For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

A product design company has launched a new action figure in the shape of Senator Elizabeth Warren. The company FCTRY–which also makes pacifiers with a mustache and a glitter gel called unicorn snot–has made many political action figures already. It started when Barack Obama was running for president and the company made an Obama figure that became so popular that FCTRY raised over $10,000 for his campaign by donating a portion of the sales. This time, some of the proceeds will go to Emily’s List, a non-profit devoted to helping elect female candidates.

The latest addition became a reality thanks to a Kickstarter campaign, and Elizabeth Warren herself said, “I really like that–that’s cool,” when asked about the new figure by The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. “The moment Mitch McConnell spoke the words, ‘Nevertheless, she persisted,’ we knew Warren had to be our next figure,” said Erica Chon, FCTRY’s content strategist.

Our @SenWarren Action Figure Kickstarter will launch on June 6th! It was quite a journey from sketch to prototype, but she’s ready! pic.twitter.com/Djd1dwpW8o

— FCTRY (@fctry) June 1, 2017

Chon was referring to when Republicans voted to silence Warren on the Senate floor after she had read a letter by Coretta Scott King about Senator Jeff Sessions’ record on civil rights. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked something called Rule 19, which basically states that Senators should not speak ill of each other. That is also when McConnell said the now-famous words, “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Nevertheless, she persisted. Company makes Elizabeth Warren action figure, and she loves it. pic.twitter.com/YKYTkkqjfS

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 6, 2017

After that day in February, the words became a slogan for Warren fans and feminists. And now everyone can buy their own Warren figure! The miniature Warren will have a “righteous fist” to fight for the middle class and an open hand “to smack down Trump’s policies.” She will also wear a “power blazer, to topple the patriarchy,” among other things.

The phrase came up again on Wednesday when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked intelligence officials whether President Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into potential collusion between his campaign and Russia during the presidential election. Senator Kamala Harris asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein if he would give complete independence to Robert Mueller, the independent counsel overseeing the investigation.

When Rosenstein avoided answering, Harris asked for a simple “yes” or “no” answer. But the chairman of the committee, Senator Richard Burr, interrupted Harris and told her she wasn’t being courteous enough. Most people think this was pretty hypocritical, as male senators questioned people just as forcefully without being reprimanded. Now a lot of people, including Senator Warren, started using the slogan again, demanding that male politicians do better.

Silencing @SenKamalaHarris for not being “courteous” enough is just unbelievable. Keep fighting, Kamala! #NeverthelessShePersistedhttps://t.co/58y15qWVzU

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 7, 2017

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 She Persisted: Elizabeth Warren Becomes an Action Figure appeared first on Law Street.

After Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the White House to Donald Trump as a result of the Electoral College system, there have been calls for change. On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill that would abolish the Electoral College and, according to many hopefuls, make future elections fairer.

The presidency is the only office where you can get more votes & still lose. It’s time to end the Electoral College. https://t.co/OXZ9vHaIH1

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

On Tuesday, Clinton was leading the popular vote by 990,758 votes. And by the time that all the votes are counted, the New York Times estimates that she will lead by more than two million, which would be over 1.5 percentage points. Barbara Boxer Boxer said in a statement:

She is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama. This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.

Even Donald Trump at one point thought the system was undemocratic, as he pointed out in a long series of tweets in 2012. He even confirmed his stance in an interview on “60 Minutes” on Sunday. He said: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”

.@realDonaldTrump is exactly right – the candidate with the most votes should win. pic.twitter.com/CG1cvcKbQx

— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 15, 2016

But that was Sunday. On Tuesday, he had changed his opinion again, and praised the system on Twitter.

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

He also pointed out that if the election had been based on the popular vote, he would have won it anyway, because he would have focused on campaigning in New York, California, and Florida.

If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016

Trump is the fifth presidential nominee to win the election despite losing the popular vote. The last one before him was George W. Bush, who beat Al Gore in 2000 even though Gore won the people’s vote by 0.5 percentage point. Since Boxer’s bill is an amendment to the Constitution, it would have to pass by a two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as three-quarters of all states. But no matter the outcome, it is a sign that more people are realizing that the Electoral College is old-fashioned and outdated.

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 Senator Barbara Boxer Introduces Bill To Get Rid of the Electoral College appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders’ Twitter account sent out a series of tweets describing the price hike on insulin from pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Co. The tweets linked to a Washington Post article that details the increasing prices from the day insulin was discovered in 1921 until today. Sanders’ tweets attacked the drug industry, accusing the companies involved of corporate greed.

A bit of backstory is necessary: the researchers who discovered insulin debated whether to patent it at all since their main purpose was to help humanity. Their discovery made it possible for people to live with a disease that had previously meant a death sentence. Eventually they sold the patent for $3 to the University of Toronto.

Why has the price of Humalog insulin gone up 700% in 20 years? It’s simple. The drug industry’s greed. pic.twitter.com/SUeSbsr2Ka

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders’ tweets, which were not signed by him personally but sent out by staff members, caused Eli Lilly’s stock price to drop 2.4 percent. The price of $72.02 per share was the lowest it has been since March 31. Prices soon stabilized again, and Eli Lilly released a statement defending its pricing.

“A permanent solution that gives everyone who uses insulin reasonable access will require leadership and cooperation across many stakeholders, including manufacturers, (pharmacy benefit managers), payers, and policymakers. That’s because the answer itself isn’t simple.”

