podesta_email_21252.txt

podesta-emails 40,346 words email

P19 D6 V16 D3 P20

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *H4A News Clips* *May 30, 2015* SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS New York Times says the victory for both parties in 2016 could hinge on mobilizing Latino voters and the epicenter is in the American southwest. Several outlets are still covering Thursday’s Press Briefing in Brooklyn Headquarters office. The Hillary for America online store got news coverage again today due to a tweet posted by John Podesta in “Everyday Pantsuit Tee”. Martin O’Malley announced his candidacy for President today. LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS ABC and CBS did not report on 2016 issues. NBC had a brief segment on the Patriot Act, noting Rand Paul's opposition to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. SUMMARY OF TODAY’S NEWS....................................................................... 1 LAST NIGHTS EVENING NEWS...................................................................... 1 TODAY’S KEY STORIES................................................................................... 3 *Inside the battle for Latino voters* // NYT // Chris Moody – May 29, 2015....................................... 3 *Hillary Clinton’s Strong Start* // The New Yorker // John Cassidy – May 29, 2015............................ 5 *Hillary Clinton Team Lays Out New Primary Blueprint* // TIME // Sam Frizell – May 29, 2015........ 7 SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ 8 *John Podesta (5/29/15, 8:52 AM)* - Ready to accessorize? http://hrc.io/1eDlzSw............................ 8 *Sam Youngman (5/29/15, 9:20 AM)* - McConnell statement: "I congratulate Matt Bevin on his victory and endorse him for governor."....................................................................................................................... 8 *Teddy Schleifer (5/29/15, 10:16PM)* On her trip to Houston on Thursday, @HillaryClinton will accept Barbara Jordan award at Texas Southern University................................................................................. 9 HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE.......................................................................... 9 *How's Hillary doing? Wish we could tell you* // CNBC // John Harwood – May 29, 2015.................. 9 *The head of Hillary Clinton's campaign and Matt Drudge are teasing each other about pantsuits* // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – May 29, 2015.................................................................................... 10 *After becoming the first Latina Senate chief of staff, Amanda Renteria is ready to help create another “first” as Clinton’s national political director.* // Fortune // Nina Easton – May 28, 2015............................. 10 *Campaign officials like to spin reporters in private. That’s worth making public.* // Vox // Jonathan Allen – May 29, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 12 *On the trail of Hillary Clinton, not everyone is allowed to jump into the press pool* // WaPo // Paul Farhi – May 29, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 14 *Why hasn’t Maggie Hassan made an endorsement?* // Boston Globe // James Pindell – May 28, 2015 16 *Report: Cruz, Clinton resonate the most online* // Des Moines Register // Matthew Patane – May 29, 2015 18 *On trail in S.C., Clinton faces old ghosts* // Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – May 29, 2015............ 19 *Why the N.H. primary is nearly impossible to predict* // The Boston Globe // James A. Kimble – May 29, 2015................................................................................................................................................. 21 *Shumlin, Kunin to host Hillary Clinton event* // Burlington Free Press // April Burbank – May 29, 2015 23 *Pelosi: Clintons "will have to answer for the foundation"* // Vox // Jonathan Allen – May 29, 2015. 24 *Hillary Clinton cites GOP quotes on equal-pay legislation out of context* // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – May 29, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 25 *Bill Clinton to Foundation Donors: I Feel Your Pain* // Daily Beast // David Freedlander – May 29, 2015 28 *Clinton Library readies Monica Lewinsky photos, more Hillary Clinton first lady files* // Politico // Josh Gerstein – May 29, 2015............................................................................................................................. 29 *Lena Dunham said something political, which means you must immediately click here* // Washington Post // Janell Ross – May 28, 2015........................................................................................................ 30 *Clinton Lawyer Marc Elias Among Those Behind Major New Voting Rights Lawsuit in Wisconsin* // Election Law Blog // Rick Hasen – May 28, 2015............................................................................................. 31 OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................ 32 *Bernie Sanders distances himself from 'dumb' 1972 essay on rape* // CNN // Dan Merica – May 28, 2015 32 *Will Bernie Sanders start a revolution?* // CNN // Stephen Collinson – May 28, 2015.................... 33 *Sanders draws in a crowd with talk of income inequality* // Quad Cities Dispatch-Argus // Dennis Moran – May 28, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 37 *For O'Malley, a lot riding on Iowa in 2016 campaign* // AP News // Ken Thomas and Catherine Lucey – May 29, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 38 *Baltimore’s blight puts O’Malley on defensive in bid for presidency* // WaPo // Robert McCartney – May 29, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 40 *O’Malley looks for his opening* // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – May 29, 2015.............................. 44 *Bucking Odds, Martin O’Malley Tilts at Hillary Clinton* // WSJ // Laura Meckler and Scott Calvert – May 29, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 47 *O’Malley Hires Former Obama Hispanic Media Director For Senior Campaign Role* // Buzzfeed // Adrian Carrasquillo – May 29, 2015....................................................................................................... 49 *9 things to know about Martin O'Malley* // The Center for Public Integrity // Rachel Baye – May 29, 2015 51 *Immigration As 2016 Issue Upped With Martin O'Malley's Candidacy* // NBC News //Suzanne Gamboa – May 29, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 52 *Martin O'Malley Kicks Off Presidential Campaign By Playing "Hail To The Chief" On An Acoustic Guitar* // Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – May 29, 2015.................................................................... 55 *Chafee to announce he is running for president* // CNN // Dan Merica – May 29, 2015.................. 55 GOP................................................................................................................ 56 *The Iowa straw poll, once a kingmaker, fades into irrelevance for 2016* // WaPo // Robert Costa – May 28, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 57 *Bill to allow presidential primary resurrected, sent to Assembly floor* // Review Journal // Sean Whaley – May 28, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 58 *Insiders: Rand Paul's foreign policy views are a serious liability* // Politico // Katie Glueck – May 29, 2015 59 *In Iowa, Rand Paul sticks with death penalty skepticism* // WaPo // James Hohmann – May 28, 2015 61 *Rand Paul's money problem* // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 29, 2015..................................... 62 *Pataki enters White House race with focus on N.H.* // Boston Globe // James Pindell – May 28, 2015 64 *Pataki faces tough odds in Iowa against better-known candidates* // The Des Moines Register / Branne Pfannenstiel – May 28, 2015...................................................................................................... 66 *Announcing his bid for president, Pataki says Democrats are “party of privilege,” GOP “party of the middle class”* // Concord Monitor // Caset McDermott – May 28, 2015.............................................................. 67 *Santorum hits the trail again* // Quad-City Times // Ed Tibbetts – May 28, 2015.......................... 69 *Santorum: Climate change, flat-Earth believers are alike* // The Des Moines Register -//Josh Hafner – May 28, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 71 *Jeb Bush earned millions in juggling act as corporate adviser* // AP – May 28, 2015...................... 71 TOP NEWS...................................................................................................... 73 DOMESTIC.................................................................................................. 74 *U.S. Accuses Ex-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Paying to Hide ‘Misconduct’* // NYT // Monica Davey – May 28, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 74 *No 'Plan B' If Congress Misses NSA Deadline, White House Says* // Jordyn Phelps - May 29, 2015. 76 *Idaho's Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional, Federal Court Says* // NPR // Bill Chappell – May 29, 2015 77 INTERNATIONAL....................................................................................... 78 *Obama’s New ISIS War Plan: Nothing* // The Daily Beast // Nanzy A. Youssef – May 29, 2015....... 78 *U.S. Takes Cuba Off Terror List* // TIME // Andrea Rodriguez and Matthew Lee – May 29, 2015.... 81 *Freed Gitmo Detainees Pose New Threat, Republicans Say* // The Daily Beast // Tim Mak - 5/29/15 83 OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................. 86 *The Arrogance of Jeb Bush* // NYT // Timothy Egan – May 29, 2016............................................ 86 *A Message from President Clinton* // Clinton Foundation // President Clinton – May 29, 2015...... 88 *New FCC robocall rules concern pollsters* // Politico // Steven Shepard – May 29, 2015................. 91 TODAY’S KEY STORIES Inside the battle for Latino voters <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/being-moody-latino-outreach/index.html> // NYT // Chris Moody – May 29, 2015 Albuquerque, New Mexico (CNN) Victory for both parties in 2016 could hinge on mobilizing Latino voters -- and the battle for their support is already fierce. The epicenter is here in the American southwest, where the Libre Initiative, a conservative group, is spending millions on outreach to Latino voters, an effort that has sparked a backlash from Democrats worried about Libre's potential. In anticipation of the upcoming election cycle, Libre is undertaking one of the most ambitious and expensive Latino outreach programs by any conservative organization yet. It will have a $14 million operating budget in 2015, according to a source with knowledge of the group's finances who requested anonymity to speak freely. Libre now has field staff in ten states, with plans to expand further in 2016. Most of Libre's funding comes from a network of conservative donors organized by billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch. Since Libre's inception four years ago, the group has built a presence in states with high Latino populations by providing classes and free social services. In Nevada, Libre sponsored a program to help people receive driver's licenses. In Florida, they partnered with H&R Block for tax preparation. Later this year, Libre plans to launch an education initiative that will pay for GED courses. The effort aims to build goodwill within the Latino community, while allowing Libre to collect data that will be instrumental in coordinating political ad campaigns and voter targeting efforts next year. Libre also supports granting immigrants living in the country illegally a pathway to citizenship, a position that, while controversial on the right, allows them a gateway to increasing Latino support. The group does not, however, approve of President Barack Obama's use of executive orders to implement immigration policy--a tactic currently tied up in federal courts--which separates them from Latino outreach groups on the left. "The Libre Initiative exists primarily to advance the principles of economic freedom to the Latino community," Libre Executive Director Daniel Garza, a former aide to George W. Bush and the son of migrant workers from Mexico, told CNN. "It is about driving a narrative, a conversation within the Latino community. If we're not helping to drive that agenda, somebody else is, and it's usually the left." Last week, Libre's non-profit armed hosted a conference for about 100 Hispanic business leaders from seven states in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as part of the group's multi-million dollar effort to promote conservative ideas within the Latino community and, they hope, convince them to vote for Republicans in 2016. Set inside the ballrooms of the Crowne Plaza hotel just off the intersection of one highway that streches coast-to-coast across the United States and another that slopes southward to the Mexico border, business leaders sat through presentations and panels on energy, over-regulation and trade. Panels included titles such as "Regulations Stranglehold on Economic Prosperity" led by Libre operatives and talks about how to increase energy production in the state. Politics made a brief appearances when New Mexico Republican Lt. Gov. John Sanchez spoke on the power of the Latino vote. "No president will be elected ever again unless they have the right message when it comes to how do they attract Hispanic voters," Sanchez said. Indeed, in key battleground states, securing the Latino vote has been incredibly important in recent election cycles. In 2012, Obama received 71 percent of the vote. But in the 2014 mid-term elections, when the electorate is often more conservative than during presidential years, the GOP made gains within the community in states like Colorado, Texas and Florida. Libre operated relatively quietly until last year's mid-term election, when the group's advocacy arm—called the Libre Initiative—ran paid political ads in English and Spanish in close races around the country. Libre's campaign helped remove Pete Gallego in Texas, Joe Garcia in Florida and Ron Barber in Arizona--all Democrats. "It's been kind of a wake-up call," said Angela Kelley, an immigration reform advocate who works with liberal groups on Latino engagement. "Their message is intentionally fuzzy, but yet it's delivered with flawlessly competent clarity. That's a pretty brilliant combination. Those who disagree with Libre and the Koch brothers are really going to need to muscle up." Now, a massive coalition of liberal groups is planning to strike back. Representatives from several organizations on the left met in the Washington office of the Latino Victory Project in early May to discuss a plan for how to counter Libre's efforts. Attendees included represenatives from labor unions, American Bridge, Mi Familia Vota, Media Matters and People For The American Way, according to attendees. Initial plans have been made to sound an alarm against Libre by highlighting their ties to the Koch donor network and relay a message that Libre supports policies liberals say are against Latino interests. They also plan to release a report about Koch industries that digs into the company's record on workplace safety and the environment, Latino Victory Project President Cristobal Alex told CNN. "While I admire the rapid growth of this organization, I'm afraid it's for disingenuous purposes," Alex said. "It's important for us to begin having some very serious conversations with our allies to counter what Libre is doing. No one has really pushed back. So far they've had free reign." Earlier this month, BuzzFeed News revealed that the Democratic National Committee had put together an internal presentation warning about Libre's strength that called on Democrats to increase voter engagement with Latinos. "It has changed our calculus," Alex told CNN. "Those on the left are starting to see, because Latinos can change their mind about who to vote for, they're going to start to pay attention to that and really investing in the Latino community." Groups on the left also point to the fact that the same donors who support Libre—which is vocally supportive of comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship--also help bankroll Republican congressional and presidential campaigns that oppose it. "Libre's Achilles heel is exposure," said John Loredo, the former Democratic Minority Leader in the Arizona state House. "They align themselves with people who are openly anti-Latino. Exposing them, however it may happen, that's a killer for Libre." Efforts against Libre are already underway. Last week — on the same day of the business conference in Albuquerque — a liberal research organization called the Bridge Project released a 48-page research document that outlined Libre's priorities and some of their funding sources. The group released the paper online, along with a Spanish-language video attacking Libre. Representatives from liberal groups The Latino Victory Project, Open Society Foundation and Mi Familia Vota plan to hold a roundtable discussion with reporters to outline their plans to counter Libre. Next Monday, People for the American Way plans to host a briefing with activists to discuss their Latino outreach plans and ways to counter Libre. "The irony here is that the Latino left had criticized the conservative movement for years that they were not doing outreach to the Latino community," Garza told CNN. "Now that the conservative movement is doing outreach and engaging in the Latino community on a national scale, they're criticizing us for that too. You can't have it both ways." Hillary Clinton’s Strong Start <http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/at-this-early-stage-hillary-clinton-looks-strong> // The New Yorker // John Cassidy – May 29, 2015 On Thursday, some of Hillary Clinton’s top campaign officials held a briefing for about three dozen members of the 2016 hack pack. Their message was a positive one. “The view inside the campaign is that voters are concerned about kitchen-table issues Clinton wants to talk about, rather than media reports and Republican attacks on the [Clinton] foundation, the officials said,” Vox’s Jonathan Allen reported. “There’s no conflict between her promise to represent ‘everyday Americans’ and the access big donors have had to Clinton and her husband over the years, they said, arguing that voters will trust her to represent them in the White House.” That was partly spin, of course. There is no end in sight to the stories about the finances of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton e-mails, or the activities of some of the Clintons’ associates. But as spring rolls into summer, Team Brooklyn has successfully accomplished its two initial goals: heading off the possibility of a serious challenge for the Democratic nomination and surviving a barrage of negative publicity that was inevitable at some stage, and which was, therefore, best confronted early on. The entry into the Democratic contest by Bernie Sanders was welcome from a Clintonite perspective, because it filled a potentially dangerous vacuum. With his long record of service to progressive causes, Sanders is popular enough to garner a decent-sized following among liberal Democrats, but he’s almost certainly too far to the left to represent a serious threat to Hillary. So far, at least, his presence has been more of a problem for Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, who is set to officially announce his candidacy on Saturday. As I noted back in March, O’Malley is a serious figure who demands some respect. As governor, he eliminated the death penalty, legalized gay marriage, and championed various good-government initiatives. But with Sanders already out there on the stump, O’Malley has struggled to gain traction. A new poll of likely Democratic voters conducted by Quinnipiac University illustrates the scale of the task that is facing Clinton’s challengers. The survey, which was carried out from May 19th to May 26th, showed her getting fifty-seven per cent of the vote. Sanders was in second place, with fifteen per cent. O’Malley got just one per cent, and so did two other possible candidates, Jim Webb, a former U.S. senator from Virginia, and Lincoln Chafee, a former governor and U.S. senator from Rhode Island. Of course, it is early in the process, and anything could happen between now and the end of the primaries. At this stage, though, Clinton is sitting pretty. Something similar, if somewhat less definitive, could be said of her position vis-à-vis her potential Republican opponents. Opinion polls positing head-to-head matchups with likely G.O.P. candidates have consistently shown Clinton winning, and the Quinnipiac survey was no exception. It showed her with double-digit leads over Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, two of the Republican front-runners. Interestingly, the closest hypothetical contests were with Rand Paul, the libertarian senator from Kentucky, and Florida senator Marco Rubio, whom some in the Clinton camp have reportedly identified as her biggest potential threat. Clinton’s leads over both Paul and Rubio were four points. The Quinnipiac poll also contained some valuable clues as to how Clinton has been able, so far, to navigate all of the negative media coverage she has received while sustaining relatively little damage to her overall polling numbers. In terms of the level of personal trust that voters have in Clinton, the drip-drip-drip of stories does seem to be having an effect. Fifty-three per cent of respondents to the Quinnipiac survey said that they do not consider her to be “honest and trustworthy,” while only thirty-nine per cent said that they did. Among self-identified Independents, the numbers were even more lopsided: sixty-one per cent to thirty-one per cent. The number of people who question Clinton’s trustworthiness must be of concern to her team, and it’s a figure that Republican ad-makers and opposition-research shops will be seeking to increase. But this issue needs to be weighed against the fact that Presidential elections are about leadership—and most Americans think of Clinton as an experienced and strong leader. One of the survey questions asked, “Would you say that Hillary Clinton has strong leadership qualities or not?” Sixty per cent of respondents said yes, and thirty-seven per cent said no. Among Independents, fifty-eight per cent answered yes, and thirty-eight per cent said no. These findings suggest that voters are more sophisticated than they are sometimes given credit for. Rather than looking at politicians in black-and-white terms, they are able to size up candidates’ strengths and weaknesses, and to reach an over-all view based on what they are looking for in a leader. At a time when the world seems like an increasingly dangerous place and a majority of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track, perceived strength and decisiveness may well count for a great deal. “Can you get low marks on honesty and still be a strong leader?” said Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac poll, in a news release. “Sure you can. Hillary Clinton crushes her democratic rivals and keeps the GOP hoard [sic] at arm’s length.” For Clinton’s campaign team in Brooklyn Heights, that means things are on track. Of course, they won’t necessarily stay that way. The campaign is just getting started, the country is more or less equally divided, and winning a third term of office isn’t easy for any party. Now it’s up to Clinton to finish up her “listening tour,” lay out her policy platform, and take it to the Republicans. Hillary Clinton Team Lays Out New Primary Blueprint <http://time.com/3901267/hillary-clinton-primary-campaign-plan/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – May 29, 2015 Hillary Clinton will gradually ramp up her campaign throughout the summer, but it will be months before she turns completely to a more orthodox model replete with a packed public schedule of billboard events and the regular appearance of husband Bill and daughter Chelsea, top Clinton campaign officials said on Thursday. The former Secretary of State will present a more detailed reasoning behind her candidacy at her first official campaign rally on June 13, top Clinton officials told reporters in a briefing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters Thursday evening. Afterward, Clinton will begin holding larger speaking events in the primary states. But Clinton will not significantly increase the pace of her campaigning for many months, and she will continue to hold the roundtable discussions that have marked the first six weeks of her presidential bid. She will roll out more policy plans over the summer, but she will do it at a measured pace without any momentous announcements all at once. And while Chelsea and Bill will make an appearance at her June 13th announcement, campaign officials said the focus will be on Hillary in the coming months. Clinton had originally planned to hold her official kickoff at the end of May, but the campaign pushed the rally back. While Clinton and her top aides have insisted they plan to run a serious and competitive primary, her opponents former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders lag far behind her in the polls, allowing the frontrunner freedom to run a campaign on her own terms. Clinton’s schedule has so far included a couple of days each week or less of campaigning in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. She has held small-scale, roundtable discussions with a selected group of primary voters in Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa that officials say allow her to connect with voters and frame her policy ideas. Clinton’s relaxed pace of campaigning will slowly increase and will begin to include a broader mix of campaign events and venues. The campaign officials said they hope to raise $100 million through the primary, discounting rumors about a $2-billion fundraising goal. The $100 million sum does not include donations raised by Priorities USA Action, the pro-Clinton super PAC. Clinton’s aides insisted that the campaign has not been significantly damaged by criticism over the Clinton Foundation and her role at the State Department, saying that while those issues may rile up the Republican base, they do not register much with primary Democrats and Independents. The campaign would not provide more details on the location for the June 13 event, but said that it would be a large, public event. The head of Hillary Clinton's campaign and Matt Drudge are teasing each other about pantsuits <http://www.businessinsider.com/john-podesta-and-drudge-discuss-pantsuits-2015-5#ixzz3bZCdnl8d> // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – May 29, 2015 John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, took to Twitter on Friday after conservative blogger Matt Drudge mocked his fashion choices. On Tuesday, the campaign unveiled a T-shirt designed to look like one of Clinton's trademark pantsuits. On Friday, Podesta posted a picture of himself wearing the shirt to encourage supporters to buy one in the campaign store. Drudge subsequently made Podesta's picture the top story on his widely read website, which featured the headline "PODESTA IN DRAG FOR HILLARY?" Podesta responded with another tweet referencing Drudge's famous fedora. Business Insider reached out to Podesta to ask if he would be sending Drudge a T-shirt. "No free loaders here," Podesta said. "Drudge will have to buy his own." SOCIAL MEDIA John Podesta (5/29/15, 8:52 AM) <https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/604314462368059394> - Ready to accessorize? http://hrc.io/1eDlzSw Sam Youngman (5/29/15, 9:20 AM) <https://twitter.com/samyoungman/status/604276074957180930> - McConnell statement: "I congratulate Matt Bevin on his victory and endorse him for governor." Teddy Schleifer (5/29/15, 10:16PM) <https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/604471509357314049?s=03> On her trip to Houston on Thursday, @HillaryClinton will accept Barbara Jordan award at Texas Southern University. HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE How's Hillary doing? Wish we could tell you <http://www.cnbc.com/id/102717374> // CNBC // John Harwood – May 29, 2015 I've been inside Hillary Clinton's national campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. I've talked with "senior officials" about her bid for the White House. They sat in these chairs. Wish I could tell you more. But they said very little. Notice that I typed very little and not "very little," because under the ground rules of Thursday's briefing reporters were not allowed to quote their words directly. You're not missing much. The former secretary of state plans to kick off the heavy-rhetoric stage of her campaign on June 13. I can't say where or what time because the senior officials wouldn't say. She plans to lay out some policy proposals after that. Can't say which ones. She'll take questions from reporters. Can't say how often. She'll start having rallies. Not too many, because the election's a long way away. But some. She might take a summer vacation, which means reporters covering her can, too. Don't know when, but one senior official observed that summer vacations traditionally occur in mid-August. Her aides are organizing furiously in the early battlegrounds of the nomination fight (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina) because they are competing in every state. They take the primary challenges of Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and perhaps others very seriously. They are also taking their Republican opposition very seriously—some in the sprawling GOP field more seriously than others. Can't specify which ones. They are raising lots and lots of money and are pleased with how much is pouring in. But they absolutely, positively are NOT seeking to raise $2 billion, which some journalists have reported is their goal. They are building a large digital constituency for their efforts to communicate and mobilize voters on social media. Are they starting with the lists from President Barack Obama's organization, and Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign? Can't say for sure, but they're exploring lots of lists. Her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, will play roles in her campaign. Can't say exactly what, or when. She's feeling more in control of her campaign effort this time around, unlike 2008 when she sometimes felt the campaign was controlling her. Controversies over her emails as secretary of state or the Clinton Foundation have not inflicted significant political damage. That's because voters who might support her see the controversies as politically motivated. She might even be able to expand the roster of battleground states beyond those Obama targeted. Can't say which ones. I'd show you pictures of the office and desks where campaign officials do their jobs, but the post-briefing tour was deemed off-the-record. There will be more briefings, however. Stay tuned. After becoming the first Latina Senate chief of staff, Amanda Renteria is ready to help create another “first” as Clinton’s national political director. <http://fortune.com/2015/05/28/amanda-renteria-hillary-clinton/> // Fortune // Nina Easton – May 28, 2015 With many of the power players from Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential run are sitting this one out, the big question is: Who’s