Congress has 30 days after arms sales are announced to block or modify the deal, but actual intervention is rare.
A number of human rights organizations have opposed the deal. Oxfam and CODEPINK, among others, launched a petition to “[f]orce a public debate on U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by advocating for blocking the planned transfer of U.S. tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” which as of Monday had collected 9,500 signatures.
And this specific arms deal is especially important, according to foreign policy experts. As Robert Naiman explains, “In this particular case, it’s plausible that if we can block the Saudi arms sale, or even come close and have a robust public food fight about it, we can help end the catastrophic Yemen war.”
The effort is also supported by many lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Over the weekend, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), warned that “the Saudi military’s operational conduct in Yemen and the killing of civilians with U.S.-made weapons have harmed our national security interests, and I will continue to oppose any arms sale that contributes to its operations in that arena.”
“This approved sale deserves to be scrutinized by Congress rather than rubber-stamped during the summer recess,” he said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click:ブランド コピー 代引き 国内 発送
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump official releases unverified Russian intel on Clinton previously rejected by Senate panel Schiff subpoenas Homeland Security, charges ‘unlawful obstruction’ Schiff to subpoena top DHS official, alleges whistleblower deposition is being stonewalled MORE (D-Calif.) issued two subpoenas to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday, alleging that agency officials are “unlawfully obstructing” his panel’s investigation related to a whistleblower complaint.
Schiff is seeking public testimony from Joseph Maher, the top official carrying out the duties of the under secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, related to charges from a whistleblower that top political appointees at the department sought to politicize intelligence.
“After weeks, and in some cases months, of attempted accommodation with the Department, we were left with no choice but to issue two subpoenas today,” Schiff said in a statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Simply put, the Committee will no longer tolerate the obstruction and attempts to run out the clock by the Department,” Schiff added.
Democrats want Maher to testify Friday about why the whistleblower, Brian Murphy, was not granted access to classified records related to his complaint.
Schiff also issued a subpoena to compel DHS to produce the records the panel is seeking by next Tuesday.
The subpoenas come after Schiff twice postponed scheduled depositions with Murphy, who was formerly the acting under secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Murphy’s legal team said it had not received access to documents related to his complaint, which detailed allegations that top department officials repeatedly sought to politicize intelligence to match President Trump’s public remarks, including about threats like Russian interference.
ADVERTISEMENT
Murphy alleges in his complaint that there was a pattern of misconduct in which top political appointees repeatedly pressed him to modify or alter intelligence on key issues.
Perhaps the most alarming allegation Murphy makes is his claim that acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad WolfChad WolfTrump administration preparing targeted ICE arrests in sanctuary cities: report Schiff subpoenas Homeland Security, charges ‘unlawful obstruction’ Schiff to subpoena top DHS official, alleges whistleblower deposition is being stonewalled MORE, under the direction of White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, instructed him earlier this year to stop producing intelligence reports centered on Russian interference efforts and instead focus on the threats posed by China and Iran.
Murphy says he declined multiple orders to alter or modify intelligence products to help support the administration’s agenda, which he claims recently led to a retaliatory demotion.
DHS has denied any wrongdoing by Wolf, who has been formally nominated to serve as head of the agency.
A DHS spokesman denied that the agency was stonewalling Schiff, instead chalking up his subpoenas to being “obvious political theater.”
“The department has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents and has provided two briefings and three transcribed interviews to date,” the spokesman said in a statement.
The spokesperson also claimed that Schiff is “apparently willing to risk national security” to push forward with his investigation ahead of the 2020 election.
The agency has argued that Murphy, in his current role in DHS’s management division, does not have the “need to know” to access the records he is seeking. They also have defended their efforts to get security clearances for Murphy’s lawyers, arguing that the vetting process takes time and rushing it will jeopardize national security.
Schiff revealed last week that he would move forward with a subpoena if the issues over access to records and Murphy’s lawyers were not resolved, alleging that DHS is stonewalling his committee by blocking Murphy’s deposition by preventing him from being able to properly prepare.
While the deposition was originally slated for Monday, the committee postponed it to Friday, before again postponing it. The new date of when Schiff’s panel is aiming to hear from Murphy is not yet clear.
Still, Democrats on the panel are eager to hear from Murphy, who will be able to discuss the underlying, classified details related to his allegations that could not be included in an unclassified submission to Congress.
This story was updated at 6:57 p.m.
