A white Trump county campaign chairwoman in Ohio said there was no racism before Obama became president and that black people who haven’t succeeded in the past 50 years only have themselves to blame. On Thursday she resigned from her position. In an interview with the Guardian, Kathy Miller, a volunteer campaign chair in Mahoning County, literally said:

If you’re black and you haven’t been successful in the last 50 years, it’s your own fault. You’ve had every opportunity, it was given to you.

She followed up with this gem:

You’ve had the same schools everybody else went to. You had benefits to go to college that white kids didn’t have. You had all the advantages and didn’t take advantage of it. It’s not our fault, certainly.

She also said that the Black Lives Matter movement is a “stupid waste of time.” Her comments are very untimely since the county she has been campaigning in is a historically Democratic one and no Republican President has won the presidential election without winning Ohio.

Ohio Trump campaign chair Kathy Miller: “There was no racism before Obama got elected…”https://t.co/SxITbW9JAZ pic.twitter.com/yQus7lz9VY

— My Daughter’s Army (@MyDaughtersArmy) September 22, 2016

However, several thousands Democrats there have switched party affiliation leading up to the 2016 election. According to Miller, most of the people switching over are older and white. But she didn’t think that matters since she claims that African-American voters make up such a small portion of the voter population. “I don’t think that’s part of the way they’re raised,” she said. “For us, I mean, that was something we all did in our families, we all voted.”

But since African-Americans make up 16 percent of the population in Mahoning County, maybe she should worry. For the past two elections black citizens have voted at a higher proportion than white citizens.

Miller also blamed racism on Obama, saying she had never seen racism before he became president.

Growing up as a kid, there was no racism, believe me. We were just all kids going to school […] I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this… Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.

George Takei had something to say about Kathy Miller.

Ohio Trump campaign county chair: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected.” THIS IS WHY ALIENS WON’T VISIT US.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) September 22, 2016

And many people on Twitter pointed out how the reporter had to try to keep a straight face during the interview.

This Trump campaign creep in OH is appalling, but don’t miss the magic of the reporter trying to control his face https://t.co/spVnjHNXtB

— John Hodgman (@hodgman) September 22, 2016

Later on Thursday the Trump campaign released a statement apologizing for Miller’s statements and saying that county chairs are not spokespeople for the whole campaign.

To make things even worse, Miller expressed no remorse at all when later asked by NBC about what she had said, but said she didn’t understand how her remarks were racist.

I’m thinking, ‘What did I say that was racist?’ I didn’t murder anybody, I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t steal from anybody, I didn’t call them a liar — what did I say that was racist, other than you should take responsibility for yourself? But that’s not racism … I don’t know, maybe I’m clueless.

She continued defending her previous statements but said they had more to do with the concept of discrimination than racism.

Good riddance, Kathy Miller, your 15 minutes of fame are hopefully up.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post County Campaign Chair for Trump Makes a lot of Racist Statements in Ohio, Resigns appeared first on Law Street.

Late last week, one of Trump’s surrogates, Marco Gutierrez, made a bizarre comment about how “taco trucks will be on every corner” if we don’t do something to fix immigration issues in the United States. But tacos are excellent, so most people didn’t have a problem with this concept.

Here’s the clip:

Note the host of the MSNBC program, Joy Reid, was shocked by the comment, and most of the internet has followed suit to mock it.  The Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote an article exploring the potential economic impact of this over abundance of taco trucks. A taco truck parked outside a Trump event in Detroit had a fantastic sales day. And taco trucks have suddenly become a political concept.

But a lot of people also had some really fun responses to these bizarre comments. Check out some of the best tweets below:

See you November 8!#TacoTrucksOnEveryCorner #ImWithHer pic.twitter.com/dWCi0CGiSt

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) September 4, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Best ‘Taco Trucks on Every Corner’ Responses appeared first on Law Street.

Less than three months before the election, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appointed two new employees to top posts in his campaign staff–Steve Bannon from Breitbart and Kellyanne Conway, an experienced Republican pollster.

Paul Manafort will maintain his role as campaign chairman despite recent accusations of receiving large cash payments from the Ukrainian government.

