While Americans were tuned into former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate hearing yesterday, the British were headed to the polls–again. Prime Minister Theresa May called the June 8 snap election in an effort to increase her party’s majority in Parliament and bolster support when negotiations to leave the European Union begin June 19.

But instead of achieving a stronger hold, May’s Conservative Party actually lost seats, leaving Parliament without a majority party. The country is now in uncharted waters as it enters Brexit talks. Read on to find out what happened, and what comes next.

Hung Parliament

With 649 out of 650 seats declared, no party has won the necessary 326 seats to have a majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party still has the highest number of seats, 318, but the body is now what is known as a “hung Parliament.”

The final seat will continue to undergo recounts through Friday evening.

The biggest surprise of the day was the 31 seats that the opposition party, left-wing Labour, gained. The Scottish National Party lost 21 seats, dashing hopes of another Scottish independence referendum. The Liberal Democrats gained three seats, bringing their total to 12. The UK Independence Party failed to gain a single seat, remaining with no representation in Parliament and prompting UKIP leader Paul Nuttall to resign Friday morning.

“A new era must begin with a new leader” – UKIP’s @paulnuttallukip stands down #GE2017 https://t.co/BZNkyAG3cX #bbcelection #hungparliament pic.twitter.com/PnekWR0zJk

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 9, 2017

Prime Minster’s Election Fumble

When May called the election back in April, she–and many others–assumed a Conservative victory was a done deal. Since then, a combination of poor campaigning, increased security concerns after three terror attacks, and rising popularity for Labour caused her plan to backfire.

May was criticized for refusing to engage in face-to-face debate with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, for proposed policies that would force the elderly to pay more for care, and for taking police officers off the streets, which some said undermined the country’s security during the Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks.

The success of Corbyn’s party has historically been dependent on high voter turnout, and this year was no different. Labour won seats in every district where turnout increased by more than five percent.

What’s Next for May?

Even after the election results, May will remain Prime Minister. Though the monarchy has no role in politics, the Prime Minister must seek Queen Elizabeth II’s approval before forming a government. May did this Friday morning before speaking at Downing Street, announcing her intentions to form a minority government with the socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

“Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together, in the interests of the whole United Kingdom,” May said in her statement.

This will leave her with a tiny majority of 328 seats, but will not strengthen her negotiating hand, as she had hoped. The DUP favors a soft border with Ireland, contradicting May’s stance on a “hard” Brexit.

Political analysts have already questioned the strength of May’s proposed government.

“I question whether the new government can cobble together a majority for any version of Brexit–hard, soft, poached, scrambled, or deviled with Tabasco sauce–without losing the support of some Conservative MPs, and potentially losing a Commons vote,” writes the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy.

Going forward, a number of things could happen. Minority governments like these are not as secure, as the party with more seats is dependent on the voting support of the less powerful party.

If the government fails, or May receives a vote of no confidence from the majority of MPs, there could either be yet another general election, or Corbyn could take a shot at forming a government. Corbyn has already called for May to resign, saying people have “had quite enough of austerity politics.”

“She wanted a mandate,” Corbyn said. “The mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go.”

Election Successes

The hung parliament is not the only interesting development to come out of yesterday’s vote. Voter turnout was unexpectedly high, especially among young people. The estimated turnout for voters ages 18-24 was 66 percent.

The election was also a major success for female politicians. More than 200 female MPs were elected, leaving this new parliament with the highest number of female seats in history. The country also elected its first female Sikh MP and the first turban-wearing Sikh MP, both Labour, according to the Telegraph.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K. Election: What’s Next for the Hung Parliament? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 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 RantCrush Top 5: June 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

Good news, everyone! We don’t have to worry about Trump contesting the election and claiming it was rigged…if he wins. Here’s a video:

JUST IN: Trump: “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election… if I win” https://t.co/4z453rVzqK

— CNN (@CNN) October 20, 2016

This speech from Trump was a follow up to last night’s debate, when Trump was asked if he would respect the outcome of the election. He said: “I will tell you at the time,” and “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” Trump has been claiming the election is rigged for a while now (check out fellow Law Street Alec Siegel’s article on the distrust Trump has been sowing among the electorate for more on that.) But this ambiguity about whether or not he’ll accept the election results if he loses seems to go a step further.

There’s more to this than just a narcissistic celebrity who, by almost every definition, is a sore loser. Refusing to accept the democratic outcome of an election is deeply problematic–and can undermine our political system. That’s not to say that when there is corruption or election fraud we shouldn’t be vigilant, but rather to say that when we know that there’s not voter fraud, it’s irresponsible to keep encouraging the narrative that there is. Shaun Bowler, who teaches political science at the University of California Riverside wrote for Vox:

Donald Trump is a candidate who seems to want to claim that, whenever he loses, it is not because more people voted against him than for him, but because the election is rigged. From this assumption arises his frequent call for ‘poll watchers’ with no legal authority and questionable roles. (Will they intimidate voters? Will they interfere with the process?) The longer-term consequence will be the same as in Mexico, Ukraine and elsewhere: They will undermine voter support for the system. The difference is that in the US, the claims have very little basis in actual levels of election fraud.

Donald Trump, by constantly positing that this is a rigged election, and saying he’s not sure that he’ll accept the outcome of the vote, is encouraging even more mistrust in our democracy than there already is. In fact, Trump’s claims are so outrageous that a lot of Republicans are speaking out against them. Both Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) refuted the idea that the election is rigged last night, as did Senator Lindsey Graham:

My thoughts on a ‘rigged’ presidential election. pic.twitter.com/075n83NXMH

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 20, 2016

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had perhaps the strongest condemnation of Trump’s “rigged” comments, saying:

This election is not rigged, and it’s irresponsible to say that it is. Faith in the democratic process is one of America’s greatest strengths, and it’s more important than the outcome of any election.

Clinton’s chances to win on November 8 are looking even more promising, given recent polling results. Whether Trump will accept that reality remains to be seen.

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 Don’t Worry, Trump Will Accept the Outcome of the Election…If He Wins appeared first on Law Street.

A political gridlock has rattled Spain for the past nine months, leaving the country without a national government and with a fractured legislature. Officials within this parliamentary constitutional monarchy simply haven’t prevailed in forming a coalition government among longtime feuding politicians. Operating under stressful conditions, the 350-seat assembly in the lower house of Congress cannot reach a consensus over the fate of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his contested People’s Party (PP). In spite of the group’s initial landslide victory in 2011, today the Spanish parliament (known as “Cortes Generales” in Spanish) is divided on whether or not the incumbent should be allowed to claim minority-rule within the estranged governmental system. The past two attempts to hold national elections were inconclusive due to the PP failing to earn a majority vote, despite receiving the highest numbers during the first plebiscite on December 20, 2015. 

For all intents and purposes, Spain is still a relatively young democracy. The death of former dictator Francisco Franco in 1975, for example, permitted the restoration of democratic rights and the development of a stringent two-party structure split between conservatives and socialists. With Spanish politics more stratified than ever before in recent history, there are more competitors seeking political representation and trying to secure power–making negotiations all the more complex. The fact of the matter is that none of these parties have succeeded in gaining the majority vote throughout the past two elections, hence the ongoing volatility and third round of polling looming over Spaniards’ head. In acknowledgment of Spain’s dynamic intergovernmental structure, this article attempts to introduce readers to some of the most central characters and predicaments within this game of political charades.

The Important Players

Mariano Rajoy: Even with rampant opposition, Mariano Rajoy still serves as the “caretaker” Prime Minister of Spain and leader of the conservative-leaning PP. Ultimately, the native Galician aspires to serve a second-term as prime minister, which would theoretically end what some consider to be political mayhem. Easier said than done, though, considering the polarization of Spanish politics. Nowadays he is scrambling to regain power by trying to win a vote of confidence from his colleagues, which has yet to yield positive results considering the fierce opposition he faces from the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE).

Made evident by Rajoy’s fall from grace, many of these issues stem from the parliamentary requisite for an absolute majority–meaning that despite receiving the most votes in the past two attempted elections, the PP still lagged behind. Adding fuel to the fire, Rajoy’s reputation started to tarnish after his PSOE rival, Pedro Sánchez, accused him of financial corruption. Allegedly Rajoy was in cahoots with the former treasurer, Luis Bárcenas, in operating a “secret slush fund” for the PP’s campaign purposes. Today Bárcenas is serving time for corruption, money-laundering, and tax evasion after it was exposed that he hoarded 47 million euros in Swiss bank accounts.   

“I made a mistake in maintaining confidence in someone we now know did not deserve it,” said Rajoy, who maintained his party’s innocence. “Nothing related to this matter has prevented me, nor will it prevent me from governing.”

Pedro Sánchez: At the forefront of opposition against Rajoy is the former secretary general of the PSOE, Pedro Sánchez. Compared to other lawmakers, he and his deputies are influential players in hindering Rajoy’s attempts to form a minority government. Originally King Felipe of Spain appointed Sánchez to pioneer a new system following Rajoy’s decline. Earlier this month, though, Sánchez resigned after a tense 11-hour deliberation with fellow party members on October 1. Sánchez, who was considered to be Rajoy’s most prominent antagonist, was ousted after the party ruled against him in a 132-107 vote. Spirits appeared to be deflated after senior PSOE member José Antonio Pérez Tapias told reporters outside the assembly that “the party is broken.” Now that Sánchez is seemingly out of the picture, many Spaniards believe that Rajoy will finally be able to regain the support he needs to rejuvenate Spain’s central government.  

King Felipe VI: Looming over Rajoy and Sánchez is King Felipe VI of Spain, who certainly complicates today’s political conundrum based on how he plays “both sides of the fence.” For example, it is the king’s monarchical duty under the constitution to appoint (or rather endorse) an elected prime minister, but lately this seems more like a neglected formality. At this point in the political impasse, the head of state and commander-in-chief of Spain holds little clout when it comes to restoring order. King Felipe VI was originally responsible for endorsing Sánchez to pioneer a new and improved government after Rajoy’s foundation plummeted. However, Sánchez and his Socialist party also lack the necessary parliamentary support to win majority-rule as well–only possessing 85 seats of the 350-seat legislature. To add insult to injury, his attempts to beckon Rajoy to power (once again) were also unfruitful. 

Contributing Factors to the Political Paralysis

What all of these delegates have in common are earnest intentions to alleviate Spain’s long-standing economic issues. Following the aftermath of the 2007 economic crisis, 4.8 million Spaniards are jobless–leaving Spain with an unemployment rate of 20 percent, one of the highest in the developed world. In light of this national issue, two other parties have materialized to challenge the dual-partisan system and remedy the record-high unemployment rates. One of these groups is Ciudadanos (meaning “Citizens” in Spanish) led by Albert Rivera, one of the most popular Spanish leaders. The centre-left party forged an alliance with PP to create anti-corruption measures in parliament and help Rajoy find his way back into office. Conversely, there is also Unidos Podemos (meaning “United We Can” in Spanish) who are known for their staunch opposition against austerity measures and leftist-leaning ideologies. Pablo Iglesias, Unidos Podemos’ young charismatic leader, feels good about shaking up Spain’s status-quo.

“What happened was nothing short of revolutionary,” said Iglesias in reference to the collapse of Spain’s longstanding two-party arrangement in December. “Because even with an electoral system that promotes bipartisanship, we have this completely new landscape.”

Another indelible factor complicating Spain’s election is the stratification among regions vying for more autonomy, specifically in regards to Catalonia. Every political body appears to have a different opinion about their quest for sovereignty. The wealthy region where Barcelona is located recently promised to hold another referendum for independence in September of 2017, which will certainly infuriate certain individuals and potentially plunge the country into further confusion. PP and Ciudadanos are hesitant to approve the secession, PSOE is open to making constitutional changes, while Unidos Podemos is completely willing to allow the region to secede.

Conclusion

If a coalition government isn’t formed by October 31, then we can anticipate King Felipe VI will dissolve parliament and enforce a third-round of elections on Christmas day, which is an outcome many Spaniards are dreading. According to the Spain’s main newspaper El País, this would be an “unmitigated disaster.” Yet with Sanchez’s recent resignation, many speculate that Rajoy’s party now yields higher chances to obtain a true majority. Upcoming regional elections in Galicia and the Pais Vasco (Basque Country) are also expected to play important roles in determining the outcome of Spain’s national governance. Galicia’s highly anticipated election may serve in Rajoy’s favor considering that he is from the northern region himself and could prospectively align himself with the newly elected officials. For the time being, though, onlookers can expect a lot more negotiating and emblazoned attempts to form much-needed alliances. Let’s hope that the rivalries simmer down in the interim. 

Resources

Al Jazeera: Spain: Is This the End of the Socialists?

Financial Times: Spain: Political Stalemate in Madrid

The Guardian: Spain Eyes Basque and Galician Elections to Break Political Deadlock

The Guardian: Spain Moves Towards Rightwing Government After Socialist Quits

The Guardian: Unidos Podemos: Spain’s Leftwing Alliance Hoping to End Political Impasse

New York Times: Spain’s Interim Leader Bids to Form New Government

Reuters: Center-Right Roars to Victory in Spain Election

Reuters: Spain’s Socialist Leader Quits and Opens Door to End of Deadlock  

The Spanish Report: Pedro Sánchez Resigns As PSOE Leader

The Spanish Report: PP Wins Most Votes but Loses 63 Seats, Rajoy Says he will Try to Form a New Government

Sputnik News: Spain’s Citizens and People’s Party Ink Alliance Deal Before PM Investiture Vote

The Telegraph: Spain’s Mariano Rajoy Reels Under Corruption Charges in TV Debate

Wall Street Journal: Spain’s Socialist Leader Resigns in Potential Breakthrough to Country’s Political Impasse

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Dreaded Third Round of Elections Predicted for Spain: How Will it Escape Political Gridlock? appeared first on Law Street.

After the first presidential debate broke records as the most watched debate in U.S. history, expectations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s second showdown at Washington University in St. Louis were high. Here are five of the most buzzworthy moments from the second presidential debate:

 You Know They Had to Talk About The Tape

Going into the second debate, we knew Trump was going to be confronted with questions about the 2005  recording where he was heard speaking vulgarly about women with then “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush. CNN’s Anderson Cooper wasted no time bringing it up saying, “You’ve bragged that you sexually assaulted women,”  before asking the Republican nominee to explain his actions. Trump responded by saying repeatedly that it was just ” locker room talk” and deflected the conversation to ISIS, Clinton’s emails, and Bill’s past discretions.

Clinton responded by saying that the video and Trump’s attacks against the Khan family, a Hispanic federal judge, President Obama, and a reporter with a physical disability definitively show that he’s not fit to be president. “He owes the president an apology. He owes our country an apology.”

That video represents exactly who Donald Trump is.

-Hillary Clinton.#debate

— Shaun King (@ShaunKing) October 10, 2016

More Sniffling

Like the first debate, viewers continued to be distracted by Trump’s constant sniffling. While the source of his nasal woes is still unclear, people couldn’t help but speculate about the cause.

#Debate: @realDonaldTrump seems a lot more calm, although his sniffling hasn’t gone away.

— Melissa Mecija (@10NewsMecija) October 10, 2016

Is Trump going to blame the sniffling on his mic again? #debate

— Anthony De Rosa (@Anthony) October 10, 2016

symptoms of cocaine abuse

1. dry mouth
2. sniffling
3. rambling incoherently #debate

— Hutch Harris (@thethermals) October 10, 2016

Trump Threatens to Put Clinton in Jail

When addressing Clinton, Trump said that if he wins, “I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” in response to her private email server use while serving as Secretary of State. Clinton responded by saying viewers should fact check his falsehoods, and that it’s a good thing Trump isn’t in charge of our nation’s laws. “Because you’d be in jail,” shot back Trump, followed by cheers from the audience.

Excuse me, Moderators

It’s not unusual to see presidential candidates interrupt the moderator to get their points across, but this time it was excessive. Trump accused the moderators of teaming up against him and favoriting Clinton.  “It’s one-on-three,” muttered Trump. In fact, ABC’s Martha Raddatz had just asked Clinton about her emails. “We brought up the emails,” Cooper responded.

The Candidates Had to Say Something Nice About Each Other!

After attacking each other’s policies, personal lives, and scandals for an hour and a half, the candidates were asked to close out the debate by naming one positive thing they respect about one another.

Clinton went first, saying that she admires Trump’s children. Trump closed out the debate saying, “She doesn’t quit, she doesn’t give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She is a fighter.”

Aww maybe there is hope that they can one day be friends. Or not.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 5 Buzzworthy Moments From the 2nd Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

As the election season winds down, most of the attention will turn to the remaining debates. These debates have taken on an important role in the presidential selection process, allowing viewers to see candidates pitch their visions for the country side by side. However, debates did not always play such a major role in elections and are actually a relatively new development. They have also not always had the impact they are perceived to have nowadays, something that could become even more exacerbated by the effects of modern technology.

Read on to find out more about the history of presidential debates in the United States, take a closer look at some of the most significant debates, and see how the process has changed over time with the influx of new technologies.

How the Debates Work

Debate rules, like the candidates themselves, change from election to election, and this year they even change from debate to debate. Nevertheless, 2016’s debates will work off the framework established by the 2012 edition and share some commonalities. Each will be 90 minutes long with no breaks. The moderator will be the sole deciding factor in which questions are asked, whether or not to extend segments, and he or she will be in charge of keeping the discussion appropriate. Some of these rules are new and others have been in place for a while, however, they all compare starkly to the first major U.S. debate way back in 1858.

History of Debates

One of the first high-profile debates between politicians occurred back in 1858, but it wasn’t between presidential candidates. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates shaped the Senate race in Illinois, but they were quite different from the modern style of debates we see today. These debates only came about because Lincoln had been following Douglas on the campaign trail and asking questions at a number of his stops, which eventually led the two to hold a series of formal debates. These debates were quite long and did not even feature moderators. Following that election, there were no high-profile debates for roughly 90 years, as candidates instead preferred to make individual speeches.

The first year that presidential candidates had a public debate was in 1948 in the Republican primary. The first presidential debate between major party nominees was not for another 12 years, in 1960. The 1948 Republican debate was also the first debate broadcast on radio; 40 to 80 million people listened in. The 1960 debates were the first debates to be broadcast on television. For that first televised debate, approximately one in three Americans watched, or 66.4 million people. There was another long gap between debates following that year, as the next round of presidential debates was not held until 1976. However, from that point on, debates have been held in every election cycle. In 1976, there was a vice presidential debate, a practice that has become a tradition ever since the 1984 cycle.

According to the rating service Nielsen, the highest rated Presidential debate ever was in October 2012 between President Barack Obama and Republican Nominee Mitt Romney, which 46.2 million households watched. In terms of individual viewers, the Carter-Reagan debate of 1980 had the most, with 80.6 million. Since 1987, the debates have been under the direction of the Commission on Presidential Debates, a bipartisan organization tasked with setting the format and rules of each debate.

The following video gives a look at the evolution of debates over time:

Major Debates and Their Impact

Regardless of their medium and audience size, debates have now been taking place in U.S. presidential elections for more than 70 years. In that time there have been some memorable moments, both at the presidential and vice presidential levels. Time has a list of its ten most memorable debates, although there have been many. Often these tend to focus on politicians making embarrassing mistakes that doom their campaign, like Rick Perry in 2012, or on one-liners like the infamous one delivered by Ronald Reagan to Walter Mondale in 1984 about their respective ages.

The video below highlights some of the most memorable moments in presidential debates:

One of the most famous debates was the one between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in the lead up to the 1960 Presidential contest. Coming into the debate, the candidates were locked in a close race, however, physically they were very different as Nixon had been recently hospitalized for an infection. Normally, this would not have played a role, but this was the first televised debate. Thus, for most of the viewers watching on television, the young, healthy looking JFK defeated his opponent, the sickly-looking Richard Nixon. This debate not only signaled the importance of the rise of television–radio listeners generally thought Nixon did better–but it helped usher in the short but iconic Kennedy era. The debate also had an effect on Nixon, who refused to participate in debates the next time he ran for president and again when he ran for reelection.

Do the debates matter?

While there have been memorable debates, some of which we still talk about today, it is fair to ask what impact they actually have on the outcome of elections. Although people involved in politics, such as pundits or political advisors, like to suggest they have a major impact on voters in the same way party conventions can, the numbers do not really bear that out. According to two separate studies done by political scientists–the first by James Stinson and the second by Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien–the effects of debates on polls are negligible and often mirror whatever trend was already occurring.

