much bigger development in money and politics than the Jeb Bush comments, which look like just another "Jeb Bush is misspeaking" situation. What’s happening with the Crossroads GPS situation is that the IRS appears to have approved crossroad GPS’s application for "social welfare status." What this means is that groups that engage in lots of electoral activity — including maybe running the majority of election ads — can do so, and can shield their donors from public disclosure, without the group having to register as a political committee and without these groups running afoul of IRS guidelines. What's the upshot of granting Crossroads that status? This gives the greenlight to other groups to follow Crossroads model, and I expect we will see not only much more undisclosed money in our elections, but much more corporate money in our elections. Corporations have tended to be reluctant to give money to super PACs because their identities would be disclosed and they'd run the risk of alienating their customers by taking sides in an election. So this will allow corporations to give money to these groups, not have it be disclosed, and to still have an impact on elections and policy. Which will make it even harder to "prove" that a politician is being "corrupted" by a donor. That’s right. But even if you don’t buy into the corruption rationale — and I buy into it somewhat, but not as much as others do — another benefit of disclosure is enforcement. For example, it’s illegal for foreign individuals, companies, and/or governments to contribute to or spend in U.S elections. What if a foreign individual gives money to someone else who gives money to a 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose? It’s going to be much harder to enforce that law. The other thing [it complicates] is letting the public know about who is giving money. Supporting candidates provide valuable information to voters. How so? If I tell you nothing else about a candidate but that that candidate is backed by George Soros or by the Koch Brothers, that may be all you need to know in order to figure out how you want to vote. Busy voters rely on shortcuts to figure out who they should support and oppose; [that's] valuable information to voters, wholly apart from concerns about corruption. Your new book is also about how corruption need not be the only metric by which we measure campaign finance law. You make an argument about political equality, instead. Can you walk me through it? For 40 years, our debate over campaign finances had a very familiar balancing act, and this is thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, which upheld parts and struck down parts of a 1974 campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate. What the court in Buckley has said, and has said many times since, is that when someone challenges a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and association, the court has to balance those First Amendment rights on the one hand with the government’s interest in preventing corruption — or it’s appearance — on the other. Right. That was the balance the Court said it was focused on in the Citizens United ruling. So the reason we have super PACs — and the reason corporations can give money to these groups and the reason individuals can spend unlimited sums independent of candidates — is this idea from the Supreme Court that independent spending cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. I argue that, even if it’s true, there’s another interest that should justify reasonable limits on elections. That interest — and this is the central argument of "Plutocrats United" — is political equality. The idea that one person should not have significant political power over another simply because they are wealthy. Any examples of how that kind of inequality plays out in real life? Think about why it is that Jeb Bush is still a viable candidate. The only reason he’s still a viable candidate is because some very, very wealthy individuals gave millions and millions of dollars to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. That’s not buying him the election, but it’s buying him additional chances. With the Rubio debate [gaffe] over the weekend, we’ve already seen stories [saying] that maybe Jeb is getting another chance. The only reason that Jeb is still getting that chance is because a few wealthy people like him. Any candidate who didn't have his enormous financial resources could not keep his campaign going if it was performing as poorly as has Bush's thus far. What the money is doing is helping to influence who’s a viable candidate and who can potentially get elected. It’s also influencing public policy, especially in the shadows. What do you mean by "in the shadows"? There's one example I’ve been talking about recently. It didn’t make the book because it’s too recent, but it’s the perfect example of money influencing policy. Congress recently passed a 2,000-page spending bill — the omnibus spending bill that funds the government for the next year. Buried in those 2000 pages, the New York Times reported, were 54 words, inserted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Those 54 words give a $1 billion tax break to gaming and real estate interests that support Harry Reid. So this is how money can have a great effect on policy outcomes, not just one electoral outcomes. While there have been two national elections since the Citizens United ruling upended campaign finance law in the U.S., it looks like the 2016 campaign will be remembered as America's first truly post-CU election. Not just in terms of how the candidates are financing themselves, but with regard to what voters care about, too. On the Democratic side, for example, it's clear that Sen. Bernie Sanders' refusal to establish a super PAC — and his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United — has much to do with the popularity and enthusiasm of his campaign. Similarly, there's good reason to think Secretary Hillary Clinton's refusal to foreswear super PACs, as well as her close ties to Wall Street, have much to do with her campaign's rough start. At the very least, the issue was serious enough that Clinton accused Sanders of practicing an "artful smear" with his comments about the donations she's received from the ultra-wealthy. On the Republican side, meanwhile, talk of Citizens United has been more sparing. But there's no denying that Donald Trump's promise that, because of his wealth, he is beholden to no one — and is therefore hated by all the "bloodsuckers" — has much to do with his campaign's early success. Trump has often described Jeb Bush as beholden to donors. It seems to be working. With both sides of the presidential campaign intensifying, and with the IRS making news earlier this week when it comes to dark money (more on this later), Salon decided to call UC-Irvine School of Law's Richard Hasen, campaign finance expert and author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." We spoke over the phone, and you can find an edited version of our conversation below. So Jeb Bush says he'd like the Supreme Court to call a mulligan on Citizens United. Is he our new campaign finance reformer-in-chief? I don’t think so. First, Jeb Bush’s initial comments were unclear as to what he was supporting. He did call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but he also called for unlimited contributions to candidates. So the best reading of what he was trying to say is that he wants unlimited money to come directly to candidates and to others. You wouldn’t need to overturn Citizens United to get that; you would just need an act of Congress. Further, his campaign walked back his comments soon after he made them, making clear that what Bush wants is the standard Republican line right now: unlimited contributions and full disclosure. That would still allow for super PACs, but, presumably, many people that give to super PACs now would give directly to campaigns. Why might Bush be frustrated with the post-Citizens United status quo? Isn't he something of a trailblazer when it comes to operating within the new system? It might be Bush’s frustration that despite [spending] over $60 million to try to pump Bush up as a candidate, it hasn’t had much of an effect. He’s not leading in the polls; perhaps he thinks that if he and his campaign had direct control over that [super PAC] money, they could be more effective in using it. Many candidates feel they would like to be more in control of the message; and they also feel they, personally, would not be corrupted by large contributions, so therefore there is no real danger if the money came directly to them. Does that suggest that the ban on "coordination" between outside groups and campaigns, which most reporters and observers have scoffed at, has more teeth than we figured? The word "coordination" in the English language is different from the word "coordination" as used in federal election laws. Principally, what we are talking about is coordination over running election ads. If you’re a candidate, you can’t tell the super PAC, I think you should run ads in North Carolina and Ohio, or I think you should run ads that focus on my criminal justice reform proposals. But there can be lots of coordination which is not illegal coordination. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has said that a candidate can raise funds for the super PAC as long as the candidate does not ask for more than $5,000. Bush's frustration is about not being able to figure out where the spending should go; but there’s still very close cooperation with his super PAC. Switching gears slightly, let's talk about the IRS's recent ruling on Karl Rove's Crossroads group and whether it should be tax exempt. Is this a big deal? This is a much bigger development in money and politics than the Jeb Bush comments, which look like just another "Jeb Bush is misspeaking" situation. What’s happening with the Crossroads GPS situation is that the IRS appears to have approved crossroad GPS’s application for "social welfare status." What this means is that groups that engage in lots of electoral activity — including maybe running the majority of election ads — can do so, and can shield their donors from public disclosure, without the group having to register as a political committee and without these groups running afoul of IRS guidelines. What's the upshot of granting Crossroads that status? This gives the greenlight to other groups to follow Crossroads model, and I expect we will see not only much more undisclosed money in our elections, but much more corporate money in our elections. Corporations have tended to be reluctant to give money to super PACs because their identities would be disclosed and they'd run the risk of alienating their customers by taking sides in an election. So this will allow corporations to give money to these groups, not have it be disclosed, and to still have an impact on elections and policy. Which will make it even harder to "prove" that a politician is being "corrupted" by a donor. That’s right. But even if you don’t buy into the corruption rationale — and I buy into it somewhat, but not as much as others do — another benefit of disclosure is enforcement. For example, it’s illegal for foreign individuals, companies, and/or governments to contribute to or spend in U.S elections. What if a foreign individual gives money to someone else who gives money to a 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose? It’s going to be much harder to enforce that law. The other thing [it complicates] is letting the public know about who