Steve Bannon, conservative media executive at Breitbart News and former investment banker, is the new chief executive of the Trump campaign. The campaign has always had a positive relationship with the Breitbart, which has published a lot of Trump-friendly news coverage over the past year. When Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was arrested for assaulting Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields earlier this year, Breitbart and Bannon didn’t do much to support her. Then-editor Ben Shapiro quit in protest and has since called Bannon a bully that “has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda.”

That is just one of many things Shapiro has to say about Bannon:

I Know Trump’s New Campaign Chairman, Steve Bannon. Here’s What You Need To Know. https://t.co/nTZ2GpGJnnpic.twitter.com/qJrOQyRv9t

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 17, 2016

Now that Bannon is the formal campaign executive for the Republican nominee, he will step down from his position at Breitbart, at least, until the campaigning is over.

Kellyanne Conway was first hired by Trump in July, before then she worked for a super PAC that supported Ted Cruz and was not exactly a fan of Trump. She has been in the media spotlight before for some of her past statements, like when she said that women should be more feminine rather than feminist, or that conservatives need to stop talking about rape (she preferred to call it “the four letter word”). She once said that there’s an alternative for liberal women “constantly thinking about abortion, contraception, being a victim of the patriarchy,” and that conservatives present “an alternative of fun, engaging accomplished women.”

She has now been upgraded to Trump’s campaign manager. A statement published on the campaign’s website said:

I have known Steve and Kellyanne both for many years. They are extremely capable, highly qualified people who love to win and know how to win. I believe we’re adding some of the best talents in politics, with the experience and expertise needed to defeat Hillary Clinton in November and continue to share my message and vision to Make America Great Again. I am committed to doing whatever it takes to win this election, and ultimately become President because our country cannot afford four more years of the failed Obama-Clinton policies which have endangered our financial and physical security.

The news about the Trump campaign’s reshuffling comes after weeks of negative headlines and rising tension from news about Manafort. Roger Ailes, the Fox News founder and anchor who had to leave his post because of sexual harassment allegations, was appointed as campaign adviser earlier this week as well.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Reshuffles Campaign Staff, Hires Breitbart News Chief appeared first on Law Street.

Has Bernie Sanders finally given up? It appears that might be the case, as he announced on C-SPAN this week that “it doesn’t appear that [he’s] going to be the nominee.”

After admitting that he probably won’t be the nominee, Sanders mentions that his campaign’s goal is still to push a progressive platform. He notes that he isn’t giving up on transforming the Democratic party just yet.

On top of the C-SPAN bomb drop, Bernie also announced on MSNBC that, come November, he will be voting for Clinton.

JUST IN: @BernieSanders says “yes,” he will vote for @HillaryClinton in November https://t.co/6FT0ZLi0JG

— MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 24, 2016

Although Sanders seems to be giving a lot of hints at the fact that he won’t be president, he has yet to drop out of the race. With a Sanders win essentially mathematically impossible–barring any election fraud accusations–it’s hard to say why he hasn’t pulled the plug yet. Perhaps staying in the race is the best way to push Clinton’s agenda further left. Perhaps he enjoys the political limelight. Perhaps he’s saddened by the fact that ending the campaign will be the end of his last legitimate chance at becoming the leader of the free world. Whatever the reason, it’s clear that Sanders is prepared to step back any day now and put his weight behind Clinton.

Of course, there are still die-hard Berniebros holding out hope that Sanders will win the nomination–swearing they won’t vote for “$hillary” under any circumstances. In fact, there are many conspiracies on exactly how Sanders will become our country’s leader. According to some YouTube commenters, Sanders will storm into the lead after Clinton is indicted by the DOJ.

Bernie Sanders can’t say it yet publicly, but he’s waiting as many of us are for the FBI to recommend criminal indictments against Hillary Clinton and then for DOJ head Loretta Lynch to indict her. Then the super-delegates will wisely defect from Hillary over to Bernie when they vote at the convention in Philadelphia next month.

According to other commenters, Sanders actually has the votes to win but election fraud is making it look like Clinton is in the lead.