in? What follows is the latest installment of a Fortune series looking at the the most influential women on Clinton’s 2016 team. When this series wraps, we’ll turn our attention to the most powerful women on the GOP side of the race. Amanda Renteria, 40, National Political Director After dinner at the Virginia Governor’s Mansion not long ago, Amanda Renteria excused herself from the table and headed out to the basketball court to shoot hoops—by herself. You wouldn’t know it from her 5’ 5” frame, but this is Renteria’s passion—her way of centering herself, and finding the clarity for big decisions, like uprooting her husband and two young sons from California’s Central Valley to join the Clinton campaign in Brooklyn. On the court, “you can’t think of anything but what you’re doing at that moment,” she says. In fact, she’s such a basketball hound that she even continued her 6 a.m. Friday games with a bunch of guy friends while she was pregnant. Renteria’s entire life can be described as a cycle of free throws. Her parents began as farmworkers: Her father a Mexican immigrant who founded a small construction firm and her mother a California-born school secretary. The town she grew up in was once a labor camp. As a child, Amanda’s job was to help with rentals, clean the house, get good grades—and become a proficient Mexican dancer. It was a typical farm-town, Latino upbringing. And then … she got accepted into Stanford. She wasn’t sure she should go; her parents liked the idea of Fresno Pacific University. It was closer to home. When news of her acceptance was broadcast over the school intercom, Renteria, a jock, cringed. But then a teacher she admired put her straight: “This isn’t about you,” he said, “it’s about our community.” And so she went, almost dropping out when the frightening blur of calculus numbers on a chalk board convinced her she didn’t really belong there after all. She had the chutzpah to walk onto the Stanford basketball team right after they had won the NCAA championships. She got a scholarship for playing softball. And a few years later, she was at Goldman Sachs, learning how to wear a suit, navigate office life and work crazy hours. Then came Harvard Business School, a year of teaching back home (“I love teaching”) and a dizzying rise through the ranks of Senate staffers to become the first Latina chief of staff during her tenure with Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Last year, she returned home to make a run for Congress but lost to the Republican incumbent. Renteria would have been the first woman in Congress from the Central Valley—and I sense this won’t be her only attempt. “But, really, it’s not about being the first,” she insists. “It’s about making sure you’re not the last.” As Clinton’s political director, Renteria’s job is to piece together a range of constituencies—from women and young people to business leaders and union members—who will support the campaign. “We want to build the biggest tent that’s ever been built,” she says. Campaign officials like to spin reporters in private. That’s worth making public. <http://www.vox.com/2015/5/29/8688861/greenwalds-wrong-anonymous-sourcing-isnt-the-problem> // Vox // Jonathan Allen – May 29, 2015 It's not every day that I get attacked by a Pulitzer Prize winner over my journalistic standards. That's what Glenn Greenwald, famous for being NSA leaker Edward Snowden's conduit, did last night on Twitter. He was wrong. First, my crime: Agreeing to let senior Clinton aides speak on the condition of anonymity and then attributing what they said about their view of the state of the race and other matters only to senior campaign officials. Greenwald's first tweet was mocking. We exchanged a few tweets back and forth, but 140 characters is too short for a full explanation and defense of using anonymous sources and "background" material in a story. Greenwald's argument rests on the premise that allowing people to speak without attribution is a sucker move that allows them to gain an advantage by saying things that aren't true without repercussions. The practice can also dilute the value of anonymous sources who fear for their safety or livelihoods when they blow the whistle on wrongdoing — a neighborhood Greenwald has lived in for a long time. But he ignores the value of background sources in everyday beat reporting, as well as the fundamental difference between reporting on campaigns and reporting on government. What happened? The Clinton campaign invited reporters to come to campaign headquarters in Brooklyn Thursday for a background session with senior campaign officials. All of the roughly three dozen reporters who showed up understood they weren't going to be getting a lot of attributable material before they arrived. Though the names of the aides can't be published under the rules of the agreement, there's nothing evasive, in this case, about describing them as senior officials. As the session started, another ground rule was added by the campaign: no direct quotes. Paranoid? Yes. Par for the course? Yes. Sinister? No. These officials are people who could easily avoid interacting with reporters for the entire campaign if they so chose. Given the option of talking to them or not, major news organizations chose the former. The session lasted more than an hour, and they were asked about strategy, fundraising, Clinton's positions on certain policy, and the questions of conflicts of interest that have arisen because she and her husband have raised so much campaign, foundation, and personal money from people with business before the government. On many scores, the answers were unsatisfactory. The big news, according to some reports, was that Bill and Chelsea Clinton will attend Hillary's big kickoff speech on June 13. The officials dodged on conflicts of interest, maintaining that Americans will view Clinton as a champion for them and not "special interests." While it's not surprising they would say that, reporters ask questions both because predictable responses can be assessed against future realities and because someone might just say something unexpected. The officials also acknowledged the campaign effort is likely to cost between $1 billion and $2 billion. All of that's worth knowing. Often, reporters hold onto information from briefings like this and weave it into later stories. But many of the reporters in the room yesterday at Clinton headquarters wrote up what was said and attributed it to Clinton officials. The approach at Vox was to be as clear as possible at each turn that the views expressed were those of campaign officials, leaving it to the reader to decide whether the claims were credible. Greenwald was able to decipher that the officials were less than forthcoming. Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times wrote that candor was in short supply. Gleaning information One of the questions that have concerned Democrats in recent years is whether Clinton has learned anything from her 2008 loss. On that, the officials were somewhat more open than on other topics, indicating they won't raise general election money that can't be used in a primary for a while (a big mistake in 2008), that Clinton is refusing to be controlled by her campaign (a bigger mistake in 2008), and that she won't get caught misunderstanding the importance of how the system of winning delegates for the convention works (the biggest mistake of 2008). Ironically, she's running the race she should have run last time — perhaps fighting the last war — in a campaign in which she does not appear to have a legitimate rival for the nomination. There's value in understanding that, too. Beat reporting When reporters cover an institution — whether it's a government agency, a corporation, or, say, an international governing body for soccer — they have to find ways to get the institution to state its position on various topics, policies, and controversies. That can be difficult. No one has to talk. And while it would be nice for someone else to do that scut work, the Greenwalds of the world wouldn't be able to do what they do without it. How would anyone know when public figures aren't living up to their own standards without knowing what the official line is and whether it's changing over time? Their own standards certainly aren't the only ones that matter, but they're an important part of the mix when it comes to reporting on their successes and failures. By talking to senior campaign officials, reporters get the baseline. There's a difference between Clinton saying something on the record and her aides saying it under the cover of anonymity — it affords her an inch or two of distance — but it's not an earth-shaking, journalism-on-the-brink kind of difference. The most important distinction The government or a corporation can be judged on its policies and its actions. The very nature of a campaign is different. During the campaign, the candidate doesn't have the power to implement those policies. On most scores, candidates have to be assessed on what they are promising to do — essentially on what they are saying. That means what they say matters. The anonymous advisers are a Splenda to the cane sugar of the candidate, but their message is the candidate's message. Again, that's worth knowing. And when it doesn't stack up to reality, it's pretty obvious. In yesterday's Vox story, every bit of information was attributed to these anonymous officials. Greenwald took that to mean the story was no better than a press release. It's a reasonable criticism, but it misses the mark not just for the reasons outlined above. Rather than being credulous, the careful attribution suggests the opposite. This is what they are saying, not necessarily what they believe or what is true. The story also observed the "split-screen" nature of a campaign that has compartmentalized the conflict-of-interest questions and is all but ignoring them publicly. That may be an untenable formula, but it's a familiar one in Clintonworld. Whatever one thinks of Greenwald's methods, the revelations he brought to the world about NSA spying were valuable in reshaping and reinvigorating the national and international debate over about civil liberties and the security state. Just like senior Clinton campaign officials, he's worth listening to. But he's applying his ideology about journalism to a situation it doesn't fit. In that way, he misses the mark. The fundamental power of journalism is to take information from a small number of people and give it to a larger number of people in the hope and belief that an informed polity will make wise decisions about who gets which powers. Reporting on the official line of a campaign is one of the many avenues of journalism that fits that description. On the trail of Hillary Clinton, not everyone is allowed to jump into the press pool <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-the-trail-of-hillary-clinton-not-everyone-is-allowed-to-jump-into-the-press-pool/2015/05/29/f2f99ae6-0631-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?postshare=1571432938773275> // WaPo // Paul Farhi – May 29, 2015 When it comes to covering Hillary Rodham Clinton, some campaign reporters are feeling less equal than others. Major news organizations have established their own press pool to cover the leading Democratic candidate, an arrangement that gives them premium access to Clinton as she campaigns in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere. The only problem: The pool has left news organizations that aren’t part of the reporting consortium on the sidelines, effectively turning them into second-class journalists in the hunt for Clinton info. Pool reports are journalism’s way of managing journalism’s perpetual mob scenes. Rather than having a jostling crowd of reporters all chasing the same newsmaker into tight quarters, a lone reporter handles the job, sharing whatever he or she learns with colleagues via a series of e-mails. The White House press corps has employed such a system for decades to cover the president. Presidential pool reports are shared widely, and in real time, not only among news organizations but among congressional offices, executive branch agencies and hundreds of other interested parties. That’s not how the Clinton pool works, however. With the Clinton campaign’s ascent, some 14 news organizations — including the New York Times, Politico, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post — formed a press pool in May. Each member is expected to supply a reporter to cover Clinton on a rotating basis when an event — say, a diner stop in Iowa — can only accommodate a small group. The news organizations regularly travel to report on Clinton. But the pool reports are only being shared among pool members through a special-access Google Group. Reporters from news organizations that aren’t in the traveling pool can get access only on a delayed basis, usually at the end of the day. That’s a veritable lifetime to wait in an age when news is constant and instantaneous. And that hurts: “My feeling is that some people have established the rules and that we haven’t been part of the discussion,” said Laura Haim, a U.S.-based reporter for a French TV network, Canal Plus’ i-Tele. “I went to Iowa to cover [Clinton’s] first event. I only saw her van. I never saw her. I was not the only one. The level of frustration was amazing. . . . I am fighting for equality and access for all.” The architects of the new system, who agreed to speak only on background, said its rationale is simple: Pool members have agreed to bear heavy travel costs to cover Clinton and thus should have first crack at information about her. Others are welcome to join the pool, they say — “the more the merrier,” as one put it — but only if they’re willing to shoulder their share of campaign-coverage costs. Otherwise, they can wait until the end of the day. The pool members say they have made no distinction between domestic and international press; in fact, two of the founding members, the Guardian andDaily Mail, are British-based, and a third, Agence France-Presse (AFP), is based in Paris. But the nature of the arrangement troubles some. “I understand why some reporters want the reports to be only available to those who are participating in the rotation,” said Anita Kumar, a White House and Clinton campaign reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, which is part of the pool covering Clinton. “I just think in this day and age, it’s hard to justify restricting the information, both because the precedent has been set with White House pool reports . . . and because shrinking budgets and newsrooms need to translate to more sharing of information, not less.” The pool members are scheduled to meet Monday morning at the Los Angeles Times’s Washington offices to discuss organizational changes. It was not clear if there are any plans to change the way the reports are distributed, several people said. Despite the often rote nature of pool summaries, the Clinton pool reports may have extra value because of her reluctance to engage directly with the press. Since many of Clinton’s early appearances have been in small venues, and because the media crush sometimes surpasses 70 or 80 people, the pool descriptions are often the only way to learn what transpired. For example, during a mid-day stop in Independence, Iowa, last week, pool reporter Sam Frizell of Time magazine described Clinton’s encounters with local business owners. The interactions were routine but colorful: “ ‘Can I order some coffee?’ Clinton said with enthusiasm as she entered Em’s Coffee Co. [a shop on the main drag]. ‘I would love to get some coffee!’ The owner is Emilea Hillman, a young woman. . . . ‘I’m going to come back here, Em, what do you recommend?’ Clinton said moving to the area behind the counter. ‘Perfect, I’m coming for it,’ she said ‘I needed a shot of espresso to keep going here!’ ” In addition to their exclusion from the pool, reporters for foreign news organizations, such as Haim, complain that they have been shut out of Clinton’s “open-press” events, in which all credentialed reporters are admitted. An ad hoc organization of international reporters intends to discuss the issue with campaign representatives, she said. Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill declined comment. But people close to the campaign said some open-press events quickly reached their limit and the campaign restricted access to local and national reporters. Why hasn’t Maggie Hassan made an endorsement? <http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/28/capitalgroundgame/2GVwRUVL6s4RXIML4loMiJ/story.html> // Boston Globe // James Pindell – May 28, 2015 SALEM, N.H. — Seven years ago, when Hillary Rodham Clinton needed her most, then-state Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan was there for her presidential campaign. Today, it’s anybody’s guess whether Hassan, now governor of the Granite State, will back Clinton again. On the Globe’s list of the 115 most desirable Democratic endorsements in the 2016 New Hampshire presidential primary, more than half of the state’s political establishment is “Ready for Hillary.” This includes President Obama’s pointman in the state, Jim Demers. It also includes Granite State activists who backed John Edwards, like Maureen and Donald Manning in Manchester. The Clinton network is vast in New Hampshire, including three former US ambassadors, several Clinton administration appointments, and all three of the state’s Democratic National Committee members. But so far, Hassan is not on board. In 2008, Hassan and a few dozen other female Clinton supporters may have had as much to do with her surprise first-in-the-nation primary win over Obama as did Clinton’s tears at a now-famous Portsmouth event. This group, which included other prominent New Hampshire Democratic women, signed a blast e-mail to other women in the state raising questions about whether Obama sufficiently supported abortion rights because he had voted “present” on a number of abortion-related bills in the Illinois Senate. With just more than eight months until the primary, Hillary Clinton has scored public support from a sizable chunk of New Hampshire political insiders. Tracking the endorsements of N.H. GOP activists Exit polls showed older, pro-abortion rights female voters lifted Clinton to victory in that primary, setting the stage for a protracted primary. Afterwards some of those who wrote the letter expressed regret, but the deed was done. And for Hassan, the Clintons repaid the favor. Less than four years later, Hassan was running for governor after she was defeated for reelection to the Legislature. She faced off with another former state senator who backed Obama in the 2008 primary. While Hassan was the front-runner for the nomination, her primary was dicey. With weeks to go, Hassan called in a favor: While Hillary Clinton was traveling the globe as US secretary of state, former president Bill Clinton flew into Nashua to hold a rally for her. It did the trick. But Hassan also got help from another source in her 2012 race. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley was chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. He sent a staffer to assist Hassen, and now that staffer is her top political adviser. O’Malley is expected to announce his presidential bid on Saturday, followed by a trip to New Hampshire the next day. After Hassan won her first term, and President Obama won reelection, Vice President Joe Biden personally invited her to attend his swearing in. Biden would then agree to do a fund-raiser for Hassan. O’Malley did two. During Hassan’s reelection race last fall, Hillary Clinton made her first trip back to the Granite State since the 2008 election. She held a rally for Hassan and US Senator Jeanne Shaheen. Afterward Clinton did a fund-raiser for Hassan in Portsmouth. When asked at a Tuesday event, Hassan responded she hasn’t endorsed a presidential contender because she is focused on passing a state budget. “I am focused on the budget, and I am also mindful of the state’s role as holding the first in the nation primary,” Hassan said. Hassan might have other matters on her mind, too, like a 2016 race against US Senator Kelly Ayotte. Democrats expect her to challenge the Republican next year. Shaheen endorsed Clinton in 2013, when she signed a letter with other female Democratic US senators urging her to seek the presidency again. But Ann McLane Kuster, New Hampshire’s only Democratic member of Congress, has said she is trying to be neutral at the beginning of the state’s primary. Both the Clinton and Hassan operations chalk up the governor’s hesitance to a matter of timing. First, Hassan has to pass a budget, next she will have to make a decision on the Senate race — and then an endorsement for president. Most believe her endorsement will eventually go to Clinton. But having the issue resolved last year like many top Democrats — or even earlier than that, like Shaheen — would have removed the question from the table. Report: Cruz, Clinton resonate the most online <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/29/cruz-clinton-presidential-bids-resonate-online/28144199/> // Des Moines Register // Matthew Patane – May 29, 2015 Of all the presidential contenders that have entered their names in the ring, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz saw the most reaction from their campaign announcement speeches, a new report shows. The report comes from George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management and Zingal Labs, a company that monitors online media interactions. It monitored the "public echoes" during March 15 through May 15 surrounding the eight formal presidential campaigns that launched in that period. Clinton and Cruz were the only two candidates that "established some semblance of branded visibility" in that time frame, the report reads. During the two-month period, Clinton had more than 4.8 million mentions. Cruz garnered about 2.6 million. Cruz, researchers said, benefited from being the first one officially in the race, while Clinton benefited from years of speculation about whether she would run. Cruz announced on March 23 and Clinton announced on April 12. During the two-month period, Zignal tracked 10.3 million online mentions of the eight candidates, or 7,150 mentions per hour. The report dubbed that a "low echo volume." For comparison, the Kentucky Derby on May 2 generated 16,670 mentions per hour for most of the day. "In spring 2015, then, heavy news coverage notwithstanding, people were more interested in talking about an actual horse race than the famously symbolic one in politics," the report reads. On trail in S.C., Clinton faces old ghosts <https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/05/28/hillary-clinton-campaigns-against-ghosts/oH3zHKoha3NeQASPwhBIbM/story.html> // Boston Globe // Annie Linskey – May 29, 2015 COLUMBIA, S.C. — Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to South Carolina this week and began to confront one of the most pointed threats she faces so far on the campaign trail: echoes from her campaign of seven years ago. Cognizant of how her campaign angered African-Americans in the Palmetto State — especially when her husband made series of comments viewed as dismissive of Barack Obama — Clinton took pains to make amends. Before showing up, she reached out to a key South Carolina leader who had been critical. And when Clinton spoke to activists, she twice referred to the 2008 primary, at one point calling it a “pretty vigorous” campaign. Few in the audience needed a reminder. “We are Southern, honey. We hold a grudge for a long time,” said Phyllis Harris, a 61-year-old African-American woman from Camden. She recounted how she felt Clinton disrespected voters in the state in 2008 by packing up and leaving for Tennessee before she conceded. “She needs to convince me, to take the time to convince my people,” Harris said. South Carolina is foremost among several early primary states where the ghosts of Clinton’s past campaign haunt the trail, posing thornier problems in the early stages of her campaign than her declared opponents. The memories of 2008 may not threaten her place in the polls, but exorcising them is crucial if she wants build the kind of enthusiasm that will keep stronger party rivals on the sidelines and inspire volunteers to promote her candidacy. The last Clinton campaign kicked off with a series of large events where hundreds packed into town hall meetings and rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire to cheer her. This time the campaign has stopped trying to elevate her to rock-star status. “She’s not as effective from the podium’’ as Bill Clinton and Obama, said Kurt Meyer, a Democratic activist in Iowa. “Neither of them, fine as they are speaking to 1,000 fans, can compete with her in the six or eight people sitting around the table.” Meyer should know. A local Democratic leader, he was tapped to sit with Clinton at a coffee shop during one of her first events in Marshalltown, Iowa, last month. The Clinton campaign filmed the friendly exchange and posted it on her Facebook page. It has been viewed more than a quarter million times. The overwhelming size of the Clinton staff was also a problem in the past. Meyer said he brought it up in an early meeting with Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. “I said, ‘One of the things you all have to know about a rural county is if you get off a Greyhound bus and 47 self-important people get off . . . it doesn’t work in Mitchell County.” During Clinton’s first pass through the state in mid-April, Meyer was pleased to see that the cadre of campaign aides staff had shrunk. But during her more recent stop he started hearing reports that those numbers began to swell, particularly at what was supposed to be an intimate gathering at a private home in Eastern Iowa. Meyer complained to the Clinton campaign. “They said, ‘You were right. We had way too much staff in Dubuque,’ ” he recalled. Nowhere is the Clinton campaign more haunted than in South Carolina, a state where the primary contest descended into a racially charged brawl. At one point Bill Clinton downplayed the significance of the first Southern primary by pointing out that Jesse Jackson won it in 1988, a remark many saw as diminishing both the state and the historic nature of Obama’s rise. He also referred to Obama’s stance on Iraq as a “fairy tale.” The quip offended Representative James Clyburn, one of the state’s most important black leaders, because he viewed it as a backhanded attempt to paint the entire Obama campaign as make-believe. The race drama peaked when the former president let loose a frustrated rant accusing the Obama camp of playing a race card. “Once you accuse somebody of racism or bigotry or something, the facts become irrelevant,” he said. He then blamed the press for accepting the Obama spin. “They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for.” This year Hillary Clinton has tried to mend fences, hiring a former Clyburn aide, Clay Middleton, to run her operation in South Carolina. She also called Clyburn several days before her trip Wednesday. The two discussed her campaign and upcoming visit, said Amanda Loveday, a Clyburn spokeswoman. (He was out of town during her stop and didn’t attend any of her events.) Clyburn doesn’t plan on endorsing anyone for the primary this time and he eagerly invited Clinton’s challengers to visit in a statement to the Globe. “I welcome any and all Democratic presidential candidates to South Carolina, a state that offers distinctive opportunities to hone messages in relatively inexpensive media markets,” Clyburn said. Scars also remain in the Nevada desert, where activists recall the hand-to-hand combat between the Obama and Clinton camps over the state’s caucuses. That fight ended up in court, with the Nevada State Education Association, which backed Clinton, filing a federal lawsuit over the state’s voting rules. Clinton also failed to secure a coveted endorsement from the state’s culinary union, which is the largest and backed Obama. Clinton won the state’s popular vote, and held out an olive branch to the union on her recent visit. “I’ve met with a lot of culinary workers and other workers who keep the economy going strong,” she said, recalling her 2008 days in the state. “The last time the mistake they made was they took a lot of things for granted,” said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada. “This time it seems like they are much more interested in listening to folks who might not have agreed with her in the past.” Even in Massachusetts, Clinton and her team must grapple with another unpleasant echo of 2008 — the state’s senior senator. Last time it was the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who wound up endorsing Obama, a huge blow to Clinton. This time Clinton must court Senator Elizabeth Warren, who holds sway over a huge liberal fan base and whose help will be crucial in getting such activists fired up if Clinton makes it to the general election. In New Hampshire, Clinton’s ghosts are friendly. Its primary voters revived Bill Clinton’s presidential hopes in 1992 when he came in second, and it injected momentum into her bruised campaign eight years ago, when she won it after losing Iowa. Those memories were on Clinton’s mind when she stopped in the Granite State several weeks ago. “I came here in 1991,” Clinton said while chatting with one man on her first stop in the state at a bakery in Keene. “I celebrated my birthday here.” Later, at a business round table held nearby she brought it up again, saying she was “thrilled” to be back in the state. “I have a lot of wonderful memories.” Why the N.H. primary is nearly impossible to predict <https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/28/why-primary-nearly-impossible-predict/G2Hn9AaLt29sF1ud1Pt1yL/story.html> // The Boston Globe // James A. Kimble – May 29, 2015 DURHAM, N.H. — Pinning down voters about who they might support in the New Hampshire presidential primary may be political gold for a candidate, but history has proven it’s not an easy race to predict. “More often polls are wrong than they are right,” said Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. “I think the 1984 Gary Hart win was the worst. Any pollster who says they know who will win the primary doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” New Hampshire is well known for unpredictable voters who can launch underdogs into the national spotlight. Hart’s win in the New Hampshire primary, upending predictions favoring Vice President Walter Mondale, is an often-cited example of pollsters who spent weeks surveying voters getting it wrong. Smith said a number of factors make New Hampshire voters tough to predict — especially during the presidential primary — but one constant has remained true over the years. “People will make up their minds at the very end,” said Smith, who recently coauthored a book with David Moore titled “The First Primary: New Hampshire’s Outsize Role in Presidential Nominations.” With 2016 promising a double-digit field of Republican candidates, pollsters may be facing an even harder go of it while their surveys are being called upon in new ways to shape the election. National polling is already being used by CNN and Fox News to narrow the number of candidates on stage during the first two Republican presidential debates. “That’s a real world implication for this cycle that wasn’t present in previous cycles,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh, N.C. “The other area where polling really matters is for fund-raising purposes, especially if you’re one of those candidates who are skirting the line.” A handful of Republican hopefuls have already hired private