It all started with a simple statement.

“The Obama administration turned a deaf ear to us and frankly, with President-elect Trump, we feel things are going to move in the right direction,” Matthew LeBretton, the VP of public affairs for New Balance, said to the the Wall Street Journal.

LeBretton said it was taken out of context. However, not quickly or loudly enough, as news of New Balance’s supposed public endorsement went viral.

His response was to a question regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); an initiative backed by President Obama, which Donald Trump vehemently opposed. As the only major shoe company still manufacturing its shoes in the states, New Balance said this program would hurt it.

With the statement coming off to many as an endorsement, people became angry, even to the point of burning their shoes and threatening to boycott the business.

@SoleCollector@newbalance good to know. I made a little bonfire tonight pic.twitter.com/yOdCTbQgac

— skreetware (@milftears) November 10, 2016

Videos of social media users lighting their shoes on fire, throwing them out, and even flushing them (kind of) down the toilet were posted all over social media.

. @Therealtesp@newbalancepic.twitter.com/8vdBRXEJzD

— Marcus H. Johnson (@smoothkobra) November 11, 2016

Just as some people responded with anger, others celebrated.

One such person was Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer, which hails itself as “America’s #1 Most-Trusted Republican News Source.”

“The official shoes of white people” aka New Balance, is trying to fix its PR disaster after Anglin published an article willing his readers to go out and buy New Balance shoes because “their brave act has just made them the official brand of the Trump Revolution.” This endorsement prompted New Balance to reply, trying to distance itself from some of the views of the alt-right.

pic.twitter.com/lXtWlCFkIV

— New Balance (@newbalance) November 15, 2016

“My statements aren’t political, this is policy related solely to TPP.” LeBretton told Buzzfeed News. “I’ve spoken on the record to The Boston Globe and other sources about our opposition to Obama’s footwear tax and the TPP.”

However, this led to Anglin publishing another article about the brand. This time he restated his endorsement and added that “the only logical thing for the company to do at this point would be to come out aggressively in support of Trump and Republicans and our nationalist agenda to make America great again.”

Additionally, he wrote that New Balance is “being attacked by Jews and others” for their statement in support for Trump, and against the TPP.

New Balance is one of many companies Americans are heavily scrutinizing following the election. Journalists and citizens criticized both Google and Facebook for their roles in fake news dissemination, and social media users have been circulating many other companies’ names for being pro-Trump and places to boycott.

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 Did New Balance Really Endorse Trump? appeared first on Law Street.

As of Monday, two of the largest internet sites have decided to cut off fake news outlets from their advertising services.

These moves are a part of a crackdown on the dissemination of false or misleading news that plagued and possibly influenced the recent presidential election.

With growing criticism of both Google and Facebook, each took a stand to not tolerate these sources any longer. Google said on Monday afternoon that it would no longer allow fake news websites to use its online advertising services, according to the New York Times.

Facebook followed, updating its advertising policy in the Facebook Audience Network to include fake news sites in the section prohibiting misleading or false content.

In a statement to the New York Times, a Facebook spokesperson said, “We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news,” and that it will continue to verify people who want to advertise with them.

On Saturday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to his Facebook page to discuss the substantial scrutiny that he and his company have received.

In a Facebook post Zuckerberg wrote:

Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.

In the comments section, one user pointed out that the 1 percent figure seemed awfully low. Zuckerberg clarified his statement, saying that that figure represents the platform as a whole, not individual experiences. Therefore, depending on who or what you follow, you may see more or less fake news on your newsfeed.

Google has also come under fire recently after the top result for the search “Final Vote Count 2016” was linked to the news site 70news, which falsely claimed that Donald Trump had won the popular vote, according to Mediaite.

Google’s top search result for “final election numbers” leads to fake news site with false numbers https://t.co/3DA5ZY6pQk pic.twitter.com/v3GTEvUgW8

— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 14, 2016

One section of the article (falsely) said:

UPDATE 11/14/16: THREE MILLION ILLEGALS VOTED THIS 2016 ELECTION. THAT’S NOT VALID! REMOVE 3 MILLION VOTES FROM HILLARY CLINTON. PLUS THE OTHER VOTE FRAUD. TRUMP BY DEFAULT IS THE WINNER IN THE POPULAR VOTE!

By Monday evening, the article was moved down to the second result. Google relies on algorithms to create search results, and like this example, does not always present accurate information.

With hundreds of different fake or misleading news sites out there, various individuals and groups have compiled their own lists of sites to avoid. Melissa Zimdars, assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, said her list “started as a resource for my students, who are learning about journalism/social media/media literacy.” She breaks up outlets by category, ranking their level of falsehood. She also included satirical sites such as the Onion and the Borowitz Report.

A majority of U.S. adults get their news from social media, rather than traditional news sources, according to a Pew Research Center report. Over 40 percent get their news from Facebook specifically.

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 You’ll Never Believe Why Your Friends Posted so Many Fake News Stories appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday night’s presidential result shocked a whole lot of people in the U.S. and around the world; it stunned those that supported Donald Trump and especially those that supported Hillary Clinton. Shock and surprise, it seems, have also blotted out another equally important fact: Congress will remain red.

Republicans retaining their House majority hardly came as a surprise, but some pundits and polls (we know how accurate both can be) predicted control of the Senate to shift from Republicans to Democrats. That did not happen, and now the White House and Congress belong to the GOP, something that has not happened since 2007.

Heading into Tuesday, there were eight Senate races–out of 34 open seats–presumed to be tossups. From Nevada to Wisconsin, Illinois to North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans were expected to wage bruising battles that could flip either way. In the days preceding Election Day, polls in those eight states were split: Democrats were leading in four. Republicans were leading in four. However, by night’s end, seven of eight ended up in the Republican column, bringing their total number of seats to 51. Democrats control 47 seats. Races in New Hampshire and Louisiana are too close to call.