There is a lawsuit going on to set the record straight. BERNIE THEY SAY YOU WON. These are the same guys who made sure the record was straight so that Obama rightfully won in 2008 and 2012. Don’t lose hope because we haven’t!!!!!! #BernieorBust!! And if they don’t get the lawsuit together before the general election, then I will be voting for Ms. Jill Stein. #ThankYouBernie

Best of all, some commenters just think Sanders has something up his sleeve. They claim that he winks in the C-SPAN video right before he says that it doesn’t appear he will be the nominee. What could this wink mean? Some are taking the wink as a sign of his resilience, claiming it means he isn’t giving up quite yet.

Whatever the results of this election are, it’s pretty clear President Bernie Sanders is almost certainly not one of the possible outcomes. It’s nice to know that, after months of what has been a pretty one-sided Democratic race, Sanders has finally come to terms with his campaign’s inevitable end. Plus, with what was essentially an endorsement of Clinton this week, the Democratic party may actually have a shot at keeping the White House this fall, which could mean another four years of progressive policies, even if the country doesn’t quite seem to be #feelingthebern.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Bernie Sanders May Be Backing Down appeared first on Law Street.

This election year is the year of the conspiracy: Antonin Scalia’s lack of autopsy prompted some to think he was murdered by President Barack Obama, Donald Trump is supposedly part of the Democratic Party’s attempt to  infiltrate the GOP to make it destroy itself, and now some people are theorizing that Ted Cruz is none other than the Zodiac Killer.

The Zodiac Killer… we all know him as the infamous and mysterious serial killer who wreaked havoc in California in the 1960s and early 70s–who killed five people for sure but may have killed as many as 37. The killer also sent letters to California papers with coded messages, referring to himself as “Zodiac.”

A tweet in 2013 seems to be the origin of the theory, according to the Daily Dot, which traced the meme.

#CPAC Alert: Ted Cruz is speaking!! His speech is titled: ‘This Is The Zodiac Speaking’

— Red Pill America (@RedPillAmerica) March 14, 2013

As Cruz became more famous so did the theory. There is even a hashtag dedicated to the similarities between the two: #ZodiacTed.

Wake up America #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/l7qqqXpDQk

— Griffin (@NotGriffinNope) February 2, 2016

This was an amazing moment from the #GOPDebate tonight. #ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/4DUgyxAo2k

— Bill Wetzel (@billthebutcher2) February 26, 2016

People are starting to finally ask the real questions, like: if he isn’t the Zodiac killer, then why hasn’t he denied it?

If Ted Cruz isn’t the Zodiac Killer, then why hasn’t he denied it? https://t.co/jCm2uRWOux#ZodiacTedpic.twitter.com/3EWcxDoecx

— Esquire Magazine (@esquire) February 25, 2016

Public Policy Polling, a polling firm that made a name for itself by adding funny questions onto the end of its surveys, included a question about Ted being the Zodiac Killer in a recent poll in Florida.

We are finding many Floridians can not rule out the possibility, although few are convinced of guilt https://t.co/OPsWIl97Sy

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) February 25, 2016

According to PPP, nearly 40 percent of respondents think it’s possible that Cruz is the famous serial killer–10 percent believe for sure that they are one in the same, and 28 percent just aren’t sure yet. On the other hand, 62 percent of Floridians don’t believe he is the Zodiac Killer (well, +/- the 3.1 percent margin of error).

Maybe they just haven’t seen the evidence yet.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reports, Ted Cruz is probably too young to be the Zodiac Killer. The first confirmed killing was back in 1968 when Cruz was a young negative two years old–according to his released birth certificate. But those things can be modified, right?

Ted Cruz also just wasn’t in the right place at the right time. He was born in Canada and the killings took place in California. And as a youngin, creating a cipher would probably have been far too advanced. However, what if the cipher was really just a bunch of baby babble? (Is that why it still hasn’t been broken?!)

I have no choice, though, to say that Ted Cruz is likely NOT the Zodiac Killer, but until he denies it, we really can’t rule it out completely.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Hasn’t Denied that He is the Zodiac Killer appeared first on Law Street.

