podesta_email_00665.txt

podesta-emails 119,978 words email

P17 P21 V11 V15 D1

-----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* *July 16, 2015* *LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS* CBS and ABC did not report on 2016 issues. NBC reported that Donald Trump filed his FEC report; says it was “difficult” because, his campaign reports, the forms are not meant for someone of his “massive wealth," and that forms left many questions answered but stated in all caps that he’s worth $10 billion. His campaign said Trump's income last year was $362 million, stock gains were over $27 million, and salary from 14 seasons of ‘The Apprentice’ was $213.6 million but released very little information on assets or debt. Commentators say that he might actually be worth less than he asserts. *LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS........................................................................ **1* *TODAY’S KEY STORIES..................................................................................... **8* Hillary Clinton Reports Raising Almost $47 Million for Primary Campaign // NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................. 8 Female donors help Hillary Clinton bring in $47.5 million in second quarter // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015...................................................................................................................................... 9 *SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ **10* Alex Moe (7/15/15, 1:03 PM) – INBOX: Speaker Boehner Calls for Hearings on Grisly Abortion Practices, Says President Obama Should Denounce Them............................................................................. 10 Ryan Lizza (7/15/15, 2:57 PM) – Curious why Obama doesn't take the HRC approach to this issue: support the deal but pivot to very hawkish position on Iran's meddling in ME........................................... 10 Nick Confessore (7/15/15, 4:42 PM) – Wow: Out of $15 million Bernie raised, $11 million came from donors giving less than $200............................................................................................................ 10 Marco Rubio (7/15/15, 5:48 PM) – .@mav213 I will give Iran a choice: change your behavior, or face the collapse of your economy due to U.S. pressure........................................................................ 11 *HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................................................ **11* Hillary Clinton Lags in Engaging Grass-Roots Donors // NYT // Nicholas Confessore and Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015......................................................................................................................... 11 The fallacy of the ‘real Hillary Clinton’ // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015........................ 13 Democrats release now-abandoned hearing schedule for Benghazi committee // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015......................................................................................................................... 15 2016 Campaign Cash Flowing to Clinton and Bush // AP // July 16, 2015................................. 16 Hillary Clinton Spends $18 Million, Hires Hundreds // AP // Lisa Lerer and Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 17 Hillary Clinton’s not-so-cheapskate campaign // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti and Annie Karni – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 19 Republican field walloping Clinton in money race // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 15, 2015. 21 Poll: Hillary Clinton’s lead shrinks among Democrats // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015... 23 3 Charts That Show Why Hillary Clinton Wants to Increase Profit-Sharing // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................................ 24 Hillary Clinton Takes in $46.7 Million from 250,000 Donors // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 24 Democratic House Members Accuse Benghazi Panel of Abandoning Duty // Bloomberg // Billy House – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................ 27 Hillary Clinton Far Outpaces Democratic Rivals in Spending // TIME // Sam Frizell - July 15, 2015 28 Warren pushes for return of Glass-Steagall after Clinton adviser said she won’t back measure // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................... 29 Clinton has spent 40% of campaign funds // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015...................... 31 Hillary Clinton video pushes pathway to citizenship // CNN // Tanzina Vega – July 15, 2015... 32 Hillary Clinton campaign’s ‘highest priority’: Getting email addresses // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 33 Clinton campaign rebuilds from a digital meltdown // LA Times // Michael A. Memoli – July 16, 2015 35 Hillary Clinton's campaign raised nearly $47 million in first quarter // CBS // Julianna Goldman and Steve Chaggaris – July 15, 2015...................................................................................................... 37 Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of Obama’s Iran deal // CBS // Stephanie Condon – July 15, 2015 38 Is Hillary Clinton all talk, no substance on climate policy? // MSNBC // Tony Dokoupil – July 15, 2015 39 Hillary Clinton Releases Campaign Fundraising Report // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald - July 16 2015 41 Women open wallets for Hillary Clinton // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015............. 42 Hillary Clinton enjoys a warm welcome in Washington // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 14, 2015 42 Hillary Clinton’s Resurrection // New Yorker // Nicholas Lemann – July 15, 2015.................... 44 Hillary Clinton Becomes First 2016 Candidate To Release Bundler Names // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................ 