Click:Anti-aging Home Beauty Device
Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats blast Trump after report reveals he avoided income taxes for 10 years: ‘Disgusting’ Biden refuses to say whether he would support expanding Supreme Court Schumer says Trump tweet shows court pick meant to kill off ObamaCare MORE (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday that he will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President TrumpDonald John TrumpCensus Bureau intends to wrap up count on Oct. 5 despite judge’s order Top House Republican calls for probe of source of NYT Trump tax documents New Yorkers report receiving ballots with wrong name, voter addresses MORE‘s third Supreme Court pick.
“I am not going to meet with Judge Barrett. Why would I meet with a nominee of such an illegitimate process and one who is determined to get rid of the Affordable Care Act?” Schumer said in a tweet.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democrats are weighing whether to meet with Barrett as she begins her Capitol Hill outreach on Tuesday, where she is scheduled to meet with several Republican senators including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Supreme Court fight should drive Democrats and help Biden Harris on SCOTUS fight: Ginsburg’s legacy ‘at stake’ MORE (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamSupreme Court fight should drive Democrats and help Biden Graham to meet with Trump’s Supreme Court pick on Tuesday Democratic super PAC launches .5M ad campaign against Graham MORE (R-S.C.).
Two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee — Sens. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoHarris says she hasn’t ‘made a plan one way or another’ on meeting Supreme Court nominee Hawley warns Schumer to steer clear of Catholic-based criticisms of Barrett Senate GOP set to vote on Trump’s Supreme Court pick before election MORE (D-Hawaii) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — said over the weekend that they won’t meet with her. But Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerBooker says he will ask Amy Coney Barrett if she will recuse herself from presidential election-related cases Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election The movement to reform animal agriculture has reached a tipping point MORE (D-N.J.) indicated on Sunday that he wanted to.
“It’s my intention to do so … I’m going to make it very clear. One of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized,” Booker told “Meet the Press” when asked if he would meet with Barrett.
ADVERTISEMENT
The meetings are not required but give senators a first shot at questioning the Supreme Court nominee ahead of a high-profile hearing.
Trump announced on Saturday that he intended to nominate Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgHarris says she hasn’t ‘made a plan one way or another’ on meeting Supreme Court nominee Trump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Compromise, yes — but how? A pre-debate suggestion MORE, setting up a weeks-long fight expected to dominate the final stretch of the campaign.
Graham has said he will start hearings for Barrett on Oct. 12, with a committee vote expected on Oct. 22. That would pave the way for the full Senate to vote on Barrett’s confirmation before the Nov. 3 elections.
Because nominees only need a simple majority to be confirmed, Republicans can seat Barrett on the court without support from Democrats.
Click Here: camiseta rosario central
Click:web novel
At least 19 U.S. states have introduced bills that attack the right to protest since Donald Trump’s election as president, an “alarming and undemocratic” trend, U.N. human rights investigators said this week.
Maina Kiai and David Kaye, independent U.N. experts on freedom of peaceful assembly and expression respectively, are calling on lawmakers in the United States to stop the “alarming” trend of “undemocratic” anti-protest bills designed to criminalize or impede the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression.
“The trend also threatens to jeopardize one of the United States’ constitutional pillars: free speech,” they said in a statement, calling for action to reverse such legislation.
“From the Black Lives Matter movement, to the environmental and Native American movements in opposition to the Dakota Access oil pipeline, and the Women’s Marches, individuals and organizations across society have mobilized in peaceful protests, as it is their right under international human rights law and US law,” Kiai and Kaye said.
- The Arizona State Senate in February to allow police to arrest anyone involved in a protest and seize their assets, treating demonstrators like organized criminals.
- Portland, Oregon activists organizing against police killings of Black men, white nationalist politicians, and the countless systems of racism throughout our local, state, and federal governments by Department of Homeland Security.
- In January, North Dakota Republicans proposed legislation if they are blocking roadways. (The legislation failed, for now.)
- Missouri lawmakers want to to wear a robe, mask or disguise (remarkably, a hoodie would count) to a protest.
- In Minnesota, following the police shooting death of Philando Castile, protests caused part of a highway to shut down. Then, at the beginning of the state legislative session, Minnesota legislators drafted bills that with heavy fines and prison time and would make protesters liable for the policing costs of an entire protest if they individually were convicted of unlawful assembly or public nuisance.
- Republicans in Washington state have a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.”
- Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a crime to lawmakers.
- In Indiana, conservatives want to to remove activists from a roadway.
