The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton"s $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme

Authored by Dan Backer via Investors.com,

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission"s (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.

Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon"s win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court"s McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.

The Democrats" response? Hold my beer.

The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton"s campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Here"s what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I"ve explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF"s architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what"s happening, no one would complain.

Here"s what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party"s main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it"s legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here"s what you can"t do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign"s direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton"s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D"Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don"t take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.

RNC Pulls Financial Support From Roy Moore

The Republican National Committee (RNC) has pulled its financial support from GOP Senate hopeful Roy Moore by severing official fundraising ties, leaving Moore "increasingly isolated as he confronts charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers." According to Politico, the RNC is terminating a joint fundraising agreement it had with Moore and is also canceling a field program it had set up ahead of the state’s Dec. 12 special election. The committee had about a dozen paid canvassers in Alabama working for Moore. It will no longer transfer any money to the race.

New documents filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission show the RNC is no longer listed alongside other groups involved in the joint fundraiser. The two parties now listed on the documents include “Judge Roy Moore for US Senate” and the Alabama Republican Party. According to The Hill, the initial FEC filing, dated Oct. 24, included both the RNC and National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) . The new filing does not include either of those groups.

Practically, this means that whereas a donor could have given up to $521,200 per year to the joint fundraising committee when it included both the RNC and NRSC. Now that they have pulled out, a donor can only give a max of $12,700 per year to the committee.

The severing of financial ties comes as the GOP intensifies its effort to pressure Moore out of the race. On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called on the candidate to “step aside.” McConnell, whose view was also echoed by Paul Ryan on Tusday, also said he believed the accounts of Moore’s female accusers, who told the Washington Post that Moore pursued them when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s.

Moore, a former state Supreme Court justice, has denied the allegations and has vowed to remain in the race. "We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again: Judge Moore is an innocent man and has never had any sexual misconduct with anyone,” his campaign said on Monday.

“The person who should step aside is @SenateMajLdr Mitch McConnell,” Moore tweeted on Monday. “He has failed conservatives and must be replaced. #DrainTheSwamp.”

Meanwhile, Even if Moore were to exit, his name would still appear on the ballot because state law prevents a candidate from withdrawing from a race within 76 days before an election.

One possibility being discussed is waging a write-in campaign. But with just over four weeks until the election, such an effort would be a long-shot. Strange, who Moore defeated in a September runoff, has expressed little interest in being a write-in candidate, according to three people with direct knowledge of his thinking.

How The Elite Dominate The World – Part 4: They Buy Politicians, And Incumbents Almost Always Win

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Once we wake up to how the game is being played, then we will have a real shot at changing things.  For decades, the elite have been pulling the strings behind the scenes in both major political parties.  That is why nothing has ever seemed to change very much no matter which party has been in power. 

The agenda of the elite has always seemed to march forward, and ordinary people like us have always been frustrated that we can’t seem to make a difference.  But now a shift seems to be taking place.  Donald Trump took on the establishment in both major parties, and he miraculously won the presidency.  Down in Alabama, the elite spent more than 30 million dollars to defeat Roy Moore, and he still defeated Luther Strange.  A political awakening is taking place, and I can’t wait to see what happens during the mid-term elections in 2018.

In Part I and Part II of this series, I talked about how the elite use debt as a tool of enslavement.  In Part III, I went over how the elite use the colossal media corporations they own to control what we think.  Today, I want to talk about their influence in the realm of politics.

In Washington D.C., it is well understood that the game of politics is all about the money.  If I win my election, and online polling suggests that there is a ton of enthusiasm for my campaign, I will be expected to spend most of my time on the phone raising money.  As a freshman member of Congress, at orientation it will be explained to me that I am supposed to spend approximately four hours a day doing fundraising, and that is why the House and Senate floors are so empty most of the time.

By law, members of Congress cannot make fundraising calls from their offices, and so both parties have huge call centers just across from the Capitol.  Especially around lunch and dinner times (because those are some of the best times to reach people), those call centers are packed as members of the House and Senate run through lists of potential donors.

And it isn’t just about raising money for their own campaigns.  As a freshman member of Congress I would be expected to raise at least $200,000 for the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee).  If I don’t pay my dues, I would get into big trouble with party leadership.

But you know what?  I have already pledged that I am not going to participate in this very corrupt system.  If I am sent to Congress, I am going to spend my time doing the job that the people of Idaho sent me there to do.

So will Paul Ryan and the others in leadership get very upset with me for not “paying my dues”?

Of course.

But it is time for some of us to take a stand and do what is right.  Congress has become a cesspool of filth and corruption, and it is time to flush the toilet.

Because if we don’t fight this corrupt system, the influence of money in politics will just get worse and worse.  Today, the elite pour millions upon millions of dollars even into small campaigns, and in 2016 it took an average of more than 10 million dollars to win a U.S. Senate seat…

While the White House may not have gone to the biggest spender, an awful lot of House and Senate seats did — as usual. And it was pricier than ever to win them.

 

This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission). That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed.

Once you win, the pressure to raise money for your next campaign never ends.

The elite know this, and they use this pressure to influence votes.  Prior to a big vote, lobbyists will make it abundantly clear how they want certain members of Congress to vote, and if they vote the “right way” those members of Congress will be rewarded.

Just across from the U.S. Capitol there are clubs where fancy receptions are regularly held.  If you vote the “right way” on a particular bill, you may be invited to one of these receptions, and there will be big, fat donation checks waiting there for you.

Of course most members of Congress have learned how to play the game, and this is why it is nearly impossible to defeat incumbents.  Over the past six decades, the re-election rate for members of the House of Representatives has consistently been well over 80 percent, and according to the UVA Center for Politics incumbents actually did far better than that in 2016…

This election cycle, 393 of 435 House representatives, 29 of 34 senators, and five of 12 governors sought reelection (several of the governors were prohibited from seeking another term). Of those, 380 of 393 House members (97%), 27 of 29 senators (93%), and four of five governors (80%) won another term. These members of Congress and governors not only won renomination, but also won in November.