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk clearly care more about their profits than their patients. It’s time to end their greed. pic.twitter.com/MqCsHNjzcO

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

This year marks 75 years after the original patent on insulin expired and three companies in particular have made improvements to insulin that leads to the creation of more patents and garnered the owners billions of dollars. One of those companies is Eli Lilly; its insulin Humalog has gone up in price from $21 in 1996 to $255 today. That’s a 700 percent increase.

But why isn’t competition keeping the prices down? The pharmaceutical industry claims drug improvement raises prices, but experts question this and believe the changes to the drugs are only to cover up for price hikes as well as to create new patents. David Nathan from Harvard Medical School said to the Post:

I don’t think it takes a cynic such as myself to see most of these drugs are being developed to preserve patent protection. The truth is they are marginally different, and the clinical benefits of them over the older drugs have been zero.

Many people can’t even afford to get their insulin. Around six million Americans depend on it, and though many get it through health insurance, there are also many without insurance or in between insurance plans because of different life changes.

In the richest nation in the world, diabetes patients are being forced to decide between eating and paying for the drugs they need. pic.twitter.com/Mnq4NSgiPz

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 1, 2016

Sanders has targeted the drug industry before and influenced the stock market through his tweets about Ariad Pharmaceuticals’ high prices for a leukemia drug. Hillary Clinton is doing pretty well too–she has tweeted both at the industry in general, causing Nasdaq shares to fall last year, and about the EpiPen by Mylan NV, whose shares fell by 6.2 percent. If these progressive politicians keep it up, maybe things will change after all!

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 Insulin Brand’s Stock Plummets After Bernie Sanders Tweets About Price Hikes appeared first on Law Street.

Hackers have leaked personal emails from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which he describes Donald Trump as a “national disgrace” and an “international pariah,” Buzzfeed reported. The website DCLeaks.com obtained the emails, which include exchanges between journalist and former Powell aide Emily Miller as well as other Powell associates. The leaks also highlight disagreement between Powell and the Clinton campaign over the use of her private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

In one email to Miller, Powell wrote that Trump “is in the process of destroying himself, no need for Dems to attack him. [Speaker of the House] Paul Ryan is calibrating his position again.” Powell also said that the idea promoted by Trump and others that President Obama was not born in the United States is racist. He said:

Yup, the whole birther movement was racist. That’s what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn’t keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim.

Powell is a self-described lifelong Republican but has endorsed President Obama twice, indicating that he has problems with the direction Republican Party of today is heading. In another email with “Racism” in the subject line, he wrote, “Or as I said before the 2012 election, ‘There is a level of intolerance in parts of the Republican Party.’” He went on to say he wouldn’t comment about Trump to the media, arguing that it would feed into his ego.

Colin Powell also said that having Roger Ailes, who resigned from Fox news over sexual harassment allegations, as an adviser won’t exactly help Trump win over women’s votes, Buzzfeed reported.

Shortly after the leak, Powell confirmed that the emails are authentic and said that the hackers “have a lot more.” The website, DNCLeaks.com, has links to Russian-backed hackers who were previously accused of breaking into the accounts of the Democratic National Committee and releasing emails that embarrassed the party.

#DCLeaks Powell in leaked email: ‘I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home’ https://t.co/uxALVOi4CC

— DC Leaks (@DCleaks_) September 14, 2016

In other leaked emails, Powell talked about Hillary Clinton’s private email server, an issue he wished to stay far away from. In February he wrote to Kenneth Duberstein, a White House chief of staff under president Reagan, saying, “I didn’t tell Hillary to have a private server at home, connected to the Clinton Foundation, two contractors, took away 60,000 emails, had her own domain.”

And in September 2015 email to Lawrence Wilkerson, his former chief of staff, he wrote, “[Hillary Clinton] and her mishandling of this has really given her a major problem I do not wish to get involved in, despite the best efforts of her team to drag me in.”

Defenders of Hillary Clinton like Representative Elijah Cummings have tried to point to Powell and Rice as a precedent for the use of a private email account while serving as Secretary of State. In a press release, Representative Cummings noted that both Rice and Powell had “received classified national security information” on their personal accounts. But Powell took issue with the classified emails that many cited, claiming that they were not classified at the time. Both Powell and Rice expressed, over email, an increasing annoyance with the situation.

This also led Powell to email Duberstein. “Stupid State Department dragged me in and I had to take care of myself […] I warned them. Don’t say these unclassified messages are classified or should have been classified,” he wrote.

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 Colin Powell Calls Trump ‘International Pariah’ in Leaked Emails appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin is separating from her husband, Anthony Weiner, in the wake of the latest scandal that arose on Monday. Weiner, already with a history of sex scandals under his belt, was caught sending loaded text messages and pictures to a brunette woman, this time with his son sleeping next to him in bed.

The woman in question is a Trump supporter and NRA fan who has used Twitter to criticize both President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Now Trump is using the latest scandal against Clinton. He said in a statement:

Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him. I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It’s just another example of Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this.

Huma Abedin Announces Split From Anthony Weiner https://t.co/BraW1uoD7I #philly pic.twitter.com/M6yJ6DpMt3

— Philly News Now (@phillynewsnow) August 29, 2016

Weiner, a former congressman, had to resign because of a different sexting scandal in 2011. After that, he promised he’d go to therapy and never do it again. But in 2013 he made headlines for sexting again, under the pseudonym Carlos Danger.