is giving money. Supporting candidates provide valuable information to voters. How so? If I tell you nothing else about a candidate but that that candidate is backed by George Soros or by the Koch Brothers, that may be all you need to know in order to figure out how you want to vote. Busy voters rely on shortcuts to figure out who they should support and oppose; [that's] valuable information to voters, wholly apart from concerns about corruption. Your new book is also about how corruption need not be the only metric by which we measure campaign finance law. You make an argument about political equality, instead. Can you walk me through it? For 40 years, our debate over campaign finances had a very familiar balancing act, and this is thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, which upheld parts and struck down parts of a 1974 campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate. What the court in Buckley has said, and has said many times since, is that when someone challenges a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and association, the court has to balance those First Amendment rights on the one hand with the government’s interest in preventing corruption — or it’s appearance — on the other. Right. That was the balance the Court said it was focused on in the Citizens United ruling. So the reason we have super PACs — and the reason corporations can give money to these groups and the reason individuals can spend unlimited sums independent of candidates — is this idea from the Supreme Court that independent spending cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. I argue that, even if it’s true, there’s another interest that should justify reasonable limits on elections. That interest — and this is the central argument of "Plutocrats United" — is political equality. The idea that one person should not have significant political power over another simply because they are wealthy. Any examples of how that kind of inequality plays out in real life? Think about why it is that Jeb Bush is still a viable candidate. The only reason he’s still a viable candidate is because some very, very wealthy individuals gave millions and millions of dollars to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. That’s not buying him the election, but it’s buying him additional chances. With the Rubio debate [gaffe] over the weekend, we’ve already seen stories [saying] that maybe Jeb is getting another chance. The only reason that Jeb is still getting that chance is because a few wealthy people like him. Any candidate who didn't have his enormous financial resources could not keep his campaign going if it was performing as poorly as has Bush's thus far. What the money is doing is helping to influence who’s a viable candidate and who can potentially get elected. It’s also influencing public policy, especially in the shadows. What do you mean by "in the shadows"? There's one example I’ve been talking about recently. It didn’t make the book because it’s too recent, but it’s the perfect example of money influencing policy. Congress recently passed a 2,000-page spending bill — the omnibus spending bill that funds the government for the next year. Buried in those 2000 pages, the New York Times reported, were 54 words, inserted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Those 54 words give a $1 billion tax break to gaming and real estate interests that support Harry Reid. So this is how money can have a great effect on policy outcomes, not just one electoral outcomes.
While there have been two national elections since the Citizens United ruling upended campaign finance law in the U.S., it looks like the 2016 campaign will be remembered as America's first truly post-CU election. Not just in terms of how the candidates are financing themselves, but with regard to what voters care about, too. On the Democratic side, for example, it's clear that Sen. Bernie Sanders' refusal to establish a super PAC — and his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United — has much to do with the popularity and enthusiasm of his campaign. Similarly, there's good reason to think Secretary Hillary Clinton's refusal to foreswear super PACs, as well as her close ties to Wall Street, have much to do with her campaign's rough start. At the very least, the issue was serious enough that Clinton accused Sanders of practicing an "artful smear" with his comments about the donations she's received from the ultra-wealthy. On the Republican side, meanwhile, talk of Citizens United has been more sparing. But there's no denying that Donald Trump's promise that, because of his wealth, he is beholden to no one — and is therefore hated by all the "bloodsuckers" — has much to do with his campaign's early success. Trump has often described Jeb Bush as beholden to donors. It seems to be working. With both sides of the presidential campaign intensifying, and with the IRS making news earlier this week when it comes to dark money (more on this later), Salon decided to call UC-Irvine School of Law's Richard Hasen, campaign finance expert and author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." We spoke over the phone, and you can find an edited version of our conversation below. So Jeb Bush says he'd like the Supreme Court to call a mulligan on Citizens United. Is he our new campaign finance reformer-in-chief? I don’t think so. First, Jeb Bush’s initial comments were unclear as to what he was supporting. He did call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but he also called for unlimited contributions to candidates. So the best reading of what he was trying to say is that he wants unlimited money to come directly to candidates and to others. You wouldn’t need to overturn Citizens United to get that; you would just need an act of Congress. Further, his campaign walked back his comments soon after he made them, making clear that what Bush wants is the standard Republican line right now: unlimited contributions and full disclosure. That would still allow for super PACs, but, presumably, many people that give to super PACs now would give directly to campaigns. Why might Bush be frustrated with the post-Citizens United status quo? Isn't he something of a trailblazer when it comes to operating within the new system? It might be Bush’s frustration that despite [spending] over $60 million to try to pump Bush up as a candidate, it hasn’t had much of an effect. He’s not leading in the polls; perhaps he thinks that if he and his campaign had direct control over that [super PAC] money, they could be more effective in using it. Many candidates feel they would like to be more in control of the message; and they also feel they, personally, would not be corrupted by large contributions, so therefore there is no real danger if the money came directly to them. Does that suggest that the ban on "coordination" between outside groups and campaigns, which most reporters and observers have scoffed at, has more teeth than we figured? The word "coordination" in the English language is different from the word "coordination" as used in federal election laws. Principally, what we are talking about is coordination over running election ads. If you’re a candidate, you can’t tell the super PAC, I think you should run ads in North Carolina and Ohio, or I think you should run ads that focus on my criminal justice reform proposals. But there can be lots of coordination which is not illegal coordination. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has said that a candidate can raise funds for the super PAC as long as the candidate does not ask for more than $5,000. Bush's frustration is about not being able to figure out where the spending should go; but there’s still very close cooperation with his super PAC. Switching gears slightly, let's talk about the IRS's recent ruling on Karl Rove's Crossroads group and whether it should be tax exempt. Is this a big deal? This is a much bigger development in money and politics than the Jeb Bush comments, which look like just another "Jeb Bush is misspeaking" situation. What’s happening with the Crossroads GPS situation is that the IRS appears to have approved crossroad GPS’s application for "social welfare status." What this means is that groups that engage in lots of electoral activity — including maybe running the majority of election ads — can do so, and can shield their donors from public disclosure, without the group having to register as a political committee and without these groups running afoul of IRS guidelines. What's the upshot of granting Crossroads that status? This gives the greenlight to other groups to follow Crossroads model, and I expect we will see not only much more undisclosed money in our elections, but much more corporate money in our elections. Corporations have tended to be reluctant to give money to super PACs because their identities would be disclosed and they'd run the risk of alienating their customers by taking sides in an election. So this will allow corporations to give money to these groups, not have it be disclosed, and to still have an impact on elections and policy. Which will make it even harder to "prove" that a politician is being "corrupted" by a donor. That’s right. But even if you don’t buy into the corruption rationale — and I buy into it somewhat, but not as much as others do — another benefit of disclosure is enforcement. For example, it’s illegal for foreign individuals, companies, and/or governments to contribute to or spend in U.S elections. What if a foreign individual gives money to someone else who gives money to a 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose? It’s going to be much harder to enforce that law. The other thing [it complicates] is letting the public know about who is giving money. Supporting candidates provide valuable information to voters. How so? If I tell you nothing else about a candidate but that that candidate is backed by George Soros or by the Koch Brothers, that may be all you need to know in order to figure out how you want to vote. Busy voters rely on shortcuts to figure out who they should support and oppose; [that's] valuable information to voters, wholly apart from concerns about corruption. Your new book is also about how corruption need not be the only metric by which we measure campaign finance law. You make an argument about political equality, instead. Can you walk me through it? For 40 years, our debate over campaign finances had a very familiar balancing act, and this is thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, which upheld parts and struck down parts of a 1974 campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate. What the court in Buckley has said, and has said many times since, is that when someone challenges a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and association, the court has to balance those First Amendment rights on the one hand with the government’s interest in preventing corruption — or it’s appearance — on the other. Right. That was the balance the Court said it was focused on in the Citizens United ruling. So the reason we have super PACs — and the reason corporations can give money to these groups and the reason individuals can spend unlimited sums independent of candidates — is this idea from the Supreme Court that independent spending cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. I argue that, even if it’s true, there’s another interest that should justify reasonable limits on elections. That interest — and this is the central argument of "Plutocrats United" — is political equality. The