Campaign season is upon us, and that means plenty of rallies and debates…and hilarious protest signs. Each of the candidates is bound to have someone show up to a rally donned in a creative outfit or holding an angry sign to expose the candidates’ supposed wrong doings (or in one case, their secret acting career in “The Office”). Nonetheless, protesters never cease to amaze us with their bizarre connections and the unique ideas for protests. Here are some of our favorites from this year’s election cycle so far:

Ted Cruz likes Nickelback

NICKELBACK Employee of the Month. January 2016.#Election2016#Nickelback4Presidentpic.twitter.com/L4j2Y7hKbX

— Nickelback (@Nickelback) January 12, 2016

Obviously, if Ted Cruz likes Nickelback, that disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate for the presidency. Will he really be taken seriously by other world leaders? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves now.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Best Campaign Rally Protest Signs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The Iowa caucuses were on Monday and I, for one, am still experiencing a political hangover. It seems like so far the 2016 election cycle has been dragging on for a really long time, and we still have nine months to go before we actually even vote in the general election. It may be that general feeling of political exhaustion that inspired a hashtag to start trending today: #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS. The hashtag appears to have been originated by pop culture Youtube show Midweek Minute, hosted by a comedian named Will Presti.

While some of the submissions are serious, many are based on fantastic, non-sensical suggestions that really could spice up the 2016 race as it stands. Check out some of my favorite submissions below:

Buzzfeed quiz #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS

— Taylor Baxter (@itsTaylorBaxter) February 3, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS: Has Campaign Fatigue Set in? appeared first on Law Street.

When Donald Trump finished second in Iowa, no one knew what to expect as he reacted. Would he accept the democratic outcome of the election? Would he lash out at the people of Iowa, which he’s momentarily done in the past? By the end of the night, everyone’s questions were answered when Trump took the stage. Surprising many, Trump’s reaction came across, well, classy. But that wasn’t his last word on the subject; after he had a little more time it seems like he changed his mind.

Here’s his speech in Iowa:

“We finished second and I want to tell you something, I’m just honored. I’m really honored. And I want to congratulate Ted [Cruz] and I want to congratulate all of the incredible candidates including Mike Huckabee who’s become a really good friend of mine,” Trump said in his speech after Cruz was declared the winner. In the speech, he thanked his opponents, he praised his staff, and congratulated the winner. To finish off, he even said he’d consider coming back to Iowa to buy a farm.

But Trump’s good will and acceptance didn’t last long. Naturally, Trump’s first inclination was to go after the media. After tweeting about his great experience in Iowa and how he was satisfied with the outcome, he tweeted, “The media has not covered my long-shot great finish in Iowa fairly. Brought in record voters and got second highest vote total in history!” To be fair, he is right that turnout was very high on Monday–almost 40 percent higher than in 2012–and that he fared best among first-time voters.

Trump’s usual assault on the media continued on Twitter, but he eventually shifted focus to Ted Cruz. Once Cruz gave his 32-minute victory speech, Trump quickly shifted tact:

Anybody who watched all of Ted Cruz’s far too long, rambling, overly flamboyant speech last nite would say that was his Howard Dean moment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2016

On Wednesday, Trump began an all-out assault on Cruz, accusing him of cheating and stealing the election.

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

During primetime of the Iowa Caucus, Cruz put out a release that @RealBenCarson was quitting the race, and to caucus (or vote) for Cruz. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Many people voted for Cruz over Carson because of this Cruz fraud. Also, Cruz sent out a VOTER VIOLATION certificate to thousands of voters.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

And finally, Cruz strongly told thousands of caucusgoers (voters) that Trump was strongly in favor of ObamaCare and “choice” – a total lie!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Believe it or not, Trump again has a couple fair points. Cruz was responsible for a legitimately nefarious direct mailer that his campaign sent out to essentially scare people into voting. Many Iowans received a letter from the Cruz campaign with their voting “scores” (which aren’t a real thing) as well as the scores of their neighbors. This strategy is based on a piece of political science research about direct mail and voter turnout, but the Cruz campaign took it to a new extreme. The letters were intended to pressure voters to turn out to improve their “voting score” and it even alleged that the recipients committed some sort of “voting violation.”