It is not that the debates don’t matter, they just often have a very small effect, if one at all. Even the infamous Kennedy-Nixon debate may have only led to a 3 or 4 point swing, which is within the margin of error in most polls. It is also important to note that these debates do not happen a vacuum, so what might appear as an effect of a debate is often just another symptom of an ongoing issue with a candidate. In addition, the candidates are traditionally similar enough or have prepped long enough so there is no clear winner or the person deemed the winner varied based on the viewer’s political preferences.

What the debates are seemingly most useful for then, is informing voters about a candidate. This is especially true in the first debate when voters may still be learning about the candidates. This is also true for a challenger whom the debates may favor. Indeed, despite the studies mentioned earlier, some groups still contend that debates are very important in deciding the presidency. The Pew Research Center found that in 2008, two-thirds of voters said that the debates would influence their vote.

How the debates have changed

While there are some differing opinions on whether the debates have an impact on voters, one undisputable truth is that technology has influenced the debates. When Douglas and Lincoln had their famous debate they would go from town to town, giving hours-long speeches that would be covered in newspapers. When debates returned in the 20th century, the new medium was radio, which reduced the length and substance of the events. Next was television, which shortened the events even more while adding a visual element.

Unsurprisingly, Presidential debates have continued to change a lot since the first debate aired on television in 1960. The last few election cycles, in particular, have brought about a number of major changes, all involving the use of the internet and social media. In 2008 for example, people were allowed to send in questions through YouTube. In 2012, questions in primary debates started coming via Facebook. This year, the debates will be streamed live on both YouTube and on Twitter, along with the major networks. In addition to watching with social media, users are also able to get real-time feedback on their opinions, both through those sites and on their television screens, which have a line showing who is perceived to be winning the debate as it happens.

The following video looks at the role of technology in today’s debates:

Conclusion

In our current age of instant–and some might say excessive–exposure, debates are the ultimate platform for presidential candidates to prove themselves to the nation or fail in about as public a way as possible. At least that is the perception anyway. However, Presidential debates are relatively young and have changed dramatically throughout the years as technology has evolved. Additionally, their role in determining who inevitably becomes the President may also be overblown. Major studies have shown that debates have little or no impact and serve more to reinforce long-standing beliefs.

But the debates serve as one of the best opportunities for the audience to get to know a candidate before the election and for the candidates to get their message out. Presidential debates have become extremely popular events and intertwine themselves into the pre-election fabric so they are unlikely to go away. Their usefulness, however, is up for, well, debate.

Resources

Commission on Presidential Debates: Debate History

National Parks Service: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858

Forbes: 13 Quick Facts About The History Of Presidential Debates In America

Time: 10 Memorable Moments in Presidential Debate History

History: The Kennedy-Nixon Debates

Washington Monthly: Do Presidential Debates Actually Matter?

Journalist’s Resource: Presidential Debates and Their Effects: An Updated Research Roundup

Commission on Presidential Debates: Format for 2016 General Election Debates

Tech Crunch: How Technology Destroyed The Once Substantive Presidential Debate

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Presidential Debates Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he affected the future of the Republican party immensely, even though he ultimately lost the race. Although many argue that Goldwater’s loss began the revitalization of the conservative movement, it also marked the start of black Americans’ growing negative perception of the GOP. It’s a pattern that Donald Trump is poised to repeat with Latino voters this year, potentially establishing a negative trend.

Goldwater’s staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957–the bill striking down Jim Crow voting laws designed to deny voting rights to Black Americans–contributed to his high unfavorability ratings among black voters. According to Goldwater, his vote was purely a matter of resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights–but the specter of racism followed his campaign, leading to abysmal support from black voters.

Barry Goldwater courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Members of the Ku Klux Klan publicly endorsed Goldwater, and although he denounced their support, his opponent Lyndon B. Johnson made political hay out of the connection, which Goldwater wasn’t successfully able to escape. The whole situation sounds eerily similar to another GOP nominee not being able to detach himself from KKK support.

Goldwater’s race politics are the subject of discussion even today–in many ways, he was remarkably socially liberal for his party. By 1989, he stated that the Republican party had been overtaken by ‘kooks,’ and in the 1990s, Goldwater approved of several progressive measures, such as gays serving in the military and marijuana legalization. Martin Luther King Jr. put it very well: “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

Although Goldwater isn’t the sole cause of this divide, he certainly coincided with its beginning. Nonwhite voters in 1960 only carried a 22 point deficit in Republican votes–the same divide present with female voters, although in the opposite direction. During this period, white and nonwhite voters disagreed, but not overwhelmingly so. That all changed in the next election–and the divide that followed is still present today.

In the election of 1964, nonwhite voters opposed Goldwater 94 to 6, marking the steepest voting difference among a minority group in U.S. history–until Barack Obama received 95 percent of the black vote in 2008. This is an example of a stark difference between Latino and black voters–ever since the 1964 election, black voters have supported Democratic candidates by an average of 78 points, while Latino voters’ support was only 45 points on average, with splits as close as 9 points in some years.

Check out the graphs below to see the voting patterns by group. The graphs use data on racial and ethnic voting groups from Gallup and the Roper Center, to show actual voting percentages by each group. Click here to read more about the data.

After Barry Goldwater, Black voters went blue overwhelmingly for decades.

Latino voters preferred Democratic candidates in every election but often by slim margins.

This year, Donald Trump’s attitudes, positions, and comments regarding Latino Americans and immigration may be a ‘Goldwater moment’ for the minority voter bases. In almost every measurable way, Trump rates worse among minority voters than Goldwater. Whereas Goldwater served as a blockade for civil rights, he didn’t openly express racist or xenophobic opinions. Trump has no policy precedent to refer to but has ample opinions–many of which are categorically racist.

A candidate as blatantly offensive as Donald Trump sours the party’s relationship with Latino voters, directly contradicting the GOP’s efforts to connect with those voters. While we’ll have to wait until November for voting results, current favorability ratings paint a difficult picture for Trump. A June Washington Post/ABC survey found that 89 percent of Latinos saw Trump unfavorably. That number was 94 percent for black voters, which is staggeringly high, but the same divide was present between Barack Obama and both of his Republican challengers. These numbers don’t exactly correlate to votes, but they help create an estimate.

Here’s one last graph to show exactly what Trump’s effect could be on Latino voters. Note that this graph is speculative and the added election year assumes that Latino Americans will vote according to their current favorability perceptions of Trump as a candidate. The graph below illustrates how a new divide could emerge:

Trump’s record-high unfavorable rating among Latino voters could signal the largest party split since the 1970s.

Donald Trump’s numbers among Latinos are the worst his party has had in over 45 years–and that’s only half of the bad news for the GOP. Not currying favor with Latinos may not have cost Reagan or the Bushes the presidency, but it may very well cost Trump–Latinos are the largest ethnic or racial minority in the United States, making up 17 percent of the general population. Coupled with black Americans at 12 percent, these minorities are no longer so ‘minor,’ and can’t be ignored by candidates hoping to win a popular vote. While Trump might still be able to improve his standing with Latino voters, it will be an uphill battle. Trump may not be as well spoken, intellectual, or experienced as Barry Goldwater, but he may prove to be just as divisive.

Notes:

Graphs created using polling data from Gallup (1952 – 1972) and The Roper Center (1976 – 2012).

1. The term “Latino” in this analysis refers to voters self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic in polls. The term “black” refers to voters self-identifying as African American or black in polls.
2. Group voting data from 1952 to 1972 only distinguishes between white and nonwhite voters. While these two groups voted similarly–but to different degrees in later elections–there is not precise data on how they may have differed before 1972. 
3. The third graph is speculative and is meant to show that Latinos’ current attitudes toward Trump are more negative than the group has ever demonstrated against a Republican candidate based on past election results.

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 Is Trump This Generation’s Goldwater? appeared first on Law Street.

Since Hillary Clinton mathematically claimed the Democratic presidential nomination this past week, all eyes have been on Democratic party leaders to see how quickly and strongly they will back her. Luckily for Clinton, she has received a few new endorsements from important political figures this week, including President Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. These endorsements were likely made with the hopes of Democratic unification surrounding Hillary come fall so that she will have the resources and support she needs to defeat the Republican nominee.

First, Obama announced his endorsement yesterday with a video, saying that he knows how hard the job can be which is exactly why he knows that Hillary will be so good at it.

A few hours later, Elizabeth Warren jumped on board, saying,

I’m ready to jump in this fight and make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States and be sure that Donald Trump gets nowhere near the White House.

This endorsement particularly packs a punch, as Warren and Clinton have not always seen eye to eye on political matters and Warren was the only Democratic female Senator who hadn’t endorsed Clinton up to this point. It also has stirred up a lot of buzz about a potential Clinton-Warren ticket this fall, which could help to reinforce Clinton’s progressive image and even lead to the implementation of some of Sanders’ more liberal plans.

As expected, these endorsements have come with their fair share of Twitter support and backlash. Elizabeth Warren has been slammed for what a lot of Sanders supporters see as a weakening of her liberal views.

If y’all want to give me a great birthday present, go to @elizabethforma and @SenWarren and UNFOLLOW.

— I Know Nothing (@jvgraz) June 10, 2016

Warren is Trying to Unite the Democratic Party, But All She’s Doing is Betraying Progressives https://t.co/g1V99UiD9G

— kateloving (@kateloving) June 10, 2016

One of the best responses to Obama’s endorsement of Clinton came from Donald Trump himself and spurred quite the Twitter war.

Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2016

But, no one puts Hillary in a corner! Her social media team quickly responded with perhaps the funniest tweet in the history of Twitter and the most savage thing we’ve seen all week.

Delete your account. https://t.co/Oa92sncRQY

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 9, 2016

With all of the endorsements and Bernie Sanders’ promise to work with Democratic party to support her, Clinton is sitting pretty as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now all that’s between her and the presidency is Sanders’ inevitable drop and some long hard months of campaigning against the Republican nominee. With the backing of Democratic leaders and the looming presence of a potential Trump presidency, Clinton seems as desirable as ever.

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 Endorsements For Hillary Begin Rolling In appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is winning, winning, winning. He’s winning so much, he’s probably getting bored of winning. He’s enjoying a 286-delegate lead over Cruz, and with the April 26 Republican primaries poised to be a sweep for Mr. Trump, his rocket-fueled journey to the magic number of 1,237 delegates has struck fear in the hearts of his rivals. How in the world is this happening?

When you consider that each of Trump’s opponents has a weakness with the GOP base, you start to see how the rabid fanaticism of “Trumpeters” could outnumber the “Cruz-ers” and the “Kasich-ettes.” Cruz is too zealous for many non-evangelical voters, as evidenced by his paltry third place finish in New York’s Republican primary. The opposite is true for Kasich, as his more moderate brand of conservatism appeals to Ohioans, and pretty much nobody else.

Kasich is so far behind in the delegate count, even a miracle couldn’t earn him the necessary majority of delegates. And if Cruz can’t consistently and thoroughly beat Trump, it will be impossible for him to get his majority. That is a recipe for a Trump nomination, which is why Cruz and Kasich’s camps met in what I assume is a secret underground GOP lair to develop a game plan. Much like when Loki coordinated with that robot alien race in “The Avengers,” they figured their powers combined might be what it will take for primary domination.

Here’s how the game plan will work: Kasich will essentially skip the Indiana Primary, conceding all efforts to Ted Cruz. Considering that polls have Kasich’s support at around 22 points, and Cruz and Trump are close at 35 and 41 points respectively, if Kasich’s voters jump ship to Cruz, he could topple Trump. Indiana’s 57 delegates are “winner-takes-all,” so a Trump victory could sound very final. In return for this, Cruz will pass on Oregon and New Mexico, allowing Kasich to be a monolithic Trump-opposer. This interactive graph allows you to change the margins of future primary results in the GOP race, showing how a loss in any one state could prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates.

There are a few drawbacks to this plan–firstly, that it might not work. Kasich’s name is still on the Indiana ballot, and he has yet to formally address his supporters and instruct them to vote for Cruz. So far, the agreement just states that he won’t campaign in Indiana. There’s also no guarantee that Kasich’s voters will want to vote for Cruz, even if they don’t support Trump.

The move also plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative of persecution. “The establishment is out to get me” sounds a lot more convincing when the establishment is actually, actively plotting to take you down in a kamikaze blaze. Nothing will stir his fan base more than actual proof that the system is indeed rigged.

The most terrifying part of this plan is that it’s a strategy designed to cause chaos. Their best hope is to create a contested convention, and it’s likely that Trump would still have the most votes among the three candidates. If Cruz or Kasich wrests the nomination from Trump’s tiny hands, all hell could break loose, including temper tantrums and riots. Say what you will about the candidates’ positions, but this has been the best season of America’s Next Top Candidate yet.

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 Mutually-Assured Obstruction: Cruz, Kasich Aim for Contested Convention appeared first on Law Street.

Could Donald Trump be rehabilitating Hitler’s image? White supremacist and former leader of the KKK, David Duke, sure thinks so. Four days ago, Right Wing Watch–a project started by People for the American Way that reports on activities of right-wing political organizations in order to highlight the risks of intolerant views–posted a short clip from Duke’s radio show, in which, Duke shares his views on Donald Trump and media intent on bashing Trump for his platforms on racial issues.

Duke starts off his rant about Trump by claiming that,

The reason there’s a war on Donald Trump is because there’s a war on the real America, there’s a war on the European-American majority of the United States of America.

He goes on to point out that, rather than Donald Trump perpetuating hatred and racism, it’s actually the media and their portrayal of Trump’s candidacy that does so. To a certain extent, sure, some media outlets do cast a negative light on Trump.

There are ads that highlight his nasty language.

There are ads that attack him for the Trump University scam.

There are even ads that attack Trump for not being as conservative as he purports to be.

But part of the problem with Duke’s argument–other than the fact that he is an avid white supremacist who whole-heartedly believes that white people are being actively discriminated against by the cultural melting pot America is becoming–is that Trump has time and time again used violence inciting and racist language in his speeches. The way attack ads against Trump are structured may play up his negative features, but they aren’t making things up.

Some of the recent criticisms of Trump  compare him to Hitler in the way he uses rhetoric to promote racist ideals and the way his speeches and rallies have begun to stir up violence.

Went to the Trump rally just to see how crazy it would be……..this is insane pic.twitter.com/QFwSwmNoI0

— Alex Satterly (@alex_satterly) March 19, 2016

In a recent article from the Wrap, a holocaust survivor explained that, although Trump hasn’t provided us with enough reasons to be worried about a Hitleresque regime yet, he is unsettling and the situation seems like it could get ugly. John Kasich released an ad that highlights the ways in which Trump’s discussion of race isolates groups of people the same way Hitler’s early rhetoric against Jewish people did, before his mass genocide began.

A Huffington Post reporter weighed in on this comparison, drawing a parallel between a recent Trump rally, where Trump asked supporters to raise their hands and swear to vote for him, to scenes from Nazi Germany.

Now the real kicker of Duke’s argument comes at around the 50-second mark when Duke states that, in comparing Trump to Hitler, all of his opponents are actually just rehabilitating Hitler’s image:

The truth is, by the way, they might be rehabilitating that fellow with the mustache back there in Germany.

He even claims that these commercials comparing Trump to Hitler aren’t going to have the effect people want: they will actually boost Hitler’s image instead of defaming Trump.

This claim is outrageous and it’s important to keep in mind that it’s coming from a man who, when addressing “European” people not two minutes later, said,

The government is purposefully wiping you out and your families and your children and your future. They are purposefully transforming this country into a Third World nation.

Duke clearly has some opinions about our country that are blatantly untrue and, if he really thinks that comparing Donald Trump and Hitler is going to improve the public’s perception of the largest, most racist mass murderer in the history of humankind, he’s even more out of touch with reality than it previously seemed. The good news? After all the confusion over whether or not Trump was willing to denounce Duke and the KKK a few weeks ago, he finally got around to making a crystal clear disavowal of the two. But the thought of comparing anyone to Hitler and having it improve Hitler’s reputation is obviously ridiculous.

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 Seriously? David Duke Claims Trump Comparisons Improve Hitler’s Image appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been feeling inevitable for a little while now, but it’s looking even more and more likely that Trump will become the Republican nominee, and possibly even our next President. But laughter is the best medicine (particularly when the sickness is racism, xenophobia, and terror) so the good people of Twitter started weighing in on what the U.S. will be like if Trump is actually elected President. This isn’t the first time the hashtag #IfTrumpWins has surfaced, but the submissions this time around are particularly relevant. The hashtag was started by Chris Hardwick of Comedy Central’s “@midnight with Chris Hardwick.” Check out the best of #IfTrumpWins in the slideshow below:

#IfTrumpWins you better start getting in shape for the 1st Hunger Games

— Ethan Bradly (@Ethan_Bradly) March 9, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post #IfTrumpWins: Smiling Through the Pain appeared first on Law Street.

Tis the season of funny campaign videos and delightful candidate gifs as everyone gears up for the elections this November. As usual, “Saturday Night Live” has been churning out some good content. Whether it was the Bernie Sanders and Larry David sketches from a few weeks ago, or this week’s nominee-centered cold open, “SNL” always seems to be right on target with its narrowly tailored critiques of the presidential candidates.

This weekend’s funniest video was a satirical political advertisement about people supporting Donald Trump and it was spectacular; definitely worth the one minute and 25 seconds of your life.

The comedic genius of this video is that you can’t even tell if it’s a joke or not until half way in. What starts as a pretty typical campaign video quickly spirals into a real statement on Donald Trump’s racist views and attitudes. You see a man in his office, a woman ironing, another man painting, and a man carrying some wood–seems normal, right? About halfway in, the characters are revealed to be nazi sympathizers, KKK affiliates, and white supremacists–all very topical characters given some of Trump’s recent political moves.

First off, Trump has been accused of being similar to Hitler this week after videos from one of his rallies surfaced in which he had everyone pledging to vote for him with salutes that almost mimicked Nazi Germany.

Donald Trump makes members of his Orlando crowd raise their right hands and swear to vote in the primary. pic.twitter.com/EVenRilJrV

— Jenna Johnson (@wpjenna) March 5, 2016

Obviously nobody is quite contending that Trump would actually be like Hitler, but this rally certainly doesn’t make anyone feel too comfortable either.

The second “SNL” characters, the KKK affiliates, were also timely, as it has been about a week since Trump refused to publicly denounce the head of the KKK, David Duke. Trump had a lot of excuses for why he wouldn’t denounce the group and seemed to talk around the issue when asked directly about why he refused to disavow Duke. That seems suspicious at best, Trump.

Finally, the white supremacist painter. Along with Trump’s KKK battle this week, there were three white supremacist leaders who have joined together to create a group to support Trump. Although Trump has not commissioned this group or asked for their help, the implicit connection between this white “advocacy” group and Trump’s policies on banning muslim immigration and building a wall between Mexico and the U.S. is impossible to ignore. Jared Taylor, one of the white supremacists supporting Trump, claims that because white people feel more comfortable in schools and neighborhoods with other white people:

When Donald Trump talks about sending out all the illegals, building a wall and a moratorium on Islamic immigration, that’s very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people.

“SNL‘s” video was outright and unapologetic in calling Donald Trump out on the racist and bigoted policies he has been promoting nationwide during his campaign. That kind of direct hit may be just what the country needs to start realizing that some of Trump’s policies aren’t so rosy after all–they’re hateful. When it comes down to it, with some of the things Trump has been saying about immigrants and diversity in our country, an ad like the one “SNL” made may be an almost accurate reflection of his campaign. Are we really going to rally behind Donald Trump, America? Instead, let’s fight for diversity, equality, and liberty and put our faith in someone who can actually make America great.

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 “Saturday Night Live” Calls Out Donald Trump’s Racism appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

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 Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday night, something happened at the debate that deeply upset me. Donald Trump talked about his penis, and I realized I should probably write about it. Why, 2016 election cycle, must you make me contemplate things that I truly had no desire to think about? Why, Donald Trump, must you make insinuations about your dick size on national television? And why, America, must we be so enthralled with the borderline lunacy of this man that we then spend days talking about his penis? I am so very sad.

To be fair, I suppose, Donald Trump didn’t just come right out and make a declaration about his penis size. No, this was, bizarrely enough, a comment in reaction to Marco Rubio’s equally juvenile actions. Earlier this week, Rubio commented on how small Trump’s hands were, and said: “And you know what they say about guys with small hands…You can’t trust ’em.” Now that comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek–it was clear to everyone what Rubio was insinuating.