idea that one person should not have significant political power over another simply because they are wealthy. Any examples of how that kind of inequality plays out in real life? Think about why it is that Jeb Bush is still a viable candidate. The only reason he’s still a viable candidate is because some very, very wealthy individuals gave millions and millions of dollars to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. That’s not buying him the election, but it’s buying him additional chances. With the Rubio debate [gaffe] over the weekend, we’ve already seen stories [saying] that maybe Jeb is getting another chance. The only reason that Jeb is still getting that chance is because a few wealthy people like him. Any candidate who didn't have his enormous financial resources could not keep his campaign going if it was performing as poorly as has Bush's thus far. What the money is doing is helping to influence who’s a viable candidate and who can potentially get elected. It’s also influencing public policy, especially in the shadows. What do you mean by "in the shadows"? There's one example I’ve been talking about recently. It didn’t make the book because it’s too recent, but it’s the perfect example of money influencing policy. Congress recently passed a 2,000-page spending bill — the omnibus spending bill that funds the government for the next year. Buried in those 2000 pages, the New York Times reported, were 54 words, inserted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Those 54 words give a $1 billion tax break to gaming and real estate interests that support Harry Reid. So this is how money can have a great effect on policy outcomes, not just one electoral outcomes. While there have been two national elections since the Citizens United ruling upended campaign finance law in the U.S., it looks like the 2016 campaign will be remembered as America's first truly post-CU election. Not just in terms of how the candidates are financing themselves, but with regard to what voters care about, too. On the Democratic side, for example, it's clear that Sen. Bernie Sanders' refusal to establish a super PAC — and his promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United — has much to do with the popularity and enthusiasm of his campaign. Similarly, there's good reason to think Secretary Hillary Clinton's refusal to foreswear super PACs, as well as her close ties to Wall Street, have much to do with her campaign's rough start. At the very least, the issue was serious enough that Clinton accused Sanders of practicing an "artful smear" with his comments about the donations she's received from the ultra-wealthy. On the Republican side, meanwhile, talk of Citizens United has been more sparing. But there's no denying that Donald Trump's promise that, because of his wealth, he is beholden to no one — and is therefore hated by all the "bloodsuckers" — has much to do with his campaign's early success. Trump has often described Jeb Bush as beholden to donors. It seems to be working. With both sides of the presidential campaign intensifying, and with the IRS making news earlier this week when it comes to dark money (more on this later), Salon decided to call UC-Irvine School of Law's Richard Hasen, campaign finance expert and author of "Plutocrats United: Campaign Money, the Supreme Court, and the Distortion of American Elections." We spoke over the phone, and you can find an edited version of our conversation below. So Jeb Bush says he'd like the Supreme Court to call a mulligan on Citizens United. Is he our new campaign finance reformer-in-chief? I don’t think so. First, Jeb Bush’s initial comments were unclear as to what he was supporting. He did call for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but he also called for unlimited contributions to candidates. So the best reading of what he was trying to say is that he wants unlimited money to come directly to candidates and to others. You wouldn’t need to overturn Citizens United to get that; you would just need an act of Congress. Further, his campaign walked back his comments soon after he made them, making clear that what Bush wants is the standard Republican line right now: unlimited contributions and full disclosure. That would still allow for super PACs, but, presumably, many people that give to super PACs now would give directly to campaigns. Why might Bush be frustrated with the post-Citizens United status quo? Isn't he something of a trailblazer when it comes to operating within the new system? It might be Bush’s frustration that despite [spending] over $60 million to try to pump Bush up as a candidate, it hasn’t had much of an effect. He’s not leading in the polls; perhaps he thinks that if he and his campaign had direct control over that [super PAC] money, they could be more effective in using it. Many candidates feel they would like to be more in control of the message; and they also feel they, personally, would not be corrupted by large contributions, so therefore there is no real danger if the money came directly to them. Does that suggest that the ban on "coordination" between outside groups and campaigns, which most reporters and observers have scoffed at, has more teeth than we figured? The word "coordination" in the English language is different from the word "coordination" as used in federal election laws. Principally, what we are talking about is coordination over running election ads. If you’re a candidate, you can’t tell the super PAC, I think you should run ads in North Carolina and Ohio, or I think you should run ads that focus on my criminal justice reform proposals. But there can be lots of coordination which is not illegal coordination. For example, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has said that a candidate can raise funds for the super PAC as long as the candidate does not ask for more than $5,000. Bush's frustration is about not being able to figure out where the spending should go; but there’s still very close cooperation with his super PAC. Switching gears slightly, let's talk about the IRS's recent ruling on Karl Rove's Crossroads group and whether it should be tax exempt. Is this a big deal? This is a much bigger development in money and politics than the Jeb Bush comments, which look like just another "Jeb Bush is misspeaking" situation. What’s happening with the Crossroads GPS situation is that the IRS appears to have approved crossroad GPS’s application for "social welfare status." What this means is that groups that engage in lots of electoral activity — including maybe running the majority of election ads — can do so, and can shield their donors from public disclosure, without the group having to register as a political committee and without these groups running afoul of IRS guidelines. What's the upshot of granting Crossroads that status? This gives the greenlight to other groups to follow Crossroads model, and I expect we will see not only much more undisclosed money in our elections, but much more corporate money in our elections. Corporations have tended to be reluctant to give money to super PACs because their identities would be disclosed and they'd run the risk of alienating their customers by taking sides in an election. So this will allow corporations to give money to these groups, not have it be disclosed, and to still have an impact on elections and policy. Which will make it even harder to "prove" that a politician is being "corrupted" by a donor. That’s right. But even if you don’t buy into the corruption rationale — and I buy into it somewhat, but not as much as others do — another benefit of disclosure is enforcement. For example, it’s illegal for foreign individuals, companies, and/or governments to contribute to or spend in U.S elections. What if a foreign individual gives money to someone else who gives money to a 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose? It’s going to be much harder to enforce that law. The other thing [it complicates] is letting the public know about who is giving money. Supporting candidates provide valuable information to voters. How so? If I tell you nothing else about a candidate but that that candidate is backed by George Soros or by the Koch Brothers, that may be all you need to know in order to figure out how you want to vote. Busy voters rely on shortcuts to figure out who they should support and oppose; [that's] valuable information to voters, wholly apart from concerns about corruption. Your new book is also about how corruption need not be the only metric by which we measure campaign finance law. You make an argument about political equality, instead. Can you walk me through it? For 40 years, our debate over campaign finances had a very familiar balancing act, and this is thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1976 case of Buckley v Valeo, which upheld parts and struck down parts of a 1974 campaign finance law enacted in the wake of Watergate. What the court in Buckley has said, and has said many times since, is that when someone challenges a campaign finance law as a violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech and association, the court has to balance those First Amendment rights on the one hand with the government’s interest in preventing corruption — or it’s appearance — on the other. Right. That was the balance the Court said it was focused on in the Citizens United ruling. So the reason we have super PACs — and the reason corporations can give money to these groups and the reason individuals can spend unlimited sums independent of candidates — is this idea from the Supreme Court that independent spending cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. I argue that, even if it’s true, there’s another interest that should justify reasonable limits on elections. That interest — and this is the central argument of "Plutocrats United" — is political equality. The idea that one person should not have significant political power over another simply because they are wealthy. Any examples of how that kind of inequality plays out in real life? Think about why it is that Jeb Bush is still a viable candidate. The only reason he’s still a viable candidate is because some very, very wealthy individuals gave millions and millions of dollars to the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC. That’s not buying him the election, but it’s buying him additional chances. With the Rubio debate [gaffe] over the weekend, we’ve already seen stories [saying] that maybe Jeb is getting another chance. The only reason that Jeb is still getting that chance is because a few wealthy people like him. Any candidate who didn't have his enormous financial resources could not keep his campaign going if it was performing as poorly as has Bush's thus far. What the money is doing is helping to influence who’s a viable candidate and who can potentially get elected. It’s also influencing public policy, especially in the shadows. What do you mean by "in the shadows"? There's one example I’ve been talking about recently. It didn’t make the book because it’s too recent, but it’s the perfect example of money influencing policy. Congress recently passed a 2,000-page spending bill — the omnibus spending bill that funds the government for the next year. Buried in those 2000 pages, the New York Times reported, were 54 words, inserted by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Those 54 words give a $1 billion tax break to gaming and real estate interests that support Harry Reid. So this is how money can have a great effect on policy outcomes, not just one electoral outcomes.