Since World War II, the overall success rate for Senate incumbents has been 84 percent, and the overall success rate for House incumbents has been 94 percent.

Incumbents are almost always armed with huge war chests and most of them have tremendous name recognition, and so toppling them is not easy.

Fortunately, there is no incumbent in my race because Raul Labrador is running for governor.  So the race is completely wide open, and right now my campaign has the most enthusiasm by far.  If you would like to help me flush the toilet in Washington, I would encourage you to visit MichaelSnyderForCongress.com.

If we don’t fight back, we will never break the stranglehold that the elite have on our political system.

Every generation of Americans has had to stand up and fight for liberty and freedom, and now it is our turn.  This particular battle will not be fought with guns and bullets, but rather with ideas, values and principles.

We are part of a movement that is sweeping the nation.  Good men and women are rising up to run in federal, state and local races all across the country, and it is absolutely imperative that we all get behind them and support them.

*  *  *

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

A Political Realignment Is Necessary – The Real Struggle Is Liberty Vs Authoritarianism

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Until the American public ceases bickering amongst itself along Democratic and Republican or “left” vs. “right” lines, we’ll continue to be divided and conquered by authoritarians who wield tremendous power throughout both sides of the traditional political spectrum.

This isn’t to say there aren’t real, meaningful differences between those who classify themselves on the “left” or the “right,” but it is to say there’s a much bigger battle afoot and nothing’s going to get better until we frame the new political reality for what it is. The most significant, existential struggle at play in these modern United States is a battle between Liberty and Authoritarianism, and it’s extremely important you know where you stand.

While the entire Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is crucial to our civil liberties, no right is more significant than the First Amendment. If we lose freedom of speech, it’s game over for our society, and we have to understand that authoritarians on both the “right” and “left” are taking shots at freedom of speech as I write this. As such, differences between “right” and “left” should be deemphasized because if we lose the First Amendment, we lose everything.

A major political realignment is not simply a good idea, it’s absolutely crucial to the survival of a thriving civilization here in the U.S. The historical struggle we face today is not Democrat vs. Republican, or right vs. left, but Liberty vs. Authoritarianism.

Let’s get started by highlighting an extremely creepy proposal recently published, titled, Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of “Fake News.” One of the authors is Ann M. Ravel, who was previously a Democratic Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

For the most part, the proposal outlines how social media should be regulated in order to track and categorize how advertisements on the platforms are created and distributed. It’s not until the end that the authors’ more Orwellian objectives become apparent. They write:

Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation

Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.

 

Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.

 

Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.

Think about how creepy all of that is. They want social media companies to warn its users when they’re apparently interacting with “disinformation,” which I assume government will enthusiastically define at a later date. Even worse, a simple warning isn’t enough for them, the authors actually want social media companies to warn citizens they might be exposed to libel laws if they share a particular piece of content.

As such, it becomes crystal clear that when it comes to libel laws some Democrats have a lot more in common with Donald Trump than they’d like you to believe. Which basically proves my point — there’s a lot more agreement between authoritarians on the “right” and the “left” than meets the eye. Both types want the power to control what you see, what you read and how you think. Don’t let political labels fool you, anti-free speech is anti-free speech whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican. The real battle is Liberty vs. Authoritarianism.

If that’s not creepy enough, let’s take a look at what’s currently happening at Facebook. From the Bloomberg article, Facebook Is Looking for Employees With National Security Clearances:

Facebook Inc. is looking to hire people who have national security clearances, a move the company thinks is necessary to prevent foreign powers from manipulating future elections through its social network, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

Workers with such clearance can access information classified by the U.S. government. Facebook plans to use these people — and their ability to receive government information about potential threats — to search more proactively for questionable social media campaigns ahead of elections, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the information is sensitive. A Facebook spokesman declined to comment.

 

Job candidates like this are often former government and intelligence officials or contractors. The status can carry over to private-sector jobs, as long as the position still requires access to sensitive information. Previously granted clearances become inactive when intelligence workers leave government employment, but they can be reactivated on Facebook’s behalf, the person said.

Facebook is about to be swarming with CIA personnel, assuming it isn’t already.

Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said last month that Facebook plans to add more than 250 people across its teams that deal with security and safety for the social network and to more than double the team working on election integrity. He also said the company would seek to work more closely with government officials to get information on what to investigate ahead of elections.

 

It’s common for private companies, such as military contractors, information technology and engineering firms, to hire employees with U.S. government-issued security clearance. Candidates with top-secret clearance have been in high demand for years.

 

These types of employees are needed when private companies interact and share information back and forth with government agencies. If Facebook is going to cooperate with intelligence agencies to identify potentially problematic ads and share that information with the government, it will likely need workers with security clearance.

I’m not sure how to describe the above, but free market capitalism it’s definitely not.

Moving along, this post wouldn’t be complete without pointing out how much Donald Trump, and in particular his deranged Attorney General Jeff Sessions, despises the First Amendment. Here’s some of what he had to say on the topic yesterday.

From The Hill:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday said he could not make a “blanket commitment” to not putting journalists in jail.

 

During testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Sessions if he could pledge to not place “reporters in jail for doing their jobs.”

 

“Well, I don’t know that I can make a blanket commitment to that effect. But I will say this, we have not taken any aggressive action against the media at this point,” Sessions replied.

 

“But we have matters that involve the most serious national security issues that put our country at risk,” he said, “and we will utilize the authorities that we have legally and constitutionally if we have to.”

 

The comments from Sessions come after President Trump, unhappy with a story published by NBC News, said last week that network licenses should be challenged. While the major networks do not have licenses themselves, their local affiliates do.

Finally, I want to provide the following tweets in case you’re still in denial regarding Trump’s authoritarian nature and his clear determination to launch more wars in the Middle East.

A lot of you voted for Trump because you knew Hillary was a disaster and so you held out some hope he’d be better. I get it. This isn’t about lecturing anybody about how much of a con Trump is, it’s about asking you to accept reality and be part of a political realignment which must be birthed into existence.