So, Trump decided to also address that comment at the debate on Thursday night after Rubio was asked a question about personal attacks on the Republican frontrunner. I have this image in my head of Trump sitting around with his advisors pre-debate, brainstorming the creepiest, weirdest way to announce that you have a large penis size. They succeeded.

Last night, Trump, referring to Rubio, stated:

He hit my hands — nobody’s ever hit my hands, I’ve never heard about this. He referred to my hands and said, ‘If they’re small, something else must be small,’ and I guarantee you there’s no problem. There’s no problem.

If you’d like to torture yourself, here’s the video:

Consensus appeared to be that people were upset by Trump’s crude statement, but not necessarily surprised. After all, this 2016 Republican primary has been marked by name-calling, childish antics, and complete nonsense–one of the most firmly establishment candidates, Rubio, was the one who started the hand size-penis size insinuation mess in the first place.

So, that’s where we are in American politics right now, our Republican presidential candidates are arguing about penises. This election cycle literally cannot be over soon enough.

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 I’m so Sad I Have to Write About Donald Trump’s Penis appeared first on Law Street.

While it feels like the presidential campaign started ages ago, and in many ways it has, a relatively small number of primaries and caucuses have actually taken place. But all of that is soon to change–Super Tuesday is here.

What is Super Tuesday?

Tuesday, March 1 gets this fun-sounding name because it is the day when more states hold primaries and caucuses than any other day in the primary season. While the race has been going at full steam for the past several months, only a small number of the total delegates have been formally awarded. So far, about 5 percent of the total delegates have been awarded for Republicans and less than 4 percent for Democrats. But that will change very quickly in the month of March. On Super Tuesday, there are 865 delegates up for grabs for the Democrats and 595 for Republicans. At the end of the day, 24 percent of the total delegates for Democrats will be awarded and about 30 percent for Republicans.

So Who Votes?

Both parties will hold caucuses or primaries in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia. Republicans will also hold a caucus in Alaska and Democrats will caucus in American Samoa and Colorado. Additionally, Democrats abroad will vote in sites across 40 different countries until March 8.

What to Expect: Democrats

While this election has been as unpredictable as ever, recent polls do give us some clues as to what we can expect on Tuesday. As it currently stands, the two frontrunners will seem positioned to build on their lead.

Hillary Clinton is coming off of two recent victories in Nevada and South Carolina, the latter of which she won by nearly 75 percent of the vote. While Sanders has proven to be a much stronger candidate than many anticipated, particularly when it comes to fundraising, Clinton still has a commanding lead when you look at pledged delegates and superdelegates.

The Super Tuesday electorate is also particularly favorable for Clinton. With an endorsement from the Congressional Black Caucus and high favorability ratings from black voters, we can expect a high turnout among black voters in many Super Tuesday states, where they make up a large percentage of Democratic voters. NPR has a nice illustration of Clinton’s advantage in its discussion of the ideal outcomes for both of the Democratic Candidates. According to NPR, an ideal scenario for Sanders would leave him up by just one delegate at the end of the day. But for Clinton, an ideal outcome would be leading by more than 150 of the Super Tuesday delegates. Put simply, if everything goes well for Sanders his campaign’s best hope is, essentially, to break even. It’s also important to note that Democrats allocate delegates proportionally based on the share of the popular vote or caucus precinct outcomes, which gives Sanders more opportunities to win delegates.

What to Expect: Republicans

On the Republican side, polls suggest that frontrunner Donald Trump will come away with a pretty significant victory. FiveThirtyEight has a rundown of the polls in Super Tuesday states, but Trump is generally the favorite in most states. One important exception is Texas, as Ted Cruz has managed to maintain a significant lead in his home state despite Trump’s nationwide surge.

Texas also has the most delegates up for grabs on Tuesday, as 108 of the state’s 155 delegates will go to the winners of its 35 Congressional districts while 47 of the state’s at-large delegates will be spread out among the top vote earners depending on their margin of victory. While a win in Texas would certainly be a big boost for Cruz, he has an uphill battle in most states.

While the delegate rules vary widely by state on Super Tuesday, there are more opportunities for Republicans to earn large chunks of delegates in one victory compared to the Democrat’s more proportional system. While that may not mean much, the important thing to take away is that the Republican frontrunner after Super Tuesday could come away with a pretty sizable lead.

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 Super Tuesday 2016: What to Expect appeared first on Law Street.

Loyal, compassionate, obedient, and unconditionally loving: these two new presidential hopefuls seem to be everything this country needs.

Sick of the GOP and the Democratic Party? Sick of politicians in general? If so, you might want to check out the Canine Party.

Meet Butler Blue III and Georgetown Jack, two bulldogs who represent their respective universities (Butler University and Georgetown University). They have teamed up to run for the presidency this year.

The duo unveiled their campaign in a video posted to Youtube, and it is arguably the best (almost) three minutes of the entire election season so far.

“Take for instance, a homegrown set of Midwestern values matched with a West Coast kid turned Washington insider,” the narrator says in the video. “…or Butler Blue’s courage to speak his mind for the good of all and Georgetown Jack’s enduring composure, demonstrating unparalleled grace under pressure.” The video highlights their strengths–the narrator talks about “one’s unmatched goal oriented drive coupled with the other’s innovative efficiency.” It also states that “it’s clear the individual strengths of Butler Blue and Georgetown Jack speak for themselves, yet the combined power of this doggy duo speaks for America.”

While a dog has never held the presidency, many have resided in the White House, making it difficult for voters and opponents to discredit their legitimacy. This isn’t even the first time an animal has run for office. For example, the mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska who has been in office since 1997 is a cat named Mayor Stubbs. Duke, an eight-year-old dog, is the elected mayor of Cormorant, Minnesota.

I support the #CanineParty! No bones about it, @GeorgetownJack is the right choice. pic.twitter.com/GNHqg3GREy

— Chris Grosse (@Chris_Grosse) February 27, 2016

During an election season filled with surprise candidates who are favored because of their “distance” from politics, it would be no surprise to see these two candidates running up the polls and chasing the bone that is the presidency.

Huge #CanineParty endorsement coming in this morning from @zeldathebulldog! https://t.co/hfF2k7pnklpic.twitter.com/xzqWWE85Te

— Butler Blue III (@ButlerBlue3) February 29, 2016

In addition to these two pups, apparently the bulldog mascot of Drake University is also running for president, which he announced in November.

THIS IS IT! I’m announcing my official candidacy 4 President of the United States of America.#VoteGriff #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/EZHuQAv9Qw

— Griff the Mascot (@DrakeUGriff) November 14, 2015

We’re not sure which pup is planning on taking the presidency and who will be taking the VP position, but the strategic approach of running as a pair will definitely give them (two) legs up on the rest of the competition.

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 Georgetown, Butler Bulldog Mascots Strong Contenders for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

This is the first article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The second part gives a more in-depth look at his policy proposals and their potential consequences. 

In a recent paper, Lee Drutman, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation’s Political Reform program and professor at John Hopkins University, proposes a bold new plan to end government dysfunction. While he sees several structural issues with the American political system, he remains skeptical of the populist calls for reform, which are generally criticized as being utopian and unrealistic. Drutman’s ideas for reform are certainly interesting and worthy of discussion, but the context in which he talks about reform is equally as important.

Most, including Drutman, believe that significant structural reforms are needed to help get the government working again, but it’s worth questioning whether a populist upheaval is necessary. More to the point: do we need a political revolution?

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Realism and Reform

Before laying out his proposals, Drutman first identifies the inherent challenge involved with reforming the American style of democracy–balancing a government of the people, by the people, and for the people with the need for expert policymakers. He notes that both of these principles, which he calls majority rule and technocracy, have their drawbacks and benefits. It is clearly important to have citizens involved in the government, but at the same time is is important to be realistic about their ability to act as informed voters. Most people don’t have the time to become an expert on every topic, which is why we have a representative democracy in the first place. But experts themselves can get too caught up in policies while losing touch with the needs of the American people. A balance would bring people into the political system to help them choose and empower the proper experts and policy entrepreneurs.

Most liberal visions of reform involve restraining the influence of lobbyists, interest groups, and money in order to end what many see as corruption and return politics to the people. On the conservative side is the desire to reduce the scope of government so that corrupt politicians can’t serve themselves. But Drutman sees both these visions as utopian and unrealistic.

Trying to remove interest groups and big business from the equation has proven to be nearly impossible, and doing so may even impede those who wish to lobby in the public interest. Getting rid of career politicians and stripping Congress of its resources only leads to inefficiency and cutting out “career politicians” makes it harder to create good policy.

Rather than seeking to limit the influence of outside interests or cut government resources, Drutman argues that reforms should try to empower from within. Instead of limiting the amount of dealmaking, maybe we should make more deals, but with everyone sitting at the table. As Drutman puts it, “The answer, in short, is more politics.”

An Uphill Battle

Drutman argues that his plan is the most realistic approach to fix politics, but the existence of polarization and inequality–the very same issues he seeks to resolve–makes his plan all the more challenging to accomplish. But that remains the case with any sort of reform, or in Congress’s current case, passing legislation to begin with.

After discussing the paper on Tuesday, Drutman revealed why he remains hopeful that Congress might consider a change. “You see this over and over again, when members of Congress retire the thing that they complain about is, ‘I spent all of my time raising money and it was no fun’,” he said. New programs like donor matching could actually make Congressmen enjoy their jobs more and feel better about their work. While it remains a tall order, doing so could be in the self-interest of politicians.

Click here to read the second part of the series that focuses on Drutman’s solutions.

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 Do We Need a Political Revolution? appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican presidential candidate that many had previously hailed as the most moderate GOP contender signed a bill Sunday to prohibit the Ohio state health department from contracting with entities that perform or promote abortions.

John Kasich, the Governor of Ohio and presidential hopeful, fulfilled his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, even though the healthcare provider is not specifically named in the bill. However slashing funds is one way that lawmakers plan to get rid of the healthcare provider, which just happens to refer patients to and provide abortion services.

The law will prevent roughly $1.3 million in funding from the Ohio State Health Department from going to STD/HIV testing, general health screenings, and prevention of violence against women. 

@CNN @JohnKasich pic.twitter.com/1xZb2a42uX

— Venisha (@Venishhhha) February 22, 2016

It should be noted that state and federal laws already prohibit taxpayer funds from going towards abortion services, except in the cases of rape, incest, and “therapeutic” abortions (medical diagnosis to save the mother via abortion).

@CNN @JohnKasich How about letting the women in this country dictate things?

— Bomber Doobie (@Bomber_Doobie) February 22, 2016

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded to the news, not surprisingly, unhappy and disappointed.

“It’s clear Kasich has no regard for women’s health or lives, and will stop at nothing to block health care for the tens of thousands of Ohioans who rely on Planned Parenthood,” Richards said in a statement. She added that it would have “devastating consequences for women across Ohio.”

While many see Kasich as the great moderate of the election season, his voting record when it comes to abortion says otherwise. As the Huffington Post has reported:

Just months after becoming governor, Kasich signed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless the fetus is nonviable. In 2013, Kasich signed a budget that stripped roughly $1.4 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood, required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds on patients seeking abortions and allowed rape crisis centers to be stripped of their public funds if they referred victims to abortion providers, among other measures. The budget also blocked public hospitals from entering into transfer agreements for medical emergencies with abortion clinics, threatening clinics with closure if they couldn’t get a private hospital to enter into those agreements. Because private hospitals often have religious affiliations, this arrangement often wasn’t possible.

In all, nearly half of Ohio’s abortion clinics have closed since Kasich took office.

Kasich’s gubernatorial office spokesman Joe Andrews responded in a statement with:

The Ohio Department of Health has at least 150 other sub-grantees and contractors for the affected grants and projects addressing such issues as new born babies, infant mortality, expectant mothers, violence against women, and minority HIV/AIDS,” the statement said. “ODH will reallocate funding from ineligible providers under the new law to other currently eligible providers, ranging from local health departments and community organizations to hospitals and universities. These organizations will be required to submit proposals in order to receive funding.

The issues that arise from Kasich’s signing of the bill go past clinics not having proper funding. This goes as far as to cause issues with insurers and hospitals. As Cleveland.com reports, “…the Columbus Public Health department said it would be unable to contract with any Columbus hospital because they either provide abortion services, contract with abortion clinics, or refer patients to abortion services.”

In addition, Texas is a great example of what can happen when you remove a major women’s health service from Medicaid plans. Recently, women in Texas stopped using the most effective forms of contraceptives, and the birth rate rose (on the taxpayer’s tab), according to a study done by researchers from the University of Texas at Austin. According to researchers, the number of claims for long-acting contraception dropped by more than a third and births paid for by Medicaid shot up by 27 percent.

Of course, there is no way of saying definitively that this will happen in Ohio as well, but it would not come as a shock. As Guttmacher Institute’s Elizabeth Nash stated, “It’s one of the states people look to, to see what the next restriction is going to look like.”

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 Ohio Governor John Kasich Signs Bill that Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! Presidential hopeful Ted Cruz announced this week  that he plans to get rid of inefficiency in the U.S. military’s bureaucracy by cutting out adherence to political correctness, social experiments, and, oh, that’s right… gluten-free meals.

According to Cruz, gluten-free MREs (Meals Ready-to-Eat) are what’s really wrong with America’s military today–they’re reducing efficiency and stressing out our commanders. I mean, how in the world are we supposed to trust the men and women serving our country if they don’t even eat bread? Bread is pretty much the most American thing I can think of, and loving it is part of our civic duty. If Ted Cruz expressing his love for gluten in his policies is wrong, then quite frankly, I don’t want to be right.

Check out the video of his address aboard the USS Yorktown in which he attempts to win the military vote. It’s golden. In the speech, Cruz announces his ideas for Reaganesque military policy, which he hopes will keep us No. 1 in military strength worldwide. He even cited Regan’s policies as a model example of how we should run our country:

I am confident that if we put in the hard work we can, as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, rebuild our military so it will be so feared by our enemies and trusted by our allies that, God willing, we won’t have to use it. That is the essence of what President Reagan used to call “peace through strength.”

The best part of the video, by far, is the huge round of applause for Cruz’s announcement that he wants to fight against “plush-bottomed pentagon bureaucrats,” and the subsequent deafening silence after Cruz rails against providing gluten-free MREs.

But, isn’t celiac disease just a made up condition to rile up liberal voters, anyway? Unfortunately for Cruz–and everyone else who was under the impression that anti-bread lobby is the actual cause of America’s dilapidation–it turns out this harebrained scheme to avoid one of the world’s best nutrients (carbs!!!) is actually a real thing. According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the consumption of gluten by people with celiac disease can seriously damage their small intestine. In addition, the disease affects one in every 100 people. And people with a parent or sibling with celiac have a one-in-10 chance of developing the disease in their lifetime. What that means for Cruz’s plan is that not all people can enjoy bread the way he can (click here to see what we can only imagine Cruz does when alone with his favorite gluten-based foods), so getting rid of gluten-free options may not be his best plan.

The real question of the day is: is it really gluten-free meals that are ruining our country? Doubtful. Don’t get me wrong, I love bread as much as then next guy, but, infuriatingly slow bureaucracy and red tape aren’t going to be fixed by sprinkling some wheat on the situation. Saving a quick buck or two by producing less diverse meals for our men and women in service won’t fix the deficit. If anything, this policy announcement could alienate military voters who feel like Cruz is trying to decrease services for members of the armed forces. It has aggravated people on the internet and even got #tedlovesbread trending, which can’t be good for his campaign… or can it, if he’s going for the whole “any press is good press” strategy.

Cruz should really get his act together if he actually wants a shot at being president, but, then again, it’s not like his competition has avoided all embarrassing moments and weird policy ideas (Donald Trump’s wall, Ben Carson’s biblical tax plan, any and everything Jeb! has ever done). One thing is clear about his policies: a lot of us feel the same way about them as Cruz’s daughter feels about kissing him… just kind of “ew.”

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 Bread Cruz for President! appeared first on Law Street.

Jeb! Bush makes me sad. He’s trying oh so hard, and failing oh so miserably to win the 2016 Republican nomination. Now, he’s done some truly awkward and bizarre things over the course of this election cycle–check out fellow Law Streeter Sean Simon’s roundup of the best Jeb! Bush moments–but one of the most bizarre ones actually happened last night. Jeb! tweeted out this photo:

America. pic.twitter.com/TeduJkwQF3

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) February 16, 2016

Obviously, we all know what Jeb! was getting at here–he’s a real, tough gun owner, just like the voters in South Carolina he’s trying to woo! He stands for the Second Amendment! He gets his name engraved on his gun, because nothing says tough like making sure your firearm matches your monogrammed bathrobe! He’s just like you! But, once the internet got its hands on the meme-worthy potential of this tweet, that message was utterly lost. Check out some of my favorite responses–some funny, some poignant–to Jeb!’s weird gun tweet in the slideshow below:

Yes @JebBush. America. pic.twitter.com/4Yhtdl2ygY — Éoin (@LabourEoin) February 16, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post The Best Twitter Responses to Jeb! Bush’s Gun Tweet 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.

America’s grandma is at it again. And like most of our grandmas, she also doesn’t know how to effectively communicate over email.

It seems she has found herself in a bit of a conundrum yet again.

A woman named Maddi has taken the Internet by storm this week after posting an aggressive, yet intimate email she claims she was sent by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The email said,

After tonight’s results roll in, keep this in mind: most of the country casts their primary ballots by the middle of March. We absolutely, critically need to make sure Hillary comes out on top in the states that lie ahead.

Okay, so not too bad. Not too aggressive…yet. And then,

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 #ImNotKiddingMaddi: Read My Article Now appeared first on Law Street.

Fans who were excited by the prospect of Bernie Sanders appearing in this week’s episode of “Saturday Night Live,” also featuring Larry David, were not disappointed. Though he wasn’t in the cold open, nor did he pop up in the Sanders’ themed sketch, which poked fun at his campaign, Sanders did show up alongside David in a sketch about the tumultuous road to America on a ship in a rough storm.

The sketch subtly calls out some of Sanders’ political platform, as his character, Bernie Sanderswitzky, chastises David’s character for claiming to be more entitled to a seat on a lifeboat than anyone else, because of his wealth. “I’m so sick of the 1 percent getting this preferential treatment. Enough is enough!” Sanderswitzky yells out upon his arrival on the ship, as the live “SNL” studio audience claps and cheers. There is also a cute joke about Sanders being a socialist; Sanderswitzky has to clarify that everybody working together to get through a problem isn’t socialism, but, rather, democratic socialism.

In addition to the political humor, there are also some funny references to Sanders’ Jewish heritage and his New York accent. All in all? A great success and some helpful positive publicity for Bernie Sanders as we round the corner towards the New Hampshire primaries, where he is predicted to win with flying colors.

There was also a nice feature sketch on Sanders where Larry David played the Senator and joked about him losing by less than one percent in the Iowa caucuses. As an added bonus, the skit’s title, “Bern Your Enthusiasm,” is a great play off of David’s show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm!”

Overall, it was a funny night for Bernie Sanders fans everywhere, and a nice tension release in what has been a stressful month of election business. It’s always great to see guest stars with good senses of humor, and this sure hits the spot when it comes to making Sanders seem like a down-to-earth candidate willing to make fun of himself every once in a while.

Alexandra Simone

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

The post Bernie Sanders is a Hit on “Saturday Night Live” appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

Buzzfeed quiz #BetterWaysToElectPOTUS

— Taylor Baxter (@itsTaylorBaxter) February 3, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Tired of being inundated by news about Donald Trump? Don’t worry–there’s an app for that! (Sort of.) There’s a new Google Chrome extension that will let users who download it block all mentions of The Donald from their browser.

It’s called the Trump Filter, and was created by Rob Spectre. It comes with step-by-step instructions riffing off of Trump’s campaign slogan:

Install the Chrome extension

Browse the Internet you love

Adjust filter settings on the fly

Make America great again

Spectre explained that he wasn’t doing this out of any sort of attempt to profit off the endeavor, answering the question “Are you making money off this?” by stating:

No, nor was I put up to this by the Republican or Democratic Parties, the Obama Administration, my mother or any other possible sphere of influence. I am doing this out of a profound sense of annoyance and patriotic duty.