- Colorado lawmakers are considering a in penalties for environmental protesters. Activists who tamper with oil or gas equipment could be, under the measure, face felony charges and be with up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
- A before the Virginia state legislature would dramatically increase punishment for people who “unlawfully” assemble after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Those who do so could face a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The experts took particular issue with the characterization in some bills of protests being “unlawful” or “violent”.
“There can be no such thing in law as a violent protest,” the experts said. “There are violent protesters, who should be dealt with individually and appropriately by law enforcement. One person’s decision to resort to violence does not strip other protesters of their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This right is not a collective right; it is held by each of us individually,” the experts stressed.
“Peaceful assembly,” they added, “is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and the government has no business imposing a general requirement that people get permission before exercising that right.”
The experts also emphasized that legislators should be mindful of the important role that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly has played in the history of American democracy and the fight for civil rights.
“We call on the US authorities, at the federal and state level, to refrain from enacting legislation that would impinge on the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, expression and opinion,” they concluded.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click:AOC
With President Donald Trump showing little interest in sitting down at the negotiating table with North Korea—regarded by many in the U.S. and around the world as the best method for deterring nuclear development by Kim Jong-un’s government—Hawaiian officials are being forced to take precautions to make sure residents know what to do in the event of a nuclear attack.
At the beginning of next month, the state will begin testing the missile warning system it used during World War II and last tested during the Cold War.
“Hawaii is a likely target because we’re closer to North Korea than most of the continental United States,” said Vern Miyagi, administrator of the state’s Emergency Management Agency. “As we track the news and see tests, both missile launches and nuclear tests, it’s the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore it. People of Hawaii need to know what Hawaii is doing in preparation for this.”
The agency is reinstating the warning system amid Trump’s ongoing feud with Kim’s regime. North Korea ran nuclear tests and launched several test missiles into the Pacific Ocean earlier this year, and Trump responded to the tests with bellicose threats of “fire and fury” and a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in which he declared he would “totally destroy” the isolated country of 25 million people should Kim continue to develop its nuclear program.
Earlier this month, the White House returned North Korea to its list of state sponsors of terrorism, further angering Kim’s government and leading critics to worry that the country would respond with more nuclear tests.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
A missile launched from North Korea could take just 20 minutes to reach Hawaii, according to the Defense Department, but officials say that if all 1.4 million residents of the state’s eight islands follow precautions, at least 80 percent of Hawaiians could survive a nuclear attack.
In public meetings and announcements broadcast on TV and the radio, officials will instruct local residents to hide in a concrete shelter and have enough food and water to last at least 48 hours.
Starting on Friday, the state will begin using its “attack warning” siren to prepare households for what would happen should North Korea launch a missile
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership
Click:Diffuser Bottles
Click:stress relief
FBI Director Christopher Wray described antifa as “a real thing” during a hearing Thursday on Capitol Hill, noting that the bureau has open cases against individuals who self-identify as anti-fascist activists.
Wray, who was testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee as part of its worldwide threats hearing, was responded to questions about the level of threat the movement poses.
“Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction,” Wray said of the far-left group.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We look at antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than we do an organization. We do have quite a number of properly predicated domestic terrorism investigations into violent anarchist extremists, any number of whom self-identify with the antifa movement,” he added.
The FBI chief also said that some who identify with the antifa movement have been coalescing regionally in certain areas, and that the FBI is examining potential violence from these small groups or nodes.
“We are actively investigating the potential violence from these regional nodes, if you will,” Wray said.
He was pressed repeatedly on the topic of antifa by both sides, but Democrats and Republicans framed their questions about antifa far differently, with Democrats appearing to seek responses with a low evaluation of the threat posed by antifa and Republicans appearing to seek ones with a higher threat evaluation.
“There have been statements by top people here in fact, [House Judiciary Committee] Chairman [Jerry] Nadler [D-N.Y.] has said on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives that basically antifa is a fantasy made up of the radical right or Fox News or something to that effect. Would you agree with that?” asked Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), a staunch defender of President TrumpDonald John TrumpHR McMaster says president’s policy to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is ‘unwise’ Cast of ‘Parks and Rec’ reunite for virtual town hall to address Wisconsin voters Biden says Trump should step down over coronavirus response MORE.
“Is antifa a total fantasy, or is it real?” she added.
ADVERTISEMENT
“So when we hear officials say antifa is the biggest threat on the left, are they being correct?” asked Rep. Bennie ThompsonBennie Gordon ThompsonHillicon Valley: FBI chief says Russia is trying to interfere in election to undermine Biden | Treasury Dept. sanctions Iranian government-backed hackers FBI director calls antifa ‘a real thing’ Democrats slam DHS chief for defying subpoena for testimony on worldwide threats MORE (D-Miss.), chairman of the panel.