Trump’s on fire, Bernie’s in trouble: Why the post-New Hampshire primaries tell a tale of two candidates
Life is about to get considerably easier for Donald Trump and increasingly difficult for Bernie Sanders. Sure, on the surface it's confounding to hear that Sanders' odds for the winning the nomination will literally worsen following an unprecedented and well-deserved victory in the first primary matchup against Hillary Clinton, defeating the former Secretary of State by more than 20 points. But that appears to be the case. We’ll get into the primary calendar and the polling math presently. Meanwhile, Trump's easy New Hampshire victory portends a lengthy slate of celebratory primary nights to come for the New York billionaire. How can we be so sure of either outcome? Naturally, we can't be unequivocally sure, but the numbers according to Nate Silver and his eerily accurate predictive math show both a difficult February and March for Bernie and an increasingly winnable couple of months for Trump. Let's start with Sanders. It goes without saying that, apart from early pre-Labor Day polling, Sanders was always favored to win New Hampshire. Duh. It was less clear by what margin, but Sanders massively exceeded expectations by, at this reporting, besting his widest polling margins. New Hampshire was a glorious moment in time for the left, brought on by Sanders' candidacy and illustrated by the fact that his campaign has successfully managed to yank the Overton Window leftward. The Thursday MSNBC debate, moderated by Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd, along with the New Hampshire results will be remembered by political scientists as the beginning of a six-day high water mark for Sanders and, with it, increased popular support for the left flank of the party. Indeed, whenever Democratic presidential candidates argue over who's more progressive, it's very simply a win for liberalism. And Sanders deserves all the credit. However, time isn't on Bernie's side. The Sanders campaign has fewer than ten days to cut into enough of the Clinton coalition before his campaign runs face-first into a log jam of primaries where Clinton is heavily favored to win. In other words, the biggest enemy of the Sanders campaign is the calendar itself. On a long enough timeline, it's possible for Sanders to chip away enough Clinton voters and undecideds in order to carve out a path to the nomination. The conundrum is whether there's simply enough time for Sanders to achieve that goal. February 20 is the Nevada caucus, where Clinton is favored by 23 points. (The last poll in that state was conducted in December, so things could have changed. But it's hard to predict that they will without some solid numbers to back up it up.) Nevada is followed seven days later by South Carolina, where Clinton is up by 31 points. Then it's Super Tuesday three days later where Sanders might win a few of the 12 states, including Vermont and but not nearly enough to narrow Clinton's growing delegate total. Most of Texas' 252 delegates will likely be awarded to Clinton who defeated Barack Obama there in 2008. Super Tuesday is followed by primaries on March 5, 6, 9, 12 and 15 -- the latter of which includes Florida with its 246 delegates at stake. Three more election days follow Super Tuesday, rounding out the month. With the existence of "internet time," anything's possible. Though modern precedent for such a turnaround doesn't really exist. Take a look at FiveThirtyEight's polling forecast for several of the big ticket primaries, and it's really, really difficult to work out the math in Sanders's favor unless his campaign works hastily to secure the necessary support, both in terms of voters and party superdelegates, between now and the onslaught of primaries leaning significantly in Clinton's favor. Again, there's always a chance that events could continue to propel Sanders into a place where he could overtake Clinton state-by-state. But all things being equal, the window for this series of unforeseen waves of support to occur is rapidly closing. Likewise, there's really no way, come March, for any of the candidates from either party to dedicate quality time stumping in those states with the same vigor employed in Iowa and New Hampshire. Metaphorically speaking, Sanders' first two albums were hits perhaps because, like most first albums, a lifetime is spent composing the initial batch of songs; the subsequent albums too often tend to fall off dramatically in terms of quality. That could be the case here. As far as Trump goes, the bewigged reality show celebrity shares similar advantages to Hillary Clinton as he emerges from New Hampshire and Iowa. Based on numbers alone, Trump appears to be on course to secure the nomination, perhaps even before one of the Democrats has done so. The sooner the Republican Party comes to terms with the reality of Presumptive Republican Nominee Trump, the sooner it'll be prepared for triage when the party buckles under the weight of an unmanageable mess of a nominee. There are only two somewhat significant threats to Trump's dominance in the upcoming contests. First, of course, there's Ted Cruz, who will likely win the Texas primary, but little else between now and the end of March, according to available polls. Much like Sanders, time is running out for Cruz -- but for a different set of reasons than Sanders. The longer Cruz is making news, the more people dislike him. Put another way: the longer Cruz is exposed to the light of day, the more voters will cringe at the mere sight of him -- even if they agree on the issues. Secondly, don't count Jeb Bush out of contention. Jeb, as we all know, has a massive war-chest and could potentially wait for the rest of the field to drop out, reducing the contest to Trump, Cruz and Bush. Nomination by attrition. At the very least, it'd put Bush within striking distance should the party get cold feet about nominating either a Twitter troll from New York, with all of his so-called "New York values," or a scuzzy, unlikable ideologue from Texas. The odds are slim for either Cruz or especially Bush, but Trump is so undisciplined and unpredictable, anything can happen at any time. And Cruz, if not Bush, is ready to step up. Frankly, I'd wager that many observers from both parties would prefer it if Bush became the second-place contender. How twisted is that, by the way? Ted Cruz is so insufferably loathsome he makes a Bush seem like a more reasonable option. Nevertheless, most of the intra-party bickering occurring at the moment will gratefully draw to a close sometime in the next 30 to 40 days or so. In the absence of a major news event, an irreparable gaffe or a significant illness, there's no other way to view outcome other than through the prism of the numbers and, in particular, Nate Silver's magical algorithm. This is, of course, great news if you're in either the Trump or Clinton camps, and not so great news for everyone else. 