On Sunday night, the New York Post revealed that he started once more in January 2015 and kept the conversation with the woman in question going until this month. The pictures that are currently circulating the media were taken in July last year, while Weiner’s wife was touring the country working for Clinton.

Weiner admitted to the Post that he and the woman had “been friends” for a while, but never met. He also said that the pictures “were always appropriate.” However, the pictures that are now public prove the opposite. On Monday Weiner deleted his Twitter account.

Huma Abedin said in a statement:

After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband. Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life. During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy.

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 Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin to Separate After Latest Sexting Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

As attention turns to the Democratic Party while it hosts its convention this week, Donald Trump made a move to take back some of the spotlight. In a bizarre press conference, often featuring Trump’s stream of consciousness speaking style, he suggested that Russia should seek out Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails–in effect, asking a foreign nation to spy on the email correspondence of a U.S. secretary of state.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said–referring to an estimated 30,000 emails that were deleted from Clinton’s email server before it was turned over to the FBI.

Here’s the clip from C-SPAN for some additional context:

Donald Trump: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”https://t.co/XHc9hh4gBt

— CSPAN (@cspan) July 27, 2016

His comments come at a striking time: a recent hack of the Democratic Party’s servers led to a massive release of internal emails sent by party leaders. The emails were published by WikiLeaks and although the source of the hack remains unknown, cyber security experts and American intelligence agencies strongly suspect that Russians were involved.

However, at his press conference on Wednesday, Trump noted that no one knows for sure who was behind the attack and argued that Russia probably wasn’t involved. He also took the opportunity to call the current Democratic leadership weak, noting that if Russias were involved, the hack shows that they don’t respect the U.S. government.

Interestingly, shortly after Trump made his comments at the press conference, his running mate–Indiana Governor Mike Pence–issued a statement saying, “If it is Russia and they are interfering in our elections, I can assure you both parties and the United States government will ensure there are serious consequences.” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a similar statement denouncing any potential Russian involvement. “Russia is a global menace led by a devious thug. Putin should stay out of this election,” a spokesperson for Paul Ryan said.

The leak has been particularly embarrassing for the Democratic Party. The emails provided evidence that, among other things, the party failed to live up to its neutrality claims in the primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Shortly after the documents were released, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz resigned and the rift between the Democratic Party and many Bernie Sanders supporters deepened.

Given the timing of the DNC email leak and its potential ties to the Russian government, many are deeply concerned that it reflects an effort by a foreign government to influence the outcome of a major American election. The decision to release the emails shortly before the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia appears to have been made to have the largest political effect. Indeed, the scandal may have added to many voters dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and its handling of the primary campaign, which recently culminated in protests at the party’s convention early this week.

Meanwhile, Trump appears to have doubled down on his call for Russia to find Clinton’s deleted emails. Shortly after his speech, Trump sent out the following Tweet:

If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2016

The Clinton campaign recently started suggesting that Trump’s relationship with Russia may be cause for concern. “He certainly has a bromance with Mr. Putin,” Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta said of Trump on Tuesday. But when asked, Trump quickly said he had no business dealings in Russia. And Paul Manafort, his campaign manager, recently labeled the implication that Trump has ties with the Russian government “absurd.”

Whether Trump’s recent comments are merely a way to steal attention away from Clinton during her party’s convention or if–to borrow a phrase from Trump–“something else is going on,” well, that’s for you to decide.

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 Calls on Russia to Find Clinton’s Deleted Emails appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

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 Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

The Democratic Party may be considering getting rid of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the Democratic National Committee chairwoman before the party’s national convention. She hasn’t exactly been getting along with Bernie Sanders or his supporters lately, and some Clinton supporters believe she is too divisive to be able to consolidate the party.

A controversial chairperson could worsen the Democrats’ chances to defeat the Republicans in the general election, and some senior Democratic aides have (for the most part, anonymously) expressed the opinion that Wasserman Schultz is already “too toxic,” saying that the only way to have a good shot to win in November is to replace her. Critics are now using the hasthtag #DumpDebbie on Twitter to call for her removal.

Wasserman Schultz has long had a complicated relationship with the Sanders campaign. His campaign actually sued the DNC in March, saying the DNC wrongfully shut off its access to important voter data.

More recently, Wasserman Schultz criticized Sanders after his supporters went a little crazy at the Democratic convention in Nevada, stating that his lukewarm response was unacceptable and probably just added fuel to the fire, even though he did condemn the violence. Sanders started a fundraiser for her primary challenger Tim Canova last weekend.

I am proud to know that @BernieSanders is favoring our progressive campaign to #RetireDWS. https://t.co/yUyWoN5xBS #ProgressforAll #fl23

— Tim Canova (@Tim_Canova) May 21, 2016

There hasn’t been any formal action to replace Wasserman Schultz so far, and some Democrats still ardently defend her, like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. Nutter pointed out that Sanders is a recent Democrat while Wasserman Schultz has been leading the party and shouldn’t just be pushed out.

At the same time, DNC spokesperson Luis Miranda denied that anything serious is going on, saying that there are a whole lot of high profile members of Congress expressing their support for Wasserman Schultz on the record, and there are just a few who disagree and want to stay anonymous.

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 Are the Democrats About to Drop Debbie Wasserman Schultz? appeared first on Law Street.