46 Clinton In 2011: Iran Only Has Right To Enrich After Nuclear Weapons Program “Irreversibly Shut Down” // BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 15, 2015..................................................................... 47 Bill Clinton apologized for his 1994 crime bill, but he still doesn’t get why it was bad // Vox // Dara Lind – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................... 48 Lobbyists, lawmakers rake in cash for Hillary // The Hill // Megan R. Wilson – July 15, 2015... 50 Dems: Benghazi panel has ‘abandoned’ its work to focus on Hillary // The Hill // Martin Matishak – July 14, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 51 Clinton’s fundraising surpasses $47 million // USA Today // Fredreka Schouten – July 15, 2015 52 Hillary Clinton says she called for Wall Street regulations early in the financial crisis // PolitiFact // Lauren Carroll – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................... 53 Clinton’s Model Staffers // National Journal // Emily Schultheis – July 11, 2015...................... 56 Hillary Clinton Has Already Spent $18.7 Million // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 57 Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors // The Guardian – July 15, 2015 59 Hillary Clinton Wants to Run on Climate. And She Thinks Democrats Should Too. // National Journal // Clare Foran and Jason Plautz – July 15, 2015.................................................................................. 60 Benghazi Republicans slam ‘one-way letter war’ of committee Dems // Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................... 62 Why Hillary Clinton should take a tougher stance on banks // CS Monitor // Robert Reich – July 15, 2015 64 Wealthy Donors and Lobbyist Bundlers Are Largely Bankrolling Hillary Clinton’s Campaign // Mother Jones // Russ Choma – July 15, 2015............................................................................................... 66 Hillary Clinton spends nearly $19M during first three months of presidential campaign // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 15, 2015............................................................................................ 67 Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors // Guardian // July 15, 2015 68 Hillary Clinton Has Spent $18M Of Over $46M In First 3 Months Of Her Presidential Campaign // IB Times // Sneha Shankar - July 16 2015................................................................................................ 70 DC Rep Says Hillary Wants To Make DC The 51st State // Daily Caller // Josh Fatzick – July 15, 2015 71 As Described By NYT’s Mark Leibovich, Reporters Covering Hillary Are A Bunch Of Monsters // Daily Caller // Betsy Rothstein – July 15, 2015............................................................................................. 72 Clinton, Dem Hopefuls Silent on Planned Parenthood Organ Sales Video // Free Beacon // Bill McMorris – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................................ 73 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Give Middle Finger to Israel and Jewish People // The Blaze // Wayne Root – July 15, 2015...................................................................................................................... 77 Rep. Marcia Fudge endorses Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid // Cleveland.com // Sabrina Eaton – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 79 *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE................................................. **80* *DECLARED................................................................................................. **80* *O’MALLEY............................................................................................... **80* Martin O’Malley Raises $2 Million for Presidential Bid // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 80 O’Malley raised $2 million during first month of presidential campaign, he tells donors // WaPo // John Wagner – July 15, 2015......................................................................................................... 80 O’Malley Raised $2 Million in June, Putting Him in Rear of Money Race // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 81 O’Malley campaign raises $2 million for Democratic contest // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 82 Martin O’Malley campaign raises $2 million in the first month // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 82 Martin O’Malley raises $2 million; lags behind Clinton, Sanders // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 82 Martin O’Malley Trails Rivals in Fundraising with $2 Million Haul // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 15, 2015 83 O’Malley on Wall Street: ‘If you slap a bank robber on the arm, he’s going to rob the bank again’ // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – July 15, 2015............................................................................... 84 Creating a 21st Century immigration policy // The Gazette // Martin O’Malley – July 14, 2015.. 87 *SANDERS................................................................................................ **88* The Bernie Sanders campaign, brought to you by small-dollar donors // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 88 There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors. // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 89 Bernie Sanders’ official haul: $15.2 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015......... 90 ‘Billionaires for Bernie’ Group Is Formed, With Neither Billionaires Nor Bernie // Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015...................................................................................................................... 91 The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men // TNR // Michael Tracey – July 15, 2015............................................................................................................................................ 