Don’t listen to Chris Christie: The last thing we should do is quarantine travelers because of Zika
If GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie were to be believed one way to help tamp down the threat of Zika in the United States would be to quarantine individuals with symptoms of the mosquito-borne illness coming into the country from Brazil. The World Health Organization has already said that such measures would not be a good idea, however. The director-general of the WHO, Margaret Chan, specifically said earlier this month that there is “no public health justification for restrictions on travel or trade to prevent the spread of Zika virus.” Christie, the Governor of New Jersey, was asked during the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Saturday night, just days ahead of that state’s primary, if he would quarantine individuals returning from Brazil with symptoms of Zika virus. “You bet I would,” he 
Donald Trump, shock-jock candidate: The white nationalist stole his whole shtick from Michael Savage
After announcing his run for President on June 16th of last year, Donald Trump could have picked any radio program to do his first interview: Hannity, Limbaugh, Levitt. He could have done the down-the-center NPR interview but instead chose nativist firebrand Michael Savage, his ideological spirit animal. The first topic at the top of the interview, Savage insisted “none of the Republicans had stepped up” to discuss the Roof shooting which both Trump and Savage agreed needed to be addressed not with gun control, but enforcing the “anti-riot” act and locking up anyone who crossed state lines to protest in South Carolina. Though it was unclear at the time, this perverse moment of right wing projection would come to define the Trump candidacy. Somehow a self-admitted white nationalist shooting up nine innocent African-Americans was not only Obama’s fault, but the themes that animated the 23-year-old Roof, impending “demographic threats” to white people, liberal media covering up black on white crime, and the “Islamification” of white Europe, would be the ideological fuel that would not only make the two firebrands comrades, but the very thing that would launch Trump to the top of the polls, never to look back. Roof’s goal, according to his manifesto, was to start a “race war,” Trump’s run that began the day before the shooting would do everything in its power to wage a proxy version of this war, if not overtly, certainly in tone and effect.
Borders, Language, Culture
TheSavage Nation radio show's oft-repeated slogan could very well be Trump’s own: “Borders, Language, Culture.” Savage and Trump aren’t just avatars for white male rage, they’re the perfect embodiment of the capitalist hero - nominally independent, successful, and constantly self-promoting. Trump made his fortune parlaying his father's real estate empire into one much greater, Savage parlayed his love of nutritional ethnomedicine into a new age plant-based healing brand. Both used this early success as a springboard to much greater media empires. Both channel the id of the merchant class that's a large part of the Republican activist and donor base, and both understand that the theater of “no nonsense truth telling” is far more important than the truth itself.
Above all, it’s important to note that what animates both men is a very specific form of White Nationalism, water-downed just to the point of social acceptability. Whereas traditional Lee Atwater racism was about branding and euphemism and animated by a desire for the corporate wing of the GOP to use racism in its service -- rather than the other way around -- Trump and Savage‘s white nationalism is simply about what it is: actual white nationalism. Rid of overt racism and steered clear of anti-Semitism, it is White Nationalism for its own sake. This “authenticity” reads in both Trump and Savage and garners a widespread degree of support among disgruntled whites for just this reason. The “he just tells it how it is” line is another way of saying: white nationalism untethered from corporatism, and entirely earnest in its charge.
Both forged their career on trading in anti-Black racism. Before he was known for bashing Mexican-Americans and Muslims, Trump made his name in the media going after the Central Park Five for a crime, it turns out, they didn’t commit. Even to this day, Trump uses every note on the dog whistle scale to insinuate guilt for the five men despite all evidence showing innocence, taking out op-ed's in The Daily News to continue insisting on their guilt without a shred of evidence. Savage is the most explicitly racist of “mainstream” right wing hosts, calling Black Lives Matter protesters “Obama’s shock troops” in the wake of the Ferguson unrest in 2014 and routinely railing against White Nationalism's favorite boogeyman -- the liberal media covering up black on white crime.
Both have an awkward relationship with anti-Semitism. While gung-ho in embracing capitalism, both speak about “the bankers.” This, while certainly not always code, does have a knotty history when untethered from critiques of capitalism as such. Both men are, at once, vocal supporters of Israel but have garnered a strong following in traditionally white nationalist quarters, The relationship between white Christian extremists and radical Zionism has always been an awkward one, one side needing the other for eschatological expediency, the other for survival of Israel, and both men walk this fine line. In his seminal history of Michael Savage in Salon, David Gilson notes that Savage downplays his Jewish immigrant past pedigree, in service to his largely white Christian fanbase:
Savage, who now decries “propaganda about America being the Land of Immigrants,” isn’t ashamed of his own immigrant parents. However, his Jewish upbringing is strictly taboo. And he often makes Joseph Lieberman, Barbra Streisand and Larry King the butt of stale ethnic jokes. Brad Kava, radio columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and a longtime Savage critic, thinks Savage’s ambivalence toward Jews is a misguided attempt to pander to conservative Christians. “He’s Jewish, but he always acts like he’s Christian,” he says. In his book “The Savage Nation,” for example, he complains of an anti-Christian bias in America. When Kava, who is Jewish, “outed” Savage several years ago, Savage reported him to the Anti-Defamation League. Dr. Robert F. Cathcart, a longtime friend of the talk-show star, speculated in a telephone interview that Savage says little about his background so that he appears more “neutral” when he discusses Israel or religious topics.
Trump, it turns out, is hugely popular among famous anti-Semites like Don Advo of Stormfront Radio, James Kilpatrick of VDare.com, and David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK, who lavished praise on Trump only to say hismajor gripe was his “deep Jewish connections.” But they got the gist. As many countries in Europe can attest to, the leap between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is a very short one and a viable mainstream politician who trades in the former can, given the right circumstances, be pushed to the former. They had a kindred spirit in Trump, if not expressly, certainly by the subtext of his vitriol.
Both have built up a following by their aggressive, combative style, often by the simple act of lashing out -- even at traditionally right wing sacred cows. Both share a hatred of “free trade” deals like NAFTA and the TPP which have helped gut the white working class. Both have attacked veterans, Trump by infamously going after Senator John McCain for being shot down over Vietnam, Savage by belittling PTSD which he does not believe is a real disease. Both are not overtly religious but share in the war on Christian mythology which, as it turns out, is more than enough to garner widespread evangelical support.
Xenophobia is the thing
The primary, animating cause of the Trump phenomenon and that of the Savage media brand is one in the same: xenophobia -- protecting white people from impending demographic doom. “Hopefully,” one Trump supporter said of Trump at a rally in Mobile, Alabama last August, “he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill [of an undocumented worker]. That’d be one nice thing.”
All Republicans in the field have amped up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, Trump has blown out the windows. His plan to physically round-up over 11 million undocumented workers and send them back to their home countries, namely Mexico, is ethnic cleansing by another name; and it’s something Savage has been calling for for years. Indeed, Savage’s entire ethos is summed up in his slogan: “Borders, Language, Culture.” Whose Language and culture? White language and culture such that it is. The immigration debate, despite its legal trappings, has never been about “rule of law” any more than “tough on crime” was. It’s about using ostensibly race-neutral instruments for racist ends and both Savage and Trump have refined this rhetoric to perfection. But unlike other professional race-baiters, both men will "go there,” pinpointing Mexicans by name. Trump infamously calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “murderers” last summer and Savage calling them “criminalians” and referring to emergency rooms as “condos for Mexicans.”
Both men thrive off pushing the line of white nationalism; seeing how much the public and media’s liberal sensitivities will permit. Both men know that in a country still ruled by white supremacy in all but name, media personalities can be a racist and xenophobic as they want so long as they specifically avoid soundbite-friendly racial epithets. That trolling five innocent black men for 25 years, even after they were exonerated, will do nothing to affect Trump’s chances at President, just as suggesting Black Lives Matter are nothing more than brownshirts for the Obama regime won’t get Savage pulled off the air. Both men have made a career off occupying that space where white nationalist cheer but the supposedly liberal media is too cowardly to call it what it is. Both men know this and have exploited it to their ends, monetizing and potentially weaponizing that most plentiful of American resources: white male rage.