polling firms as part of their New Hampshire operations in advance of a possible presidential run. “A real survey helps you determine who is responding to the things you want to talk about and how to best communicate your message,” said David Carney, a GOP strategist based in New Hampshire. “That’s what it’s about.” Campaign polling should not be confused with public opinion polling reported on by the media, Carney said. Campaign polls have no interest in the horse race aspect of elections, instead delving into questions that help a candidate learn the “where, who and how to best deliver your message,” he said. Carney criticized public opinion polling, saying it falls short with how and what kind of information it collects from voters. At the same time, campaigns will be quick to use a public opinion poll when it works to the advantage of their candidate, and just as quick to trash one that goes against them, Carney said. “The political spinning of polls is the most egregious part of a campaign,” he said. “It’s the most overused technique.” Jensen said polling results in New Hampshire and Iowa will likely play a significant role in shaping the 2016 election in the months before voters reach the polls. The prominence in polling comes at a time when fewer people want to participate in surveys, he said. For every 100 people Jensen said his company reaches out to for an automated political poll, he will be lucky if 10 percent will participate. More recently, that number has dropped to 5 percent, he said. “You now you have a situation where you have 18 or so candidates on the Republican side,” he said. “You worry a little about exhausting the respondents.” Landline phones are on their way out. People have shorter attention spans, and more pollsters in 2016 are turning to the Internet in an attempt to get a well-rounded view of the electorate, Jensen said. “The simple reality is there is no one single way to reach everybody in an election,” he said. “We are going to see more of a fusion methodology.” Despite his criticisms of public polling, Carney said CNN and Fox News should have used a blend of polls from states with early primaries where candidates are spending most their time instead of national polls where voters are not yet paying attention to the election. “It would have been a more accurate barometer,” he said. “It would have given candidates an opportunity to strut their stuff. You can’t have 18 people on stage.” Smith said over the years he has honed the types of questions he asks potential voters that have given him more telling results. Likability tends to be a better predictor of who may emerge as a winner in an election, he said. “It’s always difficult. It’s always a crap shoot, so one of the things I try to do to make my understanding of the race better is to look at favorability ratings,” Smith said. In 2000, when polls indicated that US Senator John McCain was tanking in race, he still rated well in likability, Smith said. McCain went on to defy polls predicting his loss in the New Hampshire primary and defeat George W. Bush. Smith now asks voters what candidate they believe has a high likeability factor; what candidate they would never vote for under any circumstance; and finally, regardless of who they vote for, who do they think will win? “That question is more likely to predict who will win than the horse race question,” he said. “More often, it gets winner right.” Shumlin, Kunin to host Hillary Clinton event <http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/29/shumlin-kunin-hillary-clinton/28146077/> // Burlington Free Press // April Burbank – May 29, 2015 Less than a week after U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., launched his presidential campaign from Burlington, the rival Hillary Clinton camp is planning its own event near the waterfront. Gov. Peter Shumlin, who recently endorsed Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and Vermont's first female governor Madeleine Kunin will host a "grassroots organizing meeting" 6 p.m. Monday, according to the Clinton campaign website. The event is described as a gathering of supporters; Clinton is not expected to be present. The event will take place in Main Street Landing at 60 Lake St. in Burlington — within eyesight of Waterfront Park, where Sanders entertained thousands of people at a campaign rally Tuesday. Clinton, a former U.S. senator and secretary of state, has garnered endorsements from U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., former Gov. Howard Dean and Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger, in addition to Shumlin and Kunin. Pelosi: Clintons "will have to answer for the foundation" <http://www.vox.com/2015/5/29/8689155/pelosi-clintons-foundation> // Vox // Jonathan Allen – May 29, 2015 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Friday that Bill and Hillary Clinton "will have to answer for the foundation," suggesting that the public will care more about conflict-of-interest allegations than Clinton campaign officials say will be the case. Pelosi's distancing from the Clinton nonprofit in an interview with MSNBC's Thomas Roberts came on the same day the New York Times reported that a charity focused on building schools donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation after Bill Clinton agreed to speak at a gala for the smaller nonprofit. Pelosi's response is the biggest crack in the Clinton Foundation armor so far because of her position as the party's leader in the House and because she has said she backs Hillary Clinton for president. It could give political cover for other Democrats to distance themselves from the Clintons' operation of their foundation. On Thursday, senior Clinton campaign officials insisted voters aren't being swayed by a series of stories about the Clintons raising money for themselves and the foundation from entities with business before the federal government. They said they would answer questions about the foundation as they arise but don't believe it will damage or distract Clinton. Pelosi said that having Bill Clinton speak could have increased contributions to the school-building charity, but she pointedly declined to stick her neck out for him or Hillary Clinton. There's "no question" they'll have to address questions about the foundation, Pelosi said. A spokesman from Pelosi's office disputed the characterization of minority leader. "This is a completely inaccurate characterization of the Leader's remarks," said Drew Hammill. "Leader Pelosi complimented President Clinton on his work on behalf of various causes and only said she wasn't going to respond to this story." The Republican National Committee emailed a clip of the interview to reporters. Hillary Clinton cites GOP quotes on equal-pay legislation out of context <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/05/29/hillary-clinton-cites-gop-quotes-on-equal-pay-legislation-out-of-context/> // WaPo // Glenn Kessler – May 29, 2015 “Now we could fix this [equal pay for men and women]. If Republicans would get on board, we in fact could fix this today but they won’t. One Republican candidate dismissed equal pay as ‘a bogus issue.’ Another said Congress was ‘wasting time’ worrying about it. One even said that efforts to guarantee fair pay reminded him of the Soviet Union. And to that, I say: What century are they living in?” —Hillary Clinton, speaking to the Democratic Women’s Council in Columbia, S.C., May 27, 2015 This is a pretty interesting collection of damning quotes from Hillary Clinton about her erstwhile GOP rivals for the presidency. But here at The Fact Checker, we often are wary when politicians start to negatively quote other politicians, because all too frequently those quotes are taken out of context. We’ve written in the past about some of the statistics surrounding the equal-pay debate — such as the assertion that women make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men. But in this case, we are going to focus on whether Clinton is accurately quoting her potential opponents. The Facts “One Republican candidate dismissed equal pay as ‘a bogus issue.’” Here, Clinton is referring to a quote from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who in 2012 signed a repeal of a 2009 law that allowed equal-pay lawsuits to be filed in state court, in addition to federal courts. He argued that the law — which was crafted and passed when Democrats controlled the state government — was duplicative and “could clog up the legal system,” given there were other administrative and federal options available. Walker’s quote appeared in a 2012 article in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, titled “Walker faces challenges in winning some female voters.” The article highlighted the repeal of the law and quoted the executive director of the state Democratic Party as saying that Walker approved the repeal “in the dark of night” (a Thursday before Easter) in order not to draw media attention. The article continues: Walker said there was no attempt to hide anything, and the bill-signing did nothing harmful to women. “It’s a bogus issue,” he said. “It is against the law to discriminate against women for employment and to pay them less than you pay men, and it will continue to be.” Clinton claimed that Walker “dismissed equal pay as ‘a bogus issue.’” But in context, it appears that Walker is referring to debate over when he signed the repeal, or perhaps that he has a problem with women. It certainly does not appear that he said that concerns about equal pay are bogus. The Fact Checker contacted Paul Srubas, the reporter of the story. He agreed that “to say he called ‘equal pay’ a bogus issue I think would be misquoting him.” As he put it: “As best as I can recall and reconstruct, I don’t believe Walker was publicly dismissing the concept of equal pay as ‘a bogus issue.’ I believe he was saying the 2009 equal pay enforcement act was unnecessary and redundant, so he repealed it, and since repealing it created no harm to women, accusing him of hiding his actions by cloak of night is bogus.” A Clinton spokesman responded: “Walker is very clearly saying he thinks it’s a bogus issue because other laws take care of the problem and we don’t need to legislate more on this.” (Incidentally, exit polls showed that in 2014 Walker lagged behind the female Democratic challenger by nine percentage points among women, but he coasted to re-election by winning the male vote by 21 percentage points. Walker also narrowly won the votes of white women.) “Another said Congress was ‘wasting time’ worrying about it.” In this sentence, Clinton attacks Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who, like all Senate Republicans, opposed the Democratic-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act. Again, the battle lines between the parties were drawn over whether the law would result in more litigation. (We obviously take no position on the legislation but trial lawyers tend to be major financial backers of Democrats, not Republicans.) In a 2014 interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, Rubio was asked about executive actions that President Obama had taken to address the pay gap between men and women. “I think it is a legitimate issue to focus on because of have millions of women trapped in low-paying jobs for a multiple of reasons,” Rubio said, adding that he wanted to find ways to provide more educational opportunities and better career options for women. He then turned to criticize the Paycheck Fairness Act. Here is the full context of his comment: “The proposals before the Senate now are really geared toward making it easier to sue an employer. I understand the political benefit of highlighting that and why they’re doing it, but it isn’t going to solve the core of the problem. And I just think we’re wasting time. Meanwhile, an entire generation of young women is caught in low paying jobs with no way to emerge from that into a better paying job.” In other words, he was concerned about the pay gap but objected, on substantive grounds, to the proposal before the Senate — which had no chance of getting any Republican votes. So the “wasting time” comment referred to debating a politically oriented bill that had no hope of passage. (In fact, by 2014, the bill had been rejected in the Senate several times.) Rubio did not say that Congress was wasting time worrying about it; in fact, he said it was a “legitimate issue to focus on.” The Clinton spokesman responded: “Rubio absolutely said Congress was wasting its time; his reasoning for believing that isn’t the point.” “One even said that efforts to guarantee fair pay reminded him of the Soviet Union.” Finally, Clinton takes on Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). This line is based on a 2012 Huffington Post article headlined “Rand Paul Compares Paycheck Fairness To Soviet Politburo.” Paul also attacked the Paycheck Fairness Act for encouraging litigation, saying the proposed law would hand powers to judges to determine whether women are paid fairly, which he said would violate free-market principles. It was in that context that he made the reference to the Soviet Union: “Three hundred million people get to vote everyday on what you should be paid or what the price of goods are. In the Soviet Union, the Politburo decided the price of bread, and they either had no bread or too much bread. So setting prices or wages by the government is always a bad idea. … The minute you set up a fairness czar to determine what wages are, you give away freedom. When you give that power to someone to make decisions, they may well discriminate in favor of whoever they want to discriminate in favor of. The market just makes decisions on your ability to do your job.” Again, Clinton is suggesting that opposition to a Democratic-written bill means opposition to equal pay for women. But her statement here is a bit more cleverly worded. Paul certainly suggested that this particular effort to address the issue reminded him of the Soviet Union, so as phrased, Clinton’s statement is relatively accurate. The Clinton spokesman said she was not “saying that the Paycheck Fairness Act, something she believes is a piece of the solution, would solve the problem on its own.… She specifies several areas that contribute to the problem that could be fixed. Unfortunately, Republicans obstruct attempts to fix any of these problem areas, including repealing state legislation or blocking or dismissing federal legislation.” The Pinocchio Test In at least two of the quotes — Walker’s and Rubio’s — Clinton has ripped the remarks completely out of context. In all three cases, Clinton is suggesting that opposition to bills crafted by Democrats — which Republicans said would encourage litigation — is tantamount to not caring about the gender pay gap. Taking statements out of context is an old political game played by both parties. We recall that Clinton supporters protested vehemently when they accused Republicans of twisting out of context remarks she made during the hearings on the Benghazi attacks. But that still does not make the practice acceptable for political discourse. Overall, Clinton earns Three Pinocchios. Three Pinocchios Bill Clinton to Foundation Donors: I Feel Your Pain <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/clinton-foundation-sorry-about-ruining-your-careers-now-give-us-more-money.html> // Daily Beast // David Freedlander – May 29, 2015 Bill Clinton has a message to all those autocrats, petro-billionaires, compromised television journalists, and corporate titans who have been tied to a series of devastating exposes about the Clinton Foundation and its finances: I feel your pain. And we still need your money. In a letter sent today to Clinton Foundation supporters, the former president writes, “As you all know, it’s the political season in America, so the purpose and impact of the efforts your support makes possible has largely been ignored in recent coverage of the Foundation. But we are and always have been a non-partisan, inclusive foundation with lots of support from and involvement by people across the political spectrum and governments from right to left, all committed to our creative solutions-centered work.” Speculation has swirled around the Clinton Foundation in recent years about how the global philanthropy, which now ranks as one the nation’s largest in terms of annual fundraising, will continue to operate should Hillary Clinton win the presidency in 2016. At times, the letter reads like a Clinton State of the Union speech of old, with him citing example after example of people who have been helped by the Foundation’s work. One can almost imagine the “smallholder farmers in Africa” or the “women entrepreneurs in Latin America” or Wazia Chawala, a farmer and single mother in Tanzania participating in the Clinton Development Initiative’s Anchor Farm program standing up on the House balcony to receive applause. The letter also comes as the foundation launches a public relations blitz to defend the work that it does. Hillary Clinton aides have been frustrated at the developing narrative about the foundation—one which largely ignores the work the charity does to combat global poverty. In recent days, a number of Clinton supporters, including Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild and former New York State Democratic Party chairman Jay Jacobs have spoken out publicly in defense of the foundation’s work. Yesterday, President Clinton appeared before the United Nations to speak about the foundation’s role in improving global public health. In the letter Clinton cites the work that the foundation has accomplished, including 9.9 million people globally with access to HIV/AIDS medicine, 16 million in kids in the U.S with access to healthier food, and 3,200 commitments orchestrated by the Clinton Global Initiative “that have already improved 430 million lives in more than 180 countries.” “That's the real story of the Clinton Foundation—people coming together across traditional divides to help others live up to their full potential,” Clinton continues. “We are grateful that you have been a part of it.” The foundation has also been accused of mismanagement internally, with longtime Clinton family friends put on the organization’s payroll without clear duties, and it has been discovered that the organization has not properly filed the necessary tax paperwork with the federal government. Next week, Donna Shalala, a former Clinton administration cabinet official will take over as the group’s president. Along with her hiring, Clinton writes, “We will continue to look for ways to improve our reporting systems so that we can operate as accurately, efficiently and transparently as possible—a goal to which we have been committed to since day one.” Clinton Library readies Monica Lewinsky photos, more Hillary Clinton first lady files <http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/05/clinton-library-readies-monica-lewinsky-photos-more-207910.html> // Politico // Josh Gerstein – May 29, 2015 The Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock is set to release more records this summer, including official White House photos of Monica Lewinsky and about 10,000 pages of files kept by staffers in the office of First Lady Hillary Clinton, but what's being held back may draw more attention than what's made public. The National Archives is proposing for release only 11 photos of Lewinsky — the former White House intern whose intimate relationship with former President Bill Clinton led to his impeachment in 1998 — but archivists said in a notice Thursday that they are planning to withhold five other photos found in White House files. It's unclear whether the photos set for release are the same 11 photos Independent Counsel Ken Starr appended to a report he delivered to Congress in 1998. The notice does not state a basis for declaring the five other photos "restricted," but records are sometimes held back on privacy grounds or because they pertain to political activity. An Archives spokesperson had no immediate comment on the planned release. In a similar notice last week, the Clinton Library — which is run by the Archives — proposed release of about 10,000 pages of office files from several Hillary Clinton aides: office manager Eric Woodard, executive assistant Missy Kincaid, Alissa Brown and Diane Limo. The records include briefing papers, staff memos and details on protocol for White House events, including "food and drink requirements." The files are set for release August 17 and the photos four days later, unless either the current White House or aides to former President Clinton seek a 30-business-day extension or move to restrict the records on executive privilege grounds. The photos were requested under the Freedom of Information Act by Conor Skelding, a reporter at Capital New York. The office files were processed under a so-called "systematic" review of Clinton White House files considered to be of public interest. The new round of planned releases comes on the heels of a much larger flurry of releases last month, totaling about 200,000 pages. Those files included details about efforts to polish Hillary Clinton's image, about the then-first lady's revulsion at racy marketing by clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch and about the Clinton White House's handling of the same-sex marriage issue. Last month, Hillary Clinton made official her long-assumed candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. Lena Dunham said something political, which means you must immediately click here <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/29/lena-dunham-said-something-political-which-means-you-must-immediately-click-here/?postshare=6731432916657717> // Washington Post // Janell Ross – May 28, 2015 We now interrupt your regularly scheduled reading on the state of the nation's economy, schools, war, rumors of war, corruption, malfeasance and famine around the world to inform you that Lena Dunham is Ready for Hillary. Dunham has posted a picture of, well, herself, with a Hillary 2016 bumpersticker planted in her mouth. It has been liked nearly 23,000 times in an hour. The picture isn't exactly a shocking revelation. Two months ago, Dunham posted a tongue-in-cheek message about that picture of Hillary -- you know the one, suglasses on, blackberry in hand, handling business with outfit and hair almost on fleek. It made her allegiences pretty clear to anyone on Instagram who can also read. Then, earlier this month, Dunham posted another pro-Hillary declaration on Instagram. She was kind enough to share an idea: The Clinton 2016 campaign logo would form the basis of her new tramp stamp. Dunham is an outspoken advocate of all manner of progressive causes. Sharing some of her ideas on social media drew enough attention from what Dunham called "crazy neocons" and trolls that she announced plans to withdraw from the Kingdom of Twitter. The sustained opposition to Dunham, of course, is part of what makes people care what she says. And Dunham has every right to express her ideas; before the 2016 race ends, she will hardly be the last celebrity to do so. Maybe she feels compelled to share her thoughts, somehow. After all, she's been called the voice of her generation -- even if that voice and the world it depicts is decidedly wealthy and white. She is smart, sarcastic and sassy enough to make light of such an auspicious label, run her own HBO show and ably deflect criticism for telling a modern American story without including, you know, the actual range of people who live in America -- or Brooklyn -- if and when anyone calls her on it. But no one is irritated by ubiquity or her selective grasp on empowerment or anything. OK? So, Lena Dunham has weighed in for Hillary, in a photo, with a Hillary bumper sticker in her mouth, which requires little to no interpretation. Let's return to a world where this happened and someone or something else matters, shall we? Clinton Lawyer Marc Elias Among Those Behind Major New Voting Rights Lawsuit in Wisconsin <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72945> // Election Law Blog // Rick Hasen – May 28, 2015 Here is how the complaint for the lawsuit filed in federal court in Wisconsin begins: This lawsuit concerns the most fundamental of rights guaranteed citizens in our representative democracy—the right to vote. That right has been under attack in Wisconsin since Republicans gained control of the governor’s office and both houses of the State Legislature in the 2010 election. Indeed, since 2011, the State of Wisconsin has twice reduced in-person absentee (“early”) voting, introduced restrictions on voter registration, changed its residency requirements, enacted a law that encourages invasive poll monitoring, eliminated straight-ticket voting, eliminated for most (but not all) citizens the option to obtain an absentee ballot by fax or email, and imposed a voter identification (“voter ID”) requirement. These measures were intended to burden, abridge, and deny, and have had and will have the effect of burdening, abridging, and denying, the voting rights of Wisconsinites generally and of African-American, Latino, young, and/or Democratic voters in Wisconsin in particular. As set forth below, these and the other provisions challenged in this Complaint (the “challenged provisions”) violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, and/or the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment, and/or the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The challenged provisions should therefore be declared illegal and enjoined. A few thoughts: 1. As with the new Ohio litigation, the case is not officially being brought by the Clinton campaign but is being backed by the Clinton’s general counsel, Marc Elias. It is hard to believe such a suit would not be brought with Marc’s involvement without political vetting by the Clinton campaign. 2. These lawsuits serve a political purpose even if they are not successful legally. They keep the issue of voter suppression in the minds of Democratic constituencies and help galvanize Democratic voters. It puts Democrats on the offensive rather than the defensive. 3. As to the chances of success, if this case gets before the same federal judge which initially struck down Wisconsin’s voter id law, this case could well have a good chance of success. [Update: The case was filed in Western district, and Judge Adelman (as well as Judge Randa, who would not be a good draw for Democrats) is in the Eastern district.] But its fate is much less certain before the 7th Circuit (which reversed that district court opinion) or the Supreme Court. These cases are hard to win, especially if they are premised on a “retrogression” theory. But we’ll see. It is really too early for me to to say. OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE Bernie Sanders distances himself from 'dumb' 1972 essay on rape <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-1972/> // CNN // Dan Merica – May 28, 2015 New York (CNN)Bernie Sanders' campaign tried on Thursday to distance the presidential candidate from a 1972 essay in which he wrote -- among other things -- a women "fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously." Michael Briggs, Sanders' newly minted campaign spokesman, said the article was a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" that "in no way reflects his views or record on women." "It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then," Briggs told CNN. The Vermont senator is currently pursuing the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. The 1972 essay, which was first revealed in a profile by Mother Jones, was published in the Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper from Sanders' home state. It ran the same year that Sanders ran for governor of the state as a member of the anti-Vietnam War Liberty Union Party. He lost the race, but was elected mayor of Burlington in 1981. "Have you looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstores? Do you know why the newspapers with articles like 'Girl, 12, raped by 14 men' sell so well?" Sanders wrote. "To what in us are they appealing?" The article also says that a man's "typical fantasy" of a woman includes her "tied up" and "abused." Sanders analyzes the dynamics of sexuality and relationship between men and women, including a seemingly made up conversation between a couple about their deteriorating relationship. "And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time," he wrote. In the statement, Briggs said that the essay surfaced as a result of Sanders' presidential ambitions. "When Bernie got into this race, he understood that there would be efforts to distracts voters and the press from the real issues confronting the nation today," the spokesman said. "He is determined to run a campaign that takes on the big problems facing the American people and not a campaign of salacious gossip and innuendo." Sanders formally announced his presidential campaign this week, a little less than a month after he announced his intentions to run for president and filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission. After his first presidential rally in Vermont on Tuesday, he traveled to New Hampshire and will spend the next three days in Iowa for a series of town halls, speeches and small meet-and-greets. Will Bernie Sanders start a revolution? <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-presidential-campaign-revolution/> // CNN // Stephen Collinson – May 28, 2015 Burlington, Vermont (CNN)It wouldn't be the first time a revolution sparked in New England changed the world. But two and a half centuries after the insurrection that birthed America, the idea that a rumpled radical like 73-year-old Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders could overthrow the U.S. economic, health care and tax systems seems farfetched at best. Yet that's exactly the task the fiery U.S. senator has set himself in a presidential campaign targeting billionaire "oligarchs" who he says have hijacked America's economy and inflicted misery on the middle class. Sanders, an agitator who doesn't suffer fools, political opponents or journalists gladly, is testing whether the kind of populist, liberal agenda that gave him 75% approval ratings in his adopted home state can catch fire nationwide. "Brothers and sisters: Now is not the time for thinking small," Sanders told thousands of supporters in Burlington on Tuesday. "Now is not the time for the same-old, same-old establishment politics and stale inside-the-Beltway ideas," Sanders said in an implicit denunciation of the runaway front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. The obstacles Sanders faces in the presidential primary race, however, are immense. Sanders has no viable countrywide political organization, so he must foment a grassroots uprising. His task is complicated by the fact that although he caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, he has always been a political independent wary of formal party affiliations. Taking on the Clinton machine He must take on the Clinton political machine that has retooled after its defeat in 2008. He's a minnow in the money game in a campaign that will be awash in billions of dollars. He's not exactly a polished pol either, with an unrepentant message of class warfare that makes him an unlikely candidate to win over Middle America. And many Democrats are only beginning to learn who Sanders actually is. He's a long shot, but has shown some momentum since indicating he would take the plunge into the presidential race late last month. In a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday, Sanders was at 15% of Democratic voters nationwide, up from the 5% he