We need to recognize that the battle is much bigger than you’ve been taught. It’s not Democrat vs. Republican or right vs. left, it’s Liberty vs. Authoritarianism, and if we don’t accept this and come together, we’ll lose everything.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Make Mark Zuckerberg Testify

Last week, after what must have been a series of extremely grim meetings in Menlo Park, Facebook admitted publicly that part of its revenue includes what appears to be politically motivated fraud undertaken by a shady Russian company. The social network, perhaps motivated by a Washington Post scoop on the matter, released a statement outlining the issues at hand, but leaving the most important questions unanswered. Only Facebook knows these answers, and we should assume they won’t be eager to volunteer them.

After last week’s reports, Facebook received a round of emails and calls from reporters asking for clarifications on the many glaring gaps in the social network’s disclosure:

• What was the content of the Russian-backed ads in question?


• How many people saw these ads? How many people clicked them?


• What were the Facebook pages associated with the ads? How many members did they have?


• What specific targeting criteria (race, age, and most importantly, location) did the Russian ads choose?

Given that Facebook reaches a little under 30 percent of the entire population of our planet, the answers to these questions matter.

The response I received from Facebook PR (“We are not commenting beyond the blog post at this time”) is typical.

But even when Facebook does decide to talk to journalists, it has the tenor of an occult priest discussing something from beyond an eerie void: Just last week, when faced with a report that its advertising numbers promised an American audience that, in certain demographics, well exceeded the number of such humans in existence, judging by U.S. Census Bureau numbers, Facebook told the Wall Street Journal that its numbers “are not designed to match population or census estimates. We are always working to improve our estimates.” Facebook’s intercourse with the public need not adhere to the so-called norms of so-called reality.

But beyond the technology sector’s penchant for PR non-statements and Facebook’s understandable reluctance to further insinuate itself into the political controversy of the decade is the fact that complete inscrutability is just the way the company works. Facebook, even more than Apple, which has taken corporate secrecy to quasi-military lengths, operates as a black box. No one outside of the company knows exactly how the site’s algorithms, by which media and advertising industries now live and die, function. Academics and other researchers must go on what can be learned of Facebook merely by using Facebook. “Many of us wish we could study Facebook,” professor Philip Howard of the Oxford Internet Institute told The Guardian in May, “but we can’t, because they really don’t share anything.” When details of how Facebook suppresses certain content and amplifies other information leaks, it becomes a media sensation.

At the same time as it operates in near-total opacity, Facebook trumpets just how well the black box works; its advertising case study library is ample, including stories boasting how Facebook can swing political elections. Facebook crucially never makes it clear exactly how it will help you win an election (or sell more fried chicken, or bracelets, or subscriptions). It just does. This magical efficacy, the company’s apparently unparalleled power to make people look at and maybe even click on things, is helping Facebook reach quarter after quarter of mammoth profits and swallow whole larger and larger chunks of advertising and media around the world. This is disturbing enough if you happen to work at a newspaper, but ought to be something even beyond disturbing if you happen to be a citizen of any country in the world.

Facebook prides itself on its ability to create successful influence campaigns at the same time that a foreign influence campaign against the U.S. is pretty much the only story anyone cares about (and lest we forget, just last November, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote the whole thing off as “pretty crazy”). Today, we have reason to believe the two are connected. And while $100,000 is a pittance to Facebook, the bottom line is that even Facebook is willing to admit to the existence of bad-faith efforts to persuade its users by entities unknown and for purposes unknown. Shouldn’t the roughly 80 percent of Americans who use Facebook know as much as possible about how they’re being remotely manipulated?

It’s good and worthwhile that Congress and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are probing the company’s ability to influence political thought and action, and that Facebook staffers have briefed the House and Senate intelligence committees, but if this is truly a democratic crisis, it can’t be a closed-door crisis.

Zuckerberg should publicly testify under oath before Congress on his company’s capabilities to influence the political process, be it Russian meddling or anything else.

If the company is as powerful as it promises advertisers, it should be held accountable.

And if it’s not, then we need to stop fretting so much about it.

Either way, threats to entire societies should be reckoned with publicly by those very societies and not confined to R&D labs and closed-door briefings. If democracy can be gamed from a laptop, that shouldn’t be considered a trade secret.

Nearly 80 years ago, then-junior Sen. Harry Truman began a seven-year inquiry into American military waste, largely targeting the vast scale with which private corporations were duping and defrauding the public to enrich themselves. Military contractors aren’t known for their transparency or willingness to level with the public, so it had to be pried from them — the process saved an estimated $230 billion in today’s dollars. In 1994, tobacco executives were brought before Congress to testify under oath as to the threat their ubiquitous social product posed to the public.

David Carroll, a professor of media design at the New School and director of its Design and Technology MFA program, has been a vocal critic of Facebook’s business practices through the 2016 election. Carroll told The Intercept he believes “the public needs to hear Zuckerberg respond to crucial questions in his voice and in his words as the custodian of most of the public’s personal data, social relationships, and media consumption.” In particular, Carroll thinks Zuckerberg ought to explain the fact that bad actors are good business: “How is he going to protect future elections while also fulfilling his fiduciary duty, which is going to involve ‘leaving money on the table’ — how is he going to do it?”

Ron Fein is the legal director of Free Speech For People, an advocacy group targeting corporate influence in democratic processes. Last year, FSFP filed a formal complaint against the Russian government and President Donald Trump with the Federal Election Commission over what it described as “violations of the federal campaign finance law prohibiting foreign nationals from spending money in U.S. elections, including through paid social media.” The group is not getting any less angry after last week’s Facebook news, and Fein is among those who’d like to see Zuckerberg testify before Congress. He told The Intercept:

In the past, advertising was all public. If the Russian government had bought advertising in an election in the 1980s or 90s, it would have been on television, radio, or newspaper ads that anyone could see. We would know what the ads said, and where they were shown.

Facebook ads are only visible to the users that the advertiser, using Facebook’s proprietary algorithm, chooses to target. We don’t know what the ads said, or who saw them. The public can’t understand the scope of the problem of foreign election interference if Facebook continues to insist on secrecy. We can’t fully protect ourselves from future election interference if the only information we have is what Facebook has chosen to share to this point. Right now, our laws prohibit foreign nationals from spending money to influence U.S. elections, but that is difficult to prove if the only evidence is what Facebook chooses to disclose.