Wray offered a similar response each time, that it is a movement not an organization, but that antifa is real and the bureau has domestic extremism cases opened on individuals who self-identify as part of it.
“We don’t really think of threats in terms of left or right at the FBI. We are focused on the violence, not the ideology,” Wray also repeatedly said.
Racially motivated violent extremists, violent anarchist extremists, militia types, sovereign citizens and other groups all fall into the broader umbrella of domestic terrorism cases at the FBI, according to Wray.
The probings over antifa come as President Trump and members of his administration have sought to attribute violence and vandalism by protesters in Portland, Ore., as being part of it.
“I think there are anarchists and far-left groups involved in the violence in Portland,” Attorney General William BarrBill BarrBiden rips Barr’s comments on coronavirus restrictions as ‘sick’ OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Cheney asks DOJ to probe environmental groups | Kudlow: ‘No sector worse hurt than energy’ during pandemic | Trump pledges ‘no politics’ in Pebble Mine review Cheney asks DOJ to probe environmental groups MORE said in testimony before Capitol Hill earlier this year. “I think antifa is involved in Portland.”
Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to deny that antifa is to blame for the violence while highlighting crimes committed by far-right and white supremacist organizations.
When asked in July by Austen Fletcher, a pro-Trump political activist, whether he disavows violence caused by antifa in Portland, Nadler described violence caused by the far-left movement as a myth.
“That’s a myth that’s being spread only in Washington, D.C.,” Nadler replied.
Click Here: cd universidad catolica
Click:RSE1193
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering filing an antitrust lawsuit against Facebook by the end of the year, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night.
The case would be the culmination of a more than yearlong investigation by the regulator body into concerns that the social media platform has been stifling competition.
People familiar with the matter told the Journal that no final decision has been made over whether to file a suit.
ADVERTISEMENT
Spokespeople for the FTC and Facebook declined to comment on the Journal’s report.
Mark ZuckerbergMark Elliot ZuckerbergHillicon Valley: Whistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump’s comments | House panel details ‘serious’ concerns around elections in four states | Irish agency investigates Facebook’s EU-US data transfer Zuckerberg: ‘Just wrong’ to say conservatives drive Facebook Trump’s net worth fell 0 million in last year: Forbes MORE reportedly testified before the FTC in August, signaling that the investigation may be reaching its final stages.
The FTC has already conducted one probe into Facebook, which ended in a $5 billion settlement.
That investigation was launched in March 2018 after reports that data from tens of millions of Facebook users was shared with Cambridge Analytica. The probe had focused on whether the social media giant violated a 2011 consent agreement with the FTC requiring greater privacy protections and transparency for users.
The current investigation reportedly is focused on Facebook’s past acquisitions, including WhatsApp and Instagram.
Facebook has pointed out that both were approved by the regulatory body at the time.
–Updated at 10:15am
Click Here: cheap sydney roosters jersey
Click:defoaming performance
The Center for Responsive Politics projects that more than $5.2 billion will be spent this election cycle, making it the most expensive midterm election ever by a wide margin.
With less than two weeks before election day, $4.7 billion has already been spent by candidates, political parties and other groups such as PACs, super PACs and nonprofits. Prior to this election cycle, no midterm election had surpassed more than $4.1 billion in spending when adjusted for inflation.
The overall estimated cost of the 2018 election would represent a 35 percent increase over the 2014 cycle in nominal dollars, the largest increase in at least two decades.
“The significance of this election is clear. But whether it’s a blue wave or a red wave, one thing is certain: A wave of money is surging toward Election Day, much of it coming from the wealthiest donors targeting this year’s most competitive races,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
Midterm spending
Infogram
While Republican candidates are raising funds at record levels, the huge uptick in spending is driven primarily by unprecedented Democratic fundraising. Democratic candidates are projected to spend more than $2.5 billion this cycle, while Republicans are expected to spend approximately $2.2 billion.
Democratic House hopefuls have raised more than $951 million, crushing their Republican opponents’ $637 million haul. Things are closer in the Senate—$513 million to $361 million—but Democrats are still ahead.
In every kind of competitive race—even those in red districts—Democrats are either outraising Republicans or keeping pace.
For example, in 27 House races rated “Likely R” by Cook Political Report, Democrats are keeping up in fundraising, collecting $1.95 million on average to Republicans’ $2 million.