Last night’s Democratic primaries ended with victory for Sanders in Oregon, and for Clinton in Kentucky–although she finished that primary with only half a percentage point more than Sanders. The fact that Sanders keeps winning some states points, according to some, to weaknesses in Clinton’s strategy. But more importantly, it indicates that a big group of voters still want Sanders in the White House and agree with his ideas, so maybe it’s not over quite yet. And in a speech in California, Sanders once again asserted that he would not give up until the last vote is cast, saying “Don’t tell Secretary Clinton, she might get nervous–I think we’re going to win California.”

As of now, Clinton has a total count of 2,291 delegates compared to Sanders’ 1,528–this count includes superdelegates. There are 946 delegates still up for grabs. It has long been seen as a matter of course that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, but as Sanders keeps going strong and party unification seems far away, tensions have increased between the two sides. Last Saturday it boiled over for some Sanders supporters, who started revolting after a number of Sanders delegates were deemed ineligible by throwing chairs and yelling at the Democratic convention in Nevada. They claimed that the elections are rigged and expressed death threats aimed at the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange.

Sanders’ seemingly mellow response to the violence has surprised and upset many. He only spent one sentence on it in a press release on Tuesday, but focused mainly on the same thing the angry supporters had been saying, namely how the party interfered with a fair and Democratic process. He was urged by some Senators and party leaders to take control of his supporters. Some voices in the Democratic Party also asked the Bernie supporters themselves to be sensible and support the candidate who gets the most votes and delegates, since it is more important that the party stands united against the Republicans.

After all, the results in Kentucky and Oregon do show that Clinton still is the probable nominee. To have an actual chance to win the whole thing, Bernie would have needed a much bigger margin in Oregon–over four times bigger than it was. But the fact that he is still running means that Clinton needs to divide her focus between beating Sanders in the remaining states, unifying the Democratic Party, and fighting Trump–all tasks that will certainly continue to take some extra effort.

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 Sanders Wins Oregon, Clinton Wins Kentucky: Party Struggles with Unity appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in Nevada and Republicans in South Carolina took to the polls on Saturday to choose their parties’ nominee for President. When the dust settled, Donald Trump walked away with a commanding lead in the South Carolina primary while Hillary Clinton pulled out ahead in the Nevada primary. The recent contests help solidify the conventional wisdom about the election so far, but much of the analysis is still speculation. While many questions remain, we may soon have answers–Super Tuesday is approaching.

The GOP

Although each party has only held three contests in this year’s election season, the race is starting to take a distinctive shape. Donald Trump has managed to transition his significant lead in national and state polls into a sizeable lead in actual delegate counts after three contests. While most have remained skeptical of Trump throughout the early stages of the election cycle, his lead is becoming more and more difficult to refute.

With a second place finish in Iowa and two first place finishes by sizeable amounts in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Donald Trump sits well ahead of his challengers. Nate Silver at FivetThirtyEight has a nice breakdown of the impending battle between “Trump Optimists” and “Trump Skeptics” that will pan out in the ensuing weeks. While optimists cite Trump’s strong performance in recent contests and continued dominance in the polls, skeptics note that there may be a ceiling for his support; as more establishment-supported candidates drop out Republican voters could rally behind Trump’s most electable challenger.

The Dems

When it comes to the Democratic Party’s race, Hillary Clinton is starting to take more control over the race when it comes to coalition building and endorsements. When it comes to pledged delegates, which are awarded based on the results of state caucuses and primaries, Sanders and Clinton are basically tied. But when you factor in superdelegates–Clinton currently leads with over 500 total delegates while Sanders has just 70–Clinton has a commanding lead and some important momentum from Nevada. On Saturday, Clinton took away 19 delegates and Sanders managed to get 15. In a race to 2,383 delegates, the vast majority remain undetermined.

Sanders has surprised spectators and has proven to be a much stronger opponent than nearly anyone anticipated. But Clinton has managed to earn the support of some very important Democratic constituencies. In addition to a strong lead in superdelegates, who are Democratic Party leaders, Clinton has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus and retains a significant amount of support among union members–two very important Democratic voting blocks.

Hillary Clinton managed to win in Nevada, which is considerably more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two primary states. While there is some debate over Clinton’s success among Latino voters in Nevada, she has managed to maintain a strong support among minority voters. That support is likely to play an important role in the coming primaries. Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight wrote a thorough breakdown of the demographics in the upcoming contests:

While only 13 percent of Nevada caucus-goers in 2016 were black, their share in South Carolina will be much higher (55 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters were black in 2008). That’s why Clinton is up by 25 percentage points in the South Carolina polls. Even beyond South Carolina, on Super Tuesday 63 percent of the delegates up for grabs will be in contests with a higher share of African-Americans than Nevada.

While most of the discussion so far rests largely on speculation, the important thing to keep in mind is that our picture of the race will soon get a much-needed dose of clarity–Super Tuesday is just over a week away. On March 1, 11 states vote to allocate around 880 delegates to the Democratic candidates. To put that in perspective, just over 100 pledged delegates have been assigned to candidates so far. The biggest change now is the fact that a lot of delegates are going to be determined very quickly. The pace of the campaign picks up considerably in March, which will tests the organization and reach of every campaign in new ways. The Democratic Party’s proportional system of delegate allocation, which awards candidates delegates based on their share of the popular vote, will likely keep the pledged delegate count close in the coming weeks. But if Clinton manages to take the lead after Super Tuesday, Sanders may have a hard time catching up to her.