Mark Zuckerberg’s open testimony could be very helpful in helping Congress and the public understand what happened in the 2016 campaign, and what risks we face in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Daniel Kreiss, a professor at the University of North Carolina who studies the effect of technology on political communications and practices, is one of the many researchers around the world frustrated by Facebook’s unwillingness to explain how Facebook may or may not affect over 2 billion people — many of them potential voters. Kreiss admitted he’s unsure of “whether there’s the political will to bring Zuckerberg in and make him answer questions about Facebook’s role in the election,” but that it could answer long overdue questions. “I just find it stunning that we’re learning about these ad buys 10 months after the election is over as opposed to when they would’ve been consequential,” he said. But, Kreiss says, we also can’t be certain it was ever consequential: Facebook’s crucial advertising and algorithmic data is “not public,” meaning “academics can’t go in and really clearly analyze the effects of advertising, let’s say, on the members of electorate, in a rigorous way. … That data isn’t independently verifiable, therefore it’s just what fuels speculation. The point is we can’t really know.” And that’s by design.

It’s reassuring that Facebook is cooperating with the ongoing Russia-related probes. But this is bigger than Russia, bigger than Hillary Clinton, and bigger than 2016. Should Facebook continue to simply allude to its ominous potential rather than sharing it in full, there’s only one good option left: Bring in Mark Zuckerberg and have him sworn in live on C-SPAN. No spokespeople required.

Retired Green Beret Warns "A Domestic Destabilization Is Underway"

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

Under the guise of “political correctness,” cities (such as Baltimore, MD) are removing their Confederate monuments one-by-one and under cover of darkness.

Here, as reported by CBS News:

“The Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson monument at Wyman Park Dell was removed with a crowd watching.  The Robert B. Taney monument in Mt. Vernon also came down.  Crews are on the site of the confederate Women’s monument at University Parkway to take that one down.  This comes just days after the Baltimore City Council passed a resolution Monday calling for the immediate deconstruction of these monuments.”

There it is!  Straight out of the movie “The Patriot” with Mel Gibson, as with the character he played, Benjamin Martin: “An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king.”

Where’s the vote by the people in the city?  Oh, just that the elected officials, mind you, can make such a decision…by their vote, a tyranny in itself.  At the bare minimum, it should have been put to a vote.

The important thing to keep in mind is that most of these cities, city councils, and their state legislatures are being run by a pack of liberals.  The “paradigm shift” is in full mode: “Democracy in America” did not mention the tyranny of the minority.  In this case, a minority viewpoint, fueled by Marxists and liberals is attempting to subvert First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and begin a policy of redaction to support their revisionist history.

We are right around the corner from a Civil War. 

The Left is fueling and funding tensions in order to exacerbate them and cause a revolution.  In the middle of this, the President is being blamed and threatened with impeachment.  The root of it is this: the attempt to destabilize the country and cause anarchy.  Black Americans are being used as the vehicle for the destabilization…a vehicle by the oligarchs, such as Soros.  Now with Charlottesville being trumpeted up and down the country, Obama weighs in “with the most popular Tweet ever.”

I wrote that Barack Hussein Obama II would be back: he will be a most useful catalyst for what is to come.  It was also reported that Hillary Clinton is weighing in on attacking the President, but not with words: with dollars.  Fellowship of the Minds ran a piece that cites the Washington Times.  Here’s an excerpt:

“Joe Schoffstall reports for The Washington Free Beacon, August 14, 2017, that Hillary has donated $800,000 from her campaign funds to Onward Together — a new political action group that she formed three months ago in May which will fund a number of established “resistance” groups that counter President Trump with direct action and protests.

According to its mission statement, Onward Together is dedicated to “encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office” and advancing “progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come.”

Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that on May 1, 2017, Hillary’s presidential campaign committee Hillary for America contributed $800,000 to Onward Together. In addition, Hillary also funded other “resistance” groups that have “impressed” her, including Swing Left, Run for Something, Emerge America, and Indivisible.”

Once again, her money and power is wielded to “influence” the way things are.  She is not acting alone, nor of her own initiative.  Read Shadow Party to find the guy pulling her strings.  (Hint: his real name is Georgy Schwarz!)

By removing the Confederate memorials and markers, a part of American history is effectively being relegated to oblivion.  It is all part of redaction and revision.  The Marxists and Globalists have been relentless in their quest to rewrite American history and demonize whites in general…trying to create a cowed, demure, subservient class of guilt-ridden subjects…to destroy the United States from within.  To destroy the “warrior mentality” of the citizen-soldier of America’s citizenry…that is the objective.  A complete orchiotomy and neutering: nothing less.

Unless the United States falls, the New World Order/Global Governance cannot exist.  This is the goal: enmesh it in a war (initiated by a foreign nation and/or orchestrated by the U.S.), and destroy it domestically from within.  “Top down, bottom up,” to quote Van Jones, is their objective.  Their playbook is Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” and the battle lines are being drawn more decisively by the day.  There will come a time when everyone will have to pick a side, and after it begins, the United States may look a lot different than it does now.

Broke And Bleeding Cash, DNC Ends June $3.3 Million In Debt

After spending a truly obscene amount of money on the Georgia special election last month, money that was proven to be completely wasted after Jon Ossoff was destroyed by Karen Handel, the DNC"s balance sheet is looking a little deflated.  Of course, spending $22 million dollars for a seat where candidates usually spend about $1 million each tends to take a toll on your political war chest.

Unfortunately, even $176 per vote, or roughly 7.6x more than what Karen Handel spent, wasn"t enough to buy a Georgia House seat.  Oops.

And while we"re sure that the new DNC Chair would love to forget all about that Georgia race, as the Federal Election Commission"s June financial reports reveal, his deflated balance sheet, which included only $7.5mm of cash and $3.3mm of debt, serves as a constant reminder of the wasted money that he"d undoubtedly love to get back.

As The Observer reported last month, this is hardly a new phenomenon for the DNC as May 2017 was the worst fundraising month since the Iraq War in 2003.