In 29 House races labeled “toss up” that are currently held by a Republican, Democratic candidates raised an average of $5.5 million, dwarfing the Republicans’ $3 million average.
Democrats outraised Republicans in every quarter, and the most recent pre-general filing period—Oct. 1 through Oct. 17—was no different. Republicans were outraised $126 million to $82.5 million. For the first time in a decade, Blue will outraise Red.
“Whether you’re looking at donations from women, large donors, small donors, dark money groups, parties, or unions, the Democrats are seeing incredible success in fundraising this cycle,” said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics. “Whether that money will translate into success on November 6th is an open question, given that money—while essential—is by no means the only factor governing electoral outcomes.”
Women, out-of-state and small donors fuel Democratic fundraising eruption
Democratic candidates have benefited from an unparalleled level of enthusiasm from female donors. Democrats running in the general election have raised $308 million from female donors, compared to approximately $90 million for Republicans.
Female Democratic Senate candidates—who are mostly made up of incumbents—hauled in an average of $5.3 million in contributions from women, accounting for 48 percent of their fundraising.
Each of the seven most popular Senators among women donors is a female Democrat. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) headlines the list with 56 percent of her contributions coming from women. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) performed the worst with female donors of any major candidate, with 18 percent of his campaign cash coming from women.
On the House side, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) collected a candidate-high 63 percent of his contributions from women. Not a single Republican cracks the top 10 for Senate or House candidates when it comes to the percentage of funds from female donors.
Republican men running for House collected the lowest percentage of their money from female donors—24 percent.
Small donors, too, have been an advantage for Democrats. Among House candidates, 16 percent of contributions to Democrats come from individuals and total less than $200—considered a small individual contribution—compared to 8 percent of House Republicans’ funds.
Senate Democrats collect a whopping 27 percent of their money from small individual contributions, again doubling up Republicans (13 percent).
In the pre-general filing period, a mammoth 44 percent of donations to Democratic Senate hopefuls came from small contributions, adding up to $22 million.
Democrats’ success with their online fundraiser ActBlue has led to more small contributions, as well as a base of voters that is more than willing to donate to out-of-state candidates.
In terms of itemized individual contributions, Senate Democrats received 60 percent of their funds—nearly $220 million—from out-of-state donors. Democrats in the House got 45 percent of their funds from out-of-state.
Out-Of-State Donors
Infogram
Republican House incumbents are getting significantly more money from out-of-state than challengers—37 percent to 25 percent—while the trend is reversed for Democratic House candidates (49 percent out-of-state for challengers and 35 percent for incumbents).
Educators, health professionals, retired people make a splash
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Individual contributors that list themselves as “retired” spent more than $298 million supporting candidates, parties and outside groups, nearly double what they spent in 2014. In total, 53 percent of funds coming from retired individuals and groups representing them went toward supporting Democrats.
Those in the education industry spent big this cycle to the tune of $71 million, 88 percent of which went to Democratic candidates. The sector spent just $34.4 million in 2014, with a smaller 74 percent of the money going to Democrats.
Health professionals also made a splash by spending double their 2014 total—approximately $140 million—with 57 percent aiding Democrats.
The Securities & Investment industry has spent at least $100 million more than in 2014 and has favored Democrats over Republicans—52 to 46 percent—for the first midterm election cycle since 2006.
Contributions from several industries—including the liberal Public Sector Unions and the conservative Oil & Gas industry—either declined or flatlined when compared with the 2014 election.
Mega donors spend mega money
Sheldon and Miriam Adelson are the biggest spenders so far this cycle, shelling out more than $113 million in support of Republican candidates. It’s the most the Las Vegas couple has spent in an election cycle, surpassing the $93 million they spent in 2012.
Tom Steyer comes in second place with nearly $51 million committed to helping Democrats. The billionaire environmentalist is not spending like he was in 2014 and 2016, when he was the top overall mega donor.
According to FEC data, Michael Bloomberg has so far fallen short of his promised $100 million in contributions to help Democrats win Congress. Still, his $38 million in support of Democrats is nothing to scoff at.
Lesser-known billionaire Richard Uihlein and his wife Elizabeth have spent more than $39 million in support of Republicans, good for third-most among mega donors.
Crucial races draw millions in outside spending, dark money
Approximately $1.1 billion has been spent by outside groups to influence the 2018 general election, including $571 million on House races.
CRP projects that Democrats and liberal outside groups will have spent 44 percent more money for their congressional efforts by the end of this election cycle compared to four years ago. Republican and conservative growth in spending, however, is projected to rise by only 21 percent since 2014.