The Iowa Secretary of State quickly denounced the mailers, issuing a statement saying,

Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a ‘voting violation’ based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

He went on to note that caucuses are not even conducted by the state government, rather they are under the control of political parties. It is also important to note, however, that Cruz is not alone in his use of extremely misleading mailers, Marco Rubio sent a equally dubious letter to voters as well.

Trump also criticized Cruz’s response to news that Ben Carson was not going to travel directly to New Hampshire after the caucuses. The Carson campaign alleged that Cruz spun the news as if Carson was dropping out of the race in an effort to change the minds of caucus-goers. Cruz eventually apologized saying that spreading the news was fair game, but that a clarification should have been sent out when it was clear that Carson was not leaving the race.

While Trump’s criticism of Cruz has some surprisingly reasonable points, it’s unlikely that his tactics shifted the balance of the elections. As the Washington Post points out, Carson actually outperformed polling predictions and Bloomberg notes that Cruz sent the mailers out to about 3,000 potential voters yet won by more than 6,000 votes.  Ultimately, Trump went so far as to call for a new election, or at least for the existing results to be invalidated.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Over the course of a few days, Donald Trump went from congratulating Ted Cruz on his win to outright calling him a liar and a cheater. But then again, did we really expect anything else?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Might Not be a Gracious Loser After All appeared first on Law Street.

It has now become virtually physically impossible to get through the day without hearing a news story about Donald Trump making someone mad. But the latest story to come out of The Donald’s terrifyingly successful attempt at a 2016 run might be a bit more threatening than just angry onlookers–it’s a lawsuit. A group of protesters are suing Trump, after they claim they were attacked by his security team.

The five protesters who are plaintiffs in the recently-filed case are, in their own words, “human rights activists of Mexican origin.” The protesters were there to speak out against Trump’s much-maligned rhetoric about immigrants. They were holding up signs outside of an event last Thursday in New York at Trump Tower in which they riffed off Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.” Instead, they held signs that read “Make America Racist Again.” Trump’s director of security and long-time guard, Keith Schiller, grabbed the sign from a protester. That protester, named Efrain Galicia, ran after Schiller to try and grab the sign back, and started pulling at it. It was at that point that Schiller turned around and hit Galicia. Here’s a video of the altercation:

It’s in this light that Galicia and his fellow protesters are suing, alleging violence, theft of property, and interference with political speech. They’re also seeking an injunction that would keep members of Trump’s security team from interfering with protesters at various events. Overall, they’re framing their case at least in part from a public free speech angle.

Galicia’s lawyer Benjamin Dictor told New York Daily News:

The video in a sense speaks for itself. The actions were just exceedingly aggressive especially given the fact that demonstrators were on a public sidewalk speaking out about issues of public concern.

Dictor also stated:

There’s obviously a larger issue at play here, which is individuals from the community speaking out in public about issues of public concern in a public space. In the most public of spaces on the most public of issues.

Named in the lawsuit are Schiller, the rest of Trump’s organization, and Trump himself. They aren’t going down without a fight though–in the immediate aftermath of the incident, a spokesman from Trump’s campaign claimed that the protesters were causing disturbances on the sidewalk and had committed violence against Trump’s security team themselves. There has been talk that Trump’s team might actually sue the protesters as well.

This scuffle and resulting lawsuit really don’t come as a surprise after many of Trump’s recent comments have sparked calls for protests. As this election cycle continues to heat up, this may not be the only altercation we see between Trump’s security and protesters that we see.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Sued by Protesters Who Scuffled With His Security Team appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz got into a back-and-forth with actress and LGBTQ rights advocate Ellen Page on Friday. She confronted him at a barbecue he was hosting before a religious freedom rally in Iowa as part of a show she’s working on with Vice. Page was clad in a hat and oversize sunglasses, so Cruz clearly didn’t recognize her as the actress who starred in hits like “Inception” and “Juno.” Watch the lively exchange below:

Page, who came out last year, particularly focused her questioning on protections for LGBTQ people, bringing up issues like the fact that gay and trans employees are legally able to fired by their employers in many places. However throughout the exchange, Cruz showed a dogged unwillingness to acknowledge that protections for LGBTQ individuals could be improved, instead focusing almost unilaterally on the concept that Christians are being persecuted in the United States for their faith. He stated: “Well, what we’re seeing right now, we’re seeing Bible-believing Christians being persecuted for living according to their faith.”