managed in a CNN national poll last month. His campaign launch, on a Lake Champlain boardwalk that he saved from developers as Burlington's mayor, had the air of a hippie revival or a folk festival. One woman twirled a hula hoop and shouted "Hooping for Bernie"; people lined up for free helpings of locally made Ben and Jerry's ice cream; and kids carried banners naming Sanders their political superhero. Vermont-based warm-up act Mango Jam pumped out a fusion of Zydeco, Cajun and Caribbean rhythms. The place pulsed with the hopeful political energy that is unique to the start of U.S. presidential campaigns when anything seems possible -- even in minute, ultraliberal blue states with three electoral votes. Of course, in the highly unlikely scenario that Sanders is elected president, enacting his revolutionary agenda faces even greater odds. Another long-shot, transformational president has already demonstrated how hard turning campaign slogans into reality can be. If there's one lesson of Barack Obama's White House, it's that passing social reforms such as Obamacare -- which falls way short of the kind of single-payer health system Sanders prefers -- can be almost impossible and exact a heavy political price. Sanders surely knows this. He might be a dreamer, but he knows the realities of politics: A pragmatic streak leavened his idealism during four terms as mayor; he railed against the Iraq war but became a champion of veterans in the Senate. So it may be fair to question whether, unlike his devoted Vermont cadres, a politician as experienced as Sanders thinks he can actually win the presidency, especially as political reality is weighted against him. America's middle class, while hurting, is hardly a simmering proletariat ready for the economic shock therapy he prescribes. Opponents attack Vermont's record And political opponents argue that for all his flamboyance, Vermont has not done that well in the Sanders era. "Fear and frustration are a powerful political cocktail," said a statement from the Vermont Republican Party on Tuesday. "All you have to do is take a good look at Vermont's demographic and economic realities -- and our growing crisis of affordability -- to get a good look at what the hangover from a Sanders administration would look and feel like." But to simply write off the Sanders campaign as some kind of personal vanity project, or a token quest to insert progressive values into the 2016 campaign, does him an injustice. His messages, the timing of his campaign, the polls and his personal qualities suggest that the Sanders campaign could end up more than a flight of political fancy and become a real headache for the Clinton machine. For starters, the 2016 Democratic primary campaign seems to be shaping itself around the issues of economic justice and fairness for which he first fought amid the political turmoil of 1960s Chicago where he was a student. In a recent interview with CNN, the candidate's UK-based brother Larry disputed the notion that Sanders is a man of the fringe. "I don't think we are out of the mainstream. I think that what we have noticed is that the mainstream has been ignored for a long time," he said. While the solutions that Bernie Sanders advocates to fix America's problems are radical, his diagnosis of the national mood is not. Health care, child care, college and medical costs preoccupy middle class families, whomever they vote for, a fact reflected in the way Clinton and Republicans Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum have emphasized income inequality in their campaigns. One advantage Sanders may have over this crowd is the crucial elixir of presidential runs -- "authenticity" -- said Vermont University political science professor Garrison Nelson, who has known Sanders for decades. "Bernie Sanders has been saying these same things for over 40 years. Bernie is not tailoring his speeches to the agenda. The agenda has caught up with Bernie Sanders." Another way Sanders debunks the hopeless crusade metaphor is that he's not just some political gadfly. He narrowly won his first race for mayor, then got elected over and over again, and has been in Congress for a quarter century. Iowa could be a tough sell for Sanders But it's not a given that his brusque style and pyrotechnical calls for a revolution will go down well in Iowa, for instance, where voters like to be wooed rather than harangued. "It is going to be a hard sell," said Nelson, who said his friend must find a sweet spot on the issue of income inequality. "Bernie is counting on that -- that degree of resentment and that degree of anger." While Sanders is a novelty in Iowa, he's a known commodity in New Hampshire -- where the overlap from the Burlington media market makes him well-known and could give him a leg up in the primary campaign. But Sanders must also show that he has got the financial muscle to even get that far -- though he says he is certain he can raise $50 million, after quickly pulling in contributions of around $4 million within days of first saying he would run for president. "That should give him enough money to be competitive in the four early states," said Eric Davis, a veteran Vermont political analyst and professor emeritus at Middlebury College, referring to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. But Davis asked: "What state is his campaign going to be in at the end of those four early contests?" And if by some miracle he won the nomination, he would then find it difficult to counter questions about whether his left-wing politics would be palatable to a wider electorate. Still, polls suggest that Sanders is a viable candidate to be the leading alternative to Clinton among Democrats -- though he lags behind the former first lady by 50%. A Quinnipiac University poll in Iowa found that 15% of likely caucus goers would back him while 18% of likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire prefer him -- numbers that give him a genuine platform in the race. He's ahead of other possible Democratic long shots, including former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia. And while he may not beat Clinton, Sanders can at least shape the economic debate in the Democratic primary and force her to confront her liabilities on trade and the influence of big money in politics. Appealing to liberal Democrats Clinton will also be wary of alienating liberal Democrats who support Sanders and are suspicious of her candidacy, but whom she needs to swell her margins in Midwestern swing states if she is to win the general election. Sanders' hopes of causing a stir in 2016 also depend on his capacity to show the side of his character that has won him such a loyal following in Vermont, where he has convinced voters he is on their side. Ann Taylor of Burlington, a self described "old hippie," said Sanders was pushing a message that America needed to hear: "This is probably the only candidate that is going to fight for working people. And I know he is influencing Sen. Clinton. Bernie will do so much for working people, it is unbelievable." Sanders draws in a crowd with talk of income inequality <http://www.qconline.com/news/local/sanders-draws-in-a-crowd-with-talk-of-income-inequality/article_b0bbbd04-da7c-53ff-b3ce-354aea5c9ebf.html> // Quad Cities Dispatch-Argus // Dennis Moran – May 28, 2015 DAVENPORT -- U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., roused a larger than expected crowd at St. Ambrose University on Thursday with his vision of a transformed nation — with free public university education, higher taxes on the wealthy and higher wages for workers. Sen. Sanders is seeking the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, challenging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Already he is polling in double-digits in Iowa and New Hampshire, important early campaign states. He’s generating excitement among liberals by unabashedly calling himself a “socialist” and seeking higher tax rates for wealthy Americans. Rogalski Center staff initially planned for about 300 people Thursday but quickly worked to accommodate about 600 who welcomed Sen. Sanders with a standing ovation and chants of his name. For more than an hour, he spoke emphatically and energetically before answering questions with a voice in no need of a public address system. “This is the wealthiest country in the history of the world," he said. "But that really means very little to the great majority of the population." Rising income and wealth inequality pose “the greatest moral, economic and political issue of our time,” he said. "Something is profoundly wrong when one-tenth of 1 percent own as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,” he said. “We have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth.” “This has got to change and we’re going to do it," he said. "What we need to do is create an economy that works for all of us and not just the 1 percent.” The greater reach of corporate campaign contributions under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, he said, is turning the U.S. into an oligarchy. He called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, creating up to 13 million government infrastructure jobs and doubling the national minimum wage to $15 an hour. Free or nearly free tuition at public colleges and universities could be financed with "a tax on Wall Street,” he said. “We bailed out Wall Street, and it’s time for Wall Street to help the middle class." Some at Thursday's meeting weren’t ready to call themselves Sen. Sanders supporters but wanted to hear him. “I’m a Hillary supporter, but in my fantasy I’d like to see a Clinton-Sanders ticket,” said Kay Anthony, of Davenport. “I like what he stands for, and he has a lot of down-to-earth logic which is in short supply." Stella Herzig, also of Davenport, said Sen. Sanders appeals to all ages, including seniors, "the ones who actually vote. "He harkens back to an earlier time when politicians weren't so blatantly bought by corporations.” For O'Malley, a lot riding on Iowa in 2016 campaign <http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268798/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=dja1eMCb> // AP News // Ken Thomas and Catherine Lucey – May 29, 2015 DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Martin O'Malley is returning to the state that introduced him to presidential politics three decades ago, when he played guitar and knocked on doors for Gary Hart. This time he'll be tooting his own horn, so to speak, in a setting that could determine whether his longshot challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination takes root or fades away. The former two-term Maryland governor is expected to enter the Democratic campaign Saturday in Baltimore, where he served as mayor and built his political career. Then it's on to a union hall in Davenport and more Iowa events before he goes to New Hampshire on Sunday. O'Malley, 52, presents himself as a next-generation leader who built a progressive record in Maryland on gay marriage, immigration and the minimum wage. While he has been well received in recent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton holds a commanding advantage. And he faces competition for liberal support from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who's raised more than $4 million since launching his campaign in late April. Iowa has a history of rewarding insurgent candidates and O'Malley's early admirers say he can ill afford any missteps here. President Barack Obama's defeat of Clinton in the 2008 caucuses serves as the benchmark but few see O'Malley in the same light as the president, who already had an active state organization by this time in 2007. "I think he needs to win Iowa," said Scott Ourth, a Democratic state representative from Ackworth. "If he comes into this thing and does not present well in Iowa, it's pretty much not going to be happening for him." O'Malley spoke at a fundraiser for Ourth in April. O'Malley advisers say he'll spend significant time in early voting states and be an accessible candidate in diners, coffee shops and living rooms, no doubt bringing out his guitar at times. That's what Iowans expect — and may reward — in their leadoff caucuses. There is "definitely a path here for him to do well in Iowa if he's willing to put in resources," said Tom Henderson, chairman of the Polk County Democrats in Des Moines. O'Malley's prospective bid holds parallels to the Hart campaign he worked on as a college student in 1983. Hart was a major underdog against former Vice President Walter Mondale and struggled in a large field of Democrats. In late 1983 and into January 1984, O'Malley organized volunteers and canvassed neighborhoods in Davenport and other communities in eastern Iowa, often playing Irish ballads on his guitar at small events, before moving on to help Hart in other states. Hart's advisers remember O'Malley as a street-smart, earnest and detail-oriented young political organizer, constantly building his list of potential caucus-goers for Hart. "He's somebody who basically drank up information and knowledge," said Doug Wilson, a Hart campaign aide who dispatched O'Malley to Iowa. "He was a listener and he was always asking questions. You could tell in his mind that he was pocketing information." Mondale won the Iowa caucuses handily. But Hart emerged as a fresh face in the party, with a surprising second place finish, went on to defeat Mondale in New Hampshire and dragged out the contest until Mondale was able to grind out enough primary victories to capture the nomination. This time, Clinton appears to be in a stronger position than Mondale was then. O'Malley supporters hope Iowa can help him become the main alternative to her. O'Malley has made several appearances in Iowa this year, has two paid staffers in the state and plans to add more. He made four trips last year and dispatched 14 staffers to work on state campaigns. But it will be difficult to compete with Clinton, who is already building a large staff and organizing communities around the state. "He's got to get his ground game going," said O'Malley supporter Earl Agan Jr., an official of the plasterers and cement masons union in Des Moines. Kimberley Boggus is a Democratic activist from Des Moines' Beaverdale section, a key neighborhood for Obama in 2008. She said O'Malley has built relationships and has people ready to listen. She introduced him at a bar event last month, where he spoke and played guitar. "People left saying, 'You've got to see more,'" Boggus said. Iowa's slow winnowing process could help a little known candidate like O'Malley, suggested Davenport Mayor Bill Gluba, who is neutral in the race but has offered O'Malley advice and contacts. He said: "This is Iowa. It's personal — one-on-one. One vote at a time. One contact at time. "Eventually it pays off." Baltimore’s blight puts O’Malley on defensive in bid for presidency <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/baltimores-blight-puts-omalley-on-defensive-in-bid-for-presidency/2015/05/29/9dffe1d0-0541-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html?postshare=9211432955470416> // WaPo // Robert McCartney – May 29, 2015 When Martin O’Malley announces his bid for the presidency Saturday in Baltimore, he is hoping that backdrop will strengthen his effort to become the leading candidate for progressives. But the backdrop also could be his albatross. In preparing to seek the Democratic nomination, he has cast himself as the only candidate with the vision, record and hands-on experience to attack urban problems such as poverty and crime. But the stubborn urban decay that continues to afflict sizable swaths of Baltimore threatens O’Malley’s pitch. The city drew international attention in April when riots erupted in the same troubled neighborhoods where O’Malley had said conditions were “so much better.” A challenge for O’Malley, analysts say, is that his numerous initiatives for the city — as mayor for seven years and governor for eight — have yielded mixed results. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is a possible Democratic contender for the White House in 2016. The gleaming offices, restaurants and new housing in the Inner Harbor area are a stark contrast to the boarded-up businesses and homes the world saw on television when Baltimore exploded. The sharp reduction in violent crime is offset by the tension with police that was exposed by last month’s looting. Given his desire to run as an urban champion, it’s no wonder that O’Malley is quick to object when anyone criticizes Baltimore. At a public meeting in December, a month before his last day as Maryland’s governor, O’Malley interrupted a fellow Democrat who faulted the city for the thousands of vacant, abandoned buildings that fill its poorest neighborhoods. “You drive up the streets of Baltimore City, as I do often, and it is just indescribable what we, I guess collectively, have allowed that to become,” Comptroller Peter Franchot said at a Board of Public Works session in Annapolis. Before Franchot could continue, O’Malley jumped in: “And yet so much better than it was 15 years ago. . . . A lot of people gave their lives [at work] to make it better.” He said Franchot was “30 years late” in sounding an alarm over urban blight. The mixed results of O’Malley’s tenure can be seen in the frustration he experienced in trying to reclaim the city’s uninhabitable buildings. The city drew applause for acquiring thousands of lots in the hope of promoting their redevelopment. But the number of vacant and abandoned residential properties increased by 2,570, to more than 15,700, between 2002, when O’Malley’s program began, and 2007, the year he stepped down as mayor to become governor, according to statistics from the Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance. The alliance said the gain was partly attributable to the city’s success in identifying vacant buildings that it hadn’t known about before. But housing specialists said legal complexities and high costs also stymied efforts by O’Malley and his two successors to fix the problem. On the plus side, O’Malley won national plaudits for innovative leadership as both mayor and governor, such as for his early adoption of data-driven management. He points to accomplishments such as slashing violent crime, reducing children’s exposure to lead paint, increasing spending on drug treatment and drawing young people back to redeveloped neighborhoods downtown. But the renaissance of prosperity in some Baltimore communities, principally around the harbor, has not spread to many of the city’s poorer sections. The city’s overall poverty and unemployment rates have remained high — not nearly as bad as in Detroit, but worse than in the District, Pittsburgh, Boston and New York. A survey released this month by two Harvard economists found that among the nation’s 100 largest cities and counties, Baltimore ranked at the bottom as the jurisdiction where children face the worst odds of escaping poverty. “Any city has pockets of poverty; it’s really a matter of the depth and scale,” said Jennifer S. Vey, a fellow at the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. “The lows are low in Baltimore. . . . You have deep distress in certain pockets.” O’Malley contends that Baltimore was making better progress than most comparable cities until the 2008 recession. But his defense of his urban record also poses some political risks. He says the shortcomings arise not from his programs but from national economic policies that foster inequality and from a lack of support from the federal government. “We haven’t had an agenda for America’s cities for at least two decades . . . probably since Jimmy Carter,” O’Malley said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 3. Taking a robust liberal position, O’Malley has urged increased spending on cities. He wants to raise the minimum wage, as Maryland did with his encouragement as governor. “We need big investments in affordable housing,” O’Malley said at a forum May 5 in Redlands, Calif. “We need investments in infrastructure, especially mass transit. We also need to target job training.” That approach could help O’Malley in the Democratic primaries, where he has positioned himself to the left of front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. O’Malley is competing with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a socialist, for support from liberal activists who see Clinton as too moderate. But it would face a more skeptical audience in the general election. “The problem is that it is politically unsalable,” said Donald F. Norris, director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. “We are a nation of suburbs, and suburban residents and elected officials do not care a whit about declining central cities.” O’Malley hasn’t said how much he thinks his proposed investments would cost or where he would find the money. Haley Morris, an O’Malley spokeswoman, said this week that such questions are premature because O’Malley won’t unveil a comprehensive agenda for cities until several weeks from now. Since the riots, O’Malley’s record has drawn attention mainly for the aggressive police policies he implemented as mayor. They led to a substantial decline in homicides and other violent crime, but also resulted in a sharp increase in arrests for minor offenses, which alienated poor communities. O’Malley’s successor as mayor, Sheila Dixon (D), abandoned the “zero tolerance” arrests, and critics noted that homicides continued to decline. Still, O’Malley’s defenders credit him with helping to start the trend, especially by shutting down many of the city’s open-air drug markets“ On one hand, more people got arrest records; on the other hand, murders went down,” said Robert C. Embry, president of the Abell Foundation, which works to reduce Baltimore poverty. O’Malley also drew mixed reviews for his economic development strategy. As mayor, he directed money and government support toward middle-tier neighborhoods, which he thought offered the best chance of recovery, or toward ones that had access to job centers. Many urban experts praised the approach as a smart use of scarce resources. But critics said it diverted aid from communities most in need of help. O’Malley played a key role in pushing forward the redevelopment of a poor neighborhood near the Johns Hopkins medical complex in East Baltimore. He did so partly to keep Hopkins, the city’s largest private employer, from taking its expansion plans outside the city. He also targeted that community because it had a relatively good chance to prosper, owing to its proximity to hospital jobs. O’Malley also supported Healthy Neighborhoods, a community development effort sponsored by financial and philanthropic organizations that has been credited with helping to stabilize middle- and working-class neighborhoods that were at risk of declining. “O’Malley recognized that improving neighborhoods is about finding their assets,” said Mark Sissman, president of Healthy Neighborhoods Inc. “He and others at the same time said, ‘Let’s figure out what works and build from those strengths.’ . . . Is there a college that’s important? Is there good public transportation? Are there historic buildings?” But that progress came with a cost, according to some community activists and business people in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. “O’Malley did well by the harbor, but my community didn’t benefit,” said Doni Glover, a community activist and journalist who lives in Sandtown-Winchester. “My understanding is that for poor, inner-city black neighborhoods in West Baltimore and East Baltimore, his method, his strategy, was just let them rot.” Sandtown-Winchester was the center of the April protests in Baltimore, which were triggered by the death of Sandtown resident Freddie Gray a week after he suffered a severe spinal injury in police custody. Perhaps the biggest problem for poor neighborhoods in Baltimore and comparable cities is the shortage of jobs for low-skill workers. Here, O’Malley drew praise for good management of federal job programs and for protecting funding for public schools. But Baltimore schools remain the worst in the state, by most measures, and it’s still a challenge for job-seekers without automobiles to get to jobs in upscale parts of the city or the suburbs. “He did a good job of managing the agencies,” said Peter Beilenson, chief executive of the Evergreen Health Cooperative, who served as O’Malley’s city health commissioner. “I don’t think a huge amount was done to make jobs accessible in the neighborhoods, which is truly essential if you’re going to deal with the Sandtown-Winchesters of the world.” O’Malley strongly backed building the light-rail Red Line, which would improve transit for residents of poor neighborhoods in West Baltimore. But Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who succeeded O’Malley in Annapolis, is considering killing the Red Line on grounds that its price tag of at least $2.6 billion is too high. In his Project 5000 effort to reduce urban blight as mayor, O’Malley sought for the city to take over 5,000 abandoned properties and prepare to donate or sell them so they could be redeveloped. The city exceeded the target in gaining control of buildings but then had difficulties disposing of them. Dixon proposed instead to create a quasi-governmental “land bank” to deal with the issue, but it never got off the ground. The current mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D), has embraced a third approach, called “Vacants to Value.” It uses a broad array of methods, including increased demolition funding, infrastructure repairs and housing reinvestment. None of the efforts have reduced the backlog. The reported total of vacant and abandoned residential properties has continued to creep up and was above 16,100 in 2013. At the December hearing, Franchot said it was “utterly, totally unacceptable” for Baltimore to have “block after block after block” of homes shuttered with boards or cinder blocks. O’Malley instead stressed the “great opportunities . . . to repopulate the City of Baltimore.” He added: “It could happen even more quickly with some more capital dollars.” O’Malley looks for his opening <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243405-omalley-looks-for-his-opening> // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – May 29, 2015 Martin O’Malley is just looking for a little room to breathe. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is far and away the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) has taken the edge as the liberal insurgent. O’Malley, days before the Saturday launch of his White House bid at a park overlooking Baltimore’s harbor, is performing dismally in polls despite months of travel to Iowa and New Hampshire. He regularly pulls just 1 percent nationally, and only does slightly better in the first-in-the-nation caucus and primary states. O’Malley isn’t well-known nationally, and could soon be competing for money, media and support with a handful of other candidates, including former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Sen. Jim Webb (Va.). Yet Democrats interviewed by The Hill insist O’Malley has a chance. They say there’s still an opening for him to become the alternative to Clinton given his liberal voting record, his youthful good looks — which have helped him win attention from the conservative Drudge Report — and his standing as a Washington outsider. “There’s a lot of hostility out there towards Washington right now,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist. “He could run as the anti-Washington candidate, as someone who hasn’t been tainted by Washington politics, while framing Hillary and Bernie as products of D.C. culture.” If the front-runner implodes, some supporters say he might be best-positioned to step in. “He’s a legitimate national candidate,” said Democratic strategist Scott Ferson. “If Hillary for some reason doesn’t become inevitable, some candidate will have a shot to step in, and he could be that person.” But Ferson then acknowledges: “He’s not that person now.” To get there, outsiders say O’Malley will have to distinguish himself from Clinton and Sanders. O’Malley is already signaling he intends to play up the generational divide in the primaries. At 52, he’s 15 years younger than Clinton and 21 years younger than Sanders. He has previously taken swipes at the dynastic elements of Clinton’s candidacy, saying the presidency is not a “crown” to be passed between two families. This week, O’Malley allies launched a super-PAC called Generation Forward, a not-so-subtle dig that suggests Clinton is the candidate from the past. The super-PAC will focus on younger voters. Spokesman Ron Boehmer told The Hill that O’Malley is a natural fit for the constituency. “We believe the country is looking for new leadership and new ideas, and we’re supporting him because he best speaks to the ideas and issues that millennials care about,” he said. Supporters say O’Malley has quietly built a strong liberal record as governor of Maryland that should allow him to contrast himself with Clinton and compete with Sanders. He opposed the war in Iraq, sponsored the same-sex marriage bill that was passed into law in Maryland, oversaw the implementation of the DREAM Act in the state, and has advocated for a higher minimum wage and lower college tuition costs. He toured Baltimore during the unrest that broke out earlier this year, meeting with political and religious leaders to discuss economic disparity in the community, reiterated his opposition to the death penalty on the day Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced and emerged as a vocal critic of President Obama’s trade agenda. “You go down the list, he’s been a progressive’s progressive,” said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. O’Malley’s immediate challenge is preventing Sanders from cornering that market. The Vermont independent has been impressive on the campaign trail so far, and is winning favorable news coverage. Yet he is still seen as a sideshow by some Democrats, who believe his harsh rhetoric, harsh temperament and outside-the-mainstream positions, would be a disaster in a general election. “He’s a socialist from Vermont and he looks like one,” said Ferson. While some have criticized O’Malley’s generally understated media appearances as a weakness, others argue that it’s helped him fashion a personae as an easy-going everyman. The Drudge Report has repeatedly run pictures of him shirtless on the beach or playing guitar in a sleeveless shirt that show off his biceps. Democrats say it’s something he can build on by being more accessible than the other candidates, potentially setting up a contrast with Clinton, who has been criticized for avoiding the media. “He has an opportunity here to be nimble in a way that Hillary can’t,” said Ferson. Still, Democrats stress that a lot of pieces will need to fall into place for O’Malley. “Hillary is still the overwhelming favorite and almost certain nominee,” said McMahon. “But in a field where she’s getting 52 percent support, that still leaves about 47 percent that someone could theoretically consolidate. The question is whether there’s enough room for someone like O’Malley and whether he can execute.” Bucking Odds, Martin O’Malley Tilts at Hillary Clinton <http://www.wsj.com/articles/bucking-odds-martin-omalley-tilts-at-hillary-clinton-1432922892> // WSJ // Laura Meckler and Scott Calvert – May 29, 2015 BALTIMORE—Settling into a pizza joint last week in Station North, an arts district once dominated by vacant buildings, presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley recalled the skepticism when, as mayor more than a decade ago, he suggested