DNC Chair Tom Perez recently sent out a fundraising email to supporters claiming, “I know garbage when I see it,” citing that he once worked on a dump truck. It’s ironic that he referred to the GOP health care bill as a “flaming dumpster fire” because he has been presiding over the disaster that is the Democratic National Committee. The organization reported that May 2017 was its worst fundraising month since the Iraq War in 2003, and April 2017 was its worst fundraising month since 2009. In May, the DNC also reported that it has $1.9 million in debt. Despite the fact that former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez was recruited by Barack Obama to appease the party’s donors, lobbyists and PACs, even they have refused to prop up the failing brand.

Not approving of the strategies laid out at a retreat for donors in January 2017, billionaires Mark Pincus and Reid Hoffman started their own political organization, Win the Future. As donors are increasingly tired of seeing their investments go to waste, many have started their own funds or used their access to take over leadership positions themselves—such as Florida billionaire donor Stephen Bittel did to become the Florida Democratic Party chair earlier this year. Democratic billionaire J.B. Pritzker is running for governor of Illinois, and billionaire Tom Steyer is debating running for governor of California. Haim Saban and James Simons poured millions into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, but they have yet to be listed by the FEC as DNC donors in 2017. Additionally, George Soros has only given $33,900 to the DNC in 2017, but he poured millions of dollars into the Democratic Party in 2016.

By contrast, as The Hill notes, June was a record breaking fundraising month for the RNC bringing their YTD haul to over $75 million, or roughly double what the DNC has managed to raise so far in 2017.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) raised a record $13.4 million in June, bringing its total 2017 fundraising to $75.3 million.

In a release provided first to The Hill, the RNC announced another strong monthly haul and has $44.7 million in the bank. It’s the most the RNC has raised in June of a nonpresidential year.

RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel credited the record fundraising to the committee’s “loyal network of grassroots donors” due to their support for President Trump and the GOP’s agenda.

“Because of the generous contributions, the RNC will continue to promote conservative values while bolstering our efforts to support, defend, and elect more Republicans,” McDaniel said in a statement.

So what makes up the DNC"s $3.3 million debt balance?  Well, it consists of a $1 million bank loan and roughly $2 million of overdue bills primarily due to telemarketers. 

Ironically, of all the vendors that the DNC apparently can"t afford to pay on a timely basis, one of the few that actually has a zero balance is their paper shredding company...

FEC Rejects Democrats' Plan To Target Drudge, Breitbart

The efforts of top Federal Election Commission Democrat, Ellen Weintraub, to demand an inquisition into the potential coordination with Russians of conservative news outlets like Infowars, Breitbart and the Drudge Report, have been dashed as The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has declined her proposal, stating it "cannot support proposals that would burden the free speech rights of American citizens based on incomplete information about foreign activities in the 2016 election."

As Breitbart"s Colin Madine writes, the FEC has declined to consider new rulemaking over alleged foreign influence in the 2016 presidential election that could target conservative media including InfoWars and Breitbart News. In a statement released by Vice Chair Caroline Hunter and Commissioners Lee Goodman and Matthew Petersen, the members state they “cannot support proposals that would burden the free speech rights of American citizens based on incomplete information about foreign activities in the 2016  election.”

They further describe Weintraub’s proposal as one that would “‘blunt’ the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United.” In the opinion of three members who wrote the statement, there is no information currently showing that the FEC’s existing rules that prohibit foreign involvement in U.S. elections are “inadequate to detect, enforce, and punish violations.”

The statement was released by the three Republicans serving as FEC commissioners. Weintraub and Democrat Steven Walther are the other two current members, meaning there is at least a 3-2 majority in the Republicans favor on this issue.

The FEC commissioners acknowledge in their statement that a number of government agencies are currently investigating alleged foreign interference, and address the FEC’s role, specifically noting the importance of not taking a position of political bias:

The Federal Election Commission should cooperate with these other agencies while maintaining necessary confidentiality and decorum in our own processes. 

We must resist any efforts to politicize or compromise the integrity of this agency’s enforcement process or the investigations of other agencies, for the subject matter at issue implicates profoundly important national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

At least in the case of the FEC, leftists seem to be back to square one in their efforts to shut down conservative media.

Read their entire statement below:

#FordSchoolYellen Q&A Post-Mortem - Janet Yellen's Greatest Hits

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has just completed her Q&A with Twitter. She did not disappoint...

The Economy...

•  *YELLEN: U.S. ECONOMY IS "PRETTY HEALTHY"

Worst economic recovery on record...

• *YELLEN: WE MUST SUSTAIN PROGRESS THAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED

Current Quarter GDP forecast 0.6%...

• *YELLEN: APPROPRIATE TO GRADUALLY RAISE FED FUNDS RATE

If GDP forecasts for Q1 are correct, this will be the weakest economy since 1987 in which rates were increased. In fact this could be the lowest since Q4 1980 according to BBG data...

*YELLEN: FED WANTS TO AVOID BEING BEHIND THE CURVE ON RATES

And your term as Fed Chair has seen the lowest average economic growth ever... Barack Obama is the only president in US history to never have a year of economic growth over 3.0%...

Inflation

• *YELLEN: ENERGY, DOLLAR, FOOD HAVE CAUSE GYRATIONS IN INFLATION

Perhaps "cause" and "effect" are confused here?

• *YELLEN: FED DOESN"T WANT INFLATION LINGERING ABOVE, BELOW 2%

As decided by whom? Was this is the hidden 11th Commandment?

• *YELLEN: MONEY DOESN"T CAUSE INFLATION INDEPENDENT OF ECONOMY

Don"t tell Zimbabwe or Venezuela...

As @GreekFire22 tweeted so appropriately..."The fact that Yellen confused reserve creation with money creation was scary today. Everything else was a waste of time"

 

Lending

• *YELLEN: LENDING HAS GROWN IN A HEALTHY WAY W/ ECONOMIC RECOVERY

But is crashing now...

Labor Market

• *YELLEN SAYS U.S. LABOR MARKET IS NOW IN A NORMAL STATE

That must explain Trump"s election, right?