While Cruz probably isn’t used to being confronted by popular young actresses, the answers he gave are consistent with a point of view that he (and some of the other candidates) have been sticking to resolutely–the idea that the conversation about LGBTQ protections should take a backseat to one about religious persecution of Christians. Now that acceptance of LGBTQ Americans has reached an all-time high, and gay marriage has been legalized via Supreme Court decision, arguments about “religious freedom” appear to be the new hot topic that only narrowly disguises the disgust Cruz has for LGBTQ protections.

But it’s a ridiculous argument. No one is arguing that Christians should be “persecuted” for not supporting LGBTQ rights–unless you define persecution as ridiculously narrowly as Cruz does. At the “Rally for Religious Liberty” he hosted after the barbecue where had the run in with Page, he featured various citizens who had supposedly had their religious liberties trampled upon by the government. These included couples who were fined amounts like $1000 or $5000 for not serving gay couples at their businesses. There’s also the case of a fire chief who was forced to step down in Georgia after he self-published a book calling homosexuality a “sexual perversion,” although the mayor pointed out that it was his overall conduct–including the fact that he didn’t have the permission to publish the book–that led to his termination.

But none of those things are strictly persecution. Persecution is defined by the International Criminal Court as “the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity.” While fines and firings are unfortunate, they don’t appear to fit the definition of Christian persecution.

As Rick Unger wrote in a Forbes op-ed:

In truth, even the most ardent evangelical should be able to summon the logic required to realize that using the Constitution to resolve disagreements and conflicts between Christian beliefs and the belief structures of their fellow Americans who think differently is hardly an act of persecution. Rather, these efforts are simply an act of fealty to our founding document and the men who wrote it—most of who were, themselves, Christian believers.

Yet religious persecution remains what Cruz is so worried about, to the point that he couldn’t even have a sensical argument with Page without bringing it up. We should strive to ensure that religious liberty is always protected; regardless of whether you think it’s currently under attack right now. But it’s not a mutually exclusive conversation. Other aspects of the debate over LGBTQ rights that Cruz brought up to Page, such as ISIS’s execution of gay people, deserve recognition. But until Cruz recognizes that we can talk about religious freedom and LGBTQ rights without sacrificing either, there’s going to be a lot more awkward barbecues.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz vs. Ellen Page: Argument Over Religious Freedom and LGBTQ Rights appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton take the battle online, Ted Cruz uses a War Games meme, and then there’s Donald Trump. Check out the slideshow below with some of the best campaign tweets of the week. For more election Twitter coverage, check out Law Street’s 2016 Voices.

Jeb Bush Calls Out the White House

For the first time in 54 years, the American flag flies above @USEmbCuba. #Cuba http://t.co/0O4X1m5bb8

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 14, 2015

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Best Campaign Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The “Selfie Campaign.” Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Well that’s the best way to describe what two sisters from New Hampshire are attempting, after vowing to take a selfie with every 2016 presidential candidate.

Presidential candidates are lining up to take a selfie with these teenage sisters http://t.co/aoux92E1ZL (via Twi… pic.twitter.com/pv3cHIAC0Z

— Joseph Abraham (@kjosephabraham) August 1, 2015

Sisters Addy Nozell, 17, and Emma Nozell, 15, are no strangers to politics and presidential campaigns. In fact, the girls have been taking selfies with politicians before “selfies” were even part of popular culture. Emma recalls being exposed to politics at a young age by their parents saying,

We were always in the parades. We were always making signs. We were always helping them [the candidates] with whatever was needed.

While neither of these girls is old enough to vote in the primaries, they are already making a name for themselves with the candidates. In fact, Donald Trump, the current leader of the Republican polls, was seemingly expecting the girls to approach him at a rally at the Weirs Beach Community Center, telling the girls, “oh, alright let’s get the selfie.”