92 The savvy tech strategy fueling Bernie Sanders’ upstart 2016 campaign // LA Times // Evan Halper – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................................................... 94 The Bernie Sanders Surge Is About Bernie, Not Hillary // Five Thirty Eight // Nate Silver – July 15, 2015 96 *WEBB...................................................................................................... **99* Jim Webb Becomes Sole 2016 Democrat to Question Iran Deal // WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 14, 2015 99 Jim Webb breaks from 2016 Dems in Dinging Iran deal // Politico // Nick Gass – July 14, 2015 100 Webb skeptical of Iran deal, worries Dems bow to interest groups // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 101 *CHAFEE................................................................................................. **102* Lincoln Chafee Bankrolls His Campaign // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015.............. 102 Literally No One Supports Lincoln Chafee In Latest Poll // HuffPo // Sam Stein – July 15, 2015 103 Lincoln Chafee’s Presidential Bid has Zero Support, New Poll says // TIME // Nolan Feeney – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 103 *UNDECLARED.......................................................................................... **104* *OTHER................................................................................................... **104* Bernie Sanders throws shade at Hillary Clinton during Senate visit // AP // July 15, 2015...... 104 Bernie Sanders gets his say on Clinton’s day in Capitol // AP // David Espo – July 15, 2015.... 105 Bernie Sanders narrows the gap as Hillary Clinton’s lead declines by double digits // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................................... 106 Bernie Sanders gaining on Hillary Clinton, with Biden looming // Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................................... 107 Hillary Clinton’s Lead is Shrinking, and a New Poll Shows Growing Support for a Dark Horse Candidate // IJ Review // Kyle Plantz – July 15, 2015.................................................................................. 108 *GOP............................................................................................................... **109* *DECLARED................................................................................................ **109* *BUSH..................................................................................................... **109* Jeb Bush to Release Names of His Fund-Raisers // NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 109 Lobbyists bundle nearly a quarter million dollars for Jeb Bush // WaPo // Catherine Ho – July 15, 2015 110 Jeb Bush reports $11.4 million campaign haul // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 111 Jeb Bush to release names of campaign bundlers, joining Hillary Clinton // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 112 Wall Street Donated Generously to Jeb Bush, Filing Shows // WSJ // Beth Reinhard and Christopher S. Steward – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................... 112 Jeb Bush’s Iowa Travels Take Him East and West, Left and Right // WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 114 Jeb’s official haul: $11.4 million // Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015....................... 115 Goldman Bankers Are Jeb Bush’s Biggest Backers for White House // Bloomberg // Max Abelson – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 116 Republican Bush raises $11.4 million for 2016 presidential bid: filing // Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 116 Jeb Bush to release list of campaign bundlers // CNN // Ashley Killough – July 15, 2015........ 117 Only 3 Percent of Jeb Bush’s Campaign Cash Came From Small Donors // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015................................................................................................. 118 Clinton And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing // IB Times // Andrew Perez and David Sirota – July 15, 2015........................................................................................... 119 *RUBIO.................................................................................................... **120* Marco Rubio Has Missed Most Votes This Year of Senators Running for President // NYT // Jeremy W. Peters – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................... 120 *WALKER................................................................................................ **121* A Sleep-Deprived Scott Walker Barnstorms Through South Carolina // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 121 Scott Walker, in South Carolina, Skirts Gun Control and Flag Issues // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 122 Scott Walker Tries to Clarify Remarks on Gay Scout Leaders // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 122 Scott Walker Using Harley-Davidson to Burnish ‘Fighter’ Image // NYT // Nick Corasaniti – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 123 Unbending (and unexcitable) // WaPo // Michael Fletcher – July 14, 2015............................ 125 Scott Walker: Boy Scouts should decide if they want gay leaders, not me // WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 130 In South Carolina, battle flag not an issue for Walker // AP // Bill Barrow – July 15, 2015........ 131 Scott Walker backtracks on reaction to gay Boy Scout leaders // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 133 Waiting for Scott Walker // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 15, 2015........................................... 133 Scott Walker: Gay Troop Leader Ban Protected Scouts From ‘Political Media Controversy’ // Bloomberg // Ben Brody and John McCormick – July 15, 2015.......................................................................... 