Final Takeaways

Super Tuesday will be a big test for the Sanders campaign, which will need to compete with Clinton in a range of primaries spanning several demographic groups. We’ll also have to wait and see if Donald Trump can turn his massive polling lead into actual votes. While the so-called ceiling theory of Trump support will be tested soon, as it currently stands, establishment Republicans have the most to worry about.

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 After Last Weekend, All Eyes are on Super Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

The saying, “The system is rigged” is one of Bernie Sanders’ favorite lines on the campaign trail. He gives speech after speech highlighting economic injustice and inequality that reiterates the same sentiment. It’s why so many of his supporters are passionate in their support for his campaign, but Sanders’ animosity towards the system may expand in the coming months to an additional target: the Democratic Party’s primary system.

When news broke that Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by more than 20 percent, yet may tie Hillary Clinton in delegates, Sanders supporters and Hillary-haters were irate. How could this be? What sort of system lets that happen? Welcome to the primaries, where everything’s made up and the points don’t matter. Okay, they matter a little bit, but it’s complicated. To understand the outrage after the New Hampshire primary, you need to look closer at the role of superdelegates.

So in this installment of “Why the Primaries are Weird,” we’ll be diving into everyone’s favorite subject: delegate math–specifically the Democratic Party and its superdelegates.

How do Delegates Work?

Before we get into the absurdity that is superdelegates, let’s do a quick review of how delegates come into play in the primary system. Each state elects delegates, individual party members who are pledged to a certain candidate based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus. The way delegates are chosen varies widely by state, but the important thing to know is that they are based on the outcome of a primary or caucus. Generally speaking, delegates are allocated proportionally based on their share of the vote in an individual state’s primary or caucus.

Delegates elected at the state level are then bound to a specific candidate, meaning that when the Democratic and Republican conventions occur after the primaries, elected delegates cast their votes for the candidate that they are pledged to. When all is said and done, the candidate with a majority of the delegates in the party convention wins the nomination and proceeds to the general election.

What about superdelegates?

The process outlined above is the way that Republicans choose their nominee and how the Democrats allocate most of their delegates, but not all. Enter superdelegates, a group of individuals chosen by the party who are allowed to vote in the Democratic Convention alongside the elected pledged delegates. The difference between superdelegates and regular delegates is their “unpledged” nature. Regular delegates are pledged to support a specific candidate based on the outcome of a state’s primary or caucus. Superdelegates are not pledged and are essentially free to vote however they wish at the Democratic Convention.

Superdelegates are Senators, Congressmen, and state party officials, and essentially exist to give the Democratic Party more control over their nominating process. While each party has additional delegates for “party leaders and elected officials” (PLEOs), all Republican PLEOs and most Democratic PLEOs are pledged, meaning that they are bound, at least in some way, to the results of state elections. The remaining unpledged PLEOs are the superdelegates.

To win the Democratic nomination, you need to have at least 50 percent of the 4,763 total delegates, making it a race to 2,382 delegates. Out of the 4,763 total delegates, 712 are unpledged superdelegates, approximately 15 percent. This means that a candidate could conceivably lose the popular vote and still win the nomination with the support of enough superdelegates. This is how Sanders was able to win the popular vote by a massive margin while possibly tying Clinton in the delegate count. Six of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates support Clinton, so the race appears much more even. In fact, Clinton had a large national lead over Sanders before the race even started because of the number of superdelegates who say they will support herm though it is important to note that these superdelegates have up until the Democratic Convention to change their mind.

So… Blame Hillary?

No, you can’t blame Hillary Clinton. This is a perfect example of “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” You don’t have to like Hillary Clinton as a person or as a candidate, but she is not responsible for the Democratic Party’s undemocratic system of choosing its nominee. Sanders, a candidate who isn’t even really a Democrat, is inherently disadvantaged by the system, but that doesn’t make it Clinton’s fault.

I’m not defending Hillary Clinton, I’m just saying that if you are mad about the system, which is understandable, you should be mad at the Democratic Party. But before you claim that superdelegates are just another way that the Democratic Party is sidelining Bernie Sanders, you should remember that this system has been around since the 1980s and probably isn’t going away anytime soon. In a perfect bout of irony, to get rid of superdelegates, the superdelegates themselves would have to make the final decision.

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 How do Superdelegates Work? And Why are People so Mad? appeared first on Law Street.

Amidst commentary on how Hillary Clinton has ramped up, pointed attacks on Bernie Sanders, and Sanders’ constant mention of how well he is polling, you may have missed one of the most interesting points of the Democratic debate this past weekend: a 17-year-old boy in a handmade silk jacket who–although he didn’t seem out of place–certainly wasn’t where he was supposed to be.

Louis Shenker, a 17-year-old from Longmeadow, Massachusetts was seen on national television as he walked on stage to shake hands with the presidential hopefuls, but that definitely wasn’t the most exciting part of Shenker’s night. In a blog post written by the teen himself this Thursday, Shenker talks all about the pains he went through to get on stage that night, which include some pretty impressive feats. From claiming to be Martin O’Malley’s son to worming his way into the debate hall, this kid may have just pulled off one of the most impressive break-ins of the century.

So, how did he do it? According to Shenker, the recipe for success–when it comes to making your way on stage with some of the country’s most important people–is apparently comprised of a couple of white lies, a slightly above average knowledge of attendees of the Democratic debate, and a hell of a lot of confidence. Or at least, that’s what he claims in his blog post. Apparently Shenker had also snuck into the Republican debate less than a week before, though, he made less of a splash there and mostly hung in the shadows.