Democrats were hard pressed to find any good news Tuesday night, though there were some small victories: three states elected a woman of color to the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat with Thai and Vietnamese ancestry beat Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois. Women of color, all Democrats, won in California and Nevada as well. Elsewhere in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) won a decisive re-election bid, which was an uphill battle considering his failed presidential run and his tenuous relationship with Trump.

Republicans will also retain control of the House, and not by a slim margin either: at least 239 seats will be red heading into next year, while 193 will be blue. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who in a speech on Wednesday said Trump now has a “mandate” to govern, held onto his district seat in Wisconsin. A few districts have yet to call a result. The 115th U.S. Congress will convene on January 3, roughly two weeks before Trump is set to take the oval office.

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 Election 2016: Republicans Retain Control of Congress appeared first on Law Street.

The Huffington Post discontinued its editor’s note labeling Donald Trump a “racist” and “xenophobe” after he was declared the president-elect earlier this morning.

In a note to readers, the online publication opted for a “clean slate” by removing a note that appeared at the end of nearly every article documenting Trump’s candidacy, which read:

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Ryan Grim, Washington bureau chief for The Huffington Post, explained that the site will continue to hold Trump accountable when necessary, writing:

Where we find fault in how Trump governs, we won’t hesitate to call it out. If he encroaches on the norms of our democracy, if he targets minority groups or other vulnerable elements of the population, we won’t hesitate to say so loudly and clearly. If he follows his worst instincts and caters to the klatch of white supremacists who endorsed him, we won’t flinch from calling him racist. But we have hope that the man we saw on the trail at his worst moments is not the man who will enter the White House.

POLITICO reported that Grim sent a memo to staff members that further explained the decision to remove the note.

“The thinking is that (assuming he wins) that he’s now president and we’re going to start with a clean slate,” Grim wrote. “If he governs in a racist, misogynistic way, we reserve the right to add it back on. This would be giving respect to the office of the presidency which Trump and his backers never did.”

According to some Huffington Post sources, the removal of the note was part of the outlet’s plan the entire time.

“This note was added to stories about presidential candidate Donald Trump during the election cycle,” said Huffington Post spokeswoman Sujata Mitra. “Now that the election is over, we will no longer be adding the note to future stories, as he is no longer a presidential candidate.”

The news outlet initially placed its coverage of Trump in its entertainment section instead of its politics section.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Huffington Post Drops Donald Trump Editor’s Note appeared first on Law Street.

In the first part of Law Street’s look at the presidential candidates’ environmental policies, we evaluated Donald Trump’s plan to deregulate the energy industry and peel back many of the existing efforts to address climate change. His plans largely focus on undoing as many regulations as possible to allow greater operational freedom to American businesses and using his executive powers to undo previous president’s attempts to protect certain areas of land from fracking and mining.

In the second part, we will review Hillary Clinton’s environmental record and policy proposals. Since Donald Trump’s plans focus more toward energy production rather than protecting the environment and combating climate change, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton’s positions do more from an environmental perspective. She has committed to some extremely ambitious goals with regards to renewable energy implementation. At the same time, she has chosen to forgo several of the traditionally recommended policy tools used to combat climate change, such as the carbon tax. Are her plans really attainable or are they just empty claims used to attract alienated far left voters to her side? Is she even likely to follow through on her promises based on her political track record? Read on to find out.

Read Part One: Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy?

Hillary Clinton the Environmentalist?

In stark contrast to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton believes in climate change, believes it’s man made, and believes it’s an urgent threat. She has publicly spoken on the importance of combating climate change since the early 2000s; however, her legislative track record on major issues doesn’t always indicate that she’s driven by environmental interests. When asked her position on current issues related to the environment, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, she has often avoided taking a stance. Clinton chose not to take a final position on the Keystone XL Pipeline for over a year, even stating that she wished to declare a position after the election ended. But in September 2015, she announced her formal opposition to the pipeline.

Whether you interpret this as anti-environment is up for debate; Clinton has maintained that her lack of a stance on the issue stemmed largely from the fact that the analysis of whether the pipeline was beneficial to national interest was incomplete. If you see her lack of a choice as her withholding a stance until all the facts were clear, then her decision is understandable. However, many environmental activists, including her primary challenger Bernie Sanders, saw the issue as much more simple: the pipeline endangers U.S. waterways and sets the United States on a track toward dependence on oil instead of investing and committing to renewables. Your interpretation of her stance largely depends on how hard-line of an environmentalist you are.

“Secretary Clinton Speaks at a Press Conference” courtesy of United States Mission Geneva; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

As Secretary of State, she openly supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics claim would prevent individual countries from being able to establish environmental trade regulations. Critics also argue that the TPP openly supports anti-environmental practices such as over-fishing and deforestation. As the Trans-Pacific Partnership evolved it has been modified to include wildlife protection mechanisms to promote the sustainable management of forested zones and fisheries. However, most of these efforts are considered to be small in scale, without any monitoring system in place and the long lasting negative impacts of the TPP are projected to outweigh any potential benefits.

Read More: Growing Holes in Our Ocean’s Fisheries

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has reversed her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well–recently coming out against the final deal, while having supported the effort during her term as Secretary of State. It bears noting that Donald Trump has historically opposed the TPP on the grounds that it will damage American manufacturing. If Clinton hadn’t doubled back on her original stance, this would make the deal one of few issues where Trump is effectively taking a more  environmentally progressive position.