136 Scott Walker Confronts the Rigors of the Presidential Campaign Trail // Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 136 Flight Delays Add Exhaustion to Scott Walker’s Rollout Marathon // Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 138 Scott Walker Sues Feds Over Food Stamp Drug Testing // HuffPo // Arthur Delaney – July 15, 2015 139 Unions: This time, we’ll defeat Walker // The Hill // Tim Davaney – July 15, 2015................. 141 Scott Walker tells Laura Ingraham he doesn’t believe abortion should be between a woman and her doctor // Capital Times // Jessie Opoien – July 15, 2015..................................................................... 143 *PAUL...................................................................................................... **144* Rand Paul’s official haul: $7 million // Politico // Katie Glueck and Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 144 Rand 2015 Runs From Rand 2007 On Iran // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 15, 2015......... 145 *CRUZ...................................................................................................... **147* Ted Cruz makes New York Times’ list // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015...................... 147 Ted Cruz challenges Fox debate standards // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – July 15, 2015.......... 148 Ted Cruz owes donor’s firm $556k // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Katie Glueck –July 15, 2015 149 Ted Cruz threatens highway bill filibuster to block Ex-Im renewal // Politico // Seung Min Kim – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 150 Ted Cruz Forsees Military Action Against Iran // Bloomberg // Kathy Kiely – July 15, 2015..... 151 He’s Ba-a-a-ack: Ted Cruz Hints He’ll Filibuster Ex-Im Bank // Bloomberg // Heidi Przybyla – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 151 Ted Cruz relish silver medal standing on fundraising at confab // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 152 Ted Cruz: ‘If you think Washington is going great…then I ain’t your guy’ // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 154 Several Hours Of Ted Cruz B-Roll And Interviews With Family Members Just Went Online // BuzzFeed // Megan Apper and Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015............................................................ 156 *CHRISTIE.............................................................................................. **156* Christie picks up 2016 endorsement from Maryland governor // AP // Brian Witte – July 15, 2015 156 Chris Christie Says Obama ‘Lied’ to American About Iran Deal // Bloomberg // Elise Young – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 156 Gov. Chris Christie bags 2016 endorsement from Gov. Larry Hogan // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 157 *PERRY................................................................................................... **159* To help get Rick Perry into debates, super PAC advertises on conservative talk radio // WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................... 159 Rick Perry’s official haul: $1.1 million // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015..................... 160 Perry dismisses Trump on border policy // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015............ 161 Rick Perry: Obama Is ‘A Very, Very Naïve Man’ // HuffPo // Marina Fang – July 15, 2015....... 162 *GRAHAM............................................................................................... **163* Lindsey Graham’s official haul: $3.7 million // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015........... 163 *SANTORUM........................................................................................... **163* So Far, Little Reflection in His Fundraising of Rick Santorum’s 2012 Success // WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 15, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 163 Rick Santorum’s official haul: $607,000 // Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015........... 164 Rick Santorum Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Just As Racist As The Confederate Flag // HuffPo // Matt Ramos – July 15, 2015......................................................................................................... 164 *HUCKABEE............................................................................................ **166* Mike Huckabee’s official haul: $2 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015.......... 166 Mike Huckabee Calls Children Of Gay Parents “Little Guinea Pigs” In His 2011 Book // BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................... 166 *CARSON................................................................................................. **167* Ben Carson’s official haul: $8.5 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015.............. 167 *FIORINA................................................................................................ **168* Why Aren’t More Women’s Groups Fighting to Get Carly Fiorina Into the GOP Debate? // Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 16, 2015................................................................................................. 168 Carly Fiorina’s official haul: $1.7 million // Politico // Hadas Gold – July 15, 2015.................. 172 *JINDAL................................................................................................... **172* Bobby Jindal, a Late Entry, Reports Campaign-Finance Fillings // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 172 Jindal, allies report $9 million take for presidential bid // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 173 Bobby Jindal’s official haul: $579,000 // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015............... 