Spectre also admits that unfortunately there’s no way to use the filter to block Trump from your TV screen:

Tragically, Trump Filter cannot be installed on your television. However, we hope that enough installs will be a strong signal to the international media that America is ready to move on from this inveterate jackass.

Spectre certainly isn’t the first person to come up with an entertaining extension to block news that maybe some of us don’t want to see all over the internet. For example, there’s also a Google Chrome filter that blocks all references to the Kardashian clan. There are also extensions that alter words commonly found in modern news stories–my personal favorite changes any mention of “millennials” to “snake people.” There’s another good one that changes any mention of the “cloud” to “butt.” Finally, if you’re not going to download the Donald Trump blocker, there’s an extension you can download that changes all mentions of Trump’s name to “some rich asshole.”

I, unfortunately, probably shouldn’t download the Trump Filter, because writing about “some rich asshole” for “snake people” is my job. But if you want to kick off the New Year Trump-less, it’s probably not a bad idea, and I don’t blame you one bit.

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 Do Yourself a Favor: Block Trump News Stories with Google Chrome Extension appeared first on Law Street.

Last night was the third Democratic debate of 2015. Amidst a data-breach scandal and threats from Bernie Sanders’ campaign to sue the DNC, contentious back-and-forth about how to deal with ISIS, and a still messy Republican field, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley all had some shining moments on stage. But they also all had some awkward, and funny moments. Check out the top five below:

Hillary’s Gratuitous “Star Wars” Reference

A lot of Americans were pretty excited about the release of the new “Star Wars” film earlier this week. So, at the end of the debate, Clinton played into that hype,

That’s a wrap at the #DemDebate. Now go see Star Wars. https://t.co/2uyOmzf4ST pic.twitter.com/Kcb9bdLlgG

— POLITICO (@politico) December 20, 2015

Since then, there’s been a lot of speculation that her shout out may have been a reference to donor J.J. Abrams, or she may have just been trying to play to young voters who are gravitating more toward Bernie Sanders. Either way it was cute, but seemed a bit forced and camp-y.

Martin O’Malley Calls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Old

Martin O’Malley, who is the youngest of the three contenders by about two decades, pointed out the age difference at one point, stating: “can I offer a different generation’s perspective on this,” while talking about the situation in Syria. It was a cheap shot–but not an unfounded point. If elected, Sanders would be the oldest U.S. president ever, Clinton would be the 2nd oldest if she’s elected.

An Awkward Question About Spouses

This was a “laugh because it’s awkward” kind of funny moment, brought to us by the moderators. Martha Raddatz, an ABC News journalist, asked:

Secretary Clinton — first ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse. But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. You have said that Bill Clinton is a great host and loves giving tours but may opt out of picking flower arrangements if you’re elected. Bill Clinton aside, is it time to change the role of a president’s spouse?

It was a condescending question to subject any of the presidential candidates to, especially when there are way more important issues to talk about. Some commenters pointed out that there were no questions about abortion, and the stupid spouse question got as much time as systemic racism.

Just the Moderators in General

There were just a lot of awkward and funny interactions between the candidates and the moderators last night, including the candidates, at various times, talking over the moderators. Additionally, they started the debate without Hillary Clinton at one point, while she was in the bathroom, which gave us this hilarious moment:

.@HillaryClinton was late to the podium after a commercial break https://t.co/p7fumApIDe pic.twitter.com/y2jdWLn3dk — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 20, 2015

Accidental Innuendo from Clinton

This list wouldn’t be complete without some accidental innuendo from one of the candidates–in this case, Hillary Clinton. While discussing internet security, she made a reference to the concept of backdoors–essentially ways for the government to gain access to confidential, encrypted information. But the way she phrased it was “maybe the back door isn’t the right door,” leading to lots of giggles from less mature members of the audience.

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 Top Five Funniest Moments from the Third Democratic Debate appeared first on Law Street.

In 1990, the nation now known as Myanmar (renamed from Burma in 1989) held its first election since the 1962 coup that brought a repressive military junta to power. The elections were swept by the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi. But the power transition from military to civilian rule never came and by the end of 1990 many of the major figures in the NLD, including Suu Kyi, were arrested.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted and a transition plan established in an attempt to convert Myanmar from military rule to democracy. The country held its first elections under the new constitution in 2010, which brought Thein Sein to the seat of the presidency. On November 8, 2015, general elections were once again held and the NLD and Suu Kyi were once again in the national spotlight. But will anything actually change? Read on to learn about the elections and the current situation in Myanmar.

Military Rule

Following its independence from the British Empire, Myanmar attempted to cultivate a bicameral, multiparty democracy. Elections were characterized by infighting among the political parties and general instability. In 1958, Army Chief of Staff Ne Win was tasked with establishing a caretaker government to restore order.

In 1962, Ne Win launched a coup, declaring Burma was unfit for parliamentary democracy. The constitution was suspended and the legislature was dissolved. From that point, the army established a strong grip on the government of Myanmar, a grip it still holds today. Many private areas were brought under government control, and the Burmese Way to Socialism was adopted. This new philosophy essentially fused the Marxist practices of central planning with traditional Buddhist and Nationalistic sensibilities. Under the new ideology, Myanmar became one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Ne Win would effectively rule the Union of Burma through various roles–Prime Minister, President, and head of the ruling Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP)–until 1988.

After the coup, the government engaged in the brutal repression of opposition and free speech. Student protests frequently occurred but were crushed by the military. A notable protest occurred in December 1974 at the funeral of U Thant, the country’s former permanent representative to the United Nations who later became the U.N. Secretary-General. The unrest culminated in the 8888 Uprising, which started on August 8, 1988. That year, Ne Win enacted a series of currency denominations, effectively eliminating many people’s life-savings. The uprising was led by university students who marched on the capital city of Rangoon. During multiple days of violence between students and security forces, an estimated 3,000 people, mostly protesters, were killed. The protests eventually led Ne Win to resign and in 1990 the country held elections, but despite that momentary progress the military maintained its control over the country.

The 1990 Election

In 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar from the United Kingdom. Heavily influenced by the movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, she helped orchestrate the anti-government rallies stressing nonviolent protest. For her roles in the protests, she would spend 15 years between 1989 and 2010 under some form of incarceration.

When the military agreed to hold open elections in 1990, Suu Kyi mobilized the National League for Democracy. The NLD swept the election claiming a projected 80 percent of available seats despite numerous efforts from the government to hamstring the opposition parties. The limitations included a ban on campaign rallies and strict rules for the media that the opposition groups could distribute to voters.

Despite the overwhelming victory of the NLD in 1990, the elections were never honored by the military government. According to Human Rights Watch,

Burma’s military government refused to recognize the result of the 1990 elections and claimed that the vote was only to form an assembly to draft a new constitution, not for a parliament. In the ensuing months, the military government arrested and imprisoned dozens of opposition parliamentarians, while scores fled Burma to seek refuge abroad.

The 1990 elections concluded with a series of arrests of multiple leaders of the opposition parties, including Suu Kyi. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar.

The 2008 Constitution and 2011 Transition

In 2008, the military government announced a renewed effort to bring democracy to Myanmar and open the country to the rest of the world. Since the 1962 coup, most western nations refused to trade with Myanmar, forcing the country into an unwilling dependence on China for foreign trade. In 2008, a cyclone struck Myanmar and triggered one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history. Many argued that this event led the military government to realize the need to be a part of the larger international community.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted, creating a bicameral elected legislature. However, the government gave itself a powerful position with the constitution. The military party was guaranteed 25 percent of the seats in both houses of the legislature (the Hluttaw). Additionally, in order for any change to the constitution to be ratified, more than 75 percent of all members of the Hluttaw must approve the change. This leaves the military with effective veto power on any proposed change to the constitution.

Elections were once again scheduled, but the NLD boycotted the elections due to a now-infamous provision in the constitution, article 59 F. Regarding limitations on who can hold the office of president, the article states that the president:

Shall he himself, one of the parents, the spouse, one of the legitimate children or their spouses not owe allegiance to a foreign power, not be subject of a foreign power or citizen of a foreign country. They shall not be persons entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of a subject of a foreign government or citizen of a foreign country.

This effectively disqualified Suu Kyi from contention for the office of president because her husband was a British national and her children possess British passports.

The 2010 elections were subject to similar restrictions placed on the 1990 elections, much to the chagrin of independent observers. The Union Election Commission evaluated the opposition parties during the registration process and blocked several from legally running. Numerous ethnic minority groups, particularly Muslims, were disenfranchised and remain to this day ineligible to vote. Amidst rampant fraud and violence, voter turnout was low but the results were honored by the military. In 2011, Thein Sein came to power as president. In 2012, by-elections were held and the NLD participated, claiming most of the available seats, one of which was claimed by Suu Kyi herself.

The 2015 Election

Despite criticism of the constitution, which many claim contains undemocratic articles (primarily article 59 F), the government insisted that the constitution will remain in place. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the general election and dominated the polls, gaining an outright majority in both houses of the Hluttaw. The government has promised a smooth transition of power and the NLD will choose next president of Myanmar. Although she is ineligible for the position, most believe that Suu Kyi will lead from parliament with the president serving as a proxy.

The major losers in the election, aside from the military party, were the ethnic opposition groups and their Mon National Party. Largely popular in the ethnic, fringe villages, the party could not compete with larger population centers that favor the NLD while multiple MNP candidates split the vote. Voter disenfranchisement was also a major factor in several regions that were key for the MNP.

Expectations

The primary question after this election is who will become the next president of Myanmar. However, the answer to this question isn’t overly important as whoever is chosen by the Hluttaw will likely just serve as Suu Kyi’s proxy. To select a president, each of the Hluttaw houses and the military will nominate a candidate. The candidates will then be voted on in a joint session of the legislature with the two losers serving as vice-presidents.

At the outset, it looked as if Speaker of the Hluttaw U Shwe Mann was the clear favorite for the office of president. Although he is a member of the military faction, Suu Kyi may support his candidacy in exchange for constitutional reform. However, Shwe Mann has since lost favor with the military, and was removed as head of the party in an August “soft-coup.” At present, there are numerous contenders for the office, though it is unclear which direction Suu Kyi and the NLD will go. Any alliance with the military party will likely be for the sole purpose of reforming the constitution.

Current president Thein Sein, who could still garner support for another term, has promised a smooth transition at a gathering of political parties in the week following the election. Both the NLD and the current ruling party are expected to hold reconciliation talks to help bring about the smooth transfer of power and begin a reform process.

Conclusion

The NLD’s convincing victory gives Suu Kyi a mandate to seek the constitutional and democratic change she has spent the last 27 years campaigning for. Despite being unable to claim the office of president for herself, she is expected to run the country by proxy from the Hluttaw. However, any change will likely be slow and gradual and a smooth transition remains difficult in light of the country’s history. The military also retains effective veto power to any proposed change in the constitution.

Myanmar still faces a variety of problems regarding its treatment of ethnic minorities, widespread impoverishment, and persistent electoral issues. While the government has promised a transition, similar promises were made in 1990 and later reneged. Time will tell if 2015 and 2016 will be any different.

Resources

Primary

Myanmar: Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar

Additional

BBC: Myanmar’s 2015 General Election Explained

BBC: Profile: Aung San Suu Kyi

CNN: November Date set for Landmark Myanmar Elections: What’s at stake?

Al Jazeera: Myanmar Promised ‘Smooth and Stable’ Transition

The Irrawaddy: Mon Parties Count their Losses after NLD Rout

The New Yorker: Can Myanmar’s New Government Control its Military?

The Huffington Post: Burma’s 8888: A Movement that Lives On

James F. Guyot: Myanmar in 1990: The Unconsummated Election

Oxford Burma Alliance: The Ne Win Years: 1962-1988

Burma Fund UN Office: Burma’s 2010 Elections: A Comprehensive Report

PBS NewsHour: Inside the Charge for Change Toward Democracy in Myanmar

Journeyman Pictures: Road to Democracy – Myanmar’s Election Struggle

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated correct U Thant’s history. Thant served as Burma’s permanent representative to the United Nations and later the U.N. Secretary-General. He was not the country’s prime minister.

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advancement or Regression? The 2015 Elections in Myanmar appeared first on Law Street.

On October 26, Jimmy Morales defeated former first lady Sandra Torres in a runoff election, taking 67.4 percent of the vote to become Guatemala’s president-elect. Scheduled to take office in 2016, little is known about Morales’ plan for his government other than that he is a conservative who believes in minimal government interference.

The general election was held as scheduled despite the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina a few days before after he was indicted on corruption charges that had claimed his prior vice-president and numerous members of his cabinet.

Despite the fact that he lacks any former political experience aside from a failed mayoral run in 2011, read on to understand the making of Morales’ rise to the presidency.

The Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996) and Aftermath

In order to understand Guatemala’s recent election, it’s crucial to first discuss the country’s history of conflict and the connection to its recent corruption challenges. During the 1940s and early 1950s, elections in Guatemala brought popular, leftist leaders into power. In 1954, a United States-backed coup, headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, brought a military regime to power. In the 1960s, conflict between left-wing guerrilla groups and the military sparked a civil war that lasted for decades. In the 1970s, military rulers began a campaign to eliminate guerrilla leaders, causing approximately 50,000 deaths. Numerous atrocities, including genocide and forced disappearances, were committed largely by government forces. The state-sponsored atrocities killed an estimated 200,000 civilians during the nation’s civil war.

Despite the signing of peace accords in 1996, Guatemala continues to face issues like extreme poverty, illiteracy, and racism against indigenous peoples. Political tension has remained a constant, as shown by the recent turbulent election of a television comedian to the office of president. Numerous ex-government officials and landowners who assisted paramilitary groups have been convicted for their roles in the atrocities during the civil war. The internal debate over whether acts of genocide were actually committed continues, and was disputed by former president Molina.

The Road to Morales (1996-2015)

As suggested above, the transition period from civil war to peacetime democracy was slow and rocky and may still be underway. In late the 1990s and early 2000s, the government focused on cracking down on crime and protecting the human rights of civilians victimized by the past wartime governments. However, the post-war government was challenged with high crime rates, corruption, and violence directed at human rights groups and journalists.

Efrain Rios Montt, a former military leader, was permitted to run for president in 2003 despite a constitutional rule that prevented anyone who had attempted to overthrow the government from running for election. Montt had become the national leader in 1982 following a coup and oversaw the escalation of violence in the countryside. He lost the 2003 election to Oscar Berger, who later allowed the United Nations to help create the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The group was tasked with assisting national law enforcement prosecute organized crime and drug trafficking.

Otto Perez Molina was elected president in 2011, a position that he held until earlier this year. In April, the CICIG released a report implicating numerous members of Molina’s government of corruption, most notably Vice-President Roxana Baldetti. The scandal, which became known as La Linea, revolved around officials taking bribes from importers in exchange for tariff reductions. The tactic dates back to the civil war, when military officials used payoffs finance their counter-insurgency operations. In a protest that was largely organized through social media, tens of thousands of people came out in the streets of the capital urging Baldetti to resign. After a few days, she complied.

Since Baldetti’s resignation, the corruption case has claimed more than 20 government officials, including members of opposition parties. On August 21, the CICIG issued a report which presented further evidence putting former Vice-President Baldetti and President Molina at the head of the La Linea operation. Guatemalans once again took to the streets, demanding Molina’s resignation. On September 1, the Guatemalan congress voted unanimously to withdraw the president’s protection from prosecution and two days later, Molina resigned and was arrested. On September 7, the general election was held with Morales the clear favorite heading into the runoff.

The election was held despite concerns that the La Linea scandal polluted the lead-up to the election with accusations against the candidates. Others insisted that the election should go ahead to avoid a power vacuum.

Jimmy Morales and the Election

With the slogan “Neither corrupt, nor a thief” and waning voter enthusiasm, Morales won the election. Nearly half of Guatemala’s 7.5 million registered voters did not cast ballots. Of those who did, many cited a lack of satisfaction with the current government and low expectations for any future regime. Morales’s victory is likely due to the fact that he is a political outsider who could present a contrast to the officials claimed by the La Linea scandal. He had 13 opponents in the general election but won with a plurality of the vote. Because neither of the three leading candidates met the 50 percent threshold, a runoff election was held shortly after the general. Morales’ won the runoff with around 68 percent of all votes cast.

Manuel Baldizon was considered the front-runner in the election as recently as April, but his association with the established government hurt his campaign after the scandal came to light. He finished in third place in the general election but quit the race prior to the runoff election leaving Morales and Sandra Torrez as the two remaining options.

Morales’s dominant victory in the runoff has been viewed as a rejection of the status quo by voters. However, it must be noted that Morales’s party, the National Convergence Front (FCN) only claimed 11 of the 158 available seats in Congress. Despite his landslide victory, he now faces an uphill battle as he will need to establish a coalition in the among legislators in order to advance his policy agenda.

What to Expect

Although Jimmy Morales was elected with around 68 percent of the vote, his campaign did not offer many specifics about his plans for the country. As BBC notes, his campaign manifesto is just six pages long and contains few details about policy positions beyond fighting corruption.

His campaign website emphasizes his interest in strengthening three areas: employment, education, and public health. His political ideology appears to be strongly influenced by Reaganism and a desire for minimal government interference–in fact, the “about” section of his website features a long quote from Ronald Reagan.

Expectations heading into Morales’s presidency are low given the lack of support he’ll have in Congress on day one. While his specific policy positions remain unclear, reports highlight his emphasis on religion and small government. He has stated his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the legalization of recreational drugs. Women’s rights and gay rights groups have come out against of Morales for his views, and his controversial characters in a popular sketch comedy show raised questions about his position on social issues.

Another notable area of concern is his Party’s ties to military leaders during the civil war, whom many associate with violence and corruption. In response to criticism, Morales defended his Party by issuing a clarification on his website, which noted that much of the Party leadership was replaced when he joined in 2013.

Morales has said that will not be able to make Guatemala’s economic and government problems disappear on his own. While he touted his inexperience and background to win an election that claimed many old guard politicians as victims, those virtues may now act as limitations as he attempts to build a governing coalition.

In the meantime, interim President Alejandro Maldonado has voiced support for the protesters and has backed the charges against former President Molina. Maldonado hopes that the recent developments will help the country deal with its corruption issues as it transitions to a new government. He will serve as the interim President until Morales takes office in January.

Conclusion

On the surface, the results of the Guatemalan election may appear curious, but the reality is that the election of former comedian Jimmy Morales is the result of deeply seeded distrust in the political system. Despite his background in comedy, Morales hails from a conservative party with ties to controversial leaders during the civil war. While he has not given many specifics about what his presidency will look like, it is clear that Guatemalans chose him as an alternative to the status quo. Yet, despite his landslide victory on election day, voter turnout was particularly low, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the current system.

The people of Guatemala are desperate for any form of change, rejecting established political elites for an inexperienced but popular comedian. The populace remains split between those who a cynical of any Guatemalan government and those that remain cautiously optimistic for real change.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala

Additional

The Washington Post: The ‘Donald Trump of Guatemala’ was just Elected President

The Washington Post: Guatemalan President Resigns After Judge Orders Him to Face Corruption Charges

Reuters: No joke: Guatemalan Comedian Wins Presidency in Landslide

BBC: Guatemala election: Jimmy Morales Elected President

BBC: Timeline: Guatemala

New York Times: Jimmy Morales is Elected New President in Guatemala

CNN: Guatemala election: Presidential Runoff set for October; Comedian is Frontrunner

LA Times: Guatemala Presidential Candidate Quits Party, Drops Out of Race

Victoria Sanford: Victory in Guatemala? Not Yet

Jimmy Morales: Campaign Website

Regina Bateson: How Local Institutions Emerge from Civil War

Daniel Schloss: Elusive Peace, Security, and Justice in Post-Conflict Guatemala: An Exploration of Transnational Justice and the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)

Vox: Guatemala’s Crisis, Explained: Why the President Just Resigned

John Oliver: Guatemala’s Election

Al Jazeera: Talk to Al Jazeera: Showdown in Guatemala: Ending an Era of Impunity?

Journeyman Pictures: An American Genocide: Guatemala

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guatemalan Elections: How a Comedian Became President appeared first on Law Street.

Today is election day in the U.S., and despite the fact that we’re all already preoccupied with the 2016 elections, there are some interesting races to watch this year as well. From mayoral elections to ballot initiatives, the 2015 elections certainly shouldn’t be ignored. Check out the top five most noteworthy races that are drawing eyes to this year’s polling places.