Voting Record

Clinton’s voting record also tells a confusing story. While serving as a Senator she voted for a variety of small-scale bills supported by environmental groups and co-sponsored a number of unsuccessful bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But she’s also given her support to several policies that have had seriously detrimental effects on the environment. Possibly the most notable example of this is Clinton supporting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the legendary bill that gave hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and allocated only a fraction of this money to renewables. The bill also contained Dick Cheney’s infamous Halliburton Loophole, which gave fracking companies special permission to inject toxic chemicals underground and essentially opened the doors for hydrofracking within the United States.

Hillary Clinton has also taken flack over the years for taking donations from fossil fuel interests. According to the most recent analysis by Open Secrets, Clinton has raised a total of $2,203,018 from energy employees, with $2,167,333 of this going to the campaign and the remaining $35,685 going to associated Super PACs. While there’s no way to connect the money she’s taken directly with particular policy decisions, some have claimed that this represents a conflict of interest in terms of her claims of being an environmentalist. Given her confusing voting record, recent shifts on controversial issues and her willingness to take fossil fuel funds, many accuse Clinton of green-washing her public persona for the election, especially in order to compete with Bernie Sanders’ pull with the environmentally-minded millennial generation. Objectively speaking, Hillary Clinton has supported environmentalism out loud but has generally done little to help the movement and on several occasions has directly supported policies that will hurt the environment.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Of the two front-runners, Hillary Clinton is the only one with an environmental policy at all, unless you call dismantling E.P.A. regulations an environmental policy. She has publicly committed to supporting and building upon President Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as ensuring that the United States lives up to its COP 21 Paris Agreement commitments. Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta have both stated that while she would like to see a carbon tax imposed, given the current makeup of Congress such a law would be highly unlikely to pass. In its place, Clinton is committing to more achievable goals, which include increasing funding for renewables, research and development, and energy efficiency, all in the context of increasing American jobs. Even though she has voted for large subsidies for fossil fuel companies in the past, she currently advocates for cutting back funding for oil and gas interests and she has proposed getting rid of tax expenditures for the fossil fuel industry.

With regard to renewable energy, Hillary Clinton has an incredibly aggressive plan to increase proliferation of renewables throughout the country. The plan has two main parts, the first being the goal of installing half of a billion solar panels across the nation during Clinton’s first term. The second is to generate enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home within a decade. To do this she wants to expand upon the Clean Power Plan with a Clean Power Challenge, which would utilize competitive grants, tax incentives, and other market-based incentives to encourage and enable states to independently work toward renewable proliferation. The challenge also places a huge emphasis on updating the grid, improving its infrastructure, and thus also the reliability and efficiency with which it transmits energy. The challenge would include the creation of a fund or a prize that would help enable low-income families and communities to install rooftop solar panels. In addition to increasing renewable energy implementation in American communities, Clinton has championed utilizing public land in the West for solar arrays and wind farms as well as opening up offshore wind farming.

If these goals sound incredibly lofty and ambitious it’s because they are. In fact, they are more ambitious than really anything proposed by anyone before, with the possible exception of Clinton’s primary challenger Bernie Sanders. Many critics have projected that it would be literally impossible to make such a policy work without a carbon tax to make renewables competitive with America’s incredibly cheap natural gas supply. The fact that Clinton has chosen to not pursue a carbon tax and instead attempt to pass smaller scale measures through Congress have made many skeptical that she’s not going to be able to actually do enough to turn her plan into reality.

Realistically, she’s almost certainly right that a carbon tax wouldn’t make it through Congress, but it’s pretty unclear if her alternative plan would be any more welcome. The Clean Power Challenge would cost $60 billion, and its main selling point to Republicans would be that it is designed to create new job opportunities. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the challenge’s commitment to renewable energy flies against what the majority of Republicans are interested in supporting. To bypass Congressional gridlock, Clinton’s plan places a strong focus on using executive power to make these things happen. While it’s not Clinton’s fault, there’s only so much she’ll be able to accomplish solely through executive action; large chunks of her plan will certainly require Congressional approval.

So What Can Actually be Accomplished?

There have been numerous claims over the years that if X or Y region was properly utilized, it could provide enough energy to power the entire United States. While it is technically possible to power this country completely with renewable energy, these claims are often touted by people who don’t understand the engineering behind energy systems or by people with a zealous and innocent belief in what policymakers are capable of or willing to do. Currently, one of the most comprehensive plans for how the United States could run on 100 percent renewable energy has been created by renewable research heavyweight Mark Z. Jacobson and the Standford Precourt Center for Energy. Even this highly ambitious plan projects that if the necessary massive social and economic change were to happen in order to make such policies possible, and it was followed to the letter, the United States still wouldn’t be able to convert fully until 2050. One of the biggest impediments to such a nationwide conversion to renewable energy is that it would require every fuel source to be changed, including the liquid fuel we use to power our cars, trucks, boats, and planes. To completely transform the American transportation sector is a borderline impossible goal because while a solar panel or a wind turbine can feasibly connect to and power any home, most of our cars still run on gas. Electric cars just don’t have the mass circulation that would make such a change possible and to completely eliminate gas-powered cars would go against fair business laws.

What’s truly interesting about Clinton’s renewable plan is that she’s one of the first major politicians to call for opening up the use of offshore wind farming. There’s a good reason why the coastal regions of the United States have been called the “Saudi Arabia of Wind.” There is a massive amount of unused energy lying along our coasts that has been incredibly difficult to tap into thus far due to the extremely high cost of launching such projects, combined with the many public interests that bitterly oppose the industry. It is nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to live up to her goal of powering the United States on 100 percent renewable energy. However, if she aggressively pursues spreading renewable energy throughout American communities, on public lands and offshore, she could still have a gigantic impact on our renewable energy makeup. The real question is whether she’d actually be able to make any of that happen or if her efforts will be completely blocked off by Congress. Unfortunately, we will simply have to wait and see what happens if she’s elected.