• *YELLEN: LACKLUSTER GDP GROWTH STUNNING GIVEN HIGH JOB GROWTH

Not if you pay attention to the collapse of the participation rate...

• *YELLEN SAYS PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IS LIKELY TO PICK UP

Any generation now...as we detailed previously, adjusting for the WWII anomaly (which tells us that GDP is not a good measure of a country’s prosperity) US productivity growth peaked in 1972 – incidentally the year after Nixon took the US off gold.

Fed Independence

• *YELLEN: FED DESIGNED TO BE NONPARTISAN

Any time a Fed president, governor or chairman trots out the trite cliche that the Fed is "apolitical" we can"t help but laugh for one simple reason: not only is the Fed not apolitical, but is very closely ideologically tied with whichever party promotes deficit spending which by definition is inflationary: more deficits mean more debt, means more opportunity for the Fed to show off its "inflation" creating skills; and in a Keynesian world, a stable 2% inflation is the lubricant that drives and stabilizes the financial system - the Fed"s true mandate. There is a reason why central bankers call deflation a "monster" which must be slayed, as per Haruhiko "Peter Pan" Kuroda.

However, it is one thing to note the obvious, it is different to have proof that Fed members have a clear ideological bias. Thanks to recent Fed appointee Lael Brainard, we have just that.

According to Bloomberg, recent Treasury staffer and current Fed Governor Lael Brainard gave $1,950 to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in February, Federal Election Commission records show

• *FED"S YELLEN: OUR INDEPENDENCE IS UNDER SOME THREAT


• *YELLEN: CENTRAL BANK POLICY INDEPENDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT


• *YELLEN: BILLS TO AUDIT FED, IMPOSE RULES THREATEN INDEPENDENCE

Because the public will discover more "Medley Global Advisers"?

Fed Policy

• *YELLEN: FED UNDERSTANDS ITS MONETARY POLICY HAS INTL SPILLOVERS

Odd that you cared last year when China money markets were volatile but not so much now that Republicans are in office.

• *YELLEN: RESEARCH SHOWS QE SUCCEEDED DRIVING DOWN LONG RATES

Actually rates rose during periods of QE, in fact interest rates have only declined in periods when the Fed stopped QE.

When one examines what has actually happened under QE, only stock prices have followed the QE theory.

• *YELLEN: FED"S QE PROGRAMS HAD A FAVORABLE IMPACT ON ECONOMY

When you say "favorable" we think you are misunderstanding what that means...

So apart from all those lies - we are sure the audience were treated to some real knowledge-sharing.

And in conclusion...

#fordschoolyellen pic.twitter.com/KKXLQIsksJ

— Rudolf E. Havenstein (@RudyHavenstein) April 10, 2017

Watch Live: Neil Gorsuch Takes The Stand For Senate Confirmation Hearing

Watch live as Neil Gorsuch takes the stand ahead of what will undoubtedly be a fun day full of protests and political grandstanding.  Updates posted below:

Update 1:  Key notes from Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley"s Opening Statement:

On the role of Judges:

But to endure, our system of self-government requires judges to apply the text of our laws as the people’s representatives enacted them. So our judges, by design, play a critical–but limited—role.  They decide cases or controversies.  But in resolving those cases, they may look only to the laws the People wrote. 

Judges aren’t free to re-write statutes to get results they believe are more just.  Judges aren’t free to reorder regulations to make them more fair.  And no, Judges aren’t free to “update” the Constitution.  That’s not their job. 

That power is retained by the People, acting through their elected representatives.  When our Judges don’t respect this limited role, when they substitute their own policy preferences for those in the legislative branch, they rob from the American people the right to govern themselves.

As that happens, inch by inch and step by step, democracy is undermined, the carefully constructed balance of power is upset, and individual liberty is lost.

On the independence of Gorsuch:

And if you are concerned about these things, as you should be: meet Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Fortunately for every American, we have before us today a nominee whose body of professional work is defined by an unfailing commitment to these principles. His grasp on the separation of powers—including judicial independence—enlivens his body of work.

As he explains: “To the founders, the legislative and judicial powers were distinct by nature and their separation was among the most important liberty-protecting devices of the constitutional design.”

* * *

For those who missed it, here is our preview from earlier this morning.

Later this morning at 11AM EST, Neil Gorsuch will take the stand before the Senate Judiciary Committee for three full, fun-packed days of grueling testimony that will no doubt come complete with several outbursts from disaffected liberal protesters and faux outrage from Democratic committee members.  According to Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the panel will hear opening statements from committee members and Gorsuch on Monday, then begin questioning him on Tuesday.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has vowed that the Senate will vote on the Gorsuch nomination before leaving April 8 for its Easter recess. If confirmed, Gorsuch would take the bench in time to hear the last two weeks of courtroom argument left in the current Supreme Court term. 

And while Democrats have vowed to fight his nomination "tooth and nail", Tom Goldstein, a Washington DC lawyer and publisher of the ScotusBlog, said it would be "shocking" if Gorsuch wasn"t confirmed in the coming weeks.  Per NBC:

"It would be shocking if Neil Gorsuch wasn"t confirmed to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks."

"The Democrats are committed to opposing him. Their base is insisting on it, because of what happened to President Obama"s nominee. But the reality is, they just don"t have the votes and don"t have the goods."

Of course, many of the Democrats on the panel will undoubtedly take a hostile tone during the hearings as they, like their leader Chuck Schumer, feel that Scalia"s seat was "stolen" from the Obama administration after Republicans refused to hold a hearing on Obama"s nominee, Merrick Garland.  If this interview is any indication of how the hearings will be conducted then we could be in for some fireworks:

For now, Gorsuch needs the support of at least eight Democrats to avoid a filibuster and win confirmation in the 52-48 GOP majority Senate. If Republicans can’t get Gorsuch past the 60-vote filibuster threshold, they could go “nuclear” by removing the filibuster and eliminating not only Democrats’ ability to filibuster Gorsuch but other Supreme Court nominations to come.