this city try reviving the area. “Many people at the time laughed,” he said, “and all the smart people in Baltimore said, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ” The same might be said for Mr. O’Malley’s underdog run for president, which he launches Saturday. In the Democratic primary, the 52-year-old Mr. O’Malley faces Hillary Clinton, who looms 50 points ahead of him and every other Democrat in polls. In April, President Barack Obama joked that Mr. O’Malley went unrecognized at his own campaign event. Mr. O’Malley, who completed two terms as Maryland governor in January, professes no concern about Mrs. Clinton’s advantages. He often says history is littered with victories that were inevitable until the moment they weren’t. His strategy: Cast himself as a more authentic liberal than Mrs. Clinton. He is one of the few candidates working to channel dissatisfaction from the left with Mrs. Clinton, and one of the only Democrats in a position to capture the nomination if she falls. Mr. O’Malley touts his eight years as governor, when he helped raise the minimum wage, enact strict gun restrictions, eliminate the death penalty and grant in-state tuition to some illegal immigrants. He eventually supported a successful move to legalize same-sex marriage. He backed tax increases and higher fees to continue services during the recession. On the campaign trail, he adopts populist rhetoric, warning that without “sensible rebalancing” of wealth, there will be “pitchforks—lots of them.” Yet he often finds Mrs. Clinton working to occupy the same lane, staking out liberal positions aimed at solidifying support inside the party. She repeatedly says the deck is stacked against the middle class. On immigration, she doesn’t just support President Obama’s controversial executive actions, she wants to expand them. Gay marriage? She’s for it. Universal prekindergarten? She wants it. Minimum wage? She’d raise it. Mr. O’Malley has responded with the mildest criticism and subtle age contrasts: At 67, she is 15 years older. He regularly says America needs “new leadership” and a “new generation.” He still plays in an Irish folk band, and on the campaign trail sometimes picks up a borrowed guitar, as he did in April at an Iowa bar. A Clinton spokeswoman declined to comment on Mr. O’Malley’s campaign. Mr. O’Malley has beat odds before, notably when elected the white mayor of majority-African-American Baltimore. Another example, he said in an interview, is the revitalization of Baltimore’s first designated arts district. His fortunes probably depend on controversy tripping Mrs. Clinton. In the interview, as on the campaign trail, he passed up chances to opine on two controversies: foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation and her use of private email as secretary of state. On policy, he has taken several positions to Mrs. Clinton’s left and is hoping to convince voters she is too centrist for today’s Democratic Party. He favors breaking up big banks, killing a pending Pacific Rim trade deal, expanding Social Security benefits and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. She has sidestepped these issues or remained silent. Even so, he also battles Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent running in the Democratic primary, for the party’s most liberal voters. Mr. Sanders trails Mrs. Clinton but beats Mr. O’Malley in polls. One of six siblings, Mr. O’Malley grew up in the Washington suburbs in an Irish-Catholic family steeped in politics. One grandfather was a Pittsburgh ward boss, the other a party chairman of an Indiana county. His parents met through Democratic politics. At his second birthday party, the cake’s icing read: “Martin for President 2004.” In the 1984 presidential contest, he worked for Sen. Gary Hart, who challenged front-runner Walter Mondale for the Democratic nomination. After law school, he settled in Baltimore with his wife, and they had four children. He was elected to the city council at 28. With drug-related crime ravaging Baltimore, Mr. O’Malley embraced the “zero-tolerance” police strategy Mayor Rudolph Giuliani brought to New York City, which reasoned: Crack down on minor offenses and serious crimes will drop. That was the core of his mayoral campaign against better-known opponents. He won the Democratic primary with 53% of the vote, then won the mayorship. Under Mr. O’Malley, arrests rose and crime fell. Between 2000 and 2006, his last full year in office, Baltimore’s violent-crime rate dropped 31%, Federal Bureau of Investigation data show. This record has been vital to the story he tells of himself as a crime fighter who harnessed data to drive policing resources. The image came under scrutiny after last month’s death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray from injuries during Baltimore-police custody. Critics say Mr. O’Malley’s approach created lasting anger toward police. In 2006, plaintiffs including local NAACP branches sued Baltimore, alleging police arrested people without probable cause and claiming about 30% of those arrested in 2005 had charges quickly dropped—after they spent jail time and acquired arrest records that made it hard to find work. In a 2010 settlement, the police department rejected zero-tolerance policing and agreed to retrain officers. The city denied wrongdoing. “The things that we did in policing were necessary to do at that time,” Mr. O’Malley said. “Policing the police” was also a priority, he said, pointing to reductions in police-involved shootings. Now he is taking his record to primary voters, with particular emphasis on Iowa, which he has visited six times since last June. Bill Hyers, his senior strategist, noted that Mrs. Clinton finished third in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. A candidate can win Iowa with hard work and little money, Mr. Hyers said, and being unknown means Mr. O’Malley can shape voter views. “Iowa’s a good state to grind it out in.” He may find an audience. Some Democrats hunger for a primary that is a contest of ideas, not a Clinton coronation, and hope competition will prevent Mrs. Clinton from tacking to the center. Before an April event in Indianola, Iowa, retiree Twila Glenn told Mr. O’Malley she was glad to see him on the national stage. He drew applause when he said America could fund his policies by asking the wealthiest to pay more “instead of offshoring their profits and offshoring their wealth.” Ms. Glenn later said she was impressed but, for next year’s caucuses, had settled on Mrs. Clinton, whom Ms. Glenn favored for her leadership experience and early work on health care. At the pizza place last week, Mr. O’Malley appeared relaxed and upbeat, chatting with a foot perched on the next seat. A well-wisher stopped to say he hoped Mr. O’Malley would run for president. The former mayor smiled warmly. Does that happen often? “Not nearly enough,” Mr. O’Malley replied. O’Malley Hires Former Obama Hispanic Media Director For Senior Campaign Role <http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/omalley-hires-former-obama-hispanic-media-director-for-senio?utm_term=.xd2LbB82Rd#.unQr2QWy5> // Buzzfeed // Adrian Carrasquillo – May 29, 2015 Martin O’Malley is set to announce his campaign Saturday in Baltimore, but he has already made a key hire. Gabriela Domenzain, former director of Hispanic media for Obama when he garnered a record 71% of the Latino vote in 2012, is joining O’Malley’s campaign as the director of public engagement where she will have a hand in communications, policy, and political outreach, a campaign source said. “In Maryland, you speak to Latinos and they call him the most pro-Latino governor of the United States,” Domenzain told BuzzFeed News. “In other states they don’t know him but they should.” O’Malley has talked up his immigration bonafides at events in Iowa and New Hampshire — the campaign notes that it is part of his stump speech — and he doesn’t even use the term immigrants (he uses “new Americans”). Domenzain cited his record of passing the DREAM Act and giving undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses but also says he increased government contract investment to Hispanic-owned small businesses by 133%. Domenzain, was considered for the director of Hispanic media position in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, according to sources with knowledge, and said she believes Americans want new voices on the left, especially voices as progressive as O’Malley. As a longshot candidate, the former Maryland governor will need to make contrasts with Clinton to advance. Although he has a long and liberal record on immigration, Clinton has made immigration a priority in the early weeks of her campaign — outlining specific action she would take as president, and plainly suggesting she would go even further with executive action than President Obama has if Congress does not make changes to U.S. immigration policy. But Luis Miranda, former director of Hispanic media in the Obama administration, also said both campaigns should not mistake immigration policy for being enough on Latino outreach. “Engaging Latino voters takes not insulting them like Republicans do, but also the fact that they are Americans and care about a lot of things, like the economy,” he said. Still, Domenzain who says that she is a single-issue voter when it comes to immigration, says she came to understand its importance in 1999 in North Carolina at the first statewide conference of Latinos when she was staffing the former president of the National Council of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre. A farmworker walked up to her, shook her hand, and asked, “Why do you care about me?” On her flight home she realized only her and Yzaguirre were on the way back from that event to Washington — and she realized they were the only people who might advocate for the farm worker. Domenzain ties her passion on immigration to O’Malley’s response to the surge of Central American undocumented minors across the border last summer, where she says national leaders like Clinton and Obama said the children should be sent back. She was heartened however when O’Malley, speaking at a Democratic Governors Association press conference last summer, said the country should act like Americans and give children “fleeing death” refuge. “That brought the possibility of dignity back to the conversation and turned my head,” she said. Domenzain also pointed to the recent Clinton hire of an immigration activist who was undocumented and has a mixed status family as a key moment in the run-up to the Democratic nomination. “Hillary Clinton’s campaign has hired Lorella Praeli, an incredible advocate who’s lived the broken system,” she said. “I’m very excited that the immigration debate will be elevated because we have people like Gov. O’Malley and his whole record has been speaking about this.” Miranda made a similar point. “Hispanics should be involved in campaign positions across the board, it’s similar to how Clinton has a political director in Amanda Renteria, it’s important to have diversity throughout the campaign,” he said. O’Malley will begin outreach to Latino organizations on Wednesday in his first event after his presidential announcement at a question and answer session with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce president Javier Palomarez in Washington. Jose Parra, a seasoned strategist and former senior advisor to Harry Reid noted that Domenzain is one of a handful of top Latino Democratic operatives and said he respects the fact that O’Malley is putting a Hispanic in a position where they can guide the conversation around the campaign as a whole and not just “implement” Latino strategy. And while O’Malley starts off at a major disadvantage against the frontrunner Clinton, Parra said his presence in the race will help shape the debate around issues that matter to progressives and will ensure Clinton stays the course on those messages and policy positions. “It makes sure these ideas are defined and battle-tested,” he said. “It winds up strengthening the party in the long run.” 9 things to know about Martin O'Malley <http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/05/29/17303/9-things-know-about-martin-omalley> // The Center for Public Integrity // Rachel Baye – May 29, 2015 Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is set to announce his bid for the presidency on Saturday. The announcement will make O’Malley the second official challenger facing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the battle for the party’s presidential nomination. While in the governor’s mansion from 2007 to 2015, O’Malley also did a two-year stint as chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, a political committee dedicated to electing Democratic chief executives. O’Malley’s presidential aspirations have been Maryland’s worst-kept secret for several years. He has been an active presence in the national political arena since his election as Baltimore’s mayor in 1999. In 2007, the then-new governor even stood in for Clinton at a rally promoting her first presidential run. Here are nine things to know about O’Malley’s political and financial history: Martin O’Malley’s entrée into politics came as a field director on the first U.S. Senate campaign of Sen. Barbara Mikulski, who was then a member of the U.S. House. Martin O’Malley lost his first attempt at public office — a 1990 Democratic primary election for a seat in the state Senate — by just 43 votes. Martin O’Malley’s first campaign for governor, in 2006, raised $11.9 million. In 2010, he raised about $11 million for his re-election effort. During Martin O’Malley’s campaigns for governor, more than 60 percent of the cash he raised came from outside of Maryland. The largest contributor to Martin O’Malley’s 2006 campaign for governor was developer David S. Brown Enterprises, which gave $25,500. Edward St. John was fined in 2008 for giving more than the legal limit to O’Malley’s campaign. The fine was levied around the same time that O’Malley announced a highway project serving one of St. John’s properties. While Martin O’Malley was at its helm, the Democratic Governors Association raised $50 million, tax records show. Labor unions contributed at least $7.5 million during that period. During his tenure as chairman, the DGA credited Martin O’Malley with raising then-record sums for the group. As DGA chairman, Martin O’Malley received widespread criticism when the group accepted large amounts of money from companies with business before Maryland lawmakers. Immigration As 2016 Issue Upped With Martin O'Malley's Candidacy <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/immigration-2016-issue-upped-martin-omalleys-candidacy-n366666> // NBC News //Suzanne Gamboa – May 29, 2015 The heat that immigration has brought to the 2016 presidential campaigns could intensify Saturday with the addition of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley to the Democratic field. All expectations are that on Saturday in Baltimore, O'Malley will announce his bid to be the Democrats' 2016 presidential nominee. When he does, supporters say he'll bring with him a record of work on issues of concern to Latinos and immigrants that rivals that of his fiercest Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. Though he's considered an underdog with a big gap to overcome to win the Democratic primary, several Latino leaders consider him a stronger ally on immigration and support of the Latino community. "Martin O'Malley, in his history as governor of Maryland, has been a real hero for the immigrant community. He not only supported many groundbreaking reforms in the state, he also became a national spokesperson for immigrant families and their human rights, especially the unaccompanied minors who arrived in droves on the border last year," said Kim Propeack, chief of political communication for CASA de Maryland - Maryland's largest immigrants services and rights organization - and director of its political arm. That alone won't be enough to propel him to frontrunner, but it does serve to add even more attention to the place immigration is taking in the 2016 race, which can also set a tone for races down ballot. "What this does is give our community a real choice," said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota. "It will help sharpen (Hillary's) position and distinguish it from the Republican Party," said Stella Rouse, an associate professor in government and politics at the University of Maryland. Maryland's Latino population has been booming in recent decades and now is about 9 percent of the state's population. About 80 percent of the Latino population is non-Mexican, according to Pew Research Center. As governor, O'Malley signed a bill allowing young immigrants illegally in the U.S. to pay in-state college tuition and to a bill to get driver's licenses. He was the first governor to meet with Latino leaders last year and sign up to push House Republicans to bring immigration reform legislation to a vote, which they never did He has shown respect that many in the immigrant community say is lacking in debates on immigration by using the term new Americans to refer to immigrants, whether here legally or not. He also established a state council to focus on integrating immigrants. He opposed White House proposals to return young Central American children and families who crossed the U.S-Mexico border last summer, saying they would face "certain death." On deportations - an issue that still vexes the current administration - O'Malley stopped Baltimore's City Detention Center from holding immigrants without criminal records for deportation by the federal government. Malley's office also has hired former lobbyist and former Obama Hispanic media director of political engagement, Gabriela Domenzain, according to Buzzfeed. "He was very helpful on the immigration question in Maryland and certainly is someone we think of as a friend and more progressive on immigration matters," said Brent Wilkes, executive director of League of United Latin American Citizens. But Wilkes added that he didn't think his entrance and record would hurt Clinton "because of the aggressive effort" she's made on immigration in her campaign. In response to questions from immigration activists on unaccompanied children who arrived at the U.S. border last year, Clinton said the children should be sent back, essentially supporting the Obama administration's stand on the influx. But she has since said mothers and children should not be held in immigration detention. She has hired an immigrant who lived in the U.S. illegally and became active on immigration reform politics, Lorella Praeli, as part of her campaign staff. Praeli is now a legal resident. She has said she would expand on Obama's immigration executive action programs to shield the parents of young immigrants illegally in the country from deportation as well. "I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put Dreamers . . . at risk of deportation," she said at a roundtable in Nevada, according to The Associated Press. "If Congress refuses to act, as president I will do everything possible under the law to go even further." The high profile and details their campaigns are giving - and will give - to the immigration issue hasn't always been the case in presidential campaigns. But the topic has moved more and more to center stage with the help of young immigrants who call themselves Dreamers. They have regularly pressed politicians and the sitting administration to address the effect of U.S. immigration policies on their lives and their families' lives. Although there are certainly other issues of interest to Latino voters, immigration has been something of a mobilizer. In 2012, 54 percent of Latino voters were naturalized or had at least one immigrant parent. Also in the Democratic field, Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, has backed immigration reform. But he withheld support for last year's sweeping Senate immigration bill until fixes were made to a guest worker provision that he thought would allow for the hiring of cheap labor in place of U.S. workers. He has supported Obama's executive action programs. Republican candidates have worked to engage the Latino community, with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, doing a National Press Club interview with Javier Palomarez, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce president last month and expected candidate Jeb Bush making appearances in Puerto Rico and before the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference's convention in Houston. O'Malley is scheduled for an appearance with Palomarez on Wednesday. While GOP presidential hopefuls are largely opposed to Obama's executive action, regarding it as overreach, they too have been discussing immigration on the trail. Latinos were about 10 percent of the electorate in 2012. According to Pew Research Center, Obama received 71 percent of Hispanic votes, the highest of any president since former President Bill Clinton won 72 percent of the Latino vote in 1996. Martin O'Malley Kicks Off Presidential Campaign By Playing "Hail To The Chief" On An Acoustic Guitar <http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/guitar-force-one#.foxaWa0q2> // Buzzfeed // Evan McMorris-Santoro – May 29, 2015 WASHINGTON — Martin O’Malley will enter the Democratic presidential race Friday not with a bang, nor a whimper, but with a guitar lick. O’Malley’s campaign will heavily promote a 23-second video of the former Maryland governor strumming “Hail To The Chief” on a guitar ahead of his formal campaign kick off event in Baltimore, according to details of the plan obtained by BuzzFeed News. O’Malley supporters emphasize the lack of production in the 23-second clip — the guitar isn’t even O’Malley’s, they say, but was borrowed from a supporter — which they suggest contrasts with the slick, highly-produced rollout video by the Democratic presidential frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Malley can be heard humming as he tunes up the guitar in the video. At the end of the short lick, the camera pans up to find him nodding approvingly at the song used go play presidents on and off stage. The screen fades to black before the words “Stay tuned” appear. The guitar and O’Malley’s willingness to play it at the drop of a hat have been a central part of the exploratory phase of O’Malley’s presidential effort. As that phase comes to an end with an expected announcement that he’s formally running for the White House, the guitar looks like its staying as a central part of O’Malley’s image. The former Maryland governor’s rollout will have its share of production values as well. A local blues band that once opened for O’Malley’s own Irish rock band is scheduled to play the Baltimore event on Saturday. O’Malley will speak atop Federal Hill overlooking the city he led as mayor before going on to become Maryland governor. Following the announcement, O’Malley will set off for a string of retail politics events in Iowa and New Hampshire. No word from the campaign on whether the guitar will go with him. Chafee to announce he is running for president <http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/lincoln-chafee-running-for-president/index.html> // CNN // Dan Merica – May 29, 2015 Washington (CNN)Lincoln Chafee will announce he is running for president next month, according to his spokeswoman Debbie Rich. The former Rhode Island governor and senator, who became a Democrat in 2013, will make the announcement during a previously scheduled speech at George Mason Center for Politics & Foreign Relations in Arlington, Virginia on June 3. Chafee's announcement was first reported by Politico. Chafee has spent most of his life as a Republican. He was nominated to his late father's Senate seat in 1999 and then was elected as a Republican in 2000. He served only one term, losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2006, but then successfully ran for governor of Rhode Island as an independent. Facing long odds and slumping in the polls, Chafee decided not to run for reelection in 2014. He told CNN last month that he made that decision because he wanted to run for president. Chafee announced he was looking into a presidential run in April. In an interview with CNN at the time, the former governor took on Hillary Clinton, the race's frontrunner. "Considering the premise for invading Iraq was based on falsehoods and considering the ramifications we live with now from that mistake, I would argue that anybody who voted for the Iraq War should not be president and certainly should not be leading the Democratic Party," he said. Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, and Chafee has repeatedly said he will make that decision a focal point of his campaign. Chafee, though, is aware of his long odds. He has registered in only a handful of polls and is looking up at not only Clinton, but also Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who will announce his candidacy on Saturday. When asked in April if he would bet on himself winning the race, he demurred. "I can't," Chafee said before catching himself. "I am in it to win. I mean, I care about these issues and I think they should be discussed within the Democratic Party. That is the first goal." In the same interview, he said that if he decides to get into the race, it will be because he has "the organization in place to continue this into that long road ahead ... and I plan not to spend a lot of money, but nonetheless, there has to be some fundraising." GOP The Iowa straw poll, once a kingmaker, fades into irrelevance for 2016 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-iowa-straw-poll-once-a-kingmaker-fades-into-irrelevance-for-2016/2015/05/28/ca09c87c-0550-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html> // WaPo // Robert Costa – May 28, 2015 When Republican officials in Iowa convened a planning session Thursday for their quadrennial presidential straw poll, only a handful of advisers to GOP contenders bothered to show up. The sparse attendance and lack of enthusiasm, even from those who came, was worrying to state party brass: The straw poll — a carnival-like organizing ritual that has in past years winnowed the candidate field and marked the start of caucus season — has faded into irrelevance. This August’s straw poll in Boone, in fact, may be the least consequential in decades. Some Republican hopefuls expect to participate only halfheartedly, while others — including former governors Jeb Bush (Fla.) and Mike Huckabee (Ark.) — are opting out altogether. And almost no one outside the fringes of the race believes a summertime victory would provide a meaningful jolt. Thursday’s information-only meeting in Des Moines at state GOP headquarters illustrated the event’s descent. Representatives from seven official or soon-to-be-declared candidates dropped by, but none from the top tier. Most telling was the absence of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s operation. Walker, who spent part of his childhood in Iowa and has built a fervent following of Christian activists and tea party conservatives, seems poised to bypass the straw poll and focus on next year’s caucuses. The lack of interest from Huckabee and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum — the winners of Iowa’s past two Republican caucuses — has a similar debilitating effect. Walker’s aversion is notable because his candidacy is one that could reap benefits from straw-poll success, elevating him as a donor-class darling who is also a favorite of the grass roots and sucking up the political oxygen from his underfunded rivals on the right. But the risks for Walker and the rest are evident: Win, and you gain little other than momentum; underperform, and your campaign could be tagged as flat and inspiring. When former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty competed hard in the 2011 straw poll only to lose, he ended his campaign the next day. “We haven’t made any commitments for anything that requires a candidate to officially declare,” Walker said this week on Laura Ingraham’s radio program, reflecting his wariness of angering Iowans but reluctance to bring a volunteer army to the Central Iowa Expo on Aug. 8 that would surely raise expectations. Strategists for Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who has surged to the fore of the 2016 pack, also did not appear Thursday. “We’re running a lean operation, so we’re only spending money to compete in contests where delegates are at stake,” said Alex Conant, Rubio’s spokesman. Those who attended Thursday’s meeting were allies of Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), businessman Donald Trump, former surgeon Ben Carson, former Texas governor Rick Perry, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), former Silicon Valley executive Carly Fiorina and Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.). All have blocs of support but sit near the middle or bottom of national polls. Intriguing was the presence of Christie’s adviser, Phil Valenziano. Hobbled by aides’ involvement in a bridge-closing scandal, Christie has been lagging behind for months and eyeing New Hampshire as the setting for a possible comeback. But if other center-right Republicans neglect the straw poll, his friends say, Christie could try to impress there and earn a boost. At a book signing in Davenport, Iowa, on Thursday afternoon, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) said that “we ­haven’t decided” on whether to participate. The straw poll’s unraveling can be traced to those late summer days of 2011. After tea party star Michele Bachmann, then a Republican congresswoman, topped Pawlenty and a parade of others, her campaign crashed. GOP leaders in Washington and some powerful Iowa Republicans, fed up with the spectacle and the way the event has damaged the state’s influence on presidential races, have worked to cripple it or at least tone it down. The straw poll, with its new home in the town of Boone, will be more controlled and low key. In its previous location at Iowa State University in Ames, it had the feeling of a tailgate party, with lines of cars and tents where tickets were handed out and paper plates were piled with barbecue pork. Worried that the state’s caucuses will be diminished if the straw poll becomes overly associated with Iowa’s role in presidential politics, Gov. Terry Branstad (R) has been at the center of the effort to lessen the straw poll’s significance. Bush, speaking earlier this month in Iowa City, agreed. “All of the resources ought to go to the thing that matters, which is the Iowa caucuses on February 1,” he said. For now, organizers of the straw poll remain confident that it will go on. “We never expected 100 percent participation,” Iowa GOP adviser Charlie Szold said Thursday. “In a field this large, we understand how it’s not strategic for everyone to do it. We still expect ten to twenty thousand Iowans to be part of a beloved tradition.” Bill to allow presidential primary resurrected, sent to Assembly floor <http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada-legislature/bill-allow-presidential-primary-resurrected-sent-assembly-floor> // Review Journal // Sean Whaley – May 28, 2015 CARSON CITY — A Republican-backed bill that would allow political parties to scrap Nevada’s presidential caucus system in favor of a secret-ballot primary was resurrected Thursday and passed out by an Assembly committee. Senate Bill 421 was defeated in a vote in the Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on Wednesday, but was brought back and approved on a 6-4 vote with Democrats opposed. It now goes to the full Assembly. The bill would