Virginia’s General Assembly

Today, the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia will vote for their 140 members of the General Assembly. While the House of Delegates is almost certain to remain under Republican control, the state Senate is up for grabs, with just a few hotly-contested races likely to decide which party dominates. Virginia’s governor, Terry McAuliffe, is a Democrat, so having a Democratically-controlled Senate would give him more leverage to accomplish his goals in the state. Given Virginia’s cemented status as a swing state, state-level politics may offer an interesting look at which way it could lean in 2016.

San Francisco’s Airbnb Vote

The city of San Francisco, ironically the home of Airbnb, is voting today on Proposition F, which would put some serious restrictions on Airbnb and other short-term rental companies. Airbnb has fought against the proposed restrictions tooth and nail, spending upwards of $8 million. But, Airbnb also pissed off San Franciscans last week with a series of condescending ads that the company later took down and apologized for.

Airbnb issues apology after tone-deaf ads pop up in San Francisco https://t.co/lKdMLfP5c1 pic.twitter.com/YQsEmxsLxF

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) October 23, 2015

With this very expensive and contentious question being posed to voters, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Kentucky Gubernatorial Race

Kentucky’s governorship is up for grabs, with a hotly-contested race between Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway and the Republican nominee, Matt Bevin, a wealthy businessman and tea party darling. Bevin almost successfully primary-ed Senator Mitch McConnell last year. To a lot of observers, the race between Conway and Bevin is symptomatic of some overall trends–on one hand Tea Party extremists pushing out more establishment Republicans, and on the other, Democrats struggling in state wide races. Like the Virginia State Assembly, this Kentucky governor’s race may shed some further light on national trends as we move toward 2016.

Ohio Marijuana Initiative

Ohio voters will have to vote on Issue 3, which if it passes, will legalize recreational and medical marijuana in the state. If it passes, Ohio will be the first state to legalize recreational marijuana without first legalizing medical marijuana. But there are some serious concerns about the implications of legalizing marijuana in Ohio, summed up yesterday by fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans. One big concern is the fact that legalizing marijuana it in the state will make the group of 10 investors pushing the effort very wealthy, as they will have control over the state’s marijuana market.

The Houston Equal Rights Ordinance

The city of Houston, Texas, will be voting today on an equal rights ordinance which would specify non-discrimination in arenas such as employment and public housing. The law, which is on the ballot as Proposition 1, would include protections for the LGBTQ community, as it specifies sexual orientation, genetic information, and gender identity. Opponents to the ordinance have fixated on one particular aspect–that it will allow people who are trans to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, and made some truly disgusting and fear-mongering commercials urging people to vote against it.

Given that this is one of the first big public tests of LGBTQ rights post-Obergefell, the Houston vote is certainly one to watch.

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 2015 Elections: Top Five Votes to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

Burkina Faso, a small, land-locked country in Western Africa, is currently in the midst of a political transition that could be monumental for the region. Much like the North African nations that underwent political change during the Arab Spring, Burkina Faso is currently in the throes of political turmoil. In a country with a long history of military coups, mass protests recently forced Burkina Faso’s president to resign after holding power for 27 years.

While an interim government plans to hold elections at the end of the month, recent challenges have made the country’s transition extremely difficult. From a brief counter-coup to the relatively strong influence of the military, the country has a long way to go before its government is stable again. Read on to see exactly what is going on in Burkina Faso, how it all started, and where the conflict is likely to go next.

History of Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso, at the time called Upper Volta, achieved full independence from France in 1960 after a long period of colonial rule. Between its independence in 1960 and 1987, the country went through five separate military coups. The first coup occurred just six years after it gained its independence when the democratically elected Maurice Yaméogo was ousted by military leader Sangoulé Lamizana.

Upper Volta adopted a new constitution in 1970 giving Lamizana power until another coup, led by Saye Zerbo, removed him in 1980. Zerbo was quickly replaced by Major Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo in 1982. Ouédraogo’s forces quickly splintered into two groups: conservative and radical. Thomas Sankara assumed control of the radical faction and usurped Ouédraogo to become the country’s leader. After coming to power in 1983, Sankara implemented a series of left-wing policies. Upper Volta was renamed Burkina Faso in 1984.

Like his predecessors, Sankara’s rule was short-lived, as he was overthrown and killed in 1987. Blaise Compaoré, an aide to Sankara, led the 1987 military coup. Deviating from the previous instability, Compaoré managed to hold power in Burkina Faso for 27 years. A new constitution was put in place in 1991 and Compaoré won in a widely criticized election. He would go on to win three more elections, in 1998, 2005, and 2010.

The video below gives a brief history of Burkina Faso starting with Compaore’s coup in 1987:

Recent Developments

Compaoré Steps Down

Given Burkina Faso’s history of coups and Compaoré’s near overthrow in 2011, it appeared likely he would step down at the end of his term in 2015. However, like many of the rulers before him, Compaoré sought to maintain his power. In October 2014, Burkina Faso’s National Assembly considered a bill to remove the term limit on the presidency, meaning that he could run for reelection the next year. This immediately led to protests, the burning of parliament, and clashes between protestors and the military, much like what happened in 2011.

Authorities eventually imposed martial law due to the violence, which included protestors taking over state-controlled media outlets and looting the president’s home. In addition to martial law, the vote to extend the term limit was dropped, yet the protests continued. In a final effort to ease tension, Compaoré dissolved his hand-picked government and promised more dialogue with the protestors.  Finally, after all the other measures failed, Compaoré resigned from the presidency after 27 years in office. After Compaoré’s resignation, the military briefly took control before a panel appointed Michael Kafando the interim president; Kafando was formerly a foreign minister and Burkina Faso’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Leading up to the events that caused Blaise Compaoré to resign, Burkina Faso was in many ways primed for change. Despite recent economic progress and a large gold reserve, Burkina Faso was one of the poorest countries in the world. In fact, the situation became so dire in 2011 that it appeared a coup was imminent, as soldiers protested unpaid housing and food allowances. That conflict was likely only avoided because of a series of concessions offered by Compaoré. When the question of extending his term limit came up last year, Compaoré quickly ran out of options to appease protestors.

The video below details the fall of president Compaoré:

Recent Developments 

The coup, or forced resignation, of October 2014 fits into Burkina Faso’s long history of power struggles, but this time the driving force seemed to be dissatisfaction among the public and not exclusively through military intervention. However, in a unique twist, the interim government under president Michel Kafando was briefly overthrown in a counter-coup in September.

The brief coup was led by the Presidential Security Regiment, which remained loyal to Blaise Compaoré after his rule ended. Members of the regiment orchestrated a coup due to their of support for the previous ruler and the fear that they would not be allowed to participate in the country’s upcoming elections. The coup lasted for about a week before its leaders were taken into custody. They now face trial for trying to “stop the process to democracy and liberty for the people of Burkina Faso.” Pressure from country’s military, the West African Bloc, and once again, the citizens of Burkina Faso themselves ensured that the takeover was only temporary. Elections remain scheduled for the end of November.

The accompanying video below details the end of the attempted coup:

Impact Abroad

While a controversial figure, Blaise Compaoré was also an invaluable mediator and his absence from the country may have important consequences for the region. Compaoré played a vital role in negotiations aimed at ending the violence in nearby Cote D’Ivoire and Mali. In 2013, the International Crisis Group implied that if he left power in 2015 it would be a significant loss for a strategically important point in West Africa.

Compaoré was also an important ally in the west’s fight against extremism in West Africa. Both the United States and France, Burkina Faso’s former colonial ruler, have troops stationed there. Following the protests, there were no immediate signs these troops would be removed or forced to leave. At the time of Compaoré’s resignation, it was also feared that his ouster could be a sign of things to come, a movement dubbed the “African Spring.” However, this concern never became a major issue.

Moving Forward

So what’s next for Burkina Faso?  Some view the recent changes in Burkina Faso as part of a larger movement, akin to the Arab Spring in North Africa, but possibly even larger. Zachariah Mampilly, an associate professor of Africana Studies at Vassar College, argues that the developments in Burkina Faso reflect a major trend in Africa. To Mampilly, the protests in North Africa and in places like Burkina Faso are not separate but intertwined over issues of inequality and perpetual poverty. In other words, the Arab Spring and the African Spring were not different movements, rather one larger movement across Africa. While relatively little progress has been made, the emerging trend in protests across the continent may be related.

On the other hand, some see the transition as far less altruistic. Immediately after Compaoré resigned, yet another, Lieutenant Colonel Zida, was elected to be Prime Minister of the interim government. The fact that a military man was once again involved raised questions over whether this was a change sparked by people or just another coup. While many remain skeptical, others are hopeful as the country continues to prepare for elections at the end of the month.

Conclusion

After 27 years under the rule of Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Faso is undergoing a period of rapid political change. After Compaoré’s forced resignation, an interim government was appointed only to be briefly overtaken by yet another coup. While the interim government has regained its control, the country has a long way to go before stability can return. Although elections are scheduled for the end of the month, the military’s involvement in the interim government has led many to question whether it will continue to consolidate its power in the vacuum left by Compaoré.

If Burkina Faso can stem off future coups and actually hold elections, it will go a long way to proving that it has made strides. If and when that happens, the country must then find a way to cultivate its natural wealth, while avoiding past pitfalls. If not, Burkina Faso could easily fall back into the cycle of coups that has plagued its history. If that turns out to be the case, the comparisons between what happened in Burkina Faso and the Arab Spring may, unfortunately, be quite fitting.

Resources

Encyclopedia Britannica: Burkina Faso

History World: History of Burkina Faso

Time: What You Need to Know About the Unrest in Burkina Faso

New York Times: Burkina Faso Charges General Who Led Failed Coup

World Politics Review: Compaoré’s Fall in Burkina Faso Signals Trouble for Africa’s ‘Presidents for Life’

Washington Post: Burkina Faso’s Uprising Part of an Ongoing Wave of African Protests

Al-Jazeera: Burkina Faso: Uprising or military coup?

New York Times: Violent Protests Topple Government in Burkina Faso

The Guardian: Burkina Faso Coup Leader in Custody

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Burkina Faso: A Troubled History and Looming Elections appeared first on Law Street.

It’s understandable that some of the Democratic and Republican candidates may not have put too much thought into their Halloween costumes yet–after all, it’s been a busy few weeks. So, we here at Law Street thought we’d help them out, and come up with some suggestions for a few of the candidates. Check them out below:

Bernie Sanders could go as Larry David

The senator from Vermont wouldn’t even have to get too creative on this one. He’s a dead ringer for comedian Larry David, who actually impersonated him on SNL a few weeks ago.

Bernie Sanders Thinks Larry David Impersonation Was ‘Pretty Good’ – ABC News https://t.co/33XTm0A2rZ#Headlinespic.twitter.com/EMjdzxtusv

— Stormbreaker (@iTwit_News) October 22, 2015

Ted Cruz as Grandpa Munster

According to some, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas looks an awful lot like Grandpa Munster from the Munsters–a 1980s CBS sitcom. It’s seasonally appropriate too, given that Grandpa Munster’s real name was Vladimir Dracula, Count of Transylvania, and a vampire.

Ted Cruz literally is grandpa Munster #GOPDebate@tedcruzpic.twitter.com/BCWQH4gPSa

— Lawyer with wine (@Esq_Wine) October 29, 2015

Martin O’Malley as Taylor Swift

After he regaled the hosts of the “View” with his rendition of “Bad Blood,” O’Malley should reprise his role as T-Swift for Halloween.

Lindsey Graham Could be an iPhone

Given his aversion to technology and email, and the earlier controversy when Donald Trump gave out his personal cell phone number, Lindsey Graham could make a convincing iPhone for Halloween.

Making my iPhone costume! @MaesieKostynuik @MegsDeAngelis #iphonecostume pic.twitter.com/Y2mzeiRvmX

— Julie (@JulieGeneroux) October 30, 2015

Jeb Bush Could be His Brother, or Father

Bush might as well save some money, and repurpose an old costume. I’m sure there are plenty of George W. and George H.W. costumes floating around out there.

Image courtesy of Steve Shupe via Flickr

Hillary Should Dress up as Tech Support

Given all the issues she has had with her email so far in this campaign, Hillary could moonlight as a member of tech support–Geek Squad, perhaps?

Image courtesy of Mike Mozart via Flickr

So there you have it–some suggestions for the 2016 candidates to celebrate Halloween in style. With only hope, they’ll take these suggestions seriously. 

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 Halloween Costume Suggestions for the 2016 Presidential Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most notable themes of Wednesday’s debate was the outward hostility that the candidates expressed toward the moderators and the media in general. We often hear about politicians criticizing the media, but why exactly do they do it and why does it elicit such a positive response?

Before we get into peoples’ perception of the media, I first need to address the fact that existing research has found very little evidence of actual media bias. When I first wrote about the debate, I noted that a review of nearly 59 studies conducted over a long period of time did not find notable evidence of bias in newspapers or news magazines. While some bias could be seen in television news broadcasts, that amount was generally insignificant. It is important to note that general news coverage is different from editorials and commentators’ discussions of news events, which are decidedly more opinionated.

A general explanation for claims of media bias is the widely accepted concept of the “hostile media effect,” which involves people’s perception of media coverage that they disagree with. Particularly when it comes to those with very strong opinions on an issue, people tend to perceive media coverage as biased against them, even when no evidence of bias in the coverage exists. Put simply, people on both sides of the ideological spectrum can perceive the same coverage as biased against them.

The recent trend of distrust among conservatives may also be explained by their notable dissatisfaction with the mainstream media. According to the Pew Research Center’s “Political Polarization & Media Habits” report, conservatives are much more likely to consume and trust conservative media than any other source. People who are mostly and consistently conservative are more likely to watch Fox News than any other source while those on the other end of the spectrum consume news from a wider range of sources. Fox News is generally considered to be a right-leaning network, in its news coverage but particularly when it comes to the network’s commentators. I note this not to make a judgment of many conservatives’ media habits, but to point out the important differences between the sources of information conservative individuals trust in comparison to liberals.

Gallup’s recent trust in the mass media poll indicates that Americans in general have relatively low trust in the media. In fact, the most recent survey shows that only about 40 percent of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media–a record low. While this is true for most Americans, it is particularly true among Republicans and Independents, as 32 and 33 percent expressed similar levels of trust in the media, respectively. In contrast, 55 percent of Democrats trust the media a great deal or a fair amount. These results also mirror a larger trend in public opinion, as Americans are generally less trusting of many U.S. institutions than in other points in history.

In the crowded Republican primary campaign, where candidates need to appeal more to the conservative base of primary voters than the general public, criticism of the mainstream media is particularly resonant. This trend could also be compounded by the conservative media’s general disdain for the mainstream media. An example of that is Ted Cruz’ post-debate interview with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. In the interview, Cruz reiterated his claim of bias in the mainstream media and Hannity strongly agreed with his characterization. They both emphasized the hostile environment that the CNBC moderators created and noted how that reflects the media’s treatment of conservatives in general. Finally, Cruz called for a debate that would be moderated by outspoken conservatives like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Mark Levin.

One question that has not yet been answered is exactly why Americans, particularly conservatives, dislike the mainstream media. Is it because of repeated attacks from politicians, which happen on both sides of the aisle, or are the politicians merely reflecting public sentiment? That question may be impossible to answer, but it’s pretty clear that both the public and elected officials are playing off of each others’ distrust in the news media. As the distrust grows continues, the trend may not bode well for the press’ ability to hold elected leaders accountable.

Read More: Comedy or Cable: Where do Americans Get Their News?

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 Why Do Politicians Attack the Media? appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s top stories included a list of the safest and most dangerous states in the U.S., a look at Russia’s diplomatic interactions in the Middle East, and some of the best Twitter reactions to Joe Biden’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the presidency. ICYMI, check out the best stories from Law Street last week below:

1. Slideshow: America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2016

Alaska is the most dangerous state in the nation for the second year in a row according to the latest violent crime data from the FBI. Despite a slight decrease in its violent crime rate from 640 per 100,000 in 2013 to 635.8 per 100,000 in 2014–the most recent year for which the FBI provides data–Alaska maintains its number one spot, followed by Nevada (635.6) and Tennessee (608.4). Law Street’s third annual slideshow of the Safest and Most Dangerous States ranks all 50 states from most dangerous to safest and details the violent crime statistics for every city in the country with a reported population of 25,000 or more. Check out the slideshow here

2. Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East. Read the full story here.

3. Top Twitter Reactions to Joe Biden’s Announcement He Won’t Be Running for President

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

Like most elections in recent history, the hot button topics politicians use to illicit an emotional response from voters include education, immigration, and healthcare. Yes, we’ve all heard about Trump wanting to build a wall along the Mexico border. We have developed hope for Bernie Sanders’ plan to decrease student loans.  We have heard one Republican after another decry Planned Parenthood for its supposedly illegal and morally questionable actions.

But the issue is bigger than Planned Parenthood. For many people, Planned Parenthood is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective solution that provides necessary men and women’s healthcare. It performs safe, legal abortions, yes, but more than that provides counseling, exams, pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women, as well as more general healthcare needs.

Again, the issue here is not what Planned Parenthood does or does not do. It’s a deeper problem of government bodies thinking it is okay to prevent women from having control over their own bodies and healthcare. It is not the job of Congress to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. That should be between her and her doctor WHEREVER she chooses to receive healthcare. Why should women who choose Planned Parenthood as their primary source of healthcare be denied these very beneficial services because some people in the government disagree with one of those services?

Protesters of Planned Parenthood think the organization should not receive federal funding because it performs abortions. Yes, it receives money from the government. As do all other non-profit, public health services. Planned Parenthood receives over one-third of its yearly funding from federal sources, but none of that can be legally allocated to abortion services, so that argument falls flat. Any money it receives from the government goes toward the very real need for reliable and affordable healthcare.

Republicans and Pro-Lifers like to cite the recent smear campaign videos that came out about the Planned Parenthood clinics. Carly Fiorina even used those videos as support for her arguments during the last debate.  Unfortunately for Fiorina, the scenes she talked about don’t exist, and the videos have been doctored. Planned Parenthood is not illegally harvesting and selling fetal tissue. But that truth has largely been ignored.

Let me repeat: those videos were discredited. Yet, they keep coming up. Why? Because they cause a reaction, and politicians know that a majority of people will go with emotions first and check facts later.

But we must check facts, because otherwise organizations that help people–like Planned Parenthood–die out, and thousands of women will suffer the consequences.

Next time someone decides to justify taking funding away from Planned Parenthood by citing its abortion services, which aren’t even funded by their federal grants, tell them the facts. Abortion services are only a small percentage of the many healthcare options the clinics offer, and your tax money does not go to them. Think about the women who rely on those clinics to receive life-saving care, and remember that not everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth is true.

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 The Planned Parenthood Debate is Not About Abortion, It’s About Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is certainly dominating the news when it comes to the race for the 2016 Republican presidential primary. But “The Donald” didn’t get his start as a politician–he was a business mogul and reality television star before anyone ever saw him on a presidential poll. While that may seem weird to some, celebrities who have gotten famous through other means are consistently trying to join the political ranks. Here are five other celebrities running for office in 2016–and I’m betting they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

Live From Capitol Hill…It’s Gary Kroeger!

Gary Kroeger, former ‘#SNL’ cast member, to run for #Iowa congressional seat http://t.co/9DeyxasPiz @JessicaChasmar pic.twitter.com/ho1n7tyZSa

— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) April 9, 2015

Gary Kroeger made America laugh during his Saturday Night Live cast position from 1982-1985. Now, he’s running to try to represent the people of Iowa’s 1st Congressional District as a Democrat. He’s running on a platform that is heavy on economic issues and tax reform. He does have a tough road ahead of him though–first he’ll have to make it through a Democratic primary against two opponents.

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 Celebrities Running for Office: Familiar Faces in the 2016 Races appeared first on Law Street.

The recent shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina opened up a number of old wounds for the country and reinvigorated several dormant concerns that seem to linger in the American consciousness. Chief among these concerns is both racism and America’s lack of gun control laws. While many were quick to put the blame in this case on a twisted, racist individual, there were others who said it was just one more in the litany of examples of the side effects of a culture that enthusiastically embraces guns without any real checks. Read on to learn more about gun control in this country, the role of groups such as the National Rifle Association, and what impact this has on the lives of everyday Americans.

History of Gun Control

What does the Second Amendment actually mean?