Ted Cruz believes in nothing: The fundamentalist charlatan craves power above all else
We found ourselves this week talking about two very different guys, both born in Canada, who skated to triumph thanks to their fans. If you follow hockey, you have already guessed the name of one of them: John Scott, the 6’8,” 275 lbs., unlikely Most Valuable Player in last Sunday’s NHL All-Star Game. As Kelly McEvers put it on NPR’s
Dear Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem: Feminism demands we reject America’s deadly imperialism
Two powerful backers of Hillary Clinton attracted headlines—and outrage—this weekend when they uttered sweeping statements under the banner of “feminism,” calling on young women to back the former Secretary of State’s presidential bid. Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of Sate, introduced Clinton in New Hampshire on Saturday by declaring, "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" In the days following, many have scrutinized the hawkish track record of Albright, who also served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In just one example, Albright told "60 Minutes" in 1996 that half a million children who died as a result of U.S. sanctions against Iraq were “worth” the price. “Albright has a hell of a lot of nerve telling young women who may be very concerned about Clinton’s support for virtually all U.S. wars of recent years that they should vote for her because she's a woman,” Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told AlterNet. Meanwhile, speaking with HBO's "Real Time" host Bill Maher on Friday, feminist icon Gloria Steinem claimed that young women are backing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in order to meet guys. Women get “more activist as they grow older,” she said. “And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’” Steinem later apologized for the comment on her Facebook page, writing that she “misspoke.” Nonetheless, the statement rightfully provoked rebuke, including from some who grew up respecting Steinem. “The good news is that more and more of us are ready to change the whole system, and fewer and fewer are willing to believe that imperial feminism is the best we can do,” declared Philadelphia-based writer Sarah Gray. These recent controversial comments stem from a broader campaign strategy, with Clinton leveraging high-profile (and often white and wealthy) self-avowed feminists to bolster her campaign. Among them is Lena Dunham, the creator of the hit series "Girls," who has sought to bolster support for Clinton among young women. Feminists should unequivocally declare that Clinton’s policies of war and empire that kill, wound and traumatize women around the world are not compatible with feminism. Of course we defend any woman, including Clinton, against sexism. But that defense must not lead to reflexive embrace of an entire platform, nor claims that elite politicians like Clinton somehow have a monopoly on feminism. As Rania Masri, an activist and professor at the American University of Beirut, put it in an interview with AlterNet, "Feminism demands a critique of U.S. policies, both domestically and internationally. It demands a critique of all wars and all hegemonies and of all structures of oppression.” Masri noted that these concepts are not new, and in fact, have been built up by powerful and visionary feminists who have come before, including the poet Audre Lorde, who urged nuanced and intersectional movements. “There is no thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives,” Lorde famously said. Clinton's foreign policy, however, falls in line with policies of war and empire. As a U.S. senator for New York, Clinton cast one of the most influential votes in favor of the 2003 Iraq war, signaling to other Democrats to back the invasion. She has since acknowledged this decision was a mistake, but her actions indicate she has learned nothing. Under the Obama administration, Clinton consistently represented the pro-war wing, advocating military aggression and escalation from Iraq and Libya to Afghanistan and Ukraine. She was hesitant on the Iran deal, and during her campaign, declared her unbreakable bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton took credit for the military pivot to the Asia-Pacific, which continues to escalate military buildup and aggression region-wide to hedge against China. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Clinton has been conspicuously silent about close U.S. ally Saudi Arabia’s brutal military assault on Yemen, now into its tenth month. She has said nothing about ethnic cleansing and war crimes perpetuated by Israel, while vowing to donors to crush the Palestinian human rights movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan recently took on the grim task of attempting to tally those killed in foreign policy disasters related to Clinton. According to some calculations, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed over one million people due to war-related causes. Nearly a quarter million Afghans have died since the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes and become refugees. In June 2014, I spoke with Yanar Mohammed of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, who warned against further U.S. military intervention in the country. "These wars are against women,” Mohammed said, “and women are becoming the first victims.”
Two powerful backers of Hillary Clinton attracted headlines—and outrage—this weekend when they uttered sweeping statements under the banner of “feminism,” calling on young women to back the former Secretary of State’s presidential bid. Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of Sate, introduced Clinton in New Hampshire on Saturday by declaring, "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" In the days following, many have scrutinized the hawkish track record of Albright, who also served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In just one example, Albright told "60 Minutes" in 1996 that half a million children who died as a result of U.S. sanctions against Iraq were “worth” the price. “Albright has a hell of a lot of nerve telling young women who may be very concerned about Clinton’s support for virtually all U.S. wars of recent years that they should vote for her because she's a woman,” Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told AlterNet. Meanwhile, speaking with HBO's "Real Time" host Bill Maher on Friday, feminist icon Gloria Steinem claimed that young women are backing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in order to meet guys. Women get “more activist as they grow older,” she said. “And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’” Steinem later apologized for the comment on her Facebook page, writing that she “misspoke.” Nonetheless, the statement rightfully provoked rebuke, including from some who grew up respecting Steinem. “The good news is that more and more of us are ready to change the whole system, and fewer and fewer are willing to believe that imperial feminism is the best we can do,” declared Philadelphia-based writer Sarah Gray. These recent controversial comments stem from a broader campaign strategy, with Clinton leveraging high-profile (and often white and wealthy) self-avowed feminists to bolster her campaign. Among them is Lena Dunham, the creator of the hit series "Girls," who has sought to bolster support for Clinton among young women. Feminists should unequivocally declare that Clinton’s policies of war and empire that kill, wound and traumatize women around the world are not compatible with feminism. Of course we defend any woman, including Clinton, against sexism. But that defense must not lead to reflexive embrace of an entire platform, nor claims that elite politicians like Clinton somehow have a monopoly on feminism. As Rania Masri, an activist and professor at the American University of Beirut, put it in an interview with AlterNet, "Feminism demands a critique of U.S. policies, both domestically and internationally. It demands a critique of all wars and all hegemonies and of all structures of oppression.” Masri noted that these concepts are not new, and in fact, have been built up by powerful and visionary feminists who have come before, including the poet Audre Lorde, who urged nuanced and intersectional movements. “There is no thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives,” Lorde famously said. Clinton's foreign policy, however, falls in line with policies of war and empire. As a U.S. senator for New York, Clinton cast one of the most influential votes in favor of the 2003 Iraq war, signaling to other Democrats to back the invasion. She has since acknowledged this decision was a mistake, but her actions indicate she has learned nothing. Under the Obama administration, Clinton consistently represented the pro-war wing, advocating military aggression and escalation from Iraq and Libya to Afghanistan and Ukraine. She was hesitant on the Iran deal, and during her campaign, declared her unbreakable bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton took credit for the military pivot to the Asia-Pacific, which continues to escalate military buildup and aggression region-wide to hedge against China. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Clinton has been conspicuously silent about close U.S. ally Saudi Arabia’s brutal military assault on Yemen, now into its tenth month. She has said nothing about ethnic cleansing and war crimes perpetuated by Israel, while vowing to donors to crush the Palestinian human rights movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan recently took on the grim task of attempting to tally those killed in foreign policy disasters related to Clinton. According to some calculations, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed over one million people due to war-related causes. Nearly a quarter million Afghans have died since the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes and become refugees. In June 2014, I spoke with Yanar Mohammed of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, who warned against further U.S. military intervention in the country. "These wars are against women,” Mohammed said, “and women are becoming the first victims.”