The teenage hero–and supposedly qualified didgeridoo player–started his evening by walking up to the gates of the Gaillard Center and claiming he was told he would receive a ticket to the event at the gate. He mentioned he was a representative of several Jewish organizations and was quickly swept up in the crowd, given a staffer pass, and whisked away to help direct people arriving at the event’s entrances. He then weaseled his way inside the media room by announcing he was writing an article for the World Jewish Congress. Finally, Shenker made his way to the main room of the debate by telling security he was a seat filler–could this guy get any more ballsy? In a last ditch attempt to secure the world’s most impressive fake-out, Shenker made it on stage after the debate, writing in his blog that his motivation was as follows:

At this point I said to myself fuck it I was going to get on stage with the candidates. So I followed the families of the candidates through the side exit to backstage and past many secret service agents none of which stopped me. Then I was onstage.

The cameras went live, and there he was, on almost every TV in the nation, immediately gaining attention for his stylish fashion sense and youthful looks. Shenker said his phone was immediately blowing up with snapchats, texts, and tweets from his friends back home who were shocked when they saw his face, front and center, shaking Hillary Clinton’s hand. Some people questioned Shenker’s presence on stage (and his choice of jacket) at the end of the debate, taking to the internet to voice their opinions and surprise:

Did anyone else see this child at the #DemDebate ?? Like a Thanksgiving themed jacket?? pic.twitter.com/e9MsQR6Mzu

— David Lew (@davidlew) January 18, 2016

 

Gonna need to know more about this jacket. #DemDebate#TheRealIssuespic.twitter.com/wjPMxUDSnb

— Kyle (@semiserious) January 18, 2016

Honestly, this had to have been a pretty cool night and an experience we can all probably be jealous of. Shenker met countless celebrities, was featured on national television in a suave, retro jacket, and pulled off a pretty magnificent stunt. His blog has gone viral and he has gained almost instant fame–Killer Mike even gave him a shoutout on Twitter.

The moral of the story? Take some risks, I guess. Don’t be afraid to shoot for the stars because, sometimes, you may literally be able to reach them. As cheesy as it sounds, we can all probably take a page out of Shenker’s book and follow his words of advice:

 If there is one thing this experience has taught me it is if you act like you are supposed to be somewhere people will believe you.

As the new year keeps rolling in, I know I’ll be keeping this advice in the back of my mind. And, hey, maybe if the presidential candidates start acting a little bit more like they belong in the White House, they too can achieve their dreams.

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 What We Can Learn from the Boy who Snuck into the Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Lawrence Lessig, a famous Harvard Law School professor and presidential candidate, announced that he is no longer pursuing the Democratic Party’s nomination because the Party recently changed the requirements to participate in the November 14 debate.

Lawrence Lessig announced his candidacy for president in early September, meeting a self-set goal of raising over $1 million in small donations. A well-known campaign finance advocate, Lessig sought to run for president in order to enact electoral reform, which he thought would increase political responsiveness and ensure everyone’s “equal right to vote.” His campaign was unique from the outset, but the support that he did have was vocal and polls suggest that campaign finance is an important issue to many. However, aside from being a longshot in the presidential race, his campaign encountered several additional obstacles.

“It is now clear that the Party won’t let me be a candidate,” Lessig said in a video (below) released on Monday. According to Lessig and his advisors, a subtle change in the debate criteria has made it impossible for him to participate in the upcoming debate. When the Democratic National Committee (DNC) initially announced the debate schedule back in August, the rules stated that participating candidates must receive, “at least 1 percent in three national polls, conducted by credible news organizations and polling organizations, in the six weeks prior to the debate.”

But recently, according to Lessig, the DNC tweaked these requirements ever so slightly in a way that precludes Lessig from participating. A memo from the DNC changed the wording from “in the six weeks prior to the debate” to “at least six weeks prior to the event,” meaning that participating candidates need to have met the threshold six weeks ahead of time, rather than in the period leading up to the debate. According to Lessig, “Under the new rule, unless we can time travel, there is no way that I can qualify.”

If what Lessig says is true, this change would exclude him from a debate that he would otherwise be participating in. One of the most significant challenges faced by the Lessig campaign is the fact that his name is not included in many national polls, but recently, he has hit the 1 percent threshold several times–meaning that he would likely qualify under the initial rules. Under the rule change, he would have already needed to qualify at the beginning of October.

Outside of polling, but also related, are Lessig’s challenges with the Democratic Party. Last month, he wrote an article for Politico Magazine titled, “I’m Trying to Run for President, But Democrats Won’t Let Me.” In the article, he outlined the challenges facing his campaign, and the unwillingness of the Democratic Party to accept him as a candidate. He argues that Party leaders don’t really view him as a legitimate candidate–noting that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had not yet taken the time to even speak with him.

It’s worth noting that even if Lessig was openly welcomed by the Democratic Party, his chances of receiving the Democratic nomination were extremely slim. While he would likely qualify for the upcoming debate if the rules did not change, polling at 1 percent isn’t necessarily impressive. Granted, if he was listed as an option in every poll he might rank a little higher, but it still wouldn’t materially change much.