With that, per The Hill, here are the 5 things to watch for during Gorsuch"s testimony:

1.  How will Gorsuch handle pressure from Democrats to speak out against Trump?

Right out of the gate, Democrats are likely to ask Gorsuch what he thinks about Trump’s recent attacks on the judges who have ruled against his travel ban.

Gorsuch called Trump’s remarks “disheartening and demoralizing” in a closed door meeting with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) last month, but refused the senator’s request to make the statements publicly.

When a federal judge halted Trump’s original order banning Muslims from seven countries from entering the United States, the president referred to him as a “so-called judge” and called his order “ridiculous.”

“The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!’ Trump tweeted.

As a member of the judiciary committee, the questions are likely to come from Blumenthal, who said last month that Gorsuch must prove he has the courage and independence to stand up to the president in public.

Now that two federal judges have blocked Trump"s revised travel order, Gorsuch is sure to be asked whether he thinks the ban is constitutional.

2.  Where do red-state Democrats fall on Gorsuch?

Since Republicans need 60 votes, the GOP will be looking to Democrats from swing or deep-red states for the eight votes they need across the aisle.

Support could come from Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who is running for re-election in North Dakota, a reliably red state. She was reportedly one of the few Democrats to publicly say she would oppose a filibuster.

There’s also Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who has said he doesn’t believe Democrats should play games with the confirmation.

Senators facing tough re-election fights, like Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), might also be swayed. Her state voted for the GOP presidential nominee in 2016 for the first time in decades, and conservative groups are pressuring her not to block this nomination.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee ran an ad in Michigan during the University of Michigan versus Michigan State men’s basketball game on ESPN last month. The ad told viewers to call Stabenow and tell her to “put your country ahead of your party” and allow a vote on Gorsuch, The Detroit News reported.

3.  How much does Gorsuch reveal about his views?

Gorsuch’s record shows very little, if anything, about where he stands on conservative issues like abortion and money in politics, while lawmakers could also press him on his position on gun rights.

Democrats will likely ask Gorsuch about whether he’d vote to overturn the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationally.

Some have said the book he wrote in 2006, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” signals that Gorsuch is anti-abortion.

In the book, Gorsuch premised the argument for retaining current laws that ban the practice “on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons in always wrong.”

Gorsuch is also likely to be asked about his views on Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) compares Gorsuch to Chief Justice John Roberts, who was calm and careful when he answered questions during his confirmation process.  But, Schumer said, Roberts went on to become one of the most activist justices the country has seen, voting with the conservative majority in cases like Citizen United.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein"s (D-Calif.) office has in recent days also gone after Gorsuch on the issue of guns, with a release Friday highlighting what it called a "troubling record on gun safety."

The top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrat"s office highlighted portions of past cases involving the possession of firearms for convicted felons or domestic violence abusers to label the judge a "pro-gun extremist."

4.  Will Gorsuch give liberals any ammunition?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is confidant Gorsuch will get confirmed.  “He’s very, very hard to oppose,” McConnell told Bret Baier during an appearance on Fox News’s Special Report last month.

But Democrats will be looking for anything they can use against him. Question are likely to come about recent reports in The New York Times on Gorsuch’s ties to conservative billionaire Philip Anschutz and work defending George W. Bush’ anti-terror policies.

5.  Will Gorsuch keep his composure?

Both sides know that composure, style and tone all play into a nominee’s chances of winning confirmation.

Democrats aiming to draw some emotion from him are likely to play up the human impact of his rulings.

Schumer and Blumenthal held a press conference last week with people Gorsuch ruled against in three different cases while on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In one case, he sided with a trucking company that fired a driver for abandoning his cargo after his truck broke down in freezing temperatures.  In another case, Gorsuch ruled against a professor at the University of Kansas who was battling cancer. He said the school did not have to give her more than six months of sick leave under the Rehabilitation Act.

He also wrote the majority opinion in a case that prevented a nurse from seeking compensation from Medtronics for injuries she claimed were caused by the company’s improper, off-label promotion of its Infuse bone-graft device.

Federal Judge Just Struck Major Blow Against Two-Party System: Media Silent

Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

Last week, a federal judge provided a long overdue victory for alternative political parties in the United States. The ruling found the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the institution that oversees the Commission on Presidential Debates, failed to sufficiently examine evidence challenging two-party dominance in national debates.  The judge asserted there was no evidence “that the FEC considered the relevant factors or took a hard look at the evidence.”

The ruling, issued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, focused on a 2014 complaint regarding the 2012 election filed by the non-profit organization Level the Playing Field. It also focused on objections from the Green Party and Libertarian Party (which were dismissed by a federal judge last year). According to Buzzfeed News, one of the few mainstream outlets to cover the ruling, there were two main elements:

“The first part involves the FEC’s dismissal of two administrative complaints claiming the debate commission and its directors violated election laws by engaging in partisan activity in support of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and other challengers presented evidence that commission directors contributed to candidates and made statements supporting particular parties.”

The second part focused on Level the Playing Field’s request “that the FEC revise its rules to block the the commission from using a polling threshold to decide participation in presidential and vice-presidential debates.” The commission requires that a candidate receive 15% support or higher in five national polls in order to be invited to the debates. Level the Playing Field’s request was denied, and in response, the group compiled analysis from experts, who highlighted “the hundreds of millions of dollars a candidate would have to spend to meet the 15 percent polling target, and argued that the rule was not an objective criteria.”

They claimed “it was specifically designed to keep out candidates not affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties,” Buzzfeed explained.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, a faction of the Federal Election Commission, has been criticized for these biases before. The commission’s board of directors has overt partisan leanings. As the International Business Times has noted:

“The Commission On Presidential Debates board is currently chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf is a former chairman for the Republican National Committee and McCurry was press secretary under President Bill Clinton.”

As journalist Ben Swann astutely explained during the 2012 election:

“So let’s be clear: a debate commission that’s run by former bigwigs from the Republican and Democrat parties and creates a 15% polling rule in five national polls isn’t trying to create inclusion — they’re trying to prevent it. If you don’t have the money of the two big parties, getting your name out nationally to get into those polls, well, it can only happen if you’re a billionaire like Ross Perot. Aside from billionaires, no one else has a chance.”