give political parties the option to hold a presidential preference primary election on the last Tuesday in February, while leaving the primary for state and local political contests in June. A party could chose to opt out and use the caucus system instead. Republican supporters argue that changing how Nevada voters choose their favorite presidential contender would protect the Silver State’s early influence in the presidential selection process and encourage more voter participation. It would also dilute the influence of grass-roots party activists who are more motivated to turn out for precinct caucuses and in recent years have taken control of the state Republican Party, much to the chagrin of more moderate Republicans such as Gov. Brian Sandoval. The bill as amended would have the state pay the cost of a primary, with costs estimated about $500,000 statewide for a single party primary. There would be no early voting or sample ballots. Polls would be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Absentee and overseas voting would be allowed. Insiders: Rand Paul's foreign policy views are a serious liability <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rand-paul-2016-foreign-policy-liability-118400.html> // Politico // Katie Glueck – May 29, 2015 A majority of early-state insiders believe it’s helpful for Rand Paul to differentiate himself from the Republican field through his views on foreign policy and national security. But over the course of the campaign, many say, those same positions will prove to be a serious liability. This week’s survey of the POLITICO Caucus — a bipartisan group of the most influential operatives and activists in Iowa and New Hampshire — found that 61 percent of those polled overall said that the Kentucky senator’s anti-interventionist and libertarian-oriented positions are helping to distinguish him in a pack of nearly 20 candidates. Yet that number dropped to 48 percent among just Republican respondents. In a reflection of the ideological distinctions between the Republican parties in New Hampshire and Iowa, New Hampshire Republicans were more inclined to look favorably on Paul’s “odd-man-out” status than Iowa Republicans: Sixty percent of Granite Staters who responded said it’s helpful to break with the party; while only 37 percent of Hawkeye State Republicans said the same. In both states, many insiders said Paul’s stances likely preclude him from being the GOP nominee. “It helps him stand out, but it also puts a low ceiling on his support. Not enough to win the nomination,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who like all members of the POLITICO Caucus was granted anonymity in order to speak freely. An Iowa Republican was even more blunt: “Helps him with his base of liberty followers. But God help us if someone like him was ever to be President. His foreign policy and national security views are more frightening than any prominent Democrat, save Sen. Sanders.” Those comments follow a contentious week for Paul, who is already in the cross hairs of his more hawkish GOP competitors. On Wednesday, Paul appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he blamed Republican hawks for the rise of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). The comments sparked sharp criticism from several other Republican candidates and some POLITICO insiders, and earned him a caustic headline on The Wall Street Journal editorial page that read, “Rand Paul created ISIS.” “Rand was trying not to be his father [former Rep. Ron Paul], he had taken the most serious approach to date in reaching out beyond the confines of our primary base, to build upon his father’s base,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “But his ISIS comments were way over the line, almost Obama-like in blaming the [medieval] Christian crusades as the cause of ISIS. This will sink his chances to break out from Ron Paul 2012.” Going a step further, an Iowa Republican added, “It solidifies his ceiling at under 10 percent. Every day that passes it appears that Rand Paul should be Hillary Clinton’s [Democratic] primary opponent.” Many Republicans who said his views were helpful in separating him from the pack said they shored up his libertarian base, provided a boost to his poll numbers and energized his natural constituency at a time when competitors are struggling to get noticed as they compete for the same blocs of voters. “Like it or not, Paul’s message separating himself from other candidates helps him stand out among a large field,” said an Iowa Republican. “It helps him early when you can be a star with 20 percent, but as the field narrows, the early advantage he had is eroded because it isolates him from where the party really is and from where our nominees usually come,” a New Hampshire Republican said. Paul’s filibuster-like speech last week in the Senate, designed to derail reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, did not generate such strong feelings among GOP insiders. A third of Iowa Republicans said it hurt him, but 44 percent said it had no impact, while 67 percent of more libertarian-minded New Hampshire Republicans said it helped him. “Paul’s filibuster helped to bring home a lot of wandering supporters of his father who weren’t sold on Rand,” a New Hampshire Republican said. “By using the issue to clarify himself from Cruz, it sent a clear signal to libertarians as to who their candidate was.” In Iowa, Rand Paul sticks with death penalty skepticism <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/28/in-iowa-rand-paul-sticks-with-death-penalty-skepticism/> // WaPo // James Hohmann – May 28, 2015 DAVENPORT, Iowa—Rand Paul expressed deep skepticism of the death penalty Thursday as he repeated his position that states should be able to decide whether to keep it. The Kentucky senator, appearing at an afternoon book signing here, responded to a question about the neighboring state of Nebraska’s ban on capital punishment this week. “My first thoughts aren’t that forgiving for someone who would hurt a member of my family, but I also understand there have been times when we haven’t gotten the right person,” he told reporters. “And somebody who is distrustful of big government, like I am, is also distrustful of so much power being given to government to kill somebody, when there might be a mistake. A lot of eyewitness testimony has been shown over time not to be very good.” Paul complained that many witnesses in murder trials are not credible. “We also have the problem of when you’ve got three thugs and they’re all testifying against each other, and two of them say, ‘Let’s say he did it,’ and the other two say, ‘Let’s say he did it,’” he said. “So your testimony is coming from people who are not necessarily the best witnesses, as far as veracity.” The Nebraska legislature voted Wednesday to override the governor’s veto of their death penalty ban, making them the first red state to do so in decades but the seventh state since 2007. Paul, who has said in the past that death penalty is a state issue, used his ideological support for federalism to avoid staking out a firm position. “It’s a tough issue,” he said. “Most crimes are adjudicated at the state level and should be, so there really are almost no crimes at the federal level really under the Constitution that would require the death penalty – I think treason being one. It isn’t a big issue, I think as far as a change in federal policy, and I would leave it for the most part to the states.” Paul did not take follow-up questions. The issue has been in the news recently in the wake of the Boston Marathon bomber being sentenced – under federal statutes, by federal prosecutors – to death. Paul did not mention the recent episodes of botched executions, another of the main reasons cited by death penalty critics. Paul has made criminal justice reform, including the repeal of mandatory minimums, central to his presidential campaign. He spoke to a crowd of 80 here about an Iowa woman who was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison over her use of methamphetamine. The senator’s stump speech mainly focused on his fight to let the Patriot Act sunset on Sunday at midnight. Speaking at a minor league baseball stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River, Paul told the crowd that his voice is still raspy from speaking for nearly 11 hours on the Senate floor last week about his opposition to the law. He noted that his opposition has forced the Senate to cut short its Memorial Day recess, reconvening Sunday evening in an 11th hour effort to prevent parts of the program from expiring. “I’m expecting a very cool reception from the other senators, but these are important debates,” he said, adding: “I don’t know if I can win or not.” Paul also argued that he’s the most electable candidate. He said polls have shown he could beat Hillary Clinton in Colorado, Iowa, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. “Quinnipiac did a national poll this week…and only two Republicans, and I was one of them, beat Hillary Clinton in a nationwide poll,” he said. “So people need to ask themselves, and Republicans need to ask themselves, who can win in the fall?” In fact, the Quinnipiac University poll he referred to showed Clinton leading Paul by 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent, in a hypothetical matchup. Rand Paul's money problem <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rand-pauls-money-problem-118397.html?ml=po> // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – May 29, 2015 In a presidential campaign defined by billionaire sugar daddy donors, Rand Paul has a problem: He doesn’t seem to have one. While his rivals cultivate wealthy backers who will pump millions of dollars into their candidacies, Paul has struggled to find a similar lifeline. It’s led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his father’s insurgent White House bids. It hasn’t been for lack of trying. In recent months, Paul has sought to woo a string of powerful Republican megadonors — from Silicon Valley executives to a Kentucky coal mogul to the billionaire Koch brothers — who, it was believed, would be philosophically aligned with his free-market views. In each case, he met disappointment. At the top of the list was Peter Thiel, the eccentric Northern California venture capitalist who funneled $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. But Thiel is being far less generous this time around, leaving Paul’s crestfallen advisers with the distinct impression that he won’t give them a dime. They’ve been left guessing as to why. One speculated that Thiel, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was unhappy with the rollout of Paul’s policy platform. Another surmised he was skeptical of Paul’s 2016 prospects or that he’d become tired of political giving and would sit out 2016 entirely. There was Sean Parker, the flashy Napster co-founder who was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in the hit 2010 movie “The Social Network.” But Parker, who has known Paul for several years and has met with him to discuss 2016, isn’t expected to endorse Paul — or any Republican candidate, for that matter. Those familiar with Parker’s thinking say he’s most likely to provide financial support to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. There was Larry Ellison, the former Oracle CEO known for his penchant for megayachts. In October, Ellison hosted a Silicon Valley fundraiser for Senate Republicans that Paul attended — an event that led to speculation that Ellison, whose net worth is said to hover around $54 billion, would get behind the Kentucky Republican. But he’s instead thrown his support to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and will host a fundraiser for him on June 9. “It was love at first sight,” one person close to Ellison said of his feelings toward Rubio. Not even two months into his presidential campaign, Paul is scrambling to compete with opponents who have established fundraising vehicles underwritten by well-heeled contributors. Jeb Bush has tapped his family’s formidable network of donors, a wide-ranging list of names that includes real estate developer Mel Sembler and Anheuser-Busch distributor John Nau, to fund a super PAC that’s expected to raise an historic $100 million by the end of this month. Rubio has won the backing of Norman Braman, a Miami auto dealer who’s expected to pour anywhere from $10 million to $25 million into his bid. Ted Cruz is expected to receive around $30 million of support from Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund manager. Even Rick Santorum, who barely registers in polls, is expected to have a deep-pocketed benefactor: Foster Friess, a businessman who helped keep Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid alive, has said he will donate again. Paul is compensating by turning to his grass-roots supporters who fueled his national rise, bombarding them with pleas for cash. In recent days, many have highlighted Paul’s filibuster-style stand against the PATRIOT Act — opposition that has made him a hero to libertarians. “The clock is ticking,” read one appeal sent on Tuesday, a few days after his Senate theatrics. “I need to know you stand with me.” The hope, those close to Paul say, is that his nationwide support from small contributors will make up for his billionaire deficit. Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Paul’s official campaign, declined to comment on his fundraising. Jesse Benton, a spokesman for a super PAC that’s been set up to support Paul’s candidacy, America’s Liberty PAC, wouldn’t discuss the group’s fundraising or donors but said early results had shown promise, particularly in Silicon Valley, to which Paul has traveled several times and where he’s opened an office. “Results to date have been solid and give us lots of room for optimism as we continue,” Benton said. “We also know this is a marathon, not a sprint.” Among those involved the 2016 money sweepstakes, theories of Paul’s struggles abound. Some point to his anti-establishment posture, which has alienated some in the business community — much of whose support has gone for Bush. Others say his more dovish foreign policy stances has turned off Jewish Republicans, many of whom view him as insufficiently pro-Israel. Still others say he’s found competition from Cruz, who like Paul has branded himself as a free-market thinker. Others contend that Paul’s unpolished style might be working against him as he seeks out the support of wealthy Republican benefactors, While attending a California donor conference sponsored by Charles and David Koch, two of the nation’s most powerful Republican donors, Paul was criticized for dressing casually in jeans, slouching in his chair and giving rambling answers to questions. One person briefed on the Kochs’ thinking said Paul’s star has faded in their eyes, and that it’s now hard to see them providing substantial financial support to the Kentucky senator. At times, he’s seemed to be more on defense than offense. Earlier this year, Paul had a private meeting with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who’s given millions of dollars to pro-Israel causes. During the meeting, Adelson provided the Kentucky senator with assurances he wouldn’t spend money explicitly to defeat him. To some, it’s not entirely surprising he’s struggling to win over the party’s donor elite. In 2010, when he upset the political world by defeating Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the Kentucky Senate primary, Paul’s deepest well of support came from his party’s activist set. It’s those conservative activists, many believe, whom Paul must win over in 2016. “The worst thing for a presidential candidate to be is something it’s not,” said Nick Everhart, a former Paul adviser who worked on his 2010 campaign. “If small donors are his place in the field, that’s got to be where he is.” Still, at times the rejection has stung, especially when he’s tried to win over his home state’s moneyed class. A few months ago, Paul invited Joe Craft, a Kentucky coal company executive and his fiancée, Kelly Knight, to have breakfast in the Senate dining room. But the couple, who rank among the most prominent Republican givers in the state, had bad news for Paul: They wouldn’t be getting behind his presidential bid. In a brief interview, though, Knight recalled giving Paul a consolation prize of sorts. The Crafts would, she told him, “strongly support him in his Senate reelection campaign.” Pataki enters White House race with focus on N.H. <https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/28/pataki-enters-white-house-race-with-focus/Qbb5zxWODuaKm9FJqI3NHM/story.html> // Boston Globe // James Pindell – May 28, 2015 EXETER, N.H. — After twice flirting with presidential bids in previous years, former New York governor George Pataki officially entered the White House race Thursday, hoping to differentiate himself as a Northeastern Republican with a more moderate stance on social issues. Pataki announced his campaign for president at the old town hall where Abraham Lincoln once spoke and former US representative Ron Paul of Texas and former governor Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah launched their presidential campaigns four years ago. He has been out of office since 2006, but in an interview, he said he is running this time because he is prepared. “I am ready,” Pataki said. “I just know that my life has prepared me for this moment. I can lead this country and win this election. And the need to change Washington has never been greater.” Pataki is the only Republican among the eight candidates who have declared presidential campaigns to support laws granting same-sex marriage. “I believe in limited government,” Pataki said. “I don’t want politicians telling me how to live my life. I don’t want them to tell me what type of health care I have to have. I don’t want them telling our schools how to educate every single child. I don’t want them in Washington deciding what the rules on marriage should be for every state in America. Leave it to the states. Let the people in those states decide.” To be sure, in Pataki’s announcement speech, he touched on popular GOP themes: cut taxes, project a strong foreign policy, and oppose programs like the Affordable Care Act and the Common Core educational standards. While Pataki has struggled to break from the pack nationally, he has gotten some traction in the Granite State, where he has focused his campaigns. For example, of the 14 Republican state senators, four have endorsed a presidential candidate. Two of those four have endorsed Pataki. Pataki also has one of the largest campaign steering committees in New Hampshire. Many of the participants attended a private reception at the Exeter Inn Wednesday night, when they were served lobster rolls. Notably, some of the state’s well-known libertarian-minded Republicans are listening to Pataki. Among those inside the sweltering town hall event was John Babiarz, a former libertarian candidate for governor. Babiarz backed Ron Paul in the past, and said Pataki is possibly more libertarian than US Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on other issues. He also gives Pataki credit for focusing his campaign on the Granite State. “Pataki is on my list of candidates to watch,” said Babiarz. “He has willing to take questions and lets you know where he stands.” Pataki faces tough odds in Iowa against better-known candidates <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/28/george-pataki-tough-odds-iowa/28120275/> // The Des Moines Register / Branne Pfannenstiel – May 28, 2015 George Pataki will have to answer tough questions on the road through Iowa. Primary among them: Who is George Pataki? The Republican former governor of New York, who announced his candidacy for president Thursday, has been out of the public spotlight for almost a decade after serving three terms. He barely registers on Quinnipiac University's latest poll of Republican voters. "I really think Iowans don't know who he is," said Kedron Bardwell, chairman of the political science department at Simpson College in Indianola. "And I'm not sure he cares who we are." So far, Pataki has played it light in Iowa, spending two days here this year for GOP cattle call events. He has not committed to attending the Iowa Straw Poll. Bardwell questioned whether Iowa will even be part of Pataki's campaign strategy going forward. As a moderate Republican who favors gun control and environmental reforms, Pataki's brand of Republican is unlikely to resonate as strongly with more conservative Iowa caucusgoers, Bardwell said. Pataki also has spent more days in New Hampshire, which is more moderate and holds the nation's first presidential primary. His formal presidential announcement was made in Exeter, N.H. A Pataki super PAC opened an office in the state in April. Former New York Governor George Pataki released this video to announce his entry into the 2016 presidential race. VPC "Given his name recognition in the Northeast, he may try a New Hampshire-and-beyond strategy," Bardwell said, "which is a disadvantage, because you're not showing your ability to coalesce all parts of the party behind you." Pataki will have to spend more time showing voters what he's about and what his key issues are, Bardwell said. While at the GOP Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines earlier this month, Pataki touted his ability to lead in "the deepest blue state" and still cut government waste. "When I left office (in New York) we had 25,000 fewer state workers — a 15 percent reduction," he said. "The government worked better, and so would Washington." Pataki proposed reducing the federal workforce by 15 percent and rebuilding the U.S. tax code from scratch. He has said he would put troops on the ground in Iraq to fight the Islamic State. Marshall Critchfield, chairman of the Jasper County Republican Central Committee, hosted a meeting with party members and Pataki while the former governor was in town for that dinner. "He's a likeable guy, and I think that will go a long way on the campaign trail," Critchfield said. "Pataki has a calmness about him that I found appealing, and though it's early in the process, he doesn't seem to exhibit that same defensive shield we've all seen with presidential candidates in the past." Critchfield said if Pataki talked more openly in Iowa about gun-control issues, it would likely hurt his chances here, but could help him pick up a more moderate crowd moving forward. Ryan Frederick, Adair County Republican Central Committee chairman, said he thinks Pataki's leadership after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks helps set him apart from other candidates. Pataki was serving his second term as governor when the World Trade Center in New York City was hit by suicide attackers. "I don't think we've got anybody else in the race right now who can say they were directly involved with that at the time," Frederick said. Frederick noted that other long-shot candidates have been able to come from behind in Iowa, but it will require that Pataki invest the time and effort in campaigning across the state. "We want people to come here and tell us what you've done," he said. "Tell us what you've accomplished." Announcing his bid for president, Pataki says Democrats are “party of privilege,” GOP “party of the middle class” <http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/17080052-95/announcing-his-bid-for-president-pataki-says-democrats-are-party-of-privilege-gop-party> // Concord Monitor // Caset McDermott – May 28, 2015 It’s official: After twice before toying with a bid for the White House and spending months trying to make his mark in New Hampshire, George Pataki is running for president. The former governor of New York, who’s flirted with the idea of seeking the nation’s highest office in 2008 and 2012, announced his bid for the Republican nomination yesterday at Exeter Town Hall. The venue, where Abraham Lincoln once spoke during his own campaign for president back in 1860, was packed with supporters – some of whom spent the event waving red-white-and-blue fans because of the heat. Even the candidate himself couldn’t escape the temperature, dripping with sweat as he shook supporters’ hands and fielded reporters’ questions on the way out of the town hall after his speech. Keeping with the tone of other remarks he’s made during earlier stops in New Hampshire this year, Pataki was blunt about his assessment of the country’s problems but unabashedly optimistic in the nation’s ability to tackle those issues – and in his own ability to unify the nation in pursuit of those solutions. “The problems we face are real, but I’ve never been one to dwell on problems – I’m a solutions guy. When you grow up on a farm and you have a problem, you don’t ask the government to solve it,” Pataki said, referring back to his childhood in Peekskill, N.Y. “You just figure out what needs to be done and go do it. That’s the American way.” Pataki offered a few broad suggestions of his policy goals as president and outlined a vision for reining in the size and power of the federal government. Those ideas, many of which he’s articulated earlier on the campaign trail, included: a lifetime ban on members of Congress serving as lobbyists; a repeal of “oppressive laws like Obamacare,” and an end to Common Core; an elimination of “excessive taxes that crush small businesses” and additional tax reform. He would also, he said, “shrink the size of the federal workforce, starting with the bureaucrats overseeing Obamacare,” and would also seek to fire “every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion.” On poverty, Pataki called for more policies that “replace dependency with opportunity,” criticizing Democrats’ in the process: “It seems like liberals have so much compassion for the poor, that they keep creating more of them.” And on national security, Pataki called for securing the border and building the nation’s military. Describing himself as “the proud product of immigrants,” Pataki said the country must make sure “everyone coming to America is coming here legally, and that everyone coming here is coming not to harm us, but to be a part of a better America.” “This is not the time to weaken America’s military, it’s time to strengthen our military,” Pataki continued, prompting a rousing applause. “Not so that we can use it – but so that we don’t have to use it.” As he spoke on national security, Pataki drew on his own personal experiences – as the father of two sons who served in the military and as the governor of New York in the period surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks. “Libby and I know what it’s like to lie awake dreading a call in the middle of the night when your child is in harm’s way overseas,” he said. “I do not want one parent, one husband, one wife, one child or loved one to experience that fear unless it’s absolutely necessary – but we will do whatever is required to protect the American people.” Taking several jabs at his opponents on the opposite side of the aisle – as a group and, specifically, former secretary of state and current presidential candidate Hillary Clinton – Pataki argued that Republicans are best suited to unify the nation this election. “Today, those in the other party, instead of offering ideas, seek to divide. When you have no solutions, instead you offer fear,” Pataki said. He later added, calling out Clinton in particular, “They are the party of privilege. We are the party of the middle class.” On previous visits to New Hampshire, Pataki signaled an interest in making the state a key part of his prospective presidential campaign – in part because it offered an opportunity to appeal to undeclared voters. Pataki, too, has tried to steer away from advocating against same-sex marriage and abortion rights, airing ads here encouraging Republicans to avoid getting caught up in debates on these issues. “They’re a distraction,” Pataki says in one ad, “and will only help elect Hillary.” The crowd in Exeter drew some supporters from New Hampshire but also plenty of allies from Pataki’s home state. One of those people was Teresa Santiago, who served as the head of New York’s consumer protection board while Pataki was governor and spearheaded “Amigos de Pataki,” an effort to attract more support among Latino voters during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. As reported by the New York Times after Pataki’s victory that year, those efforts paid off: The governor, at least according to initial results from “districts that are heavily Hispanic,” managed to capture “a third or more of the Latino vote.” At one point during his announcement speech in New Hampshire, Pataki broke into Spanish – prompting cheers from Santiago and others. “It comes very natural to him,” Santiago said of Pataki’s attention toward Latino voters. “This is something he believes in thoroughly.” In an especially crowded Republican field, where Pataki is widely considered to be an underdog, Santiago said the former governor’s interest in uniting diverse voices could serve him especially well. “I think that the party, the Republican Party tends to sometimes split or divide within its own party,” she said. “And I think he has that ability to bring people together – within the party and outside of the party, and he did that extremely well in New York.” And again, Santiago said, “the key here is the Latino community.” “We are not the minority anymore, and people need to pay attention to us,” she said, leaving the town hall after Pataki wrapped up his remarks and the crowd was filtering out. “And the candidate – in either party – that does that will win. That’s the bottom line, and he gets it. And that’s what sets him apart.” Santorum hits the trail again <http://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/elections/santorum-hits-the-trail-again/article_8f098477-f740-5470-8629-da269912bf21.html> // Quad-City Times // Ed Tibbetts – May 28, 2015 Rick Santorum, the come-from-behind winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses, hit the road again in Iowa. With his first campaign stop Thursday after announcing his 2016 presidential candidacy the day before in Pennsylvania, the former U.S. senator visited the Iowa Machine Shed, where he gave a relatively brief seven-minute stump speech. Then, he spent an hour and 10 minutes taking questions. Then, he went outside and greeted a line of people. Santorum is far behind in the polls, and most pundits give him little chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination. But much like in 2012, he began his Iowa effort underestimated, yet meticulously working to gain support. Santorum echoed his announcement speech in saying Thursday that he would emphasize the people left behind in today’s economy. “What’s the path to help these folks that feels like no one’s really talking about them?” he asked. He blamed the size of government for stifling the economy and said unskilled foreign labor has taken all the new jobs in the U.S. Santorum has called for curbs on legal immigration. Santorum said government needs to be smaller, and he drew applause when he called the Internal Revenue Service a “political organization.” Later, however, he said he was worried about “anti-government rhetoric” and argued there is a place for government. “Government's not evil. Government can be evil,” he said, but added, “Government’s us." Santorum is part of a large and growing Republican field, and some of his 2012 supporters have moved on. Still, campaign aides say he will work aggressively in Iowa and he will go to all 99 counties. Vivian Martin of LeClaire, who said she supported Santorum in 2012, is not sold just yet. That’s