One of the more original and intriguing elements of Clinton’s plan is her proposal to create a Western Water Partnership with the goal of coordinating water use between the West Coast states and the different agencies that control water use within the region. Furthermore, she has proposed creating a Water Innovation Lab dedicated to utilizing and recycling water more efficiently. This proposal is one of the first of its kind in terms of addressing water scarcity in the West on a large scale and could be part of a much-needed solution to help alleviate the burden of the California drought. Clinton has also called for significant revisions to water infrastructure in the United States, including dams, sewage, and waste water systems. This is actually one of few ideas that she and Trump might actually agree on; Trump has stated that he believes water to be a vital issue and that it’s crucial that we update our water infrastructure. However, unlike Clinton, he has given no details on how to do this and has stated that he wants to remove restrictions on drilling near waterways, which would ultimately worsen the American water crisis. Clinton has also promised to protect public lands and prioritize wildlife conservation, in stark contrast to Trump’s announcement that he would open up all federally protected land to oil and gas companies.

Conclusion

Neither candidate has a sterling history of environmentalism, but only one candidate has actually made a commitment to combat climate change. If Trump were to become president, it would be possible for him to hinder progressive environmental policy by replacing the EPA leadership with climate deniers while fighting to remove environmental regulations. If his preferred candidates to lead the EPA were to get approval from Congress, then it would be feasible for him to undo a lot of the progress that has been made thus far with American environmentalism.

Clinton has a spotty record when it comes to the environment and has made dubious choices about many important issues in the past, such as the Energy Policy Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, her current environmental platform has made her commitment to the environment clear and she has doubled back on all of her previous controversial positions (at least with regard to the environment). Whether her current stance is due to green-washing for the 2016 election, or due to Obama’s legacy of the Clean Power Plan influencing her opinions, or due to Bernie Sanders forcing her to move further to the left in the primaries, the end result is that she’s pursuing an aggressively progressive environmental policy. Whether her methods to make that policy a reality will be effective remains to be seen, but when it comes to environmental policy, Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate.

Resources

The Atlantic: How Green is Hillary Clinton?

Business Insider: Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

Democracy Now: How Much Money has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Taken from Fossil Fuel Companies?

Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Fact Check: Clinton’s Fossil Fuel Money Revisited

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on E.P.A. Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

High Country News: Are Hillary Clinton’s Clean Energy Goals Achievable?

Hillary Clinton Fact Sheets: Renewable Energy Vision

National Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups say Trans-Pacific Partnership will Hurt the Environment

New York Times: Clinton’s Ambitious Clean Power Plan Would Avoid Carbon Tax

NPR: Fact Check: More on Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuel Industry Contributions

Open Secrets: Hillary Clinton

Politico: Clinton Says her Keystone XL Position Isn’t a Flip Flop

Politico: Hacked emails from John Podesta: Clinton Disses Environmentalists in Private Meetings with Unions

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Disaster for Climate Change

Scientific American: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Combat Climate Change

Sierra Club: Trans Pacific Partnership

The Washington Post: Campaign Finance 2016

The Washington Post: Bernie Sanders Thumps Hillary Clinton for Keeping Mum on the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Washington Post: Energy Bill Raises Fear about Pollution, Fraud

The Washington Post: Fact Checking the Campaigns for and against the TPP Trade Deal

The White House: What Environmental and Conservation Advocates are Saying about the TPP’s Environmental Chapter

Vote Smart: Hillary Clinton’s Voting Records

Vox: Here’s What it Would take for the U.S. to Run on 100% Renewable Energy

Time: Lobbyists Celebrate Democratic Party’s New Embrace at Convention

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Jill Stein is the nominee of the Green Party, a left-wing party focusing on environmentalism, grassroots democracy, and social justice. Stein, from Chicago, attended Harvard Medical School and practiced internal medicine in Massachusetts for 25 years. She has run for Governor of Massachusetts, the House of Representatives, other local Massachusetts offices, and was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2012. She has served as a Town of Lexington Town Meeting Representative, but has lost her other bids for public office.

Where does Jill Stein stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Jill Stein calls for an economic solution that alleviates economic inequality while simultaneously working toward a greener economy. She calls for such initiatives as a $15 minimum wage, job creation by urging the clean energy industry forward, and democratizing banks, the federal reserve, and public utilities.

Gun Rights and Control:

Stein advocates improving community mental health resources, ending the culture of drug violence, and legalizing marijuana as mechanisms to reduce gun violence. She is in favor of increased local regulation and background checks.

Healthcare:

Jill Stein hopes to replace the Affordable Care Act by extending Medicare to everybody with a single payer public health program. In Stein’s platform, she also advocates lowering the cost of prescription drugs, expanding access to contraceptives and abortion, and enhancing community health resources.

Immigration:

Stein hopes to establish a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, supports the DREAM act and deferred action for immigrants, and condemns the deportation of law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Privacy and National Security:

In her platform, Stein expresses dedication to personal security and privacy. She supports the deauthorization of Guantanamo Bay, termination of the executive power to indefinitely imprison citizens, and other top-heavy gestures of national security. Stein also supports the repeal of the Patriot Act.

What are Jill Stein’s priorities?

Jill Stein places high priority on addressing climate change, an unfair economy that caters to corporations and the rich, and social injustice. Her platform consists of 12 points; transitioning to a green economy, establishing jobs, education, and health care as rights, ending poverty, creating a just economy, fostering racial justice, protecting mother earth, freedom and equality, justice, peace and human rights, and empowering the people.

How is Jill Stein polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Jill Stein is currently polling at 2 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Jill Stein? appeared first on Law Street.