The “selfie sisters” of New Hampshire can scratch Donald #Trump off the to-do list. #WBZ @PaulaEbbenWBZ @mytv38 pic.twitter.com/HmndYrIkdr

— Liam Martin (@LiamWBZ) July 17, 2015

With a crowded field of 20 plus candidates, the girls’ campaign sounds almost impossible. However, they’ve already managed to snap pics with 17 of the candidates in less than a month since they started their quest on July 2 with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The only hopefuls that have yet to “say cheese” with the girls are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), and currents Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R- Florida), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Meet Addy and Emma — the “presidential selfie girls” @PrezSelfieGirls http://t.co/ZetxWY3jgW pic.twitter.com/QvVHRdR8MV

— Deena Zeina Zaru (@DeenaZaruCNN) July 13, 2015

More often than not, selfies from teenage girls are duck-faced and distorted, which has led critics of the trend to call the practice superficial and narcissistic. And while for some that may be the case, the Nozell sisters have a different strategy for their “prez pics” at least in part thanks to their mother, Wendy Thomas. The girls practice “selfie etiquette.”  “You can’t stick your tongue out, you have to be respectful,” says Thomas. More importantly, the girls’ mother made it a point that selfie sticks are not permitted. “You gotta go with the old-school selfie and use the arm,” shared Emma.

Addy and Emma’s approach to the “selfie” can be used as a tool for keeping millennials engaged in the presidential race rather than solely for self-promotion. The Nozell sisters are conveying the notion that presidential candidates are generally approachable human beings who can relate to young people, at least when it comes to the preferred method of photo-taking. These girls are becoming increasingly popular and it will be interesting to see if candidates view taking selfies with the girls as a tactful method of gaining publicity among young people.

According to the girls, they have yet to settle on a favorite candidate, but are looking forward to hearing from all of the presidential hopefuls. It’s great to see what started as a fun opportunity morph into an example of youth engagement and educational opportunity–and the sisters show no sign of stopping until they’ve reached their goal.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Wanna Vote For You, But First Let Me Take A “Selfie” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

The world of politics is changing, and quickly. Between technology and the current state of campaign finance laws, the political landscape looks very different than it did just a few years ago. We’re starting to see the backlash of those changes now, and the noticeable difficulty of laws keeping up with all these changes. The actions of the GOP on Twitter in the recent midterm elections are in one of those murky gray legal areas at the intersection of campaign finance and technology.

CNN discovered that GOP campaigns had set up fake Twitter accounts during the midterms that spewed gibberish. For most of us, such a sight would indicate that there was some sort of spam account at work, and we would ignore it. But according to CNN, that gibberish could be decoded–and the decoded messages were internal polling data. Ostensibly, an outside group, such as a PAC, could look at that message, decode it, and figure out which campaigns were in need of an extra monetary push.

The thing about Twitter is that it’s pretty easy to hide in plain site. If all you’re doing is tweeting out gibberish, the only good way to find you is to search for the gibberish, or to search for the user. Interestingly, the GOP was quite glib about some of these accounts–one was named after Bruno Gianelli. West Wing fans will recognize him as a political campaign operative who was in favor of using soft money to get the President re-elected.

Current campaign finance laws allow outside groups to work on behalf of candidates, as long as they don’t explicitly coordinate with candidates’ campaigns. So the question that no one can really seem to answer is whether or not these Twitter accounts were legal. Given that they were public accounts–although very difficult to decipher public accounts–they don’t really seem like behind-closed-doors coordination that the FEC attempts to prevent.

The consensus seems to be that they’re probably not completely legal, but no one really cares enough to do anything. It appears that maybe-coordination like this is sort of like the jaywalking of election season. Everyone does it, probably, but no one’s really going to get caught. Daniel Tokaji, a professor at Ohio State’s law school said:

It may bend common sense, but not necessarily the law. A lot of things you and I would consider coordination are not coordination under the law. I don’t think sharing polling data is going to be enough to establish that the campaign was materially involved in decisions about content, target audience or timing.