173 *TRUMP................................................................................................... **174* Donald Trump Claims His Wealth Exceeds ‘TEN BILLION DOLLARS’ // NYT // Gerry Mullany – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 174 So, Donald Trump looks like he’s serious about running for president // WaPo // Amber Philips – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 175 Donald Trump says he’s worth $10 billion. But we still won’t really know. // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 178 Individuals give money to billionaire Trump and more from his FEC report // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz and Rosalind S. Helderman – July 15, 2015................................................................................. 179 Donald Trump claims he’s wroth more than $10 billion // WaPo // Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger – July 15, 2015................................................................................................. 180 Donald Trump claims ‘most people’ read his book. No one we talked to at Trump Tower has. // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................... 182 Donald Trump, middle finger of the Republican base // WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 15, 2015 183 Donald Trump word cloud: Nazism and consumerism // WaPo / James Hohmann – July 15, 2015 185 The best of Donald Trump on ‘Morning Joe’ // WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July 15, 2015............ 186 Trump Files Disclosure, Touts $10 Billion Net Worth // WSJ // Heather Haddon – July 15, 2015 187 Trump campaign sets his personal fortune at $10 billion // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 189 Trump indeed funding own presidential bid: $1.8 million loan // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 190 British Open waits on Turnberry call after Trump remarks // AP // July 15, 2015.................... 191 Donald Trump: ‘A vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote’ // AP // July 15, 2015................... 191 5 things to know about Donald Trump’s personal fortune // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 192 Trump campaign to reveal wealth details: ‘I’m really rich’ // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 193 Donald Trump grows up // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015................................. 194 Donald Trump snipes at Karl Rove // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015.................... 196 How Barack Obama Created Donald Trump // Politico // Keith Koffler – July 15, 2015........... 197 Donald Trump: I’m getting richer // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015................... 201 Trump’s official haul: $1.9 million // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015.......................... 201 Trump claims $213M payout for ‘Apprentice’ // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015.......... 202 Poll: Trump’s favorability increasing, but not with Hispanics // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 203 The Trump Litmus Test // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 14, 2015.................................... 203 Donald Trump Claims Net Worth Over $10 Billion as He Files Disclosure // Bloomberg // Richard Rubin – July 15, 2015...................................................................................................................... 205 Donald Trump Says He'll Release Financial Disclosure by Thursday // Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 206 Donald Trump: I’m worth $10 billion // CNN // MJ Lee – July 15, 2015................................. 206 Donald Trump claims he’s worth $10 billion // MSNBC // Carrie Dann – July 15, 2015........... 208 CPAC Chairman: Trump a plausible president // MSNBC // Jesse Bergman – July 15, 2015... 208 Donald Trump's Team Says His 'Massive' Net Worth Is More Than 'TEN BILLION DOLLARS' // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................... 209 Donald Trump Exaggerates Crowd Size At Phoenix Rally // HuffPo // Jacob Kerr – July 15, 2015 210 Donald Trump’s ‘Miss USA’ Pageant Earns Record-Low Ratings // HuffPo // Gabriel Arana – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 211 That Time Im 1988 Trump Told Oprah What Was Wrong With America’s Foreign Policy // BuzzFeed // Ilan Ben-Meir – July 15, 2015..................................................................................................... 212 Trump To USA: Look How Rich I Am! // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 14, 2015................ 213 GOP Gives Up on ‘Dump Trump’ // Daily Beast // Tim Mak – July 15, 2015............................ 214 Donald Trump Claims $10 Billion Net Worth After Filing Election Forms // TIME // Zeke J. Miller – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 216 Heat on GOP Candidates Paul, Rubio to Derail Iran Pact // Real Clear Politics // Caitlin Huey-Burns and Rebecca Berg – July 14, 2015............................................................................................... 217 Trump Swears He’s Not Running For President As A Democratic Plant // TPM // Catherine Thompson – July 15, 2015.............................................................................................................................. 220 Republican Voters Like Trump More Than Boehner, McConnell // Morning Consult // Reid Wilson – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 221 *UNDECLARED.......................................................................................... **222* *OTHER.................................................................................................. **222* Paul Singer, Top Republican Donor, Is Still on the Sidelines // NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 222 Candidate Forum Planned in New Hampshire Before First Republican Debate // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................................... 222 Sniping Intensifies Between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015 223 Trump, Carson, and Santorum burn through campaign cash fastest // WaPo // Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015............................................................................................ 