Two powerful backers of Hillary Clinton attracted headlines—and outrage—this weekend when they uttered sweeping statements under the banner of “feminism,” calling on young women to back the former Secretary of State’s presidential bid. Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of Sate, introduced Clinton in New Hampshire on Saturday by declaring, "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" In the days following, many have scrutinized the hawkish track record of Albright, who also served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In just one example, Albright told "60 Minutes" in 1996 that half a million children who died as a result of U.S. sanctions against Iraq were “worth” the price. “Albright has a hell of a lot of nerve telling young women who may be very concerned about Clinton’s support for virtually all U.S. wars of recent years that they should vote for her because she's a woman,” Phyllis Bennis, senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, told AlterNet. Meanwhile, speaking with HBO's "Real Time" host Bill Maher on Friday, feminist icon Gloria Steinem claimed that young women are backing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in order to meet guys. Women get “more activist as they grow older,” she said. “And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’” Steinem later apologized for the comment on her Facebook page, writing that she “misspoke.” Nonetheless, the statement rightfully provoked rebuke, including from some who grew up respecting Steinem. “The good news is that more and more of us are ready to change the whole system, and fewer and fewer are willing to believe that imperial feminism is the best we can do,” declared Philadelphia-based writer Sarah Gray. These recent controversial comments stem from a broader campaign strategy, with Clinton leveraging high-profile (and often white and wealthy) self-avowed feminists to bolster her campaign. Among them is Lena Dunham, the creator of the hit series "Girls," who has sought to bolster support for Clinton among young women. Feminists should unequivocally declare that Clinton’s policies of war and empire that kill, wound and traumatize women around the world are not compatible with feminism. Of course we defend any woman, including Clinton, against sexism. But that defense must not lead to reflexive embrace of an entire platform, nor claims that elite politicians like Clinton somehow have a monopoly on feminism. As Rania Masri, an activist and professor at the American University of Beirut, put it in an interview with AlterNet, "Feminism demands a critique of U.S. policies, both domestically and internationally. It demands a critique of all wars and all hegemonies and of all structures of oppression.” Masri noted that these concepts are not new, and in fact, have been built up by powerful and visionary feminists who have come before, including the poet Audre Lorde, who urged nuanced and intersectional movements. “There is no thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives,” Lorde famously said. Clinton's foreign policy, however, falls in line with policies of war and empire. As a U.S. senator for New York, Clinton cast one of the most influential votes in favor of the 2003 Iraq war, signaling to other Democrats to back the invasion. She has since acknowledged this decision was a mistake, but her actions indicate she has learned nothing. Under the Obama administration, Clinton consistently represented the pro-war wing, advocating military aggression and escalation from Iraq and Libya to Afghanistan and Ukraine. She was hesitant on the Iran deal, and during her campaign, declared her unbreakable bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton took credit for the military pivot to the Asia-Pacific, which continues to escalate military buildup and aggression region-wide to hedge against China. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Clinton has been conspicuously silent about close U.S. ally Saudi Arabia’s brutal military assault on Yemen, now into its tenth month. She has said nothing about ethnic cleansing and war crimes perpetuated by Israel, while vowing to donors to crush the Palestinian human rights movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan recently took on the grim task of attempting to tally those killed in foreign policy disasters related to Clinton. According to some calculations, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed over one million people due to war-related causes. Nearly a quarter million Afghans have died since the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and millions more have been forced to flee their homes and become refugees. In June 2014, I spoke with Yanar Mohammed of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, who warned against further U.S. military intervention in the country. "These wars are against women,” Mohammed said, “and women are becoming the first victims.”
February 9, 2016
Donald Trump piles on the B.S.: During New Hampshire victory speech, all he does is double down on extremist nonsense
A triumphant Donald Trump entered the stage at his New Hampshire primary victory rally to the sounds of "Revolution" by the Beatles, positively bursting with joy that the universe had righted itself and his singular excellence, an excellence that is greater than the excellence of all excellent people who came before him (though he is grateful for all their hard work), has finally been recognized. "Do we have ground game?" he crowed to the ecstatic crowd. "We learned a lot about ground games in one week," he added, a bit of snark thrown to the mainstream press that has long been expecting/hoping that Trump's poll numbers would collapse in the face of more seasoned campaigns putting the baby-kissing, hand-shaking elbow grease. A lot of corners of the media are still reeling from the shock that a clown like Trump can win anything, much less a prominent Republican primary. The Huffington Post's front page was bristling with outrage.
But the remarkable thing about Trump's speech is it's not actually that different from boilerplate Republican nonsense: Claiming that foreign policy is mostly about belligerence, demanding an end to Obamacare, accusing Democrats of wanting to give away free stuff, pandering to gun nuts, dark suggestions that Obama is lying about the economic turnaround, taking a swipe at Common Core, and implying that foreigners are sneaking over the Mexican border to kill us all with terrorism and heroin. The main difference is that Trump is just more, well let's say, boisterous about it. "I’m going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," he bellowed, before going on to declare that the media is lying about declining unemployment and that it could be as high as 42 percent. The gist of the claim— that Obama and the media are in cahoots to hide the truth about the economy, but your noble Republican candidate will fix it all — is no different from what other GOP candidates are saying. Trump's just abandoned the pretense of making his arguments sound plausible at all. On the drug addiction issue that's so prominent in New Hampshire, Trump promised to fix it all by blaming his favorite scapegoat, Mexico. "We’re going to end it at the southern border," he declared, suggesting the epidemic is mostly due to "cheap" heroin. On guns, Trump reached for a common talking point among Republicans, which is that more guns will actually reduce gun violence. He used the Paris attacks, which happened in a city with strict gun control, as an example. Calling the terrorists who shot up the Bataclan "these animals," he said, "If there were bullets going in the other direction, believe me, it would be a whole different story." This notion, that the best way to prevent gun violence is to give every drunk hipster at a rock show a fully loaded weapon, is hardly unique to Trump, even if he uses more colorful language to express it. If you want to know why Trump is doing so well with Republican voters, this is the answer. He's not, despite mainstream media narratives suggesting otherwise, all that different from other Republicans. He just heaves bullshit with a bigger shovel.
But the remarkable thing about Trump's speech is it's not actually that different from boilerplate Republican nonsense: Claiming that foreign policy is mostly about belligerence, demanding an end to Obamacare, accusing Democrats of wanting to give away free stuff, pandering to gun nuts, dark suggestions that Obama is lying about the economic turnaround, taking a swipe at Common Core, and implying that foreigners are sneaking over the Mexican border to kill us all with terrorism and heroin. The main difference is that Trump is just more, well let's say, boisterous about it. "I’m going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created," he bellowed, before going on to declare that the media is lying about declining unemployment and that it could be as high as 42 percent. The gist of the claim— that Obama and the media are in cahoots to hide the truth about the economy, but your noble Republican candidate will fix it all — is no different from what other GOP candidates are saying. Trump's just abandoned the pretense of making his arguments sound plausible at all. On the drug addiction issue that's so prominent in New Hampshire, Trump promised to fix it all by blaming his favorite scapegoat, Mexico. "We’re going to end it at the southern border," he declared, suggesting the epidemic is mostly due to "cheap" heroin. On guns, Trump reached for a common talking point among Republicans, which is that more guns will actually reduce gun violence. He used the Paris attacks, which happened in a city with strict gun control, as an example. Calling the terrorists who shot up the Bataclan "these animals," he said, "If there were bullets going in the other direction, believe me, it would be a whole different story." This notion, that the best way to prevent gun violence is to give every drunk hipster at a rock show a fully loaded weapon, is hardly unique to Trump, even if he uses more colorful language to express it. If you want to know why Trump is doing so well with Republican voters, this is the answer. He's not, despite mainstream media narratives suggesting otherwise, all that different from other Republicans. He just heaves bullshit with a bigger shovel.