Governor Gary Johnson is the nominee of the Libertarian Party, a party that places heavy emphasis on fiscal conservatism, limited government, and civil liberties. After studying political science at the University of New Mexico, Johnson founded Big J Enterprises. The construction contracting business became a lucrative success before he sold it in 1999. Johnson ran for Governor of New Mexico in 1994, won, and held that office from 1995-2003. During his tenure, Johnson drastically cut the size of the state government, lowered taxes, favored privatization of services like prisons and Medicaid, and was known for frequently exercising veto power. Johnson was also the Libertarian Party nominee in 2012.

Where does he stand on some of the prevalent issues of 2016?

Economy:

Many of Gary Johnson’s high-priority proposals have to do with Libertarian revisions to the economy. Johnson wants to end the corporate income tax to draw companies and jobs to the U.S., introduce a single consumption tax, and cut government spending by at least 20 percent.   

Immigration:

According to Johnson’s platform, he believes that making it easier for immigrants to legally obtain work visas and enter the U.S. will create a safer national environment. Johnson opposes an increase in border security and building a border wall.

Gun Rights and Control:

Johnson strongly defends gun ownership and wants to seek provisions to make it more difficult for individuals suspected of terrorism and mentally ill individuals to obtain guns.

Health Care:

Gary Johnson favors the repeal of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for privatized healthcare based on free market principles. Johnson has expressed intentions to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. He also supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.

Privacy and National Security:

In line with Libertarian Party ideology, Johnson is in fierce defense of personal privacy. He has expressed intention to dismantle the National Security Agency (NSA) if elected. In his book, “Seven Principles of Good Government,” Johnson also expressed that the Patriot Act should be repealed. His platform expresses fierce opposition to foreign military intervention.

What are Gary Johnson’s priorities?

Gary Johnson places strong emphasis on civil liberties, government downsizing, and the private, laissez-faire economic strategy. His platform consists of 13 points: wasteful spending, taxes, job creation, civil liberties, internet freedom, abortion, immigration, the war on drugs, criminal justice reform, education, foreign policy and national defense, creation of term limits and the environment.

Who is Gary Johnson’s vice president pick?

William “Bill” Weld, like Gary Johnson is a former Libertarian-Republican governor. Weld has served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, and as Governor of Massachusetts from (1991-1997). He was also nominated as Ambassador to Mexico, ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts in 1996, and was a candidate for Governor of New York in 2005. While Governor of Massachusetts, Weld had a similar track record to Johnson. He cut taxes, pursued the elimination of state employees and privatization of human services, and drastically reduced state spending.

How is Gary Johnson polling?

According to the last national poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on July 30, Gary Johnson is currently polling at 6 percent.

You can read here about the other third party candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who is Gary Johnson? appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton released a technology and innovation policy platform with a myriad of initiatives to expand internet accessibility, support STEM entrepreneurs, and more. The brief is full of bold ideas to revitalize the American economy through the outlet of technological innovation and proposes initiatives like deferring student loans for periods of 3 years for young entrepreneurs and expanding broadband internet access to every American household by 2020.

This is in stark contrast to Donald Trump who only has seven published platform points, none of which focus on technology and only one—tax reform—which really discusses American economy. In fact, some of Trump’s only comments on the topic of technology  have been calling to “close up parts of the internet.”

#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK

— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

This paired with his opposition to net neutrality has pretty clearly put tech and open-internet advocates in Clinton’s court.

Hillary Clinton’s plan for innovation and technology is more than a favorable political contrast; it is a comprehensive plan for expanding technology, internet access and quality, and the culture of innovation in the U.S.

The plan consists of five core points;

• Investing in technology to create jobs
• Investing in digital infrastructure
• Advancing America’s global technology leadership
• Promoting innovation while protecting privacy
• Engineering a more innovative government

Within these points are many specific proposals that tech advocates are fawning over such as defending net neutrality, engaging the private sector to create 50,000 computer science educators, and expanding internet access to more public places.

Despite having so many specific policy proposals, Clinton’s plan retains an overarching message to appeal to all voters; technology should not be exclusive but should act as an equalizer to allow anybody to become an entrepreneur and innovator.

The plan invests equally in industry and communities through proposals like offering loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to entrepreneurs who start businesses in “distressed areas,” improving copyright and patent systems, and offering grants to cities to expand low cost, high quality internet.

Though the plan is more far-reaching than a defense of net neutrality and goals to extend computer science education, it truly is a full economic policy agenda with initiatives to create jobs, reduce college debt, closing corporate loopholes and more. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s avenue to achieve these goals is technological innovation is emblematic of her commitment to the future and to opportunity.

While the plan has been met with some skepticism that Clinton is pandering to Silicon Valley-ites and concerns that the plan is too far-reaching to be achieved without a completely cooperative Congress abound, the plan is at the least evidence that Hillary Clinton and her team have a fantastic understanding of creating complex, cohesive policy that promotes progressive economic goals.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton Releases Tech Agenda Aiming to Equalize the Internet appeared first on Law Street.

I was so distracted during Trump’s speech that I almost missed it entirely. No, it wasn’t from looking at videos on my computer or even using my phone…it was because I was fixated on Chris Christie, nestled in the back left-hand corner of the TV screen, who looked far from okay.

Presidential hopeful Donald Trump addressed a crowd in Florida after garnering some lofty Super Tuesday wins. Former presidential hopeful and current governor of New Jersey Chris Christie introduced Trump, but it wasn’t the introduction that made observers concerned for Christie’s safety.

It was in the time after he spoke, while Trump gave his spiel, when it happened. Christie stood behind Trump, expressionless, gazing off into the distance as if to ponder why he had made the decision to speak at the rally.