224 As Jindal and Huckabee struggle with fundraising, super PACs bolster tallies // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................................... 226 2016 fundraising shows power tilting to groups backed by wealthy elite // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 227 The Trump-Bush feud: Frontrunner edition // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015......... 229 Bush, Walker to reveal top presidential money-raisers // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 231 Cruz sets meeting with Trump, praises ‘bold, brash voice’ // AP // Erica Werner – July 15, 2015 231 Early-state newspapers plan GOP forum before Fox debate // AP // Kathleen Ronayne – July 15, 2015 232 Charleston massacre, flag debate put Haley in 2016 spotlight // AP // Bill Barrow and Meg Kinnard – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 233 GOP candidates slam Iran deal, but will it play in 2016? // AP // Nicholas Riccardi – July 15, 2015 235 Officials say Cleveland on track for 2016 GOP convention // AP // Mark Gillispie – July 15, 2015 235 George Pataki’s official haul: $256k // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015................. 237 Donald Trump changes tune on Cruz // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015.............. 237 Donald Trump: I don’t know why I’m meeting Ted Cruz // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 238 Rivals Cruz, Trump play nice en route to 2016 // CNN // Eric Bradner – July 15, 2015............ 239 Donald Trump meeting with Ted Cruz on Wednesday // CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 15, 2015 241 Cruz defends Trump’s ‘bold, brash voice’ ahead of private meeting // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 241 Cruz dodges question on mysterious Trump meeting // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 243 How much money have Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee raised for 2016? // CBS // Reena Flores – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 243 Republican Presidential Candidates To Disclose Bundlers For First Time Since 2008 // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015................................................................................................. 244 Ted Cruz Defends Donald Trump On Immigration Before Their Dinner Date // HuffPo // Michael McAuliff and Elise Foley – July 15, 2015................................................................................................... 245 C-SPAN to preempt first GOP debate // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July 15, 2015.............. 246 *OTHER 2016 NEWS....................................................................................... **248* What Campaign Filings Don’t Show: Super PACs’ Growing Sway // NYT // Eric Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015................................................................................................... 248 Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are set to barnstorm New Hampshire. Here’s what to watch. // WaPo // Sean Sullivan – July 16, 2015............................................................................................... 249 Bush, Clinton dominate early 2016 presidential fundraising // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 250 Fundraising - and spending- shatter records // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti – July 16, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 252 Chart: The 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Time in Elected Office, Ranked // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015....................................................................................................................... 255 Candidates Show First Glimpse in Historic 2016 Money Race // Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 256 Trump's Popularity Rises, Still 2-1 Negative, While Clinton Regains Positive Territory //ABC // Gregory Holyk – July 15, 2015.................................................................................................................... 258 Bernie Sanders Won’t Accept Money From Billionaires. Donald Trump Donated $100,000 to Hillary Clinton. // HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 15, 2015.......................................................................... 260 Bush Hails Uber, While Clinton Criticizes // TIME // Jay Newton-Small – July 15, 2015........ 262 *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS................................................................... **264* Jim Webb: A respectable alternative to Hillary Clinton // Newsday // July 15, 2015.............. 264 Democratic poll shows Nevada Senate race a dead heat, Hillary up in the state // Ralston Reports // Jon Ralston – July 15, 2015........................................................................................................ 265 *TOP NEWS..................................................................................................... **267* *DOMESTIC................................................................................................ **267* Senate clears way for final vote on No Child rewrite // AP // Jennifer C. Kerr – July 14, 2015... 267 Obamacare Fines Paid by 6.6 Million Taxpayers, More Than Planned // Bloomberg // Anna Edney – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 268 *INTERNATIONAL..................................................................................... **269* Clearing Hurdles to Iran Nuclear Deal With Standoffs, Shouts and Compromise // NYT // David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon – July 15, 2015....................................................................................... 269 Greece, Its Back to the Wall, Adopts Austerity Steps // NYT // Suzanne Daley and James Kanter – July 15, 2015................................................................................................................................... 