Any and all issues concerning guns in the United States start with the Second Amendment. While people associate the amendment with protecting their right to own firearms, the exact wording is as follows: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment was originally designed as a check against the federal government, in essence to protect the states from being overwhelmed by its standing army.

According to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stephens, over the years the law has been misinterpreted and manipulated for political gain. Originally it was designed so that people could bear arms as part of a militia in order to protect against the federal government. In other words, these people would own weapons as a function of their status within a militia. In fact, this was the way the law was interpreted for most of American history. But beginning in 2008, in a controversial Supreme Court decision regarding handguns, the amendment was interpreted to owning guns in general, instead of for a purpose. On top of this, the type of weapons protected also expanded. Specifically, in 1939 in a famous case cited by Stephens, sawed-off shotguns were ruled illegal because they did not fit the requirement of self-protection that was originally interpreted as the law’s modus operandi. However, as recent efforts have shown in which automatic weapons have become allowable these same rules no longer apply.

Failed Efforts at Reform

While gun control advocates are seemingly losing the battle over gun ownership in the U.S., this has not always been the case. On the contrary, the opposite held true for much of America’s history. The first efforts at regulation were in 1934. Following the high number of deaths resulting from the use of automatic weapons by prohibition-era gangsters, the federal government passed the National Firearms Act, which both made automatic weapons too expensive for the average person to afford and prevented the importation of the weapons.

The Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, in the aftermath of the high-profile killings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. This legislation created the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). ATF was tasked with regulating the sale of guns and the weapons themselves.

The tide began to turn against gun control advocates, however, with the passage of the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, which limited the ATF in its crackdown of gun owners and dealers. The gun control side had one last hurrah with the Brady Act in 1994, which outlawed the sale of assault weapons. This law nevertheless had a built-in sunset provision of ten years. When it came up for reauthorization in 2004 it was not renewed.

Along with the recent court decisions supporting gun ownership rights, the country’s representatives also seem to be opposed to regulating the weaponry. This became clear in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre when both new legislation and efforts to expand existing legislation, which called for background checks, failed to gain traction even in the shadow of the massacre of 20 elementary school children. Click here to view a video explainer on the history of gun control in the United States.

Guns in America

An Abundance of Firearms

Despite all the discussion over protecting gun owners’ rights, only a minority of the population actually owns any guns at all. While exact figures do not exist, according to a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center, only about 37 percent of Americans own firearms. However, while less than half of the U.S. owns a gun, there are an estimated 270 to 310 million in circulation among the civilian population. In other words, one for every man, woman, and child. To put this into context, although the U.S. accounts for only about five percent of the world’s population, it is home to between 35 to 50 percent of its firearms. While the overwhelming majority of these are owned by law-abiding citizens, the sheer volume of available weapons has led to a serious issue with gun violence in the United States.  The following video depicts the level of gun ownership, gun fatalities, and attempts at gun control.

Gun Deaths by the Numbers

While those who favor protecting gun rights over gun control cite protection as a main reason, it has to be asked, are guns making the U.S. any safer? Going strictly by numbers and in comparison to other industrialized nations, the answer is a resounding no. On an average day in the U.S., 88 people die from a gun-related incident. The yearly total extrapolates to roughly 32, 251, the approximate figure in 2011 according to the CDC.

These rates dwarf those of countries in Western Europe to which the United States is often compared in other metrics. The U.S. in 2010 for example had a homicide rate that was 6.6 times higher than that of Portugal, who had the highest rate in Western Europe. To put it another way, that same year the U.S. had a higher homicide rate per capita than Pakistan, a country renowned for terrorism, and was only slightly behind other nefarious locales such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Iraq. Perhaps the most chilling comparison is the 2013 numbers which show major American cities with homicide rates similar to that of notoriously violent countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. While it should be made clear that all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are not homicides, the fact that these are also some of the highest figures in the world is telling in itself.

The level of gun violence is so high in the United States that Surgeon General Vivek Murthy argued prior to being appointed to the position in 2014 that it is a public health crisis.

In defense of guns, some proponents compare them to automobile fatalities and suggest that no one ever considers banning cars. This comparison may soon be losing traction, however. Not even taking into account factors such as cars being used for longer time periods and much more frequently than firearms, overall vehicle fatalities are declining. In fact, while gun deaths continue to rise, projections for automobile deaths continue to fall and it is widely speculated that gun-related fatalities will soon eclipse those from automobiles.

Opinions of Guns

With all this in mind, what is the perception of gun control and gun ownership in this country today? According to a recent Pew Research Poll, for the first time since polling began in the early 1990s, more people view protecting gun rights as important than they do controlling gun ownership. The main motivation behind this is a perceived threat and belief in an increased crime rate. However, crime rates have remained consistently low since the beginning of their precipitous fall in the early 1990s.

Nonetheless, the main reason why those polled owned guns was for protection. This is in stark contrast to just 16 years ago when the main reason given by respondents was hunting. These numbers can be broken down further; white people, men, and those who identify as Republican are also more in favor of protecting gun ownership rights and believe guns are a means of protection that makes a home safer.

The fact that support for gun ownership is going up as crime rates remain low presents a paradox. The perception then according to these polls is people are either being misinformed or misinterpreting the issues relating to gun ownership.

The NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has a major impact on the perception of firearms in the United States. In 2014 for example, the NRA donated $984,152 in political contributions, spent $3.36 million on lobbying, and another $28.2 million on outside spending. Nevertheless, while this may seem like a lot, the organization ranked 315 in contributions, 150 in lobbying, and 10 in outside spending among all groups.

Thus, the NRA seemingly has far more clout than is warranted based on how much money it spends. From where then does its power come? The answer is in the rating system the NRA has for candidates. The system provides a letter grade, similar to one from elementary school, based on how a candidate votes on a bill related to guns. An A-grade indicates a candidate’s strong adherence to individual gun ownership and conservative values.

Watch the video below for more information about the NRA.

Conclusion

The United States is a heavily weaponized country, in fact the most heavily weaponized in the world. This extends from its military, which is the best funded by far, to its police forces, which are quickly resembling its military in terms of equipment. This has even pervaded the towns, communities, and neighborhoods as regular Americans are armed like no other people on the globe.

This is the result of years of lobbying by pro-gun groups, namely the NRA, and decisions by the government and courts to protect gun ownership. Subsequently, the widespread availability of these weapons has also led to extremely high numbers of gun-related deaths and homicide rates that on average rival some of the most dangerous countries in the world.

While these facts have caused some to take pause, they have not led to any real change in regulating these weapons, whether this takes the form of outlawing guns in general or requiring more thorough background checks for the mentally ill. The numbers on this issue are unquestionable. The debate, however, on how to handle this issue is still wide open to a variety of corrective actions.

Regardless though, the recent events in Charleston showed that whether it is guns themselves or those wielding the weapons, they have contributed to immense suffering and loss in this country. Whether protecting the right to own these weapons supersedes these individual tragedies is where the debate now begins.

Resources

Atlantic: America’s Top Killing Machines

Economist: Why Gun Control is Doomed

Washington Post: The Five Extra Words That Can Fix the Second Amendment

Breitbart: Gun Control

Pew Research Center: A Minority of Americans Own Guns, But Just How Many is Unclear

Humano Sphere: Visualizing Gun Deaths

National Journal: Senate Confirms Gun Control Advocate as Surgeon General

Pew Research Center: Despite Lower Crime Rates, Support For Gun Rights Increases

Pew Research Center: Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason

Open Secrets: National Rifle Association

GQ: How the NRA’s Grading System Keeps Congress on Lockdown

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Focus on Guns by the Numbers appeared first on Law Street.

As the Hispanic population in the United States rapidly grows, so does its influence on the electorate. As Hispanic voters turn out in greater numbers, both Republicans and Democrats are trying to appeal to these communities across the country. Even if Democrats tend to be more favored by Hispanic voters, Republicans still have a chance to change the odds. One thing is clear: the Hispanic vote will matter a great deal in 2016.

The Hispanic Population in the United States

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States. In 1990, the Hispanic population amounted to 22 million, or only nine percent of the total population. In 2000, there were 35 million Hispanics, while in 2010 their numbers reached 51 million, or 13 percent of the total population. On average, one million Hispanic people are added to the American population yearly. As of 2013, Hispanics in the United States numbered 54 million, or 17 percent of the total population. Recent projections estimate that by 2060 Hispanics will account for 31 percent of the total population.

The largest group of Hispanic people is found in New Mexico (47.3 percent), followed by California with 14.4 million. They are also heavily represented in Texas (10 million) and Florida (4.5 million). In addition, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York all have more than one million Hispanic residents.

Hispanic Voter Turnout

The phrase “Hispanic vote” or “Latino vote” is often used by the media and politicians in reference to this specific electorate and its ability to alter election outcomes. According to recent voting trends, Hispanics constitute a significant bloc of American voters, and their numbers are likely to grow. In 2010, seven percent of all voters in federal elections were of Hispanic origin, but by 2012 they numbered 8.4 percent.

However, Hispanic Americans are less likely to be registered to vote than white or black Americans. According to 2013 data from Gallup, only 51 percent of all eligible Hispanic residents were registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. At the same time, 85 percent of white voters, 60 percent of Asian voters, and 81 percent of black voters were registered. Similar numbers held for the 2014 midterm elections: 25.2 million Hispanics were eligible to vote, but the number of Hispanic voters was even lower than the already low nationwide turnout of 37 percent.

Even if not all eligible Hispanics are actually voting, they do boost the overall minority vote. Thus, recent ethnic dynamics of the American electorate suggest that a collective ethnic minorities’ voting preferences can alter the outcome of future presidential elections, especially when taking into account the declining numbers of white voters. During the 2012 federal elections, President Obama managed to win with only 39 percent of white electorate support, while Romney lost despite carrying 59 percent of white voters.

Statewide, eligible Hispanic voters amount to around 40.1 percent in New Mexico, 27.4 percent in Texas, 26.9 percent in California, 20.3 percent in Arizona, 17.1 percent in Florida, 15.9 percent in Nevada, 13.2 percent in New York, 12.8 percent in New Jersey, and 10.3 percent in Connecticut. Again, Hispanic voter turnout during the midterms was lower than that of other ethnic groups and nationwide. For example, in Florida, only 36.5 percent of Hispanic voters showed up to vote in the 2014 midterm elections, while the overall voter turnout was at 50.5 percent. Despite low turnout, however, Hispanic voters have the ability to strongly affect American elections.

Why is Hispanic turnout so low?

There’s no one answer to that question, but there are some important factors to keep in mind. The low voter registration numbers among Hispanics can be in part explained by the fact that many Hispanics are not American-born citizens. Only six out of ten Hispanic voters (35.6 percent) were born in the United States, but 75 percent of American-born Hispanics registered to vote in the 2012 federal elections. In contrast, those born in other nations registered at a much lower rate of 31 percent. Some Hispanics are ineligible to vote because of their immigration statuses. Hispanics who are permanent residents, but not citizens, are allowed to vote in some local and state elections, but are prohibited from participating in federal elections. Candidates for office are also sometimes blamed for low participation rates as they may not offer comprehensive platforms that include issues important to minority voters.

Party Lines

Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats rather than Republicans. In 2000 and 2002 Democrats garnered the votes of 60 percent of Hispanic voters, while Republicans earned only 35 percent and 37 percent respectively. In 2004, 44 percent of Hispanics voted for Republicans and 53 percent supported the Democratic Party. In 2006, more Hispanics than ever chose Democrats, at 69 percent, over Republicans at 30 percent. During the next two federal elections in 2008 and 2010, Hispanic voters supported Democrats slightly less, but still by commanding margins.

According to 2013 Gallup data, 58 percent of Hispanics who had registered to vote were Democrats, 26 percent were Republicans, and 13 percent were independents. In addition, 41 percent of unregistered Hispanics identified as Democrats, and only 17 percent identified Republicans.

While the majority of Hispanics are either Democrats or Independents, Republicans have recently gained a considerable share of Hispanic votes in gubernatorial elections. For example, during the midterm elections in Texas and Georgia, Republicans captured 40 percent of Latino voters. 

Hispanic Voters in Swing States

Historically, certain states in the U.S. have always voted for either Democrats or Republicans, while there are states that swing back and forth between the two parties–“swing states.” Presidential candidates often campaign more in those states, as they will decide elections. In the 2016 elections, many states with large Hispanic populations are already being viewed as the states to win, including Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

Florida has the largest Hispanic population among the swing states, at more than four million. During the 2012 elections, the Hispanic electorate accounted for 17 percent of total voters. As Florida has a large population of Cubans who historically favor Republicans, the GOP has traditionally made a strong run in Florida. But recently, more Hispanics in Florida have been leaning toward the Democratic Party.

Colorado has the second largest Hispanic population among swing states, at a little over a million. Historically, Colorado has been overwhelmingly Republican, but recent demographic trends have changed the odds for the GOP. During the last two presidential elections, Hispanic constituencies overwhelmingly backed Obama over McCain and Romney, helping him to victory.

The voting situation in Nevada is also uncertain, as both Bush and Obama won the state twice. Obama won Nevada largely due to Hispanic voters who made up 14 percent of the total electorate. However, Obama didn’t do so well with white voters in Nevada, leaving significant chances for the Republican party to capture more non-Hispanic votes in this state.

Traditionally red state Texas may also turn into a swing  state. Thirty percent of its eligible voters are Hispanic; as a result experts believe that the Hispanic vote can make a difference in Texas in 2016.

Even though the Hispanic populations in the swing states are likely to vote for Democrats, many non-Hispanic whites in those states are still overwhelmingly Republican, making it possible for the GOP to win through capturing more white votes. That means that Hispanic voters can play a pivotal role in the final voting decision, but won’t necessarily be the deciding factor anywhere. 

Why do Hispanic voters prefer Democrats over Republicans?

While obviously not all Hispanics feel the same way about any given issue, there are certain stand-out issues that tend to draw many Hispanic voters to Democratic candidates. Hispanic voters’ views on major issues such as immigration reform, health care, criminal justice, the economy, and education tend to line up more closely with Democratic platforms.

For one, the traditional Republican stance on immigration is a big reason why they are less popular in Hispanic communities than Democrats, who tend to be more in support of comprehensive reform in this sphere. The 2014 National Survey of Latinos revealed that 66 percent of registered Hispanic voters considered comprehensive immigration legislation an urgent and very important matter. Often Republican-sponsored laws concerning immigration, such as Proposition 187 in California, don’t resonate well in Hispanic communities. Proposition 187, which allowed law enforcement to turn in undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities, is sometimes viewed as the end of the Red California, as the ensuing controversy led to many Democratic victories.

However, according to the 2014 National Survey of Latinos, 54 percent of registered Hispanic voters said that a candidate’s position on immigration is not the only factor in their voting decision. The economy and job creation were viewed as more important than other issues, including immigration and health care.

How will Hispanic voters affect the 2016 elections?

By some estimations, Republicans need to capture 30-40 percent of Hispanic voters in order to win the Presidential election. In order for Republicans to win the necessary Hispanic votes, their candidate must engage with Hispanic communities. Watch the video below to learn more about Hispanic voters and what many are looking for in 2016 presidential candidates.

Conclusion

It’s clear that both parties should seriously consider the Hispanic electorate during their 2016 campaigns. While there’s a lot of diversity within the American Hispanic population itself, there are certain issues that have stood as consistent concerns for many Hispanic voters. In any scenario, capturing the majority of Hispanic voters will be essential for both parties in 2016 and beyond. 

Resources

Primary

Gallup: In U.S., Voter Registration Lags Among Hispanics and Asians

Latino Decisions: Mi Familia Vota Poll on Executive Action – Nov 2014

Pew Research Center: In 2014, Latinos Will Surpass Whites as Largest Racial/Ethnic Group in California

Pew Research Center: Mapping the Latino Electorate by State

Pew Research Center: Five Takeaways About the 2014 Latino Vote

Additional 

Albuquerque Journal: Low Hispanic Voter Turnout Partly Fault of Candidates

Fox News Latino: GOP needs 40 Percent of Latino Votes to Win White House in 2016

Infoplease: Hispanic Americans by the Numbers

NBC News: Want Latino Votes? Think Ground Game and Messaging

International Business Times: Ted Cruz 2016: Why Hispanic Voters Might Not be Thrilled if Texas Senator Becomes First Latino President

International Business Times: Obama Immigration Orders Could Drive Latino Vote in Battleground States For 2016

Huffington Post: Latino Views on the 2016 GOP Field: Who Can Actually Win the Latino Vote?

Hispanic Voters 2012: Hispanics in America

MSNBC: Latino Voters Likely to Back Hillary in 2016

San Antonio Express News: New Books Dissect the Budding Latino Voter Boom

Washington Post: Handicapping the Hispanic Vote for 2016 

Washington Post: Did the GOP Make Inroads With the Latino Vote?

The New York Times: Hispanic Voters Are Important For Republicans, But Not Indispensable

Texas Monthly: Will Texas be a Swing State by 2016?

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Part Will Hispanic Voters Play in the 2016 Elections? appeared first on Law Street.

Never before has a sitting president been defeated in a Nigerian election–until now. General Muhammadu Buhari ousted President Goodluck Jonathan in a decisive victory in the country’s latest election, and it is an incredibly momentous event in Nigeria’s history.

Courtesy of Chatham House via Flickr.

Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC) won 15,424,921 votes against President Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP), which won 12,853,162. Since independence from Britain in 1960, there have been numerous coups and many contrived elections–even this election has observers wondering.

President-Elect Buhari, a 72-year-old Muslim from northern Nigeria, won the presidency on his fourth attempt. Previously he ruled the country from January 1984 through August 1985 after taking control through a military coup.

Buhari lead the northwestern states, which have suffered the most by Islamist militant group Boko Haram. In Borno state, one of the worst affected by Islamist violence, Buhari won 94 percent of the vote.

For 16 years, PDP had been in power. This year Nigerians decided that the Opposition should have a go at sorting things out. Nigerians are accustomed to the incumbent fulfilling a second term; something rather big made them change their minds. The keyword is change.

Buhari now has to prove he really can change things. Boko Haram, the economy, and the unceasing cry of corruption are at the forefront of the list.

Boko Haram

Islamist militant group Boko Haram  has instilled so much fear in the Nigerian government that the Presidential elections were delayed for six weeks to allow time for the security situation to improve. Its existence is one of the biggest reasons that only 17 percent of Nigerians turned out to vote.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Boko Haram has been launching military operations since 2009 with the goal of creating an Islamic state in Nigeria. The group is responsible for the death of more than 20,000 Nigerians, and it’s terrorized Northern Nigeria, taken over cities, and infamously kidnapped 200 school girls in April 2014. Many people question the strategy of the Nigerian military, and criticize Jonathan for not challenging this threat.

The Economy

Nigeria is Africa’s leading oil producer, yet more than half of its people live in poverty. The market for stolen oil has increased violence and corruption in the Niger Delta–the home of the industry. Few Nigerians, including those in oil-producing areas, have benefited from the oil wealth.

Read More: The High Cost of Falling Oil Prices

Nigeria was badly hit by the fall in the oil price. Oil represents 90 percent of Nigerian exports and 70 percent of its government revenues; it’s hard to recover from a fall in the oil price. Additionally, the U.S. is no longer importing Nigerian oil because it has had such success in the shale revolution.

Corruption

The contentious issue of corruption undermines the trust in Nigeria’s government. Allegations of deception, fraud, and bribery include security funding, the legality of government officials, and enforcement of policies and elections. Past elections have been tarnished by serious suspicions of rigging. In 2007, observers said the presidential poll was not “credible.” In 2011 the vote was considered better, but fraud still took place.

This time the electoral commission took more steps to prevent rigging, including new biometric voters cards.

These are the changes the Nigerian people–and international community–call for and will be looking at closely. If there are significant advances toward counterterrorism strategy, economic schemes, and financial circulation, as well as more serious crackdowns on corruption, then we could look forward to long-term positive outcomes not only in Nigeria, but globally as well.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official, the 2014 elections were the most expensive midterm elections in history, costing a total of $3.77 billion, or roughly $46 per vote according to voter turnout estimates. Even more surprising is the fact that there were fewer donors in the 2014 midterms than in any election since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). This means that not only was this the most expensive midterm election in history, its funding came from fewer people than in years past. Additionally, voter turnout estimates indicate that the percentage of eligible voters who cast ballots in November was the lowest since World War II.