.@ChrisChristie just gave what looked like a coerced confession.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) March 2, 2016

Chris Christie trying to figure out how the hell this happened to him https://t.co/5buKrSM9pG

— Nick Robinson (@Babylonian) March 2, 2016

He looked like he was forced to be there, and his strange mannerisms quickly manifested themselves into a meme all over Twitter–trending with #FreeChrisChristie.

Washington Post’s Alexandra Petri put it best:

“Chris Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly. I have never seen someone scream so loudly without using his mouth before. It would have been remarkable if it had not been so terrifying.”

— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 2, 2016

So lifeless, yet so full of regret.

Many have likened his appearance and strange facial expressions to that of a hostage video.

My gooodness Chris Christie looks like he’s appearing in a hostage video. #SuperTuesday

— Mark D. Levine (@MarkLevineNYC) March 2, 2016

Gonna need Chris Christie to hold up a copy of today’s newspaper to prove this is not a prerecorded hologram hostage video

— Tim Mak (@timkmak) March 2, 2016

Christie endorsed “Mr. Trump” this past Friday, a move that shocked many after he had been so critical of the front-runner’s tactics and rhetoric.

As a man who had once said Trump was running not for commander-in-chief but instead for “entertainer-in-chief,” his comments Tuesday night were, to put it mildly, a complete 180.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesdaypic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

Maybe it’s because the New Hampshire Union Leader recently apologized for endorsing Christie, or because six New Jersey newspapers just asked for his resignation. Maybe we’ll never know. Regardless of what was really going through his head during the speech, we are worried about you Chris Christie.

SEE IT: The many faces of @GovChristiehttps://t.co/GzmrwggTfzpic.twitter.com/T4Vod1wjwk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 2, 2016

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 Is Chris Christie Okay? appeared first on Law Street.

Monday night, Donald Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters at a rally before New Hampshire’s primary. In response to a statement about his opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, a crowd member yelled, “He’s a pussy!”

Trump responded by repeating the slur, but in the context of a reprimand.

“You’re not allowed to say that…” Trump said. “…I never expect to hear that from you again.”

Then, looking out over his audience of prospective voters, he added, “She said he’s a pussy.”

His statement was met by raucous cheering, and a bit of a “what can you do” attitude from Trump.

Watch the whole charming moment below:

Trump, Trump, Trump…this could have been your moment to rise above the childish antics your campaign has been associated with! Instead, in the guise of taking the high road, you chose to insult your opponent with immature name-calling.

Someone deserves a time out.

Now, let’s talk about the word “pussy” for a moment. When someone uses the word “pussy” they are usually referring to one of three things:

1. a feline,
2. a woman’s vagina, or
3. a person who is weak.

The third definition, and the colloquialism Trump and his supporter used in the video above, is actually meant to be a shortened version of the word “pusillanimous” which does mean “showing a lack of courage or determination.”

Unfortunately, if you were to ask the average person on the street, they would assume the insult is in reference to the second definition: a vagina.

But wait a second! Why would weakness ever be associated with vaginas? Aren’t they super strong?

The answer is, yes! However, the association of female genitalia with weakness is the result of a patriarchal society. It even inserts itself into our day-to-day language. Look no further than the phrase “grow some balls,” which implies the person growing said balls would gain bravery and strength to accomplish a task or goal.

Trevor Noah on why it’s nonsensical that calling someone a ‘pussy’ should be an insult. #gendermatters #gender pic.twitter.com/NXIFr5177W

— Matthias Lehmann (@yongsagisa) December 8, 2015

So, Mr. Trump’s supporter, and Mr. Trump himself, didn’t just use the classic bullying technique of degrading by name-calling. No, they attempted to degrade Senator Cruz with a word that shouldn’t even be used for degradation. (Unless Trump knows the word pusillanimous, which I sincerely doubt.)

Let this be a lesson to us all: the word “pussy” in its iteration as a slur is really an insult to women. Let’s just stop, okay?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s Stop Using the P-Word as an Insult appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview with comedian Bill Maher on Friday, feminist activist and bestselling author Gloria Steinem–along with her usual dose of humor-laced progressive statements–said something that was not so progressive. In fact, in their discussion of young female activism and the 2016 Democratic party candidates, Steinem’s statements sounded, dare I say it, sexist. She implied that young women only make decisions based on their love life, and that older generations of women are wiser because of their years dealing with oppression:

Women are more for [Clinton] than men are … First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience … Not to over-generalize, but … men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.

And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.

Women were quick to take to social media after Steinem’s statements, starting the hashtag #NotHereForBoys.

Let @GloriaSteinem know – we are here to ORGANIZE for and #NotHereForBoys: https://t.co/Iufi6VthIn#FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/hp8dcUOwGf

— People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) February 7, 2016

#NotHereForBoys. I support @BernieSanders because he stand for #climate action and workers’ rights.

— Aly Johnson-Kurts (@AlyJohnsonKurts) February 7, 2016

>@GloriaSteinem I’m here to elect a candidate not beholden to wall street donation. I’m #NotHereForBoys

— Moumita Ahmed (@MouBerningluv) February 7, 2016

I’m a 2 tour combat vet, here to vote for taxing big banks and businesses, civil rights, free tuition, universal healthcare. #NotHereForBoys

— sarah leifheit (@fleurdesarah) February 7, 2016

I never thought I’d see the day where I was thoroughly insulted by @GloriaSteinem #NotHereForBoys #FeelTheBern #IActuallyHaveABrain ✋

— Chrissy (@Christinker) February 6, 2016

Feminists, especially those feeling the Bern, have been left flabbergasted by Steinem’s statement. It comes from a woman who has praised millennial women for their activism, and who has actually endorsed Bernie as an “honorary woman” during one of his past campaigns. Bernie is, arguably, the most radical candidate in the presidential race, throwing a wrench into her theory that women radicalize as they age. What makes it worse is that Bill Maher, who is funny but sometimes walks the line separating humor and sexism, turned it back around on her, pointing out that if he had said the same thing Steinem probably would have reprimanded him. So what gives?