275 *TODAY’S KEY STORIES* *Hillary Clinton Reports Raising Almost $47 Million for Primary Campaign <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/hillary-clinton-reports-raising-almost-47-million-for-primary-campaign/?smid=nytpolitics> // NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton raised $46.7 million for her primary campaign, more than half of it from women, according to campaign officials and reports filed on Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. Mrs. Clinton had $28 million in cash on hand at the beginning of July after spending more than $18 million since starting her campaign in April, as she moved rapidly to establish infrastructure in key primary states after months of waiting to enter the race. And while her campaign has focused on raising contributions for the primary, Mrs. Clinton accepted $824,620 in money earmarked for the general election should she win the Democratic nomination. About one in six dollars of the almost $47 million Mrs. Clinton raised came from donors giving less than $200, a smaller proportion than some Democratic and Republican rivals, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Sanders raised far less than Mrs. Clinton overall — about $15 million, including money transferred from his Senate account — though more than two-thirds of it came from smaller donors. “Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House,” Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead.” An earlier version of this article misstated when Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign finance reports were filed with the Federal Election Commission. They were filed on Wednesday, not Monday. *Female donors help Hillary Clinton bring in $47.5 million in second quarter <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/female-donors-help-hillary-clinton-bring-in-47-5-million-in-second-quarter/?postshare=8691437006802822> // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 * The $47.5 million Hillary Rodham Clinton raised during her first two and half months as a presidential candidate this year was boosted by a predominantly female donor base, her campaign said Wednesday. Of the more the 250,000 contributors who donated to Clinton, 61 percent are women. That puts her on track to outstrip the presidential high-water mark set by President Obama in 2012, when 47 percent of donors who gave him more than $200 were women, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The surge of female-driven contributions for Clinton could fuel a partisan divide when it comes to gender and political money. In 2012, women gave 52 percent of their federal donations to Democratic candidates, a slight edge the party has held since 1998, according to the Center. All but $824,000 of Clinton's war chest is money raised for the Democratic primary contest. Her campaign entered July with nearly $29 million in cash on hand. Donations under $200 made up just under 17 percent of Clinton's total raised. That was in sharp contrast with Republican Jeb Bush: Just 3 percent of the $11.4 million he raised came from such low-dollar donations. Clinton's small-donor base is larger than it was in her first quarter of fundraising in the 2008 race, when just 9 percent of her money came from contributions under $200, according to data analyzed by the Campaign Finance Institute. But it is smaller than that of then-candidate Barack Obama, who raised 22 percent of his money that same quarter from small donors. It is also dwarfed by that of primary season rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Nearly 76 percent of the $13.5 million in individual donations he received were under $200. “With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. Clinton also released the names of 122 fundraisers who have bundled at least $100,000 for the campaign. In all, they have raised at least $12.2 million since April 12, 2015. The Clinton bundler list included many familiar and longtime Democratic Party fundraisers, as well as some of the Clinton’s biggest long-time donors. Haim and Cheryl Saban, who built a fortune marketing the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” and other entertainment offerings, were on the list as they have been for past Clinton presidential, Senate and foundation activities. Longtime donor Fred Eychaner, a reclusive Chicago business and media titan, is on the list. In 2012, he was one of the largest donors to Democratic outside spending groups, and has been particularly supportive of same sex marriage legislation. The list also includes many familiar Washington names, including Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, longtime Democratic donor and former ambassador to Portugal, and veteran Clinton adviser Minyon Moore. Washington lobbyist Steve Elmendorf – who worked on the presidential campaigns of Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton – was listed, along with Tom Nides, who was Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretary of state before joining Morgan Stanley as a top executive. Other notable Wall Street bundlers listed include hedge fund magnate Orin Kramer and Marc Lasry. Unlike Obama, Clinton is allowing lobbyists to bundle for her campaign. Among those raising money for Clinton were former Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey and K Street power Heather Podesta. Others included David Leiter, a lobbyist who served as former chief of staff to John Kerry; and Jackson Dunn, a managing director at FTI Consulting who served as an aide to President Bill Clinton and other national figures. *SOCIAL MEDIA* *Alex Moe (7/15/15, 1:03 PM)* <https://twitter.com/AlexNBCNews/status/621349404537192448>* – INBOX: Speaker Boehner Calls for Hearings on Grisly Abortion Practices, Says President Obama Should Denounce Them* *Ryan Lizza (7/15/15, 2:57 PM)* <https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/621377991164198912>* – Curious why Obama doesn't take the HRC approach to this issue: support the deal but pivot to very hawkish position on Iran's meddling in ME.