Read more: Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

All things considered, the 2014 midterm elections reveal a disturbing trend in American politics, one where a shrinking group of Americans funds elections and voter turnout among the entire population continues to decline.

Spending Breakdown

Candidate and party spending was over $2.7 billion in the 2014 election, according to estimates from the CRP. One possible reason for the increase in the 2014 election was the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling, which struck down the cap for how much an individual can spend in an election cycle while leaving in place limits for individual races and organizations.

An additional $768 million was spent by a variety of independent groups that are not directly affiliated with campaigns.Outside expenditures can come from Super Pacs, 527 organizations, and 501(c) groups that the IRS categorizes as social welfare organizations.

These social welfare organizations are allowed to engage in political activity as long as it is not their primary focus, which in practice means that political spending must account for less than 50 percent of the organization’s budget. In essence, these groups are able to collect unlimited funds from donors, whose names they do not need to disclose, then spend that money on political advertising with a small set of restrictions. For more background information on campaign finance and dark money check out this explainer by Law Street’s Alexandra Stembaugh.

This chart, from the Center for Responsive Politics, details the sources of political spending in the 2014 election by party. For more information on spending in the 2014 election, look at the CRP’s overview.

2014 Election Spending by Category and Party, Source: Center for Responsive Politics

Fewer Donors, More Money

Another one of the Center for Responsive Politics’ major findings about the 2014 election was that the increase in total donations actually came from fewer donors when compared to the 2010 election (the previous midterm). In fact, the number of donors decreased in every category of campaign spending.

According to Russ Choma from the Center for Responsive Politics,

“There were just 434,256 identifiable individual donors to candidates in the 2014 election. That’s 107,000 fewer than there were in the 2010 election.”

CRP identified 773,582 donors in the 2014 election–a decrease of nearly 11 percent relative to the 2010 midterms–yet average contributions rose over 36 percent to $2,639 per donor. It is important to note that these numbers come from FEC data, which does not include donor information for individuals who give less than $200. In terms of outside spending, there were 6.4 percent fewer donors, but the average donation per donor rose nearly 450 percent, going from roughly $1,800 to over $8,000 per donor.

Are liberals catching on to dark money?

Although Republicans/conservatives maintained their significant advantage in dark money spending, accounting for nearly 75 percent of total spending, Democrat/liberal groups did see large increases.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics

The chart above illustrates the recent trends in dark money spending. Conservative groups retained their healthy lead in dark money in the most recent election, going from $119.9 million in 2010 to $124 million in 2014. Dark money spending among liberal groups increased by over 300 percent since 2010, going from $10.7 million to $35.7 million in 2014.

It is important to note that these numbers are limited to what is disclosed to the FEC. Regulations for 501(c) organizations only require disclosure of political spending that occurs 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. However, the Center for Responsive Politics found that these organizations tend to run “issue” ads outside of these windows to discuss political issues without reporting their spending. As a result, actual political spending likely exceeds the total disclosed to the FEC.

Lower Turnout

Finally, preliminary estimates indicate that only 35.9 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2014 election, the lowest turnout since 1942. This number taken from estimates by the United States Election Project at the University of Florida, which uses voting statistics for the highest office on each state’s ballot to estimate total voters (highest office is used because total vote counts are not available for every state).

These estimates indicate that only six states had a voter turnout greater than 50 percent, while eight states had rates below 30 percent. Although midterm elections historically have lower turnout rates relative to presidential election years, the 2014 election was low even for a midterm. For comparison, voter turnout in 2010 was 41 percent of eligible voters, and the 2012 presidential election had a turnout of 58.2 percent.

The chart below shows voter turnout from 1789 – 2014

Source: United States Election Project

In a time where Americans’ opinions of the government are near record lows, apathy among the general population seems to explain the turnout. Everyone loves to poke fun at headlines that claim Americans are more approving of lice, telemarketers, Genghis Kahn, and even Nickleback than of Congress, but the turnout for the recent election truly reveals the state of political engagement among the public.

While average Americans are less willing to cast a ballot, a small subset of the population is exhibiting more interest in politics than ever before. In a time where people overwhelmingly disapprove of their government and want to limit the role of money in politics, one would think showing up on election day is the next step, but sadly the opposite occurs.

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 The Votes Are In: 2014 Election Was Most Expensive & Least Representative appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

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? Check out the infographic below, based on information from Measure 91 in Oregon, Ballot Measure 2 in Alaska, and Ballot Initiative 71 in DC.

Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia aren’t the only places considering marijuana legalization today. The cities of Lewistown and South Portland, Maine, are going to vote on whether or not to legalize it — Portland, Maine has already made it legal for adults to own less than an ounce of the substance. In addition, votes continue on legalizing medical marijuana. If the initiative currently up for a vote in Florida passes, it would make the Sunshine State the twenty-fourth to legalize marijuana, as well as the first southern state.

Regardless of how these particular measures do, there’s a good chance that we’ll see more states starting to legalize marijuana in the very near future. The national opinion on marijuana has changed rapidly. Polls fluctuate, but the amount of Americans who believe legalizing marijuana would be in the best interest of the nation hovers around 50 percent. In addition, most Americans don’t think that jail time should be served for small amounts of marijuana, which is now very much a “soft” drug; it doesn’t receive the same kind of punishment as more addictive and harmful drugs.

The progress in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia might not mean that we suddenly see a large wave of marijuana legalization across the country — it will still be illegal under federal law. But it will be interesting to see if any other states join Colorado and Washington this year.

Editor’s note: The infographic in this article was updated November 5, 2014 to reflect each vote’s outcome.

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 States to Watch Today: Marijuana Laws On the Ballot in Oregon, Alaska, DC appeared first on Law Street.

In an ideal world elections would be determined by a competition of ideas. But in today’s world, politics in the United States is determined by fundraising, wealth, and access. Regulations stipulating how campaigns can be financed determine who can donate how much in elections and what the money can be used for. Some argue campaign donations should be protected as a form a free speech while others see these donations as giving the wealthy undue political influence. Read on for the history, controversy, and future for campaign finance reforms.

What is campaign finance?

Campaign finance refers to all money raised to support political candidates, organizations, parties, or initiatives in elections. Any successful political campaign typically costs a significant amount of money. Money is needed to cover travel expenses, pay for political consulting, and to communicate with voters. Advertising costs are by far the most significant expense in heated political campaigns.

This fundraising takes a new turn with corporations and wealthy individuals interested in spending as much as possible to support their candidate. At the federal level, campaign finance is regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). At lower levels, it is governed by state and local law. Most campaign spending comes from private groups, but qualifying presidential candidates can opt to use public money.  Regulation typically takes the form of disclosure, contribution limits, and the limits that come with public financing. The strange array of political terms surrounding campaign finance often makes it hard for people to follow the actual debate.

• Political Action Committees (PACs) – the private groups that fundraise from individual contributors to spend money for political purposes. PACs are necessary since corporations and unions cannot directly donate money to a candidate or national party committee.
• Super PACs – emerged more recently due to Supreme Court decisions. These organizations have no legal limit on the amount they can spend so long as they are politically independent of the actual campaign.
• Hard money – includes donations regulated by the FEC that are made directly to political candidates by individuals and corporations. The names of those who contribute and how much they contribute are publicly available.
• Soft money – known as an indirect donation, it is often given to a political party rather than a candidate and thus can avoid certain legal limitations.
• 527 organizations – refers to advocacy groups like traditional PACs and political parties, named after their IRS code and tax-exempt status.

Watch below for more on how campaign finance works:

What is the history of campaign finance?

Numerous laws and Supreme Court cases have attempted to regulate campaign finance. Typically it is not until a political scandal that there is a push for more stringent regulation in financing.

Tillman Act

In 1907 the Tillman Act became the first ever campaign finance law after Theodore Roosevelt faced questions about which corporations funded his campaign in 1904. The Act banned corporate contributions to national campaigns; however, the law lacked any real method of enforcement.

Federal Election Commission Act (FECA)

In 1971 modern campaign finance rules were born. FECA instituted disclosure requirements for federal candidates. The Act was rewritten in 1974 after it surfaced that Richard Nixon used corrupt funds in his re-election campaign. These amendments established a system of regulation and enforcement through the Federal Election Commission. FECA also created new public financing for presidential elections to limit the influence of money. The new law put limits on individual contributions to candidates, contributions to PACs, total campaign expenditures, and spending by individuals or groups to a specific candidate.

The constitutionality of FECA was challenged in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court upheld the limits on individual donations and disclosure requirements, citing the compelling state interest to prevent corruption. However, the Court stated that the limits on what campaigns and individuals could spend was a violation of the First Amendment. Further, disclosure could only apply to communications expressly advocating for a candidate. There are three key takeaways from the case:

1. Free speech allows individuals to spend unlimited political money.
2. TV or radio ads that expressly advocate for or against a specific candidate, by using words like “elect” or “defeat,” must be financed with regulated money.
3. Corporations, unions, and individuals can contribute unlimited “soft money” to political parties in an effort to influence campaigns. This encouraged many companies to set up PACs to donate.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or McCain-Feingold Act, was passed after it came out that wealthy Democratic donors were given special privileges and the Party had illegally accepted foreign money. The Act prohibited corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates. However, it did not regulate 527 organizations. Because of this many soft money activities previously funded by parties were now done by 527 groups.

Watch a musical overview of the history of campaign finance below:

How is campaign finance regulated today?

Rules regarding campaign finance continue to change, making many things fair game that were once illegal.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In a January 2010 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot prohibit corporations and unions from spending money for political purposes. Essentially this allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on campaigns.

In the March 2010 case of Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously ruled there should be no contribution limit to groups that only make independent, uncoordinated expenditures to a campaign.

These rulings led to the rise of super PACs. Super PACs are known formally as “independent-expenditure only committees” because they cannot make contributions directly to candidates but instead spend on political advocacy independently of campaigns. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs have no legal limit to the funds they can raise from various groups, provided they are operated correctly.

Watch the story of Citizens United v. FEC below:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

In April 2014, a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court struck down caps on what individuals can contribute to federal candidates in any two-year election cycle because they restrict the democratic process and violate the First Amendment.

Public Funding

At the federal level, public funding is available for presidential campaigns. If a candidate agrees to limit his spending according to a formula, the candidate will receive a matching payment for the first $250 of each individual contribution in the primary campaign. Additionally, the candidate receives financing for the national nominating convention and general election campaign. Candidates have to qualify for funding by privately raising $5,000 in at least 20 states. If a candidate refuses matching funds, she is free to spend as much money as she raises privately. In the 2012 election no major candidate opted to take public funds since candidates can typically raise and spend more on their own. The price of a winning election today has made public funding near obsolete.

What are the arguments surrounding campaign finance reform?

Many of the Supreme Court justices who ruled on recent campaign finance cases decided that spending money for political purposes is equivalent to free speech and should be protected by the First Amendment. The same reasoning extends to corporations, in citing that corporations are made up of individuals and should enjoy the same political rights as individuals. Those who argue for fewer donation restrictions cite their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Opponents argue the lack of restrictions gives the wealthiest unfair influence over the government. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told Retro Report, “If money is free speech, then the wealthiest people in America are those that get to speak the most freely.”

For example, a study by the Sunlight Foundation found that just one percent of the top one percent of the United States population accounted for 28 percent of all disclosed contributions in the 2012 elections. In a statement Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) echoed these findings: “The American people are angry that a billionaire can dole out $3.6 million to influence an election — meanwhile, it would take a full-time minimum wage worker 239 years to make that much money.”

Most take issue with the rapid expansion of dark money to organizations under a 501(c)(4) designation by the IRS. 501(c)(4)s are defined as social welfare organizations and are tax-exempt. However, these organizations are allowed to participate in political campaigns so long as their primary purpose is promoting social welfare. Examples of these organizations include the Sierra Club, NAACP, and National Rifle Association.

These organizations do not have to disclose spending on political activity nor the names of donors unless they donate expressly for political advocacy. The use of these organizations for political advocacy has contributed to a sharp rise in outside spending without disclosure. A 2011 report by the Center for Responsive Politics found that since the 2006 midterms, spending from groups that do not disclose donors rose from one percent to 47 percent. Many cite large donations by these groups as a form of legal bribery, with the expectation of political favors following each donation.

Are there new developments in campaign finance?

Many Democrats in Congress have called for an amendment to undo the Citizens United ruling, but that seems very unlikely to happen. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) proposed an amendment to undo the Citizens United case and instead allow Congress to regulate political money. Numerous Senate Democrats signed on. Harry Reid vowed to bring the measure to the floor, but most agree it has little chance of passing.

Democrats introduced a DISCLOSE Act in 2010, 2012, and again in 2014, which would require organizations that spend $10,000 or more in an election cycle to disclose their expenditures and major donors. Republicans have opposed such bills from the standpoint that they give an unfair advantage to their Democratic opponents. Learn more about the DISCLOSE Act below:

The amount of money spent in elections continues to grow at an alarming rate. The Center for Responsive Politics predicts almost $4 billion will be spent in the 2014 midterm elections, making it the most expensive midterm ever. While the 2010 midterm cost $3.6 billion, 2014 will run an estimated $333 million beyond that. Candidates and parties will spend roughly $2.7 billion, but the explosion of outside money continues to significantly influence the races. Outside groups like super PACs and 527s are expected to spend $900 million on their own. Overall, conservative candidates and groups are projected to outspend liberal candidates and groups by $1.92 billion to $1.76 billion. Expect even more money, especially from outside groups, to come flowing in to the 2016 presidential election.

While there may not be action at the national level, 16 states and more than 500 municipalities have called for a constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform. Yet both sides agree getting rid of dark money and enacting reform will not happen any time soon. Little change will happen without a large, Watergate-esque scandal to bring true reform to campaign finance.

Resources

Primary

FEC: Campaign Finance Reports and Data

SCOTUS: Buckley v Valeo

SCOTUS: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

FEC: Public Funding of Presidential Elections

Additional

The New York Times: The Cost of Campaigns

Politico: Waiting for the Next Watergate

NCSL: Campaign Finance Reform: An Overview

NPR: A Century of U.S. Campaign Finance Law

Washington Post: Campaign Finance: Special Report

Atlantic: Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign Finance Reform

Washington Times: No Major Takers for Federal Campaign Funds

Open Secrets: Super PACs

Sunlight Foundation: The Political 1% of the 1% in 2012

The New York Times: Milking the Money Machine

Open Secrets: Citizens United Decision Profoundly Affects Political Landscape

Mass Live: Senate Democrats Pushing Campaign Finance Transparency

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence? appeared first on Law Street.

We have different branches of our government for a reason. I remember learning about it as early as middle school — the legislature makes the laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. There are checks and balances, separation of powers, and all sorts of mechanisms to make sure that we have a functioning democracy. But then two separate polls caught my eye this week that make me curious about the mindset of the American people.

The first involved a poll in which half of the American public said that the Supreme Court should be elected rather than appointed. The poll was conducted online by Harris Polls.

The second poll was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and it discovered that 35 percent of Americans couldn’t name a single branch of the American government. In the release of the poll, Annenberg director Kathleen Hall Jamieson stated,

Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many know surprisingly little about these branches of government.

The two polls obviously, weren’t made to be related, but they do provide an interesting and weird insight into the minds of the American populace. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the time that Jimmy Fallon asked people whether they supported Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.

Back to the topic at hand though — the idea of having our Supreme Court justices subject to elections is a troublesome one. There’s a reason that they’re not elected in the first place — so that they don’t have to pander to an electorate. An electorate who probably could not even name the branch of government for which they would be choosing justices.

The way that our government works now, our Congresspeople, Senators, Governors, President, and other elected officials are constantly running for office. They always have to look at the polls to see what everyone is thinking. They sometimes have to contend with voters turning on them because of the actions of others in their party. They constantly have to contend with the fact that if they make moves or pass laws that their constituents don’t like, they could be out of a job.

Then, those people who are constantly up for vote, write our laws. And the Supreme Court, who is appointed by the those elected people, has to interpret those laws. Their job depends on the fact that they aren’t held accountable.

Does that mean that they always make the right choices? No, definitely not. I certainly take issue with many SCOTUS decisions, but I get to elect the people who pass and sign the laws — it would be too much to also vote for the people who interpret the laws.

Our democracy isn’t always perfect, and it often fails, but it is a democracy with checks and balances for a reason.

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 Here’s Why We Shouldn’t Vote for Our Supreme Court Justices appeared first on Law Street.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.

“If during a study-abroad trip to Indonesia you stumble across an image of the Führer, don’t be surprised,” reported Vice News earlier this summer. “The swastika is also everywhere — on walls, cups, ashtrays, and t-shirts — and it’s not the Buddhist kind.” Stickers, posters, and stenciled graffiti images of Adolf Hitler litter the cities of Indonesia aside images of weapons and bullets. But the Nazi graffiti is not limited to illegal marks; street vendors sell posters and framed prints of a fiery Adolph Hitler delivering an impassioned speech. A prepubescent boy wears a burgundy T-shirt that reads “PUNK NAZI” emblazoned with a swastika. “I don’t idealize Hitler, I simply adore the soldiers’ paraphernalia,” said Henry Mulyana, owner of Soldaten Kaffee (German for ‘The Soldiers’ Café’) in Bandung City, which opened in 2011. Customers can order “Nazi goring” (a version of traditional fried rice) served on swastika-motif china by a waiter wearing a black SS uniform.

The recent bizarre phenomenon of Nazi imagery in Indonesia would be absurdly laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. Indonesia’s poor education system and historical ignorance may be at the root of the irreverent prevalence of Nazi imagery. Indonesia is a diverse country consisting of more than 300 ethnic groups and over 700 languages, yet few of the nation’s 240 million people receive formal education about race relations. Schools omit world history curriculum, which, according to the Jakarta Globe, contributes to the ignorance of sensitive social topics. “It is not uncommon,” says the Conversation, “for Indonesians to say ‘I like Hitler’ when meeting someone from Germany.”

“Contrary to their European peers, Indonesian students hardly receive any history lessons on World War II. They know nothing about the persecution of Jews, for example,” according to a history professor at the Gadjah Mada University of Yogyakarta in Java. “They see Hitler as a revolutionary, similar to Che Guevara, not as someone who is responsible for the death of millions of Jews…[T]hey’re attracted to emblems of Nazi Germany because they’ve become acquainted with these symbols through punk and hard-rock videos. In their view, these symbols are a representation of rebellion.”

Adolf Hitler bumper sticker, Lombok Barat, West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Courtesy of Klaus Stiefel via Flickr

The evidence pointing to Indonesia’s poor education system, however, suggests a more fundamental issue at stake in the resurgence of Nazi imagery. From 1967 to 1998, Indonesia was ruled by an authoritarian, pseudo-Fascist government that strictly controlled school curriculum. “The Ministry of Education prohibited teachers from educating students on international genocide, political violence, or racial conflicts,” said Gene Netto, an English teacher from Jakarat. “Most students graduated without ever having heard of the Holocaust…Students were only taught about the glory and grandeur of Indonesia as a country.”

Indeed, Indonesia has a historic relationship with Nazis specifically and Fascism broadly. During the 1930s, while Indonesia was under the control the Netherlands, Nazi publications were translated and disseminated throughout the country; Hitler’s concept of a “Greater Germany” inspired similar ideals, “Indonesia Mulia” (esteemed Indonesia) and “Indonesia Raya” (great Indonesia), galvanizing the Indonesian National Party (PNI) that was instrumental in achieving independence from the Dutch in 1949. Soekarno, the leader of the independence movement, and subsequently the country’s first president, revered Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich, declaring in 1963, “It’s in the Dritte Reich that the Germans will see Germany at the apex above other nations in this world.” Suharto, the second Indonesian president, came to power in 1967 following a military coup that deposed Soekarno, immediately consolidating government power around the military, consequently instituting a military dictatorship. Building on Soekarno’s Nazi inspired ideals, Suharto’s regime ruthlessly killed criminal and political prisoners, and conducted genocides, most infamously in East Timor. A pro-democracy Indonesian revolution ended Suharto’s long reign in 1998, but the neo-Fascist rhetoric has resumed once again during the current presidential election.