Level the Playing Field’s suit further alleged that members of the board had conflicts of interest because of their political contributions. Judge Tanya Chutkan further documented the commission’s biases in her summary opinion:

“Moreover, Fahrenkopf has stated that the CPD was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates, and Kirk has stated that he personally believed the CPD should exclude third-party candidates from the debates.”

She also acknowledged the commission’s inherent commitment to the two-party system:

“The CPD is ‘bipartisan’ by its own description: the press release announcing its formation stated that it was a ‘bipartisan . . . organization formed to implement joint sponsorship of general election presidential and vice-presidential debates . . . by the national Republican and Democratic committees between their respective nominees.’”

Ultimately, she ruled that the FEC “failed to show that it properly considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the challengers” when it was supposed to review its rules in 2014. She called that rejection “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” asserting that “the evidence unaddressed – or outright ignored – by the FEC is quite substantial.” She also pointed out the FEC’s “refusal to engage in thoughtful, reasoned decision-making in either enforcement or rulemaking in this case.”

Chutkan ordered the commission to review its previous decision and gave them 30 days to do so. According to Peter Ackerman, Level the Playing Field’s founder, the decision “lays the groundwork for removing the primary obstacle to providing Americans with the independent alternative to the two parties that polls clearly indicate they want.“

Alexandra Shapiro, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, praised the decision, pointing out that it “marked the first time the FEC and CPD have been successfully challenged over debate rules. This is an enormously important ruling.”

“It could pave the way for a new kind of election in 2020,” she said.

In an age where Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the options the political establishment provides them, this small but vital ruling could signal a turning point when it comes to promoting exposure for presidential candidates who are not members of the country’s two-party duopoly.

Unsurprisingly, according to Buzzfeed, the FEC declined to comment on Judge Chutkan’s ruling.

Federal Judge Just Struck Major Blow Against Two-Party System: Media Silent

February 7, 2017   |   Carey Wedler

(ANTIMEDIA) Last week, a federal judge provided a long overdue victory for alternative political parties in the United States. The ruling found the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the institution that oversees the Commission on Presidential Debates, failed to sufficiently examine evidence challenging two-party dominance in national debates.  The judge asserted there was no evidence “that the FEC considered the relevant factors or took a hard look at the evidence.”

The ruling, issued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, focused on a 2014 complaint regarding the 2012 election filed by the non-profit organization Level the Playing Field. It also focused on objections from the Green Party and Libertarian Party (which were dismissed by a federal judge last year). According to Buzzfeed News, one of the few mainstream outlets to cover the ruling, there were two main elements:

“The first part involves the FEC’s dismissal of two administrative complaints claiming the debate commission and its directors violated election laws by engaging in partisan activity in support of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Green Party, Libertarian Party, and other challengers presented evidence that commission directors contributed to candidates and made statements supporting particular parties.”

The second part focused on Level the Playing Field’s request “that the FEC revise its rules to block the the commission from using a polling threshold to decide participation in presidential and vice-presidential debates.” The commission requires that a candidate receive 15% support or higher in five national polls in order to be invited to the debates. Level the Playing Field’s request was denied, and in response, the group compiled analysis from experts, who highlighted “the hundreds of millions of dollars a candidate would have to spend to meet the 15 percent polling target, and argued that the rule was not an objective criteria.”

They claimed “it was specifically designed to keep out candidates not affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties,” Buzzfeed explained.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, a faction of the Federal Election Commission, has been criticized for these biases before. The commission’s board of directors has overt partisan leanings. As the International Business Times has noted:

“The Commission On Presidential Debates board is currently chaired by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. and Michael D. McCurry. Fahrenkopf is a former chairman for the Republican National Committee and McCurry was press secretary under President Bill Clinton.”

As journalist Ben Swann astutely explained during the 2012 election:

“So let’s be clear: a debate commission that’s run by former bigwigs from the Republican and Democrat parties and creates a 15% polling rule in five national polls isn’t trying to create inclusion — they’re trying to prevent it. If you don’t have the money of the two big parties, getting your name out nationally to get into those polls, well, it can only happen if you’re a billionaire like Ross Perot. Aside from billionaires, no one else has a chance.”

Level the Playing Field’s suit further alleged that members of the board had conflicts of interest because of their political contributions. Judge Tanya Chutkan further documented the commission’s biases in her summary opinion:

“Moreover, Fahrenkopf has stated that the CPD was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates, and Kirk has stated that he personally believed the CPD should exclude third-party candidates from the debates.”

She also acknowledged the commission’s inherent commitment to the two-party system:

“The CPD is ‘bipartisan’ by its own description: the press release announcing its formation stated that it was a ‘bipartisan . . . organization formed to implement joint sponsorship of general election presidential and vice-presidential debates . . . by the national Republican and Democratic committees between their respective nominees.’”

Ultimately, she ruled that the FEC “failed to show that it properly considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by the challengers” when it was supposed to review its rules in 2014. She called that rejection “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” asserting that “the evidence unaddressed – or outright ignored – by the FEC is quite substantial.” She also pointed out the FEC’s “refusal to engage in thoughtful, reasoned decision-making in either enforcement or rulemaking in this case.”

Chutkan ordered the commission to review its previous decision and gave them 30 days to do so. According to Peter Ackerman, Level the Playing Field’s founder, the decision “lays the groundwork for removing the primary obstacle to providing Americans with the independent alternative to the two parties that polls clearly indicate they want.“

Alexandra Shapiro, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, praised the decision, pointing out that it “marked the first time the FEC and CPD have been successfully challenged over debate rules. This is an enormously important ruling.”

“It could pave the way for a new kind of election in 2020,” she said.

In an age where Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the options the political establishment provides them, this small but vital ruling could signal a turning point when it comes to promoting exposure for presidential candidates who are not members of the country’s two-party duopoly.

Unsurprisingly, according to Buzzfeed, the FEC declined to comment on Judge Chutkan’s ruling.

---

This article (Federal Judge Just Struck Major Blow Against Two-Party System: Media Silent) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.