* *Nick Confessore (7/15/15, 4:42 PM)* <https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/621404481478070272>* – Wow: Out of $15 million Bernie raised, $11 million came from donors giving less than $200.* *Marco Rubio (7/15/15, 5:48 PM)* <https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/621421006507376641>* – .@mav213 I will give Iran a choice: change your behavior, or face the collapse of your economy due to U.S. pressure.* *HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE* *Hillary Clinton Lags in Engaging Grass-Roots Donors <http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lags-in-engaging-grass-roots-donors.html?referrer=> // NYT // Nicholas Confessore and Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has been slow to harness the fund-raising power of the Democratic Party’s legions of grass-roots donors, according to reports filed Wednesday, a weakness that her campaign is racing to combat. Of the $47.5 million that Mrs. Clinton has raised, one-fifth has come from donors giving less than $200. That is a far smaller proportion than that of her Democratic and Republican rivals who have excited grass-roots donors on the left and right, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ted Cruz of Texas. While Mr. Sanders raised far less than Mrs. Clinton over all — about $15 million, including money transferred from his Senate account — about four-fifths of that amount came from smaller donors. The slow response of grass-roots donors is a consequence, Mrs. Clinton’s aides and advisers said, of the deliberately low-key approach she has taken on the campaign trail — with few of the big rallies and campaign events that can help build voter lists and drive donations — along with the challenge in persuading some donors that Mrs. Clinton, who is far ahead in primary polls, needs their money. The deficit could represent a financial and strategic liability for Mrs. Clinton if she were to win the nomination. The pool of Republican donors willing to write the maximum $2,700 check has grown so large that no Democrat, not even Mrs. Clinton, is likely to be able to match a mainstream Republican nominee on high-dollar fund-raising over the long term. In 2012, President Obama and his party were able to match the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, only by raising far more money than Mr. Romney from small donors. “Given the prodigious amount of money on the Republican side, the Democratic nominee absolutely has to overperform” among small donors, said David Axelrod, who advised Mr. Obama’s two successful presidential campaigns. Campaign officials said that operational hurdles and administrative delays also have impeded her outreach to small donors. On the day that Mrs. Clinton sent out emails in April announcing her presidential bid, a campaign official said, many of the messages bounced back. Fewer than 100,000 of the 2.5 million email addresses collected during her 2008 campaign, it turned out, were still active. The campaign did not gain access to a huge list of supporters, built over two years at substantial expense by a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” Ready for Hillary, until a month and a half after Mrs. Clinton’s announcement. Some of Mrs. Clinton’s allies acknowledge that Mr. Sanders has done a better job of engaging small donors on the left. “The small donors right now are very much attracted to what Bernie is saying,” said Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and a Clinton supporter. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has responded with a new program, the Hillbuilder Initiative, intended to build a more robust online presence and harvest the grass-roots money and enthusiasm that can come with it. But the slow start has bewildered some longtime supporters, who recall small-donor enthusiasm as a crucial piece of Mr. Obama’s win over Mrs. Clinton in 2008. Relying more heavily on large donors could also present an unwanted contrast not only to other candidates, like Mr. Sanders, but with Mrs. Clinton’s own statements about fighting for those who feel locked out of the economy. Mrs. Clinton has attended 46 fund-raisers since she entered the campaign, many of them for donors giving the largest possible check. Mr. Sanders has attended two. “We’re spending our time talking to people, rather than sitting around in small rooms talking to very wealthy people,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview on Wednesday, as he prepared for a campaign rally in Phoenix. “These are working people, middle-class people who are making these contributions." Wednesday’s campaign filings underscored not only how small donors have powered insurgent candidates, but how the growing world of super PACs and outside spending have upended conventional measures of fund-raising strength. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has taken in three times more money than any of her Democratic or Republican rivals, according to Federal Election Commission data filed by the 2016 candidates on Wednesday. But super PACs and other outside groups set up by allies or former aides to the Republican candidates have dwarfed the top Democratic super PAC — as well as most of the Republican campaigns — collectively raising in excess of $200 million and startling some in Mrs. Clinton’s camp. Jeb Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise, raised more than $103 million, on top of $11 million raised by his campaign, giving him an effective war chest twice as large as Mrs. Clinton’s. Priorities USA, the lead Democratic super PAC, has raised $15 million, and Mrs. Clinton’s allies are struggling to persuade her wealthiest backers to make seven- and eight-figure donations to the group. The only silver lining, Democrats said, was the knowledge that much of the Republican super PAC money would be used to savage other Republicans, in what is likely to be a long and hard-fought primary campaign. “What it means is that they are going to tear each other apart in the primary season,” said Mr. Rendell, who predicted that Mrs. Clinton’s small-dollar fund-raising would grow substantially in the months ahead. Some Democrats privately said