Five tightly-contested Senate races, in Nevada, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona have seen more than $50 million in outside spending, as groups race to air negative ads.
Thirty-five congressional races have drawn more than $10 million from outside groups. House races are reaching double-digit millions in outside spending—more than $15 million has been spent in California’s 25th District, California’s 48th District and Washington’s 8th District.
In 34 congressional races, outside spending outpaces the money spent by all candidates.
Negative television advertising makes up the brunt of outside spending. More than $34 million has been spent in opposition of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), while nearly $30 million has gone against Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) super PAC has taken the lead for Republican House candidates, spending nearly $123 million, approximately $109 million of which accounts for negative advertising against more than 50 Democratic House candidates.
Spending from “dark money” groups—groups that do not disclose their donors with the FEC—is down this cycle, with nearly $128 million spent. Though outside money was much lower overall in 2014, dark money spending was higher, nearly reaching $178 million.
Majority Forward is the top dark money spender so far, shelling out more than $43 million to support Democratic Senate candidates.
The Tennessee and Florida Senate races are taking on the most dark money influence, with more than $10 million being spent in each race, mostly against the Republican candidates.
Though non-disclosed, dark money funding is down, outside spending from groups that fully disclose their donors is also down from the 2016 election—57.4 percent from 72.2 percent. The percentage of funds from “partially-disclosed” groups—which either don’t reveal all of their donors or take money from dark money groups—has risen to 31 percent from 15 percent in 2016.
The high levels of partial disclosure suggest that dark money is not disappearing, but rather is being funneled through super PACs and other outside spending groups that give the appearance of disclosing their donors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Click Here: All Blacks Rugby Jersey
Click:slot milling
President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE on Monday boasted about the size of his rally crowds, claiming they are “bigger than they have ever been before” and suggesting this could help Republicans in next month’s midterms.
“Never an empty seat in these large venues, many thousands of people watching screens outside. Enthusiasm & Spirit is through the roof. SOMETHING BIG IS HAPPENING – WATCH!” the president wrote in a tweet.
Trump has been on a campaign rally blitz in recent weeks, giving freewheeling campaign speeches in West Virginia, Tennessee, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Kentucky and elsewhere.
ADVERTISEMENT
Trump has for weeks touted the possibility of a “red wave” in the coming midterms, despite Democrats holding a steady lead in generic congressional ballot polling. A RealClearPolitics average of those polls shows Democrats with a 7.3 percentage point lead.
The rallies have been held to boost House and Senate candidates in each state, but the president typically spends much of his speeches recounting his administration’s accomplishments and railing against Democrats.
In nearly every speech, the president claims that there are many people who were unable to get inside the venue because it is packed to capacity. While there are typically some empty seats at his rallies, there are usually crowds gathered outside the arenas where he is speaking.
Last week, Trump decided against canceling a rally in Pennsylvania as Hurricane Michael wreaked havoc in Florida because there were numerous supporters already lined up to see him hours in advance.
“I don’t want to disappoint people,” Trump said. “So, we’ll probably go because what are you going to do? Tell thousands of people who’ve been waiting there all night that we’re not coming? That’s not fair either.”
Click Here: camiseta seleccion argentina
Click:Hunter
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected the Texas Democratic Party’s efforts to expand mail-in voting in the state, siding with the state’s Republican leadership.
Texas Democrats were seeking to expand mail-in voting to all registered voters based on the argument that the state’s age restrictions for such voting violate the 26th Amendment’s protections against voting rules that discriminate based on age.
Texas law allows voters over age 65, as well as those with certain disabilities, who are ill, absent from their home counties or confined to jail, to vote by mail.
ADVERTISEMENT
The panel ruled that “conferring a privilege” to some voters, such as the option of voting by mail to voters 65 and older, does not alone violate the 26th Amendment.
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership
“A law that makes it easier for others to vote does not abridge any person’s right to vote,” the majority wrote.
U.S. Circuit Judge Carl Stewart wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the law hurt younger voters by giving them less options to vote safely during a pandemic. In a separate case, the state’s Supreme Court ruled in May that the risk of contracting the coronavirus was not in itself a valid reason to allow mail-in ballots.
“The Texas Democratic Party will continue to fight in the district court for every Texan to have an equal right to vote, regardless of their age,” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who litigated the case for the state, said in a statement that his office “will continue to protect the integrity of Texas elections and uphold the rule of law.”