Prabowo Subianto, one of the two front runners in the Indonesian election, is a “continuation” of Suharto’s “fascist rule,” according to Indonesian scholar Andre Vltchek writing in Counter Punch. Prabowo has historic roots in Indonesia’s autocratic government; not only did his father serve as Suharto’s cabinet minister, Prabowo is Suharto’s son in law, and commanded the Special Forces group that spearheaded a brutal occupation and genocide of East Timor in 1976. Prabowo’s resume gives a clear indication that he will be as authoritarian and as cruel as Suharto, if not more so. As Foreign Policy explains, “Suharto-style authoritarianism remains alive and well,” including politics of exclusion, fear, and intimidation; as a campaign spectacle, Prabowo rode a horse into a stadium full of supporters in formation, wearing white uniforms and red berets. Allusions to Mussolini could not be more complete.

A voting bulletin just after the official closing of elections at a voting station in Jakarta. Courtesy of Lord Mountbatten Via Wikipedia.

What is more striking, however, is that Indonesians seem to embrace the Fascist imagery and political rhetoric. “We need Adolf Hitler! In order to fully restore law and order” a businessman in Sumatra exclaimed. “I’m not personally familiar with the [Nazi] ideology, but even if I am, I don’t think I’d find it completely disagreeable,” said Mulyana, the owner of the Nazi-themed café. “For example, communism in Indonesia was prohibited, but it’s flourishing in China. Maybe it’s just a matter of politics.” In June, Indonesian pop star Ahmad Dhani released a music video in support of Prabowo, dressed in a black Nazi uniform, singing a modified version of Queen’s “We Will Rock You.”

“What is the connection between German soldiers and Indonesia?” Dhani asked rhetorically. “We Indonesians didn’t kill millions of Jews, right?”

The ballots are in but the election is still undecided. Both candidates — Prabowo and Djoko “Jokowi” Widodo — are claiming victory, citing unofficial results conducted by private polling agencies, and accusing each other of election fraud. By law, the Indonesian Election Commission must announce the official results today. Whoever wins, this election marks a clear resurgence of Indonesia’s latent Fascism. The Mussolini-style political campaigns, Nazi-themed cafés, and stenciled images of Hitler plastered through the streets, are not as horrifying, though, as the fact that the Indonesian people seem completely comfortable with the pervasiveness of Fascist symbolism. As we have seen with ‘neo-Fascists’ in Israel, graffiti is a bellwether for subterranean political currents in Indonesian society.

 —

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Feature image courtesy of [Ikhlasul Amal via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nazi Graffiti Indicates Resurgence of Fascism in Indonesia appeared first on Law Street.

On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote on a referendum as to whether the country will become independent of the United Kingdom. This will not be the first time Scotland has sought sovereignty from the United Kingdom in recent history. In 1979, a referendum for a Scottish devolution was put to a vote, but no change occurred because it failed to receive a majority ‘Yes’ of over 40 percent from the electorate. So, the question left is what is the difference now? Here is everything you need to know about the Scottish Referendum, players involved, and the impacts of the vote.

Who are the organizations involved?

‘Yes Scotland’ is the organization representing the individuals and parties in support of an independent Scotland. Led by Chief Executive Blair Jenkins, the organization is backed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and the Scottish Green Party. As of June 2014, ‘Yes Scotland’ has raised £4.5 million in donations. EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir are their biggest donors, having given £3.5 million since the campaign was launched in May 2012.

They are met in opposition by the ‘Better Together’ campaign, headed by British Labour Party politician Alistair Darling. The Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Party are supporting the campaign. In addition to writing a 1,600-word essay explaining her anti-independence views, author of the beloved “Harry Potter” series J.K. Rowling donated over £1 million to the Better Together campaign. To date, Rowling has contributed the biggest sum to ‘Better Together’ from a single donor, followed by business man Ian Taylor.

Who is able to vote?

According to the draft of the referendum, the following people would be allowed to vote in the referendum:

• British citizens who are residents in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland.
• Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK, overseas in the British Armed Forces, or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.
• Citizens that are 16 years old and older.

The Scottish National Party has extended voting rights to registered 16 and 17 year olds for the referendum in an effort to gather more support for independence.

Could an Independent Scotland join the European Union?

If Scotland is to become sovereign, then the Scottish Government will have to negotiate with European Union members to ensure membership. Negotiations would occur while Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, part of the European Union. Scotland will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union. Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union allows for a treaty amendment in this kind of situation.

What would a ‘Yes’ vote mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?

An independent Scotland intends to retain the close ties currently with the United Kingdom. The Queen will remain the head of state, and the currency would still be the pound. However, MPs will no longer be sent to Westminster since independence would end the parliamentary union currently in place.

Although recent polls have support for Welsh independence hovering around 10 percent, leader of Plaid Cymru (equivalent to the Scottish National Party), Leanne Wood, believes the Scottish referendum may be a turning point. It is not unimaginable that if independence is achieved and proves to be successful, then the people of Wales may follow suit.

Before the referendum occurs, the United Kingdom is receiving funding from Scotland to pay for the armed forces and embassies. If a ‘yes’ vote is reached Scotland would no longer pay into those services as they would use that money for a Scottish equivalent. Money will be saved in defense since Scotland would no longer be supplying funds for the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons.

Sport Minister Shona Robison states that if Scotland is to be its own nation by the 2016 Olympic games, it will be able to compete in Brazil.

Arguments for a ‘Yes’ Vote

An issue on the forefront of both campaign agendas is agriculture. Scottish territory is covered in 80 percent agricultural land, but the mountainous terrain, harsh climate, and poor soils limit land use. The Common Agricultural Policy pays all countries that are members of the European Union to help subsidize farmers. Agreed upon at recent negotiations, nations with productivity less than 90 percent of the European Union average collect additional money for their funding. The United Kingdom divided the money between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Irelands, which the Scottish government did not find fair. They believe that Scotland is the reason the United Kingdom received the funding and therefore, deserves a bigger portion of the cut.

Supporters of independence argue that Scotland would qualify for higher subsidies if it were separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. They cite Ireland as an example of a country receiving more of the funds while having a smaller agricultural sector. Also, if Scotland were an independent member of the European Union they would have a more influential voice at negotiations.

Scotland also looks towards Ireland in reference to defense spending. The Royal United Service Institute predicts that Scotland would be able to create a defense force similar in strength and size to those in Ireland, Norway, and Denmark. The estimated cost is £1.8 billion per year, compared to the £3.3 billion Scottish taxpayers paid to the United Kingdom during the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year.

Advocates for independence declare that Scotland’s economy is not thriving as much as it could because it has followed the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish government states that, “If Scotland had matched the levels of growth of other independent nations […] GDP per head in Scotland would now be 3.8 percent higher, equivalent to an addition to £900 per head.”

In 2013, there were only 59 Scottish Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons with a total of 650 MPs and 785 Lords. Voters in Scotland only elected four percent of the United Kingdom Parliament; the politicians who are in control over defense, welfare, and economic decisions.

Members of the House of Lords are nominated by a committee instead of being elected by the people. The Scottish National Party believes that MPs should be elected and not appointed; therefore, they do not nominate members. Parliament member Angus MacNeil said, “A ‘yes’ vote for independence means that people in Scotland can get rid of the expensive and unrepresentative Westminster tier – which means better and cheaper government.”

The core of the Yes Campaign and those who support it is that the people who live and work in Scotland should have the right to make the choices for their own country.

Arguments for a ‘No’ Vote

Members of the opposition are concerned what independence would do to research and development sector. Currently, “Scotland receives a total of £130 million from UK based charities, £100 million from UK central government and £47 million of funding allocated to UK universities by UK industry, commerce and public corporations.” Through the UK Research Councils, Scotland also received £234 million to go towards funding research in pioneering new technologies. It is speculated that a split from the United Kingdom would end funding that universities in Scotland are currently receiving. This would greatly damage its universities and the advances in technologies found at them.

The impact on education is a tremendous area of concern. Currently, Scottish and European Union students do not pay tuition fees at universities in Scotland, while United Kingdom students have to pay fees. United Kingdom students would become reclassified as European Union students if independence occurs, meaning they would not have to pay fees anymore. Although beneficial for the remaining United Kingdom, free tuition would be a huge attraction and possibly limit space for Scottish domiciled students.

Conclusion

It is clear that both those in support and opposition of the referendum are acting in what they believe to be in the best interest of Scotland, and in some instances the United Kingdom. On September 18, if a majority vote of ‘yes’ is reached, it would propel Scotland into a uncharted territory and new era.

Resources

Primary

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

Additional

New Statesman: Can Plaid Cymru Learn From the SNP and Put Welsh Independence on the Agenda?

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

BBC: Scottish Independence: Students Could be ‘Squeezed Out’ of Home Universities

BBC: Scottish Independence: Who Are The Big and Small Money Referendum Donors?

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Scottish Sovereignty: All the Facts on the Referendum appeared first on Law Street.

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

You know what I find hilarious? Incompetence. Seriously, it’s one of my favorite things. Especially when it’s political incompetence. Although to be fair, I probably only find it funny because it keeps me from getting too depressed over the current state of American politics. Are y’all curious as to what my favorite political incompetence moment was this week? Well, it was the incident where Virginia Republicans bribed a Democratic state senator by offering jobs to him and his daughter. By doing so, they gained a majority in the Virginia State Senate. Getting that majority may mean that the attempted Medicaid expansion that Gov. Terry McAuliffe has been working on will be derailed. Confused? Me too. There’s a lot going on here. This issue has a bunch of layers. More specifically, a bunch of layers of incompetence. Let’s break them down.

The Incompetence of Phillip “Sure I’ll Accept a Bribe” Puckett

Let’s work from the inside out. In this case, this first layer of incompetence involves now-resigned Senator Phillip “sure I’ll accept a bribe” Puckett. A Democrat from southwestern Virginia’s Russell County, Puckett received an interesting offer from members of the Virginia GOP. According to inside sources, Puckett was in consideration for a job as Deputy Director of the State Tobacco Commission and his daughter has been waiting around to be confirmed to a federal judgeship. The deal, allegedly, was that they would finally get approved if Puckett resigned. So…he resigned.

Although much-deserved backlash has led to Puckett’s announcement that he won’t be seeking the Tobacco Commission job, it seems that his daughter will get her appointment after all. And the Republicans will get what they wanted — Democrats won’t control the Virginia Senate, which likely means that Medicaid expansion in the state is dead. If this is all true, which it seems to be, I have just a few words for Puckett.

Sounds about right. Because if Puckett did take a bribe to leave his elected position as a state senator, he is a selfish bastard. People elected him based on his beliefs. And when you’re elected by the people…well then you work for the people. That means those voters are counting on you. That means that you probably shouldn’t let them down over your own selfish desires. If you wanted a job that you could leave without letting people down, you probably shouldn’t have become a public servant. Maybe Puckett left for some other reason; it does happen. But it’s still a crap move. Because at the end of the day he let down people who count on him.

And on the issue of Medicaid expansion, there were a ton of people who desperately could have used his help. As the Washington Post pointed out, there are about 3,000 of his constituents who have no health insurance. People who could have had their lives changed by Medicaid expansion. Puckett owes every single one of them a damn apology.

The Incompetence of the Virginia GOP

This award goes to the Republicans who bribed him — although incompetence is probably not the right word, because their plan did actually work. Instead, let’s call it nastiness. This is not our political process. Our political process relies on everyone going out and voting. And then after we’ve voted we have elected officials, and hypothetically we’re done there. We do this cool thing where we get to vote them out if we want to, we just need to let them serve out the term first. In some places, we can even recall our elected officials.

You know what we can’t do? Be giant babies and bribe them. I mean I guess we can, because Virginia Republicans just did. But we shouldn’t. It’s cheap, it’s obnoxious, it’s immature. And guess what? It’s also wrong.

The Incompetence of Everyone Who Doesn’t Value Compromise

And that brings me to our last layer of incompetence. It’s a big one. A huge one, actually. Because it’s all of us.

Yup, you. All of you. And me too, if we’re being fair. Without sounding prematurely ancient here, I remember growing up when compromise was a good thing. In school we learned how to compromise to end fights between friends. At home, I learned how to compromise with my parents so we all got what we wanted. And I remember a time when the word “compromise” wasn’t a synonym for evil when used in a political context the way it is now.

We disagree over Medicaid expansion, OK. While I have my own personal feelings about the issue, I recognize that there is a valid argument to be made for the opposing side. But this would all be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t assume that our politicians can get exactly what they promised us. Because they can’t. They can’t stick to their guns so concretely that compromise becomes impossible. As we learned this week, when that happens you get crap like Puckett accepting a bribe.

So yeah, these layers of incompetence include us too. Let’s reclaim the word “compromise.” Let’s make sure this is the last time we facilitate an environment in which a bribe is a real possibility. Because otherwise, our elected officials will try this again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Torbakhopper via Flickr]

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 VA Senator Accepts Bribe & Sells Out Constituents, Incompetence Abounds appeared first on Law Street.

Money has always been a big part of politics, and campaign finance laws have been put in place to curb potential corruption. But the Supreme Court continues to rule on parts of campaign finance laws- most recently allowing individuals to give money to more campaigns in the case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission. Is this one more way to allow big money into politics, or a protection of free speech?

Campaign contributions are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, but with restrictions in order to prevent corruption. Since 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court has ruled that campaign contribution limits can be enforced as “primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.” Basically, it’s fine to limit contributions from individuals to avoid corruption. And understandably so- it isn’t unreasonable to think donating huge sums of money from an individual to a campaign could lead to some kind of favoritism toward that person.

So to combat that potential, the government set a cap for the amount of money an individual can contribute to campaigns, and it’s been like this since 1976. Currently, that limit is $5,200 to each campaign over a two-year period. As time has gone on, the courts have continued to rule more on the side of campaign contributions as free speech, making those laws less restrictive, and continuing to hold them as protected free speech under the First Amendment.

One of the most recent examples was in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Court ruled restrictions on how much money unions and corporations could donate weren’t legal. Liberals saw this as a way to equate corporations to people, and conservatives saw it as an expansion of First Amendment rights.

So McCutcheon tackled another part of the campaign finance puzzle: caps on individual donations… kind of.

Prior to this ruling, there was a limit on how much money an individual could donate to one campaign, as well as a cap on how much an individual could donate to campaigns total. Individuals could give up to $5,200 to any one candidate, but no more than $123,200 total during a two-year election cycle. And of that $123,200, only $48,600 could go to individual campaigns. The Supreme Court held on Wednesday that that total limit, the $123,200, was unconstitutional, while the caps on donations to individual campaigns still stand.

So, what does this mean in practice? Basically, wealthy people can give money to more candidates… but they can’t give more money to one candidate. Again, liberals have gotten upset-worried that increasing the amount of money individuals can donate to campaigns will somehow unhinge a balance of power, or make a system already centered on money even more uneven. But to be frank- this decision doesn’t change a whole lot of anything, and it’s constitutionally sound.

If the goal of campaign finance limits is to combat corruption (legitimate corruption, not just speculative or hypothetical corruption), then giving a limited amount of money to a few more candidates really isn’t a huge problem.  Individuals won’t be able to wield more influence over one candidate because to individual caps are still in place.

Still, there is concern that this ruling only helps the wealthy, as they’re the only ones who would be able to give this much money to campaigns in the first place. But more important than worrying about rich people giving money to campaigns is worrying about what the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment, time and again, has protected campaign contributions as free speech. Arbitrary limits on one kind of free speech are no better than arbitrary limits on another.

Though it’s easy to get caught up in thinking allowing the wealthy to give more money to a campaign isn’t fair, the McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court upholds rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The only restrictions the courts should impose on campaign limits are ones that protect against corruption and limiting the amount of campaigns individuals can donate to do not protect against corruption.

[Supreme Court] [Oyez] [Washington Times] [Citizens United]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Tracy Olson]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Money, More Problems? Supreme Court Rules on Campaign Finance Laws appeared first on Law Street.

I really like horror movies. And FX’s American Horror Story is a weekly ritual for myself and my roommates. There’s something about being scared through the dim glow of a screen that’s refreshing: you get to be glad that you aren’t actually experiencing the horror. And so today I decided to experience a different kind of horror…I googled potential 2016 presidential nominees barely a year after our last, extremely exhausting election.

This was me.

Everyone knows who the frontrunners are–Hillary Clinton in blue, and Chris Christie in red. There’s a whole big cast of characters as potential backups–Vice President Biden, Martin O’Malley, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, the list goes on and on. But for the sake of fun, let’s take a look at some of the weird shout-outs I came across, on both sides, for potential 2016 nominees. Fair warning: this list will range from actual politicians who may have a shot, to bonafide crazy people.

Oh wait, isn’t that the same thing?

5. Delaware AG Beau Biden

Beau Biden, courtesy of studio08denver via Flickr.

I expected to see Joe’s name on pretty much any presidential nominee list. I was not expecting a second Biden–the 44 year old Attorney General of Delaware. Beau is young, attractive, has a military background, and is overall a very attractive candidate for national politics. If his father doesn’t run, he could be a contender. But is he ready? And do Democrats want to start yet another political dynasty, à la Clintons? After all, they’ve seen how well that’s worked for the Republican party–Republicans haven’t won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket since 1981. Finally, and believe me, this is the most important question, is it possible for any Biden to be cooler than Joe?

 Perfection

  4. Rep Peter King (R-NY)

Peter King, courtesy of United States Congress via Wikipedia.

Pete King (R-NY) has actually already declared that he will be running for President in 2016. King has a pretty long history of crazy statements that render him a scary potential 2016 pick. Let’s start with his claim that he’s kind of a fan of torture, or at the very least, coercive interrogations (which a former Republican nominee, John McCain, has rallied against for years.) He also used to be a supporter of the Irish Republican Army, a known terrorist group. He  has an extraordinary history of making offensive comments towards Muslims. In 2007, he claimed that, “that 85% of all mosques in the U.S. are controlled by ‘extremist leadership.'” He has stated that Muslim-Americans aren’t actually American. Immediately after the Boston Marathon bombing, he made a statement to the effect that we need to watch and put surveillance on all American Muslim communities.

Oh, Pete King, could you be more offensive? Please don’t try.

Pete King actually routinely slams the tea party, but still gets on this list for being a weird, creepy, hypocrite who I would really not like to see given a national platform.

3. Mayor Michael Bloomberg

MIchael Bloomberg, courtesy of Be the Change, Inc via Flickr.

Bloomberg has just finished up his last term as New York City mayor. His history is interesting; at various points in his life he has been a Democrat, a Republican, and now an Independent. While looking up 2016 speculation, I found both Democratic and Republican speculation–and in such a hostile partisan climate, it is extremely difficult to imagine that overlap. There has been speculation that Bloomberg would run in 2008 and 2012. Bloomberg wouldn’t be so much a horrifying pick as much as he would be a fascinating one. Socially speaking, he’s liberal, but fiscally conservative. Running a city like New York is very different than running an entire country, and some of the policies that he has instituted have been dramatically unpopular–everyone remember the soda ban? Any run, for any party, would be very interesting.

Most New Yorkers’ reaction to the soda ban.

2. Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL)

Allen West, courtesy of Mark Taylor via Flickr.

Tea party darling and former Florida representative, Allen West, or as I like to call him, complete nut job. He is more likely to run for Rubio’s senate seat, whether Rubio is there or not, but according to speculators Presidential run isn’t completely out of the ballpark. I don’t have room on this list to enumerate all the ways in which Allen West is off his rocker, but here are a couple highlights:

• One time when he said Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitler’s right hand men, would be proud of Democrats.
• Anyone who supports Obama is a threat to the gene pool.
• Liberal women, “have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness —[we need] to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient.”
• He claimed well respected news outlet Al Jazeera tried to kidnap him.

Shall we all say it together?

1. Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent has said that people are asking him to run and that he’s considering it. In a Washington Post profile he said, “Things are just so wrong in the country now. And I know that my answers would make things wonderful, unless you just refuse to produce, and then I’d recommend that you move to Canada. Or Illinois.” Oh thanks, Ted, I forgot Illinois wasn’t a part of the US. I think we should have a new rule: if you have been investigated by the Secret Service for threatening a current President, you shouldn’t be able to run for that same office. Before the 2012 election, he claimed that “he would be dead or in jail” this time next week if Obama won reelection. Yet, people still want him to run for President–this “Ted Nugent for President” Facebook page has over 246,000 likes.

Ted Nugent? NO!

Well friends, no matter what, we’re in for an exciting ride in 2016. But, can we please not talk about it for real for at least another year?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Theresa Thompson via Flickr]

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 5 Surprising, Unexpected, & Horrifying Presidential Picks for 2016 appeared first on Law Street.