The fact is, his candidacy is pretty peculiar–he even started out saying that, if elected, he would only serve as president until he could implement electoral reform, after which point he would resign. While he has since dropped the idea of being a “referendum president,” his nearly exclusive focus on a narrow reform agenda can limit the extent of his support. But that perspective might also miss Lessig’s point.

Sure, the best way for him to enact electoral reform would probably be to actually get elected, but it also seems like he simply wants to elevate the issue to a much higher level in the United States, particularly among policymakers. Were he able to attend the upcoming Democratic debate, he may have been able to do just that by demanding that the other candidates address the issue. Instead, he has been excluded from the debate and, as a result, the Democratic Party.

So what’s next for Lessig? He hasn’t announced whether he will pursue the presidency as an independent candidate, but in an email to the Washington Post he noted, “nothing (legal) is ruled out.” Lessig has made some unorthodox attempts to address the issue of campaign finance in the past, so we may want to keep an eye out for his next move.

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 Democrats Squeeze Lawrence Lessig Out of Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t noticed, Lincoln Chafee was running for president. You may have also noticed that on Friday morning, he officially dropped out of the race. His announcement marks the end of his four and a half month campaign, despite never polling above 2 percent nationally.

While I do not mean to belittle Lincoln Chafee–a distinguished politician who has been a Mayor, Governor, and Senator for the state of Rhode Island–nearly all of the evidence and discussion about his presidential bid has led to everyone asking why he ran in the first place. During his career, Chafee was a vocal opponent to the Iraq War and was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the use of force in the Iraq War (Chafee later switched to the Democratic Party in May 2013). But despite his record, his presidential campaign has been arguably the most underwhelming part of the 2016 primary race.

While Chafee’s campaign may have felt like it was over before it started, he officially  fell into obscurity during the Democratic debate. In the debate, Chafee launched a thinly veiled jab at Hillary Clinton, saying that the United States need to restore American credibility with the world and that the next president needs the best ethical standards. His affront was relatively bold–especially considering no one else on the stage was that willing to confront her–but when moderator Anderson Cooper asked if Clinton wanted to respond, she merely said “no.” That was that. No one pushed back; no one was outraged that Hillary Clinton didn’t have to answer a nearly direct challenge from another candidate.

When a longshot candidate announces his campaign to be president, many wonder if he is in the race to talk about the issues and force the other candidates to do so as well rather than actually get elected. But after the first Democratic debate, Lincoln Chafee couldn’t even do that much.

By most accounts, Chafee had a weak debate performance even if you don’t factor in his inability to engage Hillary Clinton. But it didn’t end there; in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN the next day Blitzer all but asked him to end his campaign right then and there.

Chafee’s campaign officially began back in June, and since then he has largely failed to generate attention. Foreign policy was one of his primary focal points, using the phrase “Prosperity Through Peace” as a major campaign tagline. He presented himself as an alternative to the more hawkish Republican party and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Arguably the highlight of his announcement speech was a call for the United States to switch to the metric system. While that might actually not be the worst idea, having it as a pillar of your presidential platform is questionable. I don’t know about you, but when someone says we need to change our measurement system, I don’t reach for my wallet to donate to their campaign.

Chafee’s polling remained steady since the beginning of his campaign, fluctuating between 0 and 2 percent. Yes–there have been several polls in which none of the respondents said that they would vote for Lincoln Chafee. At one point, Conan O’Brian took it upon himself to simply try and get Chafee up to 1 percent.

Money has also been a significant problem for Chafee. NPR recently took a look at all of Chafee’s major campaign donors–there are 10 of them. In total, he raised about $15,000. In fairness to Chafee, he did raise nearly $4,000 from donors whose names do not need to be disclosed because they gave less than $200 each, but still. For some comparison, Bernie Sanders has raised over $41 million from over 65,000 donors.

From the start of his campaign, it has been hard for anyone to really understand why Chafee was running in the first place. While he focused largely on his anti-war views, he was not unique in that respect. Bernie Sanders also opposed the war in Iraq and generally does not support the use of force abroad unless it is absolutely necessary. Chafee also trumpeted his integrity. He has often said, “I am very proud that over my almost 30 years of public service I have had no scandals.” While integrity is certainly something that people should look for in a candidate, it is not the only thing. Most people want someone they can trust, but who also has good ideas and a strong vision for the future–a combination that Lincoln Chafee never quite seemed to communicate.

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 Making Sense of Lincoln Chafee’s Bizarre Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

The crowded 2016 election may get yet another face, but the newest candidate might run on a uniquely one-dimensional platform. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and government reform advocate, launched a presidential exploratory committee this week, but unlike most candidates, Lessig’s potential campaign will focus on reforming politics by removing the influence of money. If elected, he will consider his presidency a mandate to fix the political system–and then promptly step down.

In a video released this week, Lessig announced that if the leading Democratic candidates do not make government reform the single focus of their campaigns, and if he is able to raise $1 million from small donors by Labor Day, he will declare his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. But what truly makes the possibility of Lessig’s campaign unique is his promise to hold the presidency only until meaningful reform is passed, after which he would resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume the presidency. See the video below for Lessig’s announcement:

So what are Lessig’s ideas for government reform? His three-point plan, which he calls the Citizen Equality Act of 2017, involves “the equal right to vote,” “equal representation,” and “citizen funded elections.” This plan combines existing reform policies to, among other things, remove voting barriers, stop gerrymandering, and institute a voucher or public fund matching system for campaign donations.