It goes without saying that, whatever your political stance, you should choose which candidate best matches your beliefs. And while it may have been true when Steinem was in her 20s that women changed their opinions to find men, it certainly is not the case today.

Watch the entire interview below.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Feminist Gloria Steinem Faces Backlash From Bernie Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

The tradition of making resolutions for a bright new year goes all the way back to the Babylonians, but the most common goals hardly ever change. You know the ones: lose weight and get fit, save more money, have a more exciting love life, etc.

Of course, by the time February 1 rolls around, those gym memberships are no longer used, your bank account isn’t looking any happier, and the closest you’ve come to meeting potential new love interests is binge-watching the last season of “Downton Abbey.”

So, how about this year, you make some resolutions that are not only easy to keep, but benefit humanity?

1. Become more politically involved.

In 2015, millennials became the largest living generation in the U.S., surpassing the number of baby boomers. That means adults ages 18-34 make up the majority of voters for the 2016 election.

In other words, our votes DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

But it goes beyond voting. Becoming more involved in your local political scene is one of the best ways to start utilizing your right as an American citizen to influence the policy of this country.

You don’t have to go so far as door-knocking for your favorite candidates, but at least research the elections that are happening in your district, city, county and state. Vote not only in the general election, but in your state’s primary or caucus. Know who your representatives, senators and councilmen are, and what they stand for.

Finally, pinpoint the issues you most care about, and start supporting the candidates who represent your opinions.

2. Treat everyone equally, and demand equal treatment for yourself

If you’ve read my blogs before you know that treating everyone equally, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, is the main definition of feminism. So, yeah, this year, resolve to embrace the title “feminist” and all that goes with it. This means no longer subscribing to gender roles dictated by society, and pointing out those antiquated gender roles when you see them in action. It means accepting everyone for their life choices, whether that means they run with a different political party, practice a different religion or come from a different country. And it means going into every conversation and debate with an open mind.

Of course, being a feminist also means you must stand up for yourself when others discriminate against you. That co-worker who is always making sexist comments? Call them out. Feel you deserved a raise but didn’t receive it? Talk to your boss. If you feel the inclination, join a rally for gender equality. Do something as small or as big as you want, and encourage others to do the same.

3. Be more charitable

No, this doesn’t necessarily suggest you need to be dumping ice-cold buckets of water on your head. Instead, donate your time to an organization you care about. Donate blood at a blood drive. If you’re affluent enough, become a monthly donor to a charity.

Basically, ask yourself what causes are important to you, and start helping those causes.

In the end, make some resolutions to make the world a better place. Here’s to you and a fabulous 2016.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Year’s Resolutions You Should Actually Make appeared first on Law Street.

Well hello there strangers! Long time no see. It has been a busy few months for me, but I’m happy to be back and contributing to Law Street once again. Especially as we are well into presidential campaign season, and that provides endless fodder for social commentary–which of course I enjoy watching and participating in from the safety of my desk.

Given that it is 2015 and the Internet plays a larger role than ever in the day-to-day lives of American voters, it is no shock that the 2016 election will be one for the history books. That fact is already evident, as the front-runners on either side of the political divide are a woman, a Democratic Socialist, and a hairpiece!

Don’t even get me started on him.

Heated political debates run rampant across social media platforms, as they always do, but are joined by viral videos, .gifs and even memes of candidates that are strategically released to try and sway voters one way or another.

The key word here, of course, is “voters,” and if you are over 18 and a United States citizen–that means you! You, the person sitting on their couch watching Netflix, who shared that video of Bernie Sanders on “Late Night with Seth Myers,” or followed the Texts from Hillary Clinton tumblr account. You, weighing the pros and cons of jumping in a Facebook comment feed about the difference between Socialism and Communism. You, an average American citizen, who might not be a Democrat or a Republican, but falls somewhere in between.

It does not matter who you support or what you believe in; if you don’t back those beliefs up by using your right to vote at caucuses, primaries or general elections, you are missing out on a huge opportunity to make a difference. I know it sounds cliche to say this, but it is not a lie that every vote counts.

Now, I have to back up my “go vote!” message with a word of caution: do your research. Since the Internet is such an enormous tool for the 2016 elections, it follows that NOT EVERYTHING YOU READ ONLINE IS TRUE.

I know, shocking. *Calls for smelling salts.*

Beware before you share, my friends. Take a closer look at that website with the article called “PROOF!  [insert candidate name here] IS A NAZI!”. Does it also have a bunch of other articles about conspiracy theories with no actual facts backing it up? If you search for it on Snopes.com, does it say “FALSE” in big red letters? Exactly. Instead of searching for inflammatory information on candidates you dislike, focus on the candidates you do like, and don’t believe everything your Facebook friends post. What issues are the most important to you? Which candidates support your opinion on those issues most thoroughly? These are the types of questions you must ask yourself. Being an educated voter is just as important as being a voter in the first place.

So go, register, and enjoy your right to have a say in who runs our country. I certainly will.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If You Don’t Vote, Your Opinion Won’t Matter appeared first on Law Street.

Although the Republican field for 2016 presidential nominees is quickly becoming as crowded as a particularly small clown car, the Democratic field is starting to get some new contenders as well. As of today, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has just joined the crowd.

O’Malley went back to his roots for the announcement, to the city of Baltimore where he was once mayor. He in some ways embraced the controversy and violence that the city has been experiencing after the recent death of Freddie Gray, pointing out that it is a symptom of larger American problems. He stated:

What took place here was not only about race, not only about policing in America. It was about everything it is supposed to mean to be an American.