Bernie’s big win: Sanders goes on offense in rowdy New Hampshire victory speech
Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders allowed Hillary Clinton to give her concession speech before venturing onstage himself, but her speech wasn't all that concessional -- and in fact sounded quite a bit like something Sanders himself would say. A cynic would believe that Clinton's focus on the number of small donations she received and her attacks on Wall Street were an attempt to forestall the criticisms she knew Sanders would make, but she also seemed to take seriously the lessons she learned from her "Comeback Kid" husband in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 -- namely, that the second-place finisher in New Hampshire often ends up winning the nomination. Clinton seemed more concerned with attacking Trump, attempting to align her coalition against the GOP front-runner, by mentioning Flint, Michigan repeatedly and focusing on her relationship with minorities. When Sanders finally took the stage to give his victory speech, his focus was clearly on Clinton. He noted that "we won because of your energy," and and thanked New Hampshire and America for contributing to his campaign at an average of $27, as opposed to those whose donations come from large donors or their own giant pocketbooks. Sanders said that he's taking on "the most powerful political organization in America," and that he was doing it the way a Democrat should -- by increasing voter turnout. "Let us never forget that Democrats win when turnout is high," he said, whereas "Republicans win when turnout is low. The American people won't continue to accept a rigged campaign system that undermines democracy." Sanders then went on the offensive against the 1 percent. "This is not what democracy is about," he said, "this is what oligarchy is about," because "America is based on a simple principle -- the principle of fairness," and when the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of American earners, the country's economy must be inherently unfair. Sanders also explained how he would pay for the programs that his critics, including Clinton, claim are impossible -- he will tax Wall Street speculation. "It's Wall Street's tie mto help the middle class," he said, noting that the middle class already bailed out Wall Street.Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders allowed Hillary Clinton to give her concession speech before venturing onstage himself, but her speech wasn't all that concessional -- and in fact sounded quite a bit like something Sanders himself would say. A cynic would believe that Clinton's focus on the number of small donations she received and her attacks on Wall Street were an attempt to forestall the criticisms she knew Sanders would make, but she also seemed to take seriously the lessons she learned from her "Comeback Kid" husband in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 -- namely, that the second-place finisher in New Hampshire often ends up winning the nomination. Clinton seemed more concerned with attacking Trump, attempting to align her coalition against the GOP front-runner, by mentioning Flint, Michigan repeatedly and focusing on her relationship with minorities. When Sanders finally took the stage to give his victory speech, his focus was clearly on Clinton. He noted that "we won because of your energy," and and thanked New Hampshire and America for contributing to his campaign at an average of $27, as opposed to those whose donations come from large donors or their own giant pocketbooks. Sanders said that he's taking on "the most powerful political organization in America," and that he was doing it the way a Democrat should -- by increasing voter turnout. "Let us never forget that Democrats win when turnout is high," he said, whereas "Republicans win when turnout is low. The American people won't continue to accept a rigged campaign system that undermines democracy." Sanders then went on the offensive against the 1 percent. "This is not what democracy is about," he said, "this is what oligarchy is about," because "America is based on a simple principle -- the principle of fairness," and when the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of American earners, the country's economy must be inherently unfair. Sanders also explained how he would pay for the programs that his critics, including Clinton, claim are impossible -- he will tax Wall Street speculation. "It's Wall Street's tie mto help the middle class," he said, noting that the middle class already bailed out Wall Street.Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders allowed Hillary Clinton to give her concession speech before venturing onstage himself, but her speech wasn't all that concessional -- and in fact sounded quite a bit like something Sanders himself would say. A cynic would believe that Clinton's focus on the number of small donations she received and her attacks on Wall Street were an attempt to forestall the criticisms she knew Sanders would make, but she also seemed to take seriously the lessons she learned from her "Comeback Kid" husband in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 -- namely, that the second-place finisher in New Hampshire often ends up winning the nomination. Clinton seemed more concerned with attacking Trump, attempting to align her coalition against the GOP front-runner, by mentioning Flint, Michigan repeatedly and focusing on her relationship with minorities. When Sanders finally took the stage to give his victory speech, his focus was clearly on Clinton. He noted that "we won because of your energy," and and thanked New Hampshire and America for contributing to his campaign at an average of $27, as opposed to those whose donations come from large donors or their own giant pocketbooks. Sanders said that he's taking on "the most powerful political organization in America," and that he was doing it the way a Democrat should -- by increasing voter turnout. "Let us never forget that Democrats win when turnout is high," he said, whereas "Republicans win when turnout is low. The American people won't continue to accept a rigged campaign system that undermines democracy." Sanders then went on the offensive against the 1 percent. "This is not what democracy is about," he said, "this is what oligarchy is about," because "America is based on a simple principle -- the principle of fairness," and when the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of American earners, the country's economy must be inherently unfair. Sanders also explained how he would pay for the programs that his critics, including Clinton, claim are impossible -- he will tax Wall Street speculation. "It's Wall Street's tie mto help the middle class," he said, noting that the middle class already bailed out Wall Street.Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders allowed Hillary Clinton to give her concession speech before venturing onstage himself, but her speech wasn't all that concessional -- and in fact sounded quite a bit like something Sanders himself would say. A cynic would believe that Clinton's focus on the number of small donations she received and her attacks on Wall Street were an attempt to forestall the criticisms she knew Sanders would make, but she also seemed to take seriously the lessons she learned from her "Comeback Kid" husband in 1992 and Barack Obama in 2008 -- namely, that the second-place finisher in New Hampshire often ends up winning the nomination. Clinton seemed more concerned with attacking Trump, attempting to align her coalition against the GOP front-runner, by mentioning Flint, Michigan repeatedly and focusing on her relationship with minorities. When Sanders finally took the stage to give his victory speech, his focus was clearly on Clinton. He noted that "we won because of your energy," and and thanked New Hampshire and America for contributing to his campaign at an average of $27, as opposed to those whose donations come from large donors or their own giant pocketbooks. Sanders said that he's taking on "the most powerful political organization in America," and that he was doing it the way a Democrat should -- by increasing voter turnout. "Let us never forget that Democrats win when turnout is high," he said, whereas "Republicans win when turnout is low. The American people won't continue to accept a rigged campaign system that undermines democracy." Sanders then went on the offensive against the 1 percent. "This is not what democracy is about," he said, "this is what oligarchy is about," because "America is based on a simple principle -- the principle of fairness," and when the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of American earners, the country's economy must be inherently unfair. Sanders also explained how he would pay for the programs that his critics, including Clinton, claim are impossible -- he will tax Wall Street speculation. "It's Wall Street's tie mto help the middle class," he said, noting that the middle class already bailed out Wall Street.
Twitter erupts over near-instantaneous declaration of Trump and Sanders victories in New Hampshire
With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat... With the Associated Press declaring victories for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump the very minute the polls closed, Sanders wasted no time in thanking New Hampshire for his victory: https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/sta... Surprisingly, Fox News' favorite pollster noted that: https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status... Not everyone was excited about the win, though: https://twitter.com/ctwesme/status/69... For those who fear Hillary's inevitability, however, there's some sobering information out there: https://twitter.com/jpelzer/status/69... Trump has yet to comment, but that's no doubt coming shortly. Many on Twitter are having fun at Marco Rubio's expense: https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/statu... Some see the results as a repudiation of the state's motto: https://twitter.com/derekahunter/stat... https://twitter.com/activist360/statu... The media, of course, is eating its own tail: https://twitter.com/brianstelter/stat... https://twitter.com/hardball/status/6... And it's worth noting: https://twitter.com/aaronrobinow/stat...