The underlying problem that Lessig emphasizes is the idea that in the current American political system, every citizen does not enjoy equal representation from elected officials–or in Lessig’s words, “the system is rigged.” Much of this hinges on his issues with the current campaign finance system, in which wealthy donors are able to pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PACs and Social Welfare Organizations (for more information on campaign finance see LawStreet’s explainer here). According to Lessig, all current political issues pale in comparison to what he calls “citizen equality,” because absent this equality, Congress’ agenda will remain controlled by the small number of people who fund their campaigns.

One of the most interesting aspects of Lessig’s announcement is his idea of a “Referendum President,” who would hold office only as long as it takes to enact reform, then promptly resign–allowing the elected Vice President to assume office. If Lessig does run, he intends to make his campaign about his reform package rather than his capacity to carry out the duties of the Presidency.  In his announcement video, Lessig said, “The candidate is the referendum. The campaign is for that referendum.”

This isn’t the first time Lessig has attempted to use novel methods to reform politics. In 2014, he created the Mayday PAC, which spent close to $7.5 million to support Congressional candidates who favor campaign finance reform. While the PAC was not particularly successful–only two of the eight candidates that it supported won their elections in 2014–the idea of using a “Super PAC to end all Super PACs” was certainly unique. This time, however, Lessig seeks to gain a much broader base of support, rather than soliciting support from “50 billionaires.”

Lessig’s campaign may seem like a long shot, and it likely is, but there is a good chance that he will at least launch a campaign. There are two conditions that must be met in order for him to declare his candidacy after Labor Day. First, he must raise $1 million in the next 26 days–he has currently raised nearly $150,000 so far this week. Second, he will only run if no leading Democratic candidate promises to make his reform agenda the primary purpose of their campaign. While several of the candidates have called for campaign finance reform, and some even want a constitutional amendment along those lines, Lessig says that they must do more to make their goals credible.

Another remaining challenge for Lessig is the upcoming Democratic debate. If he does run, he will almost certainly need to participate in the debate in order to have a reasonable shot at the Democratic Nomination. Per the Democratic Party’s rules, candidates must poll at over one percent in at least three national polls to qualify, a threshold that Lessig believes he will be able to reach. In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig said, “If we can be in the debates and frame this issue in a way that becomes compelling, then I think there’s a chance to see it take off.”

While his campaign might be a long shot, if you think campaign finance and political reform are important you may want to keep an eye out for Lessig’s campaign. He may fail to get enough support for a successful campaign, but his efforts could elevate the issue of campaign finance as the 2016 race heats up.

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 Lawrence Lessig: Campaigning to Not Be President appeared first on Law Street.

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president as a Democrat in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week. Sanders, an Independent Senator from Vermont and a self-identified “democratic-socialist,” will seek to represent the left-leaning side of the Democratic Party. While many view his bid for the Democratic nomination as a long shot, he presents the party’s first challenge to Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s campaign has garnered a significant amount of attention in the media and from her Republican challengers, indeed many headlines this week focused on her speech on criminal justice rather than on Sanders’ campaign announcement. However, having a serious challenger to Clinton in the Democratic primary is something that many party members support. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 72 percent of self identifying Democrats and independents think a primary challenger is good for the Democratic Party. While many may question Sanders’ ability to become a significant opponent to Clinton, he has repeatedly said he is “in it to win.”

Describing yourself as a socialist generally does not bode well in American politics, but many of Sanders’ core issues tend to resonate well with populists in the Democratic Party. Sanders is an outspoken critic of Wall Street and identifies economic inequality as one of the most important issues facing the United States. In his interview with the AP, Sanders said, “What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels.”

His opposition to Wall Street and what he calls the “billionaire class” also extends to his desire for campaign finance reform. Sanders actively supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and move toward a public-funding system.

Sanders also has strong appeal among environmentalists as someone who recently voted against the Keystone XL Pipeline, and cosponsored a Senate resolution to acknowledge that climate change exists and is a result of human activity. He has also sponsored legislation that would call for a carbon tax and is a strong proponent of alternative energy. He has a 95 percent rating on the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which evaluates congressional members’ voting records on environmental issues.

As a self-identified socialist, Sanders stands politically to the left of Clinton and many establishment Democrats. He supports expanding medicare to develop a single-payer system for all Americans and has opposed several free trade agreements. He has vocally expressed his opposition to Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as giving the president fast-track authority to pass it without amendments from Congress. Although he supported President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which protects nearly five million illegal immigrants from deportation, he has also said that guest workers may lead to greater unemployment of American low-wage workers.

On some issues, however, Sanders’ positions are in line with a large portion of Americans, particularly those within the Democratic Party. Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which Clinton initially voted for and later came to hurt her 2008 presidential bid. He is also a longtime supporter of same-sex marriage, an issue that has gained increasing public support and currently has a landmark case in front of the Supreme Court.

While many believe that Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic Party’s nomination is a foregone conclusion, Sanders has shown that he intends to do more than force Clinton to discuss the issues that are important to left-leaning Democrats. That said, he is considerably behind in early polling numbers, campaign organization, and fundraising, which will all present important challenges as he tries to become a legitimate challenger. The 73 year old from Brooklyn says that he can appeal to a wide audience because of his role as the longest-serving Independent Senator in American history.

Sanders says, “I’ve run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country.”

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 Independent Senator Bernie Sanders Running For President as Democrat 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.