While that’s a compelling talking point, O’Malley’s strongest point to his campaign appeared to be his determination to set himself apart from the current Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley appears to be positioning himself as left of Clinton (although of course not as far left as fellow candidate Senator Bernie Sanders) and a new voice in comparison to the Bush and Clinton families. One of the lines in his announcement took a shot at both Clinton and presumed Republican contender Jeb Bush. O’Malley stated:

Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he’d be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. Well, I’ve got news for the bullies of Wall Street—the presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

Yet O’Malley has an uphill battle–exactly because of that moderate, outsider status he purports to represent. Clinton has long been viewed as a strong leader who is inevitably going to win the Democratic nomination–according to Real Clear Politics she’s polling at an average of 63.6 percent. Based on the same polls at a distant second (12.5 percent) is Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has said multiple times that she’s not running. Vice President Joe Biden–also not declared–is polling at 10 percent. Sanders is just behind him at almost 9 percent. Next, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chaffee have 2.6 and 1.8 percent respectively. O’Malley finally clocks in at just under one percent.

Those aren’t particularly good odds–and that’s probably because there’s been nothing particularly exciting about O’Malley yet. While he may be running as a more liberal counterpoint to Clinton, he’s not as liberal as Sanders. To position yourself between two more dynamic and beloved candidates isn’t really a winning strategy.

Whether or not O’Malley actually has a shot will probably depend on Clinton herself. At this point, the Democratic nomination is pretty much hers to lose–a big scandal or health scare could do her in, but it seems like a pretty long shot. While O’Malley joining the race has made it a bit more crowded, she’s still standing on a very pretty pedestal.

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 Does Martin O’Malley Actually Stand a Chance? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s only May 2015 and already the Republican field vying for the 2016 presidential nomination feels awfully crowded. In anticipation of this very crowded field, various outlets that host the presidential debates are already taking steps to limit the number of candidates who will be able to participate in the nationally televised debates. Given the notoriety and celebrity status required to win the nomination in this day and age, this could sink some candidates’ campaigns before they even really begin.

In terms of candidates who have already declared, we have Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio. There’s also former Governor Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson, and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It’s also speculated that some combination of former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham, Governor Chris Christie, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor John Kasich, and business mogul Donald Trump will declare at some point relatively soon. At my count that could be well over a dozen candidates, and I’m sure there are at least a few I’m missing or who will come out of the woodwork to declare.

In light of this potentially huge field, both Fox News and CNN, who are hosting debates in August and September, respectively, have declared that they’re only going to allow the top ten candidates on stage to duke it out for the GOP nomination.

Those announcements, of course, raised plenty of questions, because there’s no good way to determine who the “top ten” candidates are before a single vote is even cast. According to Fox News, the candidates have to “place in the top ten of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” CNN has announced that it will be using a slightly different metric:

The first ten candidates—ranked from highest to lowest in polling order from an average of all qualifying polls released between July 16 and September 10 who satisfy the criteria requirements … will be invited to participate in ‘Segment B’ of the September 16, 2015 Republican Presidential Primary Debate.

Either way, Fox and CNN are both taking steps to ensure that the candidates that they allow on stage for the debates are ones who have a fighting chance–although when considering the crowdedness of the field, this may come down to a few percentage points between candidates who make the cut and those who don’t.

With that in mind, apparently CNN has also announced that it’ll give candidates who don’t make the cut for the main debate but who are polling about 1 percent in three national polls the opportunity to speak in a different segment of the September debate.

Given the sheer craziness that was trying to watch the Republican debates in 2012 and the Democratic debates in 2008, both of which had plenty of candidates (although less than 10), it makes sense that the news outlets want to limit the amount of candidates speaking. If they were to go above ten, there would be hardly enough time for each candidate to be able to say anything useful about his or her platform. That being said, missing out on national exposure will end up hurting the lesser-known candidates, and could end up culling the field on the earlier side than past election cycles.

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 You’re Not Invited: Republican Candidates Vie for Debate Spots 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 midterms are finally over (thank God/the universe/Oprah) so now we can all go back to real life. Just kidding — it’s practically presidential election time. Your attention span and patience are ready for that, right? Well before you get into that, take a look at some of the top stores from Law Street last week that you might have missed in all the excitement. It was a clean sweep for writer Anneliese Mahoney who wrote all three of the top articles on Law Street last week. Number one is Mahoney’s take on Taylor Swift’s latest album and her decision to pull all her work from popular streaming music site Spotify; number two is an in-depth look at the three states with major marijuana legislation on last Tuesday’s ballots; and number three was a shout out who is generally accepted as the country’s youngest new elected official, Saira Blair of West Virginia. ICYMI, take a look at Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1: Taylor Swift and Spotify: Never Ever, Ever Getting Back Together?

Taylor Swift made waves this week when she pulled all of her music from the popular streaming site Spotify. The 24-year-old singer-songwriter’s newest album, “1989,” was never put on the site, and her older music can no longer be found there. Read full article here.

#2: States to Watch Today: Marijuana on the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, and DC

It’s been a truly whirlwind few years for marijuana legalization. In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado voted to legalize marijuana use in those states. Others continue to decriminalize marijuana and allow its use for medical purposes. Today Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia will vote on whether or not to legalize marijuana. How do these laws stack up? Read full article here.

#3: Saira Blair Youngest Elected Official in America: Snaps for Her

Saira Blair is an 18-year-old West Virginia University freshman majoring in economics. She’s also believed to be the youngest elected lawmaker in the United States. At 17, Blair actually beat a 66-year-old Republican incumbent in a primary, and on Tuesday she beat a 44-year-old Attorney, Democrat Layne Diehl. She will represent a district of just under 20,000 people located in the West Virginia panhandle, close to Maryland, as one of 100 members of the Virginia House of Delegates. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.