not unusual early in a caucus cycle. Still, she said she continued to be impressed with Santorum. “He just seems sincere,” she said. “He sounds like he has a plan." Santorum also said Thursday that, if elected, he would defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. And he told reporters afterward that he backed the Patriot Act, major parts of which are scheduled to expire June 1. Sen. Rand Paul, who also was in Davenport on Thursday, has argued against bulk collection of telephone records. “I don’t like bulk collection,” Santorum said, and technology changes may make such programs unnecessary. But he added, “we know people are trying to harm us and that having access to this information is helpful. That says it all." Santorum: Climate change, flat-Earth believers are alike <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/05/28/rick-santorum-climate-change-world-is-flat-science-unsettled/28121963/> // The Des Moines Register -//Josh Hafner – May 28, 2015 While in Davenport during his Iowa campaign's first official event in the state, Rick Santorum compared scientists convinced of climate change to those who once called the world flat. One man stood up during the event's Q&A portion, expressing concern about climate change. Addressing it, the audience member said, should be an imperative to Christians commanded by the Bible to be stewards of the Earth. "I always have problems when people come up and say the science is settled," said Santorum, a Republican presidential candidate and winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses. "That's what they said about the world being flat. When someone says the science is settled you're not a scientist, because scientists never say the science is settled." He added: "The idea that the science is settled, to me, tells me that this is political science, not real science." Jeb Bush earned millions in juggling act as corporate adviser <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeb-bush-earned-millions-in-juggling-act-as-corporate-adviser/> // AP – May 28, 2015 During his transition from Florida governor to likely presidential candidate, Jeb Bush served on the boards of or as an adviser to at least 15 companies and nonprofits, a dizzying array of corporate connections that earned him millions of dollars and occasional headaches. Bush returned to corporate America after leaving the governor's mansion in early 2007, and his industry portfolio expanded steadily until he began shedding ties late last year to prepare a run for president. Executives who worked alongside Bush describe him as an engaged adviser with an eye for detail. Yet experts question how anyone could serve so many boards at once effectively. "Board of directors and advisory boards are in charge of high-level oversight," said law professor Elizabeth Nowicki, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer. "You cannot possibly do that simultaneously for 10 or 15 entities." There is no formal rule limiting the number of boards one person can serve. But in the wake of the Enron scandal, where flimsy board oversight contributed to the company's infamous meltdown, and a federal law that increased liability for a public company's director, common sense dictates a small number, Nowicki said. "If somebody starts serving on more than three or four boards that's a problem," she said. Three boards should be the maximum, agreed Zabihollah Rezaee, a University of Memphis accounting professor who has authored books about corporate governance. "Board members are representing shareholders, and they are responsible to shareholders for financial integrity," said Rezaee. "Best practices" dictate a small number, he said, "because of the amount of time it requires to be effective." Bush served on the boards of or as an adviser to 11 companies or nonprofits at a time each year from 2010 to 2013, The Associated Press found. Those ties were in addition to his own businesses, such as Jeb Bush & Associates, and the educational foundations he created. In 2010 Bush served on the board of directors of eight different entities, as adviser to a ninth company and advisory board member for two others. In 2013, he served on six boards, as an adviser to another company and on the advisory board of four more entities. "I had two public boards," he said. "And I did my fiduciary duty quite well, I think. You'll have to ask them."Bush answered curtly Thursday when asked about the positions after visiting a lab in Lansing, Michigan, that makes antidotes and vaccinations for poisons such as anthrax. Bush was apparently referring to his standing only in 2014, when he shed his corporate ties. At that time he was on the board of two publicly held companies, Tenet Healthcare and Rayonier Inc. In 2013, he was on the board of four public companies, including the international advisory board of Barrick Gold Corp. Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said not all the corporate entities were the same - some were board slots, some advisory positions and others nonprofits - and suggested it was unfair to put them all in the same basket. AP's review found that Bush served on the board of directors of as many as seven for-profit companies at a time - while also serving as an adviser to other companies and nonprofits. Bush's experience on corporate boardrooms could evolve into a theme during the 2016 race for the presidency. Among the issues the Florida Republican could be asked to explain: -One company that paid Bush $15,000 a month as a board member and consultant, InnoVida Holdings, collapsed in fraud and bankruptcy, with the company's CEO, Claudio Osorio, now serving 12 1/2 years in prison. Bush joined InnoVida despite warning signs that Osorio's prior company dissolved amid bankruptcy and allegations of fraud. -At least five companies where Bush served on the board or as adviser faced class-action lawsuits from shareholders or legal action by the government. Some of the most sweeping cases, involving allegations of fraud or environmental damage, remain active. The Securities and Exchange Commission subpoenaed one of the companies, Rayonier Inc., in November, shortly before Bush's exit. -Bush earned $3.9 million from four companies alone since 2007, the AP found, plus $25,000 a year more from a medical company in Georgia, $9,600 annually from Bloomberg Philanthropies and zero pay from a drug addiction nonprofit. His earnings from eight other companies are unknown, and Bush has declined AP's requests to disclose his compensation - raising questions about how open he would be as a presidential candidate. Bush was a board member or adviser to publicly traded health care, timber, gold mining and sanitation companies; for private firms involved in housing, finance, medicine, higher education and decontamination; and for nonprofits focused on drug addiction and philanthropy. He served on the board of directors for nine of the 15, and as an adviser or advisory board member for the others. Two of the 15 are nonprofits. Once Bush officially declares for president, he will have 45 days to file a public disclosure form listing his sources of income for the prior year. Those forms include broad ranges for the values of assets or salaries that can be used to estimate a politician's net worth, but they will not be precise totals and will capture just the prior year. "Until you say the magic words `I am running for president,' there are a whole lot of restrictions that don't apply to you. I think this is an advantage he is taking," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for open government. "There just should be an expectation of transparency around anything that a presidential candidate is involved with, whether it's a nonprofit foundation or their past employers." Spokeswoman Campbell said, "If he becomes a candidate, he'll comply with all necessary financial disclosures. That is an approach consistent with what he did in all three of his campaigns for governor." TOP NEWS DOMESTIC U.S. Accuses Ex-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Paying to Hide ‘Misconduct’ <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/us/ex-house-speaker-j-dennis-hastert-indicted-on-federal-charges.html?ref=politics> // NYT // Monica Davey – May 28, 2015 CHICAGO — J. Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, has been charged with lying to the F.B.I. and making cash withdrawals from banks in a way that was designed to hide that he was paying $3.5 million to someone for his “misconduct” from years ago, a federal indictment released on Thursday said. Mr. Hastert, 73, the longest-serving Republican speaker, had worked as a lobbyist since leaving office. The indictment, announced by the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, said Mr. Hastert, who was once a high school teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Ill., had so far paid $1.7 million to the person, who had lived in Yorkville and had known Mr. Hastert for most of his or her life. Mr. Hastert worked in Yorkville from 1965 to 1981. In 2010, during meetings between Mr. Hastert and the unnamed individual, the two discussed “past misconduct” by Mr. Hastert against the person, according to the indictment. In those meetings and in later discussions, Mr. Hastert agreed to provide money to the person “in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct,” the indictment said. It said he was structuring the cash withdrawals in increments designed to avoid bank reporting requirements. The indictment does not provide details of the misconduct. Mr. Hastert could not be reached for comment at his office in Washington. Each of the two charges carries a penalty of as much as five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the prosecutor’s office said. Mr. Hastert is to appear at an arraignment at a future date, the prosecutors said. Kimberly Nerheim, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office, declined to identify the person being paid — who was referred to as Individual A in the indictment — or to comment on whether that individual would face any charges. Mr. Hastert, first elected to Congress from Illinois in 1986, was suddenly catapulted to speaker in 1999 during a moment of crisis for his party. Newt Gingrich had just stepped down after a contentious election marked by wounds the House Republicans inflicted on themselves during impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton. The Republicans’ first choice to succeed Mr. Gingrich, Robert L. Livingston of Louisiana, gave up the position before he ever assumed it, acknowledging that he had carried on adulterous affairs in the past. Mr. Hastert, who became a popular and unifying leader, was promoted for the job by Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, then a powerful Republican force in the House, largely because of Mr. Hastert’s reputation as a conciliator. Mr. DeLay recognized that he himself was too polarizing for the job. In office, Mr. Hastert, who was known as “the coach” for his former occupation and his leadership style, pressed a series of health care initiatives and played a leading role in shaping the congressional response to the Sept. 11 attacks. In 2006, he faced criticism that he and top aides failed to respond to warnings about the behavior of Representative Mark Foley of Florida, whose sexually explicit electronic messages to former Congressional pages sparked a scandal that contributed to the Republicans’ losing their House majority. Mr. Hastert chose not to seek re-election in 2008. According to the federal indictment made public on Thursday, Mr. Hastert gave money to the unnamed person for four years, starting in 2010. At first, Mr. Hastert provided $50,000 in cash from several bank accounts to the person every six weeks, for a total of 15 such exchanges, the indictment said. Banks are required to report cash withdrawals of more than $10,000, and in April 2012, bank officials questioned Mr. Hastert about sizable withdrawals from his accounts. That July, Mr. Hastert began making smaller withdrawals, of less than $10,000, and he continued providing them to the person at prearranged meeting places and times, the indictment said. Later, the arrangements changed so that Mr. Hastert was providing $100,000 every three months, the indictment said. By 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service began investigating the withdrawals, focusing, federal authorities said, on whether cash was being taken out in a way that was intended to evade bank reporting requirements. Last Dec. 8, Mr. Hastert was interviewed by federal agents. He told the agents that he was not paying anyone with the money, but was keeping the withdrawals for himself because he felt unsafe with the banking system. “Yeah,” Mr. Hastert told the agents, according to the indictment. “I kept the cash. That’s what I’m doing.” This is not the first time a political figure has attracted attention through banking practices. Eliot Spitzer, then the governor of New York, came to the attention of federal investigators after bank officials noticed that he was moving around thousands of dollars in a manner they thought was intended to conceal the purpose and source of the money. As it turned out, Mr. Spitzer was using the money to pay for prostitutes. He resigned when the payments became public; he was not charged with a crime. Since leaving office, Mr. Hastert has been a prominent lobbyist in Washington. He is co-leader of the Public Policy & Political Law Practice at the Washington law firm of Dickstein Shapiro, according to the firm’s website. By Thursday night, Mr. Hastert had resigned from Dickstein Shapiro, an official with the firm said, and his biography had been removed from its website. Mr. Hastert also resigned from the board of the CME Group, the Chicago-based operator of one of the world’s largest futures and derivatives exchanges, a spokeswoman said. The reaction in Washington was primarily one of astonishment as Republicans tried to absorb the news that Mr. Hastert, elevated in some respects for his upright image, was in such trouble. Allies and former advisers said that they were surprised by the case and that they had no knowledge of the acts described in the indictment. “It has come completely out of left field and is pretty shocking,” said John Feehery, a spokesman for Mr. Hastert in his days as speaker. In his home state, Republicans seemed stunned by the announcement. Some described Mr. Hastert as a well-liked man whose life story — from small town coach to House speaker — had always been part of his low-key, regular-guy appeal and approachable nature. “We’re all shocked,” said Pat Brady, the former chairman of the Illinois Republican Party. “It’s been a total shock in the Land of Lincoln. No one had been hearing anything about this. Not a word.” No 'Plan B' If Congress Misses NSA Deadline, White House Says <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/plan-congress-misses-nsa-deadline-white-house/story?id=31402992> // Jordyn Phelps - May 29, 2015 The White House warned today that there is no fallback position if the Senate fails to reach a deal on the Patriot Act before Sunday night’s deadline. “There is no plan B,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest said during today's press briefing. “There is no executive action that the president can take to give our law enforcement and national security professionals the tools they need, all of the tools that they need, including the tools that are included in the USA Freedom Act.” If a deal is not reached before 4 p.m. Sunday, the Senate will be exposing the American people to “unnecessary risk,” Earnest said, by forcing the National Security Agency to begin shutting down its phone data surveillance program. “What our national security professionals will tell you is that they will, if faced with a scenario in which they have some of these tools taken out of their toolbox, they will try to use all of the tools that they currently have to do what's necessary to keep us safe,” he said. “And the point that I would make is that taking those tools away seems like an unnecessary risk.” “Why would we take the chance, and more importantly, why are we taking the chance?” he said. In scolding the Senate for the standoff, Earnest said there is no “rational explanation” for the current situation. “I haven't heard a rational explanation for what exactly is going on in the United States Senate right now,” the press secretary quipped. “There is no good explanation for it.” While some Senate Republicans contend that the Freedom Act does not go far enough in providing national security officials access to data that can be helpful in counter-terrorism operations, others argue that it would infringe to greatly on civil liberties. Presidential hopeful Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, has staunchly opposed the extension of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act, bucking his own party's leadership. He filibustered on the Senate floor for about 11 hours last week to protest the NSA's bulk data collection program that monitors Americans' phone records. "The bulk collection of all Americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment,” Paul, who opposes both the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act, said last week. Idaho's Abortion Ban Is Unconstitutional, Federal Court Says <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/29/410560051/idahos-abortion-ban-is-unconstitutional-federal-court-says> // NPR // Bill Chappell – May 29, 2015 The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says Idaho's law prohibiting abortions after 20 or more weeks of pregnancy is "unconstitutional because it categorically bans some abortions before viability." The court ruled in favor of Jennie McCormack and Dr. Richard Hearn (on behalf of himself and his patients), who had challenged Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that restricts abortion in the state. In 2011, McCormack was arrested and faced criminal charges after she ended a pregnancy by taking what's known as the abortion pill, RU-486. She was found to have been perhaps twice as far into the pregnancy as the recommended nine-week window for using the pill. The criminal charges against McCormack were dismissed in 2011; shortly afterward, she filed a class-action lawsuit. As NPR reported in 2012, "McCormack is a small, quiet woman in her early 30s and a single mom of three. McCormack was raised devoutly Mormon in Pocatello, Idaho, where she's lived all her life — and until last year, she was used to going unnoticed." The arguments were heard by Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Kim McLane Wardlaw and Senior District Judge Donald E. Walter. The court's opinion was written by Pregerson. In addition to ruling on the 20-week time period, the court said Idaho's requirement that all second-trimester abortions take place in a hospital is also unconstitutional, "because it places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion." Other elements of Idaho's law, such as a requirement that abortion be performed in a medical office with proper staffing, were "unconstitutionally vague," the court said. INTERNATIONAL Obama’s New ISIS War Plan: Nothing <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/team-obama-shrugs-at-isis-victories.html> // The Daily Beast // Nanzy A. Youssef – May 29, 2015 The self-proclaimed Islamic State has claimed a major provincial capital in Iraq and taken over another strategically key city in Syria. In response, the Obama administration plans to do—well, not much of anything new. Four defense officials told The Daily Beast that there’s still strong resistance within the Obama administration to making any serious changes to the current strategy for fighting ISIS—despite mounting skepticism from some in the Pentagon about the current U.S. approach to the war. Although the Obama administration’s public messaging is that it still wants to “degrade and ultimately defeat” ISIS, in reality, many in the Pentagon view the real objective as just running out the clock. “I think this is driven by a sense that this not our fight and so we are just going to try to contain it and have influence where we can,” one official who works closely on the military strategy explained to The Daily Beast. “This is a long fight, and it will be up to the next administration to tackle.” Rather than aiming for a decisive victory, the U.S. approach has devolved into simply maintaining a low boil in perpetuity. They said they realize that the political strategy supersedes the military one; there is no public appetite for ground troops in Iraq; there is frustration about corruption within the Iraqi government; and there is a lack of a clear alternative approach. “It’s a political response,” one official explained. “They are doing ‘something’ to inoculate themselves from substantial criticism.” Some are more blunt, saying no one wants to invest too much time or resources in crafting an alternative. “Who wants a soldier to come home dead or without a leg or captured by ISIS for forces that retreat?” a second defense official asked. To be sure, the Pentagon brass has yet to offer alternative strategies to fighting ISIS. Most recently, the U.S.-led coalition did not even ramp up its airstrikes after ISIS claimed the Sunni-dominated Iraqi city of Ramadi on May 18. Since then, the coalition has conducted an average of three strikes a day, targeting vehicles and fighting positions. U.S. officials insist they strike whenever they get good intelligence on ISIS positions. With no change in airstrikes and a ground force that has retreated, ISIS has successfully—and without any major impediments—built berms, receiving and building other defenses against a promised counterattack by Iraqi security forces. Even the mildest adjustments are being met with resigned silence, four defense officials told The Daily Beast. En route to Singapore on Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter told reporters that he had convened a meeting with “his team” about Iraqi and said the military was examining how “to increase the effectiveness of the campaign.” “I can’t describe to you what the possibilities are because folks are looking at them right now,” Carter added. But rather than adjust the strategy, the U.S. military is considering small tactical changes—in how quickly it conducts airstrikes after the Iraqis request them and how to provide Iraqi ground forces weapons and equipment quicker. Among the ideas Carter proposed was speeding up the training of Sunni tribesmen. Army Colonel Steven Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, emphasized to reporters Thursday the U.S. is looking only to “fine-tune” its tactics, not overhaul its strategy. The secretary noted the military is responsible for two of the nine lines of effort the U.S. is using toward Iraq, which include financial and political pressure, but there was no evidence Thursday that those lines were being reconsidered, either. But neither a lack of airpower nor weapons appeared to lead to Ramadi’s fall. While the Iraqis feared that a sandstorm would limit coalition airstrikes, U.S. officials said that was not the case. And the Iraqi army vastly outnumbered ISIS forces, and there is no evidence its soldiers suffered a major weapons shortage. Rather it appears ISIS had fighters hidden in the city who built scores of car bombs—some the size of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing attack—and a strike plan to follow that flustered Iraq Special Forces, or Golden Brigades, who retreated, followed by brigade forces. Critics of officials at U.S. Central Command, which is in charge of the U.S. military approach toward the Middle East, note that military leaders have yet to publicly propose a strategy that does not involve a major ground force presence. That’s something the White House simply won’t accept. At a breakfast with reporters Thursday, General Raymond T. Odierno, the chief of staff of the Army and a former top commander in Iraq, said he was “adamant” about not sending U.S. ground forces back to Iraq. “It always comes back to the government of Iraq,” Odierno said. And while U.S. officials have said they are committed to a united Iraq, privately two officials said that many anticipate what they described as “the Balkanization of Iraq” along sectarian and ethnic lines. The U.S. military’s initial response to Ramadi was to blame the Iraqi military for failing to take on the outnumbered ISIS forces. Both Carter and Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Iraqis retreated. In an interview with CNN, Carter said the Iraqi army lacked “the will to fight” for its country. When the U.S.-led air campaign began nearly a year ago, it, by most accounts, achieved its initial goal of stopping ISIS’s momentum, which was ascending with the capture of the Iraqi city of Mosul. There were fears then that the group could move on to Baghdad. But since then, ISIS has adjusted while the U.S. strategy has not, the defense officials said. And an air campaign that once could contain ISIS no longer can as the group has developed the skills to create a military plan against an army that outnumbers it by 10 to 1, as in Ramadi, according to U.S. military estimates. U.S. officials often note they have destroyed 6,300 targets since the strikes began. But critics pointed out that statistics are not always an indicator of a working strategy. “Every agency is briefing that they are having effect,” the first official explained. “But it is activity, not effect.” Senator Rand Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination for president, has been a frequent and enthusiastic critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy and of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East in general. On Thursday, his senior adviser, Doug Stafford, told The Daily Beast, “Senator Paul called months ago for a declaration of war against ISIS.” That declaration, unveiled in November, would have allowed for boots on the ground. Stafford said Paul called “for arming the Kurds” and “for insisting on boots on the ground from neighboring countries.” (The declaration actually specified limited use of American troops on the ground in specific circumstances.) Stafford added, “This shouldn’t be a political issue or one that is mired in bad strategy from the Obama administration, and it shouldn’t be left for the next president.” U.S. Takes Cuba Off Terror List <http://time.com/3901597/u-s-cuba-terror-list/> // TIME // Andrea Rodriguez and Matthew Lee <http://time.com/author/associated-press/> – May 29, 2015 (HAVANA)—The Obama administration on Friday formally removed Cuba from a U.S. terrorism blacklist, a decision hailed in Cuba as the healing of a decades-old wound and an important step toward normalizing relations between the Cold War foes. Secretary of State John Kerry signed off on rescinding Cuba’s “state sponsor of terrorism” designation exactly 45 days after the Obama administration informed Congress of its intent to do so on April 14. Lawmakers had that amount of time to weigh in and try to block the move, but did not do so. “The 45-day congressional pre-notification period has expired, and the secretary of state has made the final decision to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, effective today, May 29, 2015,” the State Department said in a statement. “While the United States has significant concerns and disagreements with a wide range of Cuba’s policies and actions, these fall outside the criteria relevant to the rescission of a state sponsor of terrorism designation,” the statement said. The step comes as officials from the two countries continue to hash out details of restoring full diplomatic relations, including opening embassies in Washington and Havana and returning ambassadors to the two countries for the first time since the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with the island in January 1961. The removal of Cuba from the terrorism list had been a key Cuban demand. The Cold War-era designation was levied mainly for Cuba’s support of leftist guerrillas around the world and isolated the communist island from much of the world financial system because banks fear repercussions from doing business with designated countries. Even Cuba’s Interests Section in Washington lost its bank in the United States, forcing it to deal in cash until it found a new banker this month. “We welcome today’s announcement by the Secretary of State, which is another step forward toward a more normal and productive relationship between the United States and the Cuban people,” a White House blog post said Friday. “For 55 years, we tried using isolation to bring about change in Cuba,” it said. “But by isolating Cuba from the United States, we isolated the United States from the Cuban people and, increasingly, the rest of the world. Through this new approach of engagement, we are finally in a position to advance our interests while simultaneously improving the lives of the Cuba people.” The terror list was a particularly charged issue for Cuba because of the U.S. history of supporting exile groups responsible for attacks on the island, including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban passenger flight from Barbados that killed 73 people aboard. The attack was linked to Cuban exiles with ties to U.S.-backed anti-Castro groups and both men accused of masterminding the crime took shelter in Florida, where one, Luis Posada Carriles, currently lives. “I think this could be a positive act that adds to hope and understanding and can help the negotiations between Cuba and the United States,” said director Juan Carlos Cremata, who lost his father in the 1976 bombing. “It’s a list we never should have been on,” said Ileana Alfonso, 57, who also lost her father in the attack. Still, top U.S. Republicans criticized the move, with House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio saying that the Obama administration had “handed the Castro regime a significant political win in return for nothing.” “The communist dictatorship has offered no assurances it will address its long record of repression and human rights at home,” he said in a statement. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called Cuba’s removal from the list “a mistake” and “further evidence that President Obama seems more interested in capitulating to our adversaries than in confronting them.” Also critical of the move was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has urged the Obama administration to demand the return of a woman who escaped to Cuba after being convicted in 1977 of killing a state trooper. Joanne Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur, has lived on the island since the 1980s. Christie said removing Cuba’s terrorism designation is “an unacceptable offense to the family of the fallen New Jersey State Trooper and every other wanted criminal that still lives freely in Cuba today. ” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, praised the move, saying that the State Department had “removed the burden of an outdated, outmoded strategy.” She called it a “critical step forward in creating new opportunities for American businesses and entrepreneurs, and in strengthening family ties.” U.S. and Cuban officials have said the two sides are close to resolving the final issues but the most recent round of talks ended on May 22 with no announcement of an agreement. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that “there continue to be issues that need to be worked out.” He said important progress had been made, but would not give a time frame for an announcement. “That’s obviously among the next milestones,” he said. Even with the hurdle over the terrorism designation cleared, Washington and Havana are wrangling over American demands that its diplomats be able to travel throughout Cuba and meet with dissidents without restrictions. The Cubans are wary of activity they see as destabilizing to their government. Both the U.S. and Cuba say the embassies are a first step in a larger process of normalizing relations. That effort would still have to tackle bigger questions such as the embargo, which only Congress can fully revoke, as well as the future of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay and Cuba’s democracy record. Freed Gitmo Detainees Pose New Threat, Republicans Say <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/freed-gitmo-detainees-pose-new-threat-republicans-say.html> // The Daily Beast // Tim Mak - 5/29/15 There are growing concerns in some corners of the American government that six former Guantanamo Bay detainees freed by the Obama administration could pose a threat to the safety of U.S. personnel. Those detainees were sent to Uruguay in December. And in recent months, the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo has substantially expanded its defenses against a possible threat, according to three sources familiar with the matter. The embassy has increased the number of guards present, as well as the size of the embassy’s Marine Guard detachment, adding two more men to the handful who were there previously. The embassy has also taken steps to heighten security for employees. All local hires have been ordered to park two to three blocks from the building so that embassy guards can conduct surveillance more easily over American cars and passengers parked nearby. Some local staff have taken that order as disregard for the safety of foreign nationals working at the embassy. In the past month, the receptionist at the embassy’s front desk has been replaced with a guard, said a source familiar with the matter. And embassy employees have received a training session on how to react if an attacker managed to enter the embassy. One State Department official characterized the increased security presence as more or less routine, similar to steps taken at U.S. diplomatic missions around the world following the 2012 Benghazi attacks. And the Obama administration has insisted that the former Guantanamo detainees do not represent a security threat. But Republican lawmakers have been drawing attention to the six men, arguing that they could present a threat to U.S. interests. The lawmakers note that the six were released to Uruguay under refugee status, which means that under Uruguayan law, government officials are barred from monitoring or imposing travel restrictions on the former detainees. “All six of them are hardened terrorists, who should...still be at Guantanamo,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has become one of the most outspoken opponents of shutting down the Guantanamo facility. “It was a mistake to transfer them there, it was certainly a mistake to transfer them to a country that apparently did not give us adequate, if any, security guarantees.” The tiny South American country of Uruguay, population 3.3 million, has become a flashpoint in the larger political battle over the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. President Obama has been dedicated to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo from the day he set foot in the White House. But the release of the six men has become a nagging question his administration must now fend off. For Republicans opposed to Guantanamo’s closure, the situation in Uruguay has become the vehicle for criticizing the administration’s larger policy of releasing cleared detainees to third countries. And the questions Republicans have raised about national security complicate efforts to close Guantanamo by creating doubts about whether future transfers of detainees is wise. The former detainees now in Uruguay were previously accused of having been fighters with ties to terrorist groups. A Bush administration assessment, concluded in 2008 and made public by WikiLeaks, said five of them posed a “high risk” because they were “likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies.” The sixth posed a “medium risk.” After Obama was elected, he ordered a review of every detainee at Guantanamo. The six men were approved for transfer upon the unanimous approval of the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the director of national intelligence, and the State Department. This Obama administration review, which involved a larger number of federal agencies and was arguably more thorough, found in essence that the intelligence used to draw conclusions for the Bush-era assessments was not credible. “It was the unanimous decision of six departments and agencies...that these individuals should be transferred from Guantanamo, and could be transferred in a manner that protects our national security and is consistent with our humane treatment obligations,” said Ian Moss, the spokesman for the Office of the Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure at the State Department. Beyond that, the Obama administration is hampered by how little it is able or willing to say about the men. Many of the surrounding details about these six former detainees are classified at the highest levels. In a private meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, closed to the public to allow for the discussion of sensititve national security matters, the discussion turned to the future of Guantanamo and the recidivism rate of former detainees. One senator cited the detainees released to Uruguay as a prime example of why lawmakers should be concerned about terrorists re-engaging in hostilities and trying to plot attacks after their release, according to multiple congressional sources. But the discussion of Gitmo detainees released to Uruguay was swiftly shut down. Even in a session closed to the public, the cases involved information that was so highly classified, some aides in the room had not been cleared to hear about it. So far, there is no public indication that the men have done anything nefarious since their release in December 2014. Several of the detainees camped out for several weeks this spring in front of the U.S. Embassy in Montevideo to demand more compensation from the Uruguayan government. And former detainee Jihad Ahmed Mujstafa Diyab traveled to neighboring Argentina in February to urge that country to take in Gitmo detainees, rankling Republicans. In an April letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Edward Royce raised concerns about the former detainees’ threat to the U.S. Embassy. After the detainees arrived in Uruguay, they were given housing six blocks away from the embassy. “I remain concerned that this close proximity to the Embassy, combined with the apparent lack of host country mitigation measures, poses a potential risk to the safety and security of our Embassy and its employees, including local hires,” Royce wrote. “The February 2015 travel of one of the individuals to Argentina underscores the ease of travel afforded the former detainees now that they are characterized as refugees in Uruguay,” Royce added. “This freedom of widespread movement would seem to make effective mitigation, if attempted, near impossible.” Moss, the State Department spokesman, said he was unable to provide The Daily Beast with additional information about steps taken to mitigate potential security risks. “I cannot discuss the specific assurances we receive from foreign governments,” said Moss, who stressed that transfers only occur after “detailed, specific conversations” with the receiving country about the security threat a detainee could pose and the measures the country will take to mitigate that threat. Lawmakers have been lobbying the Obama administration publicly and privately to release more details about the release of the detainees. “Surely we didn’t release six hardened Guantanamo detainees to Uruguay without a memorandum of understanding—without definite and specific criteria under which the Uruguayan government was going to monitor these detainees,” Cotton said. Before Royce’s April letter, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote to Kerry in January, asking for the government to release a written agreement between the U.S. government and the Uruguayan government indicating “what security measures...have been put into place to prevent their engaging in terrorism related activities.” And last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker sent another letter to Kerry—this time, a private one. In a statement to The Daily Beast, Corker likened the Uruguay transfers to the former Taliban fighters sent to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s freedom. “Our office is conducting its proper oversight role to ensure the administration provides—as it did in the case of Qatar—documentation describing any commitments, understandings or agreements between the United States and other countries relating to the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees,” Corker said. The displeasure at the release of the six former detainees to Uruguay is not confined to the United States. Longtime Uruguayan lawmaker Jaime Trobo, who belongs to a center-right opposition party, said coordination between the Uruguayan and American governments occurred through Uruguay’s president, without official approval from the country’s congress. “All the initial process and the procedure related to the arrival of the ex-prisoners from Guantanamo to Uruguay has lacked transparency,” Trobo told The Daily Beast. “The information provided does not fulfill the minimum requirement of substance for such a delicate situation.” Trobo also questioned U.S. officials’ assurances that the ex-detainees pose no national security threats. “The United States has said publicly that these people are not a threat,” Trobo said. “If so, why aren’t they able to enter the U.S.? That’s what we ask ourselves here [in Uruguay].” Corker, Cotton, and their staffs all declined to comment on or corroborate details regarding embassy force protection measures and intelligence methods. OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS The Arrogance of Jeb Bush <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/the-arrogance-of-jeb-bush.html?_r=0> // NYT // Timothy Egan – May 29, 2016 You thought he was the smart Bush. You thought he was the reasonable one. You thought he was the Republican with one foot in the 21st century, the man who wasn’t going to say crazy things to win the primary voter who believes in crazy things. But you haven’t been paying attention to Jeb Bush. Yes, he was strafed from both sides for his tortured and fact-challenged explanations of the Iraq war. The fumbling is understandable: Bound by family fealty, the fraternal load of the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time, Jeb Bush can’t state the obvious. But an equally astounding, and perhaps more absurd utterance, has not received nearly as much attention — his climate change stance. Bush the youngest believes the Earth is warming. No doubt, he’s willing to go further out on a limb and conclude that heat expands, cold contracts and a dolphin is not a fish. That’s as far as he’ll go. He says the science is “convoluted,” even though the latest assessment from international climate scientists states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the cause of a sick planet. That obfuscation is also understandable. You simply cannot be a leader of the Republican Party without appearing to know less than a fifth grader about earth science. The real stunner was a statement made earlier this month at a campaign event. What bothers him is not the threat of megastorms, life-killing droughts, city-burying sea rises — but experts in the scientific community who are sounding such alarms. Those people. “And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you,” said Bush. “It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t have a conversation about it even.” Is it arrogant to say that smoking causes lung cancer? That you shouldn’t text and drive? That the American diet and lifestyle cause Type 2 diabetes, which is killing people? There is some wiggle room in each of those assertions. But you test them at your peril. Since when did prudence become a vice in a family whose presidential patriarch was guided by what “wouldn’t be prudent”? In that sense, Jeb Bush is the living example of another bit of truthiness from science: Evolution does not always mean advancement. In fables, in biblical parables, in history lessons mostly forgotten, a single theme repeats itself: It’s arrogant to defy nature. Arrogance is thinking you can build subdivisions in a flood plain, because everyone around you is doing it. Arrogance is putting a shopping center over an earthquake fault, knowing full well that the collapse could kill hundreds of people. Arrogance is paving the sponge of land that normally holds water during epic rain events, thinking there will be no consequence. Arrogance is lording over a planet where a majority of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, without giving it a second thought. Arrogance is the certainty that you can geoengineer your way out of whatever mess you make. Bush, a Roman Catholic convert, could ask Pope Francis about humility in the face of nature. The pope has been outspoken about how the world’s poor will be most affected by the rise in global temperatures, and the responsibility to slow human-caused soiling of the Earth. In an upcoming encyclical, he hopes to influence a global accord on climate change in Paris next December. Or Bush could ask his older brother, who cited the same arrogant bunch of know-it-alls — the National Academy of Sciences — in stating, while president, that the unsustainable increase in greenhouse gas “is due in large part to human activity.” Why is that so hard to say? Why are Republicans still debating whether the house is on fire, when much of the rest of the world is ready to direct the fire hoses? One reason is that the Earth-is-doomed purists are annoying, with their sanctimony, their humorlessness, their failure to embrace political nuance. No president has been better on climate change than Barack Obama, and yet influential voices in the environmental community consider him a traitor to their cause. Coming from Florida, much of which could be underwater in our children’s lifetime, Jeb Bush knows better. He is reflective and well-informed about his own health and weight loss. And he once spoke the language of common sense about trying to restore a smidge of the wild in the strip-mall-saturated Sunshine State. But now he has to be dishonest to keep his tenuous hold among the top tier of Republican candidates. He’s already out of line with his party on Common Core school standards, and immigration. A trifecta of conservative heresy would be enough to knock him out completely. It’s too late — his embrace of science denial will not save him. It doesn’t matter that he may rake in $100 million during the fake campaign, where he can remain under the radar of nominal oversight by not formally announcing. It doesn’t matter that he may yet win the Koch brothers primary, which explains more than anything why he favors more fracking for oil and gas. In addressing and assessing the great issues of the day, Jeb Bush has disqualified himself to lead. On top of that, he’s politically inept. All he has going for him is a certain arrogance, to use his word, that the name Bush entitles him to be president. A Message from President Clinton <https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/05/29/message-president-clinton> // Clinton Foundation // President Clinton – May 29, 2015 Chelsea and I recently returned from a trip to Africa where we saw the results of the work that you support through the Clinton Foundation. We make this trip almost every year to see the work our Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), and CGI partners do, and the people we're able to help. As you all know, it’s the political season in America, so the purpose and impact of the efforts your support makes possible has largely been ignored in recent coverage of the Foundation. But we are and always have been a non-partisan, inclusive foundation with lots of support from and involvement by people across the political spectrum and governments from right to left, all committed to our creative solutions-centered work. That's why I am writing to you and our hundreds of thousands of other supporters in the U.S. and around the world to let you know how grateful I am for your support, and for our staff and our partners, and how determined I am that our work will continue. Next week, Donna Shalala will join the Foundation as President and CEO. She will inherit a senior leadership who have years of experience in the NGO and private sectors, and a talented, dedicated, diverse staff, all deeply committed to keep doing the kind of inspiring work we saw in Africa. We will also continue to look for ways to improve our reporting systems so that we can operate as accurately, efficiently, and transparently as possible – a goal to which we have been committed since day one. I started the Clinton Foundation when I left the White House to continue working on issues I had long cared about, where I believed I could still make an impact. I grew up believing that if I worked hard enough I could build a rewarding life, and entered public service to create more opportunities for others and to empower them to seize those opportunities – or as we say, to have better life stories. That same purpose has driven our work at the Clinton Foundation – whether we're helping smallholder farmers in Africa increase their yields or supporting women entrepreneurs in Latin America as they build better lives for their families. From the very beginning, the Clinton Foundation has intentionally taken a different approach to addressing global challenges. Except to spur recovery in the aftermath of disasters like the South Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and, over a longer period, in Haiti, we don't primarily make grants to other organizations. Instead, we implement and organize projects ourselves by bringing partners together, including governments, businesses, labor unions, philanthropies, other NGOs, and the people we're trying to help, and join them on the ground to solve problems faster, better, and at lower cost. We strive for innovative approaches to problem solving that are sustainable and yield strong results. With each of our initiatives, we try both to change lives today and offer a model for meaningful and replicable future action. The best way to do that usually starts with forming inclusive networks of all stakeholders. We incorporate data and metrics into the Foundation's work and encourage others to help scale-up or replicate our successful projects wherever they can touch more lives. My work with the Clinton Foundation over the past 14 years has been one of the most rewarding endeavors of my life, as every day I see how, with your support, our programs change lives. While in Africa, I met many of the people we're helping build better futures, provide for their families, and strengthen their communities. Their lives tell the real stories of the Clinton Foundation, and they are worth hearing. In Tanzania, I visited Wazia Chawala. She is a farmer and a single mother raising seven children. She is also one of 85,000 people in Tanzania, Malawi, and Rwanda participating in our Clinton Development Initiative's Anchor Farm program. The program operates commercial farms and partners with local smallholder farmers to provide them with access to high-quality, low-cost seed and fertilizer, training in improved agricultural techniques, and transportation to market. Participants have more than doubled their yields on average, increased their incomes by even greater margins, and dramatically improved their quality of life. When I met Wazia, she told me how her increased productivity has helped her improve her home and keep her seven children in school. She is forging her own path out of poverty with a system that is life-changing, sustainable, and replicable. What is working for 85,000 farmers could work for millions. In Tanzania, I also visited a dispensary run by CHAI that is helping to make life-saving vaccines more affordable and readily available to people in rural areas, where 70 percent of the country's people live. In addition to negotiating price reductions for the pneumonia and rotavirus vaccines, CHAI is using innovative solar-powered refrigerators to preserve the vaccines – which are only effective when stored in cool temperatures – in the remote areas of the country that lack electricity. I met with several mothers who have had their children vaccinated through the program, which is saving 11,000 lives annually, including one woman who walked twelve miles to get her baby vaccinated for the first time. Stories like that are why I started this work, and why I am more committed than ever to continuing it. As I often say, there can be a big difference between the headlines and the trend lines. We mostly hear about the headlines – but the trend lines can tell us more about what is happening in most people's lives. When I look at what the Foundation has accomplished over the last 14 years, I believe we are helping to move the trend lines in the right direction. 9.9 million people in more than 70 countries now have access to low-cost, life-saving HIV/AIDS medicines through the Clinton Health Access Initiative; 16 million kids in more than 28,000 schools in the U.S. now have healthier food and more physical activity options; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative have made 3,200 commitments that have already improved 430 million lives in more than 180 countries. That's the real story of the Clinton Foundation – people coming together across traditional divides to help others live up to their full potential. We are grateful that you have been a part of it. We'll keep trying to reach our goals faster, better, and in the most cost-effective way. We'll continue to strive for accuracy and transparency and, most important, keep working on the mission and measuring our progress every step of the way. That commitment to impact, innovation, and efficiency is what you expect from us, and what we want to deliver for years to come. Thank you for your support of the Clinton Foundation. Together, we can build a future we can all be proud to share. I encourage you to visit clintonfoundation.org/our-work to learn more about the way the Clinton Foundation works and our life-changing programs around the world. New FCC robocall rules concern pollsters <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/new-robocall-rules-fcc-pollsters-polling-118422.html?hp=t1_r> // Politico // Steven Shepard – May 29, 2015 For many Americans, the idea of technology that can block automated telephone calls sounds like a solution to all those annoying “robocalls” and interrupted family dinners. But to the nation’s pollsters and campaign professionals, many of whom are gearing up for the 2016 election cycle, a federal government proposal circulated Wednesday to encourage phone companies to embrace the technology feels like an existential threat. Story Continued Below As a result, they say, Americans might soon know much less about what they think about everything from which candidates are gaining or losing ground to what issues voters care about most. And political campaigns might be forced to abandon tools they currently use to reach large numbers of voters in a short period of time. The Federal Communications Commission says it receives more complaints about unwanted phone calls than any other issue. As a response, the FCC is asking phone companies to offer services to their customers that block calls placed by an automatic dialer. Pollsters are asking to be exempted from the new guidelines, arguing that legitimate researchers shouldn’t be grouped with telemarketers and debt-collectors. But, for now, the FCC has no plans to establish a carve-out for telephone surveys. In a blog post on the FCC’s website on Wednesday, chairman Tom Wheeler said that the commission was “giving the green light for robocall-blocking technology.” “The FCC wants to make it clear: Telephone companies can — and in fact should — offer consumers robocall-blocking tools,” Wheeler wrote. The commission plans on considering the rules at a June 18 meeting in Washington. But survey researchers say those tools would spell their doom: They would undercut a key element of the science behind modern telephone polling and make the work they can do cost-prohibitive. When reached by POLITICO Campaign Pro, a few pollsters said they assumed that, as with the federal “Do Not Call” registry, the new guidelines would apply only to telemarketers, not to legitimate survey research. Not so, says the research industry’s lobbyist in Washington. The proposed rules are “potentially devastating to the survey, opinion and marketing research profession,” said Howard Fienberg, director of governmental affairs at the Marketing Research Association. “The FCC and the chairman are playing fast and loose with their terms, using unwanted calls, telemarketing calls, and robocalls interchangeably, and conflating illegal telemarketing scams with legitimate calls.” The FCC, which says the new rules would be a win for consumers and were informed by extensive public comments, declined to address pollsters’ claims that they are being unfairly lumped with telemarketers when it comes to blocking automated calls. But a fact sheet accompanying the proposal said there would only be “very limited and specific exceptions for urgent circumstances,” such as alerting bank customers to possible fraud or reminding patients about important prescription refills. Fienberg says he plans to meet with commission staff over the next two weeks to convince them that legitimate survey research should be exempt, too. A robocall ban already exists for cell phones; the FCC requires pollsters to manually dial cell phone numbers, which makes including cell phones — an increasing necessity as Americans abandon their landline phones — much more expensive. The FCC’s proposed rules would affect telephone polls of all kinds. Americans could block all automated surveys — which were already prohibited from calling cell phones — conducted by a recorded voice. Polls conducted by live interviewers also use automated dialers — and the FCC’s Wheeler made clear those would also be affected, writing that the proposal would “clarify the definition of ‘autodialers’ to include any technology with the potential to dial random or sequential numbers.” That random-dialing technology, pollsters say, is an underpinning of the science behind survey research. Using a random-digit dialer means that every phone number has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. Random-digit dialing is used by most of the public political pollsters. And while they will still be able to use randomizers to generate numbers to call, operators will then have to dial manually those who’ve elected to block automated calls, as they do for cell phones. Even private campaign pollsters who rely on lists of registered voters would be affected. The landline numbers matched to the voter files they use have traditionally been called using an auto-dialer. The industry has been fighting the restrictions on calling cell phones for years; it costs roughly twice as much per cell-phone respondent because of the added time of dialing their number manually and the fact cell-phone users are less likely to pick up the phone and agree to an interview than those reached on landlines. “The existing TCPA restrictions on using an autodialer to call a cell phone have long since become archaic, as 58.8 percent of American households are only reachable on a cell phone,” Fienberg said, referring to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. All pollsters can expect their costs to rise significantly if the proposal is adopted. For nonprofit organizations and universities that rely on professional call centers, that means they’ll likely conduct fewer surveys. Colleges that use student operators will require more participants to maintain their current polling levels. The news media — already stretched thin by shrinking budgets — will likely cut back on polling as well. We will see fewer high-quality surveys to gauge both the state of the horse-race and the factors and issues informing voters’ decisions. Political candidates will be forced to spend more of their campaign cash for the same volume of polling, which won’t be a particularly big issue for well-funded presidential hopefuls, but could hurt downballot candidates who rely on smaller budgets. “If you’re talking about a $50 million or $100-million campaign,” Republican pollster Jon McHenry said, “you can justify those costs by making your TV and your direct mail campaign as targeted as they can be.” And it’s not just polling: Campaigns and other groups use automated calls to reach large numbers of voters to deliver political messages. “Campaigns have always used robo-calls to quickly communicate with voters — especially late in campaigns,” said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who worked for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential race. If the new regulations are approved, they would take effect immediately. That doesn’t mean phone companies would be able to deploy the technology next month, but it’s likely pollsters will be forced to adapt before the bulk of their 2016 election polling. The first two big tests for pollsters will come over the next four months, when Fox News and CNN will use poll averages to determine which Republican presidential candidates will appear on stages in the first two debates in August and September, respectively. Some pollsters see a silver lining, however: If landline respondents have to be hand-dialed just like cell phones, there’s no reason for pollsters and groups who sponsor polls to skimp on cell-phone calls to save money. “In round numbers, it equalizes the costs between cell phones and landlines,” said McHenry. But ultimately, the new regulations, if adopted, could be another significant blow for the telephone polling industry, which has been reeling from Americans’ move away from landlines and increasing embrace of mobile phones. The FCC proposal would further encode rules treating pollsters just like telemarketers when it comes to working over the phone. “The new regulations would just make a bad situation much worse, threatening the integrity and results of research and the companies, organizations and governments that rely upon it,” Fienberg said. The difficulties with phone polling have led many firms to start conducting surveys over the Internet. But roughly one-in-10 adults live in households without web access, primarily older and lower-income Americans. And some survey researchers balk at using a self-selecting, non-random sample to represent the opinions of the entire population. Pollsters, meanwhile, are caught in the middle: Phone polling is getting significantly harder, and Internet polling is, for many, not yet a viable replacement. A few pollsters predicted that if the new regulations are wide-ranging enough to complicate existing campaign practices like robocalls and polling, politicians will find a way to scuttle them before they are adopted. “Also, wouldn’t it kill ‘tele-town halls?’” Newhouse, the GOP pollster, asked in an email, referring to the increasingly utilized form of constituent engagement. “If members of Congress believed those were at risk, they’d probably revolt!”