This isn’t a one-sided issue, either. Both political parties have tried using technology to get around campaign finance coordination laws, and both parties have been accused of foul play. The FEC probably isn’t going to do anything about it, and that’s fine, but as the rules surrounding campaign finance in general change so drastically, there’s a need for our rules to progress along with them.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Accused of Illegal Coordination Over Twitter, No One Really Cares appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to hypocrite junction, which is the nickname I’ve given to the corner of the internet that’s still discussing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis speaking out about her abortion. For those of you who missed this whole story, here’s the skinny: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis made headlines last year when she filibustered against a restrictive abortion bill for 11 hours. Now, she’s running for governor of Texas, the first woman to run for that office since 1994. Currently she’s trailing the Republican candidate, Greg Abbott, but she’s still making headlines left and right. She’s tough and she’s smart, and regardless of how the polls turn out in November, she deserves a hell of a lot of respect.

In the midst of the current campaign, Davis’ book came out. That’s by no means an uncommon practice — it’s a pretty normal undertaking by candidates on the campaign trail. Davis’ book contained a story about how she has had two abortions — both for medical reasons.

Most people responded to her admission well, either recognizing the struggle that she must have gone through, or applauding the courage she had to tell her story.

And then there are the people who accused her of making it up for political purposes. I think we may need a new phrase beyond “double standards” at this point. First, she was attacked for standing up for the women who Texas’ insanely restrictive abortion law would have punished. When she first entered the national spotlight, she was called “abortion barbie.” Some of her critics went so far as to create “abortion barbie” posters of her. Click here to see them, but fair warning — they’re about as tasteful and subtle as you’d expect. Then, when her back story came to light, which includes a stint in a trailer and as a low-income single mother, people criticized her parenting skills. Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, was one of the loudest critics. Now that Davis has come out with the story of her abortions, she’s being accused of making them up. Do you have a headache yet? Because I definitely do.

Oh, that might be why.

Politicians have lied before, sure. I highly doubt that Wendy Davis is lying in this case, but I’m not privy to either her life story or her medical history, so I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty. But come on people, do you really think that she’s stupid enough to make up that lie in the first place? And more importantly, how shitty of a person do you have to be to accuse a woman of lying about what very well might have been two of the most difficult, traumatizing, and upsetting decisions of her life.

That’s exactly where the problem is — those who are criticizing her don’t realize how normal Davis’ story truly is. Her critics are attempting to use facts here, so in order to save my sanity I’m going to take a second to debunk one of the most egregious among them. One of the claims is that Davis probably didn’t have an abortion for medical reasons, because those are relatively rare. Texas Right to Life’s Emily Horne claimed, “it is extremely rare — if not non-existent — for a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. As for fetal anomalies, it simply isn’t necessary to abort a child because he or she is sick or has a medical condition.”

Well one of the two abortions Davis has discussed involved an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube. It’s estimated to happen in one of 50 pregnancies, the baby most likely won’t survive, and given that the condition is life threatening to the mother, often emergency care is needed. In some cases the pregnancy may need to be terminated. As the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine’s site puts it:

Ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life.

Women have abortions to end ectopic pregnancies, and they also have abortions because of the quality of life that their unborn child may be subjected to, as was the case of Davis’ other pregnancy. The baby was going to suffer severe medical issues, and Davis chose to terminate the pregnancy rather than have her child suffer. The truth is that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. The exact statistics for why are often debated, but according to a comprehensive study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, four percent of women seeking abortions do so out of concern for their own health, and another three percent choose to terminate a pregnancy out of concerns about the fetus’ health.

This was not an attempt to justify Davis’ choices — they don’t need to be justified by me because they were hers and hers alone. Rather this is my attempt to point out the argumentative flaws of those who are attempting to cast doubt on Davis’ story right now because not only are their arguments disrespectful, they’re also pretty weak.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter why Davis had an abortion, or why any other woman makes that choice. What does matter is that they have the resources to make that choice, or any other, for themselves — exactly what Davis stood for eleven hours to protect. I applaud her for sharing her story, and her work to make others who have had equally difficult choices understand where she is coming from.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Standing with Wendy Davis: A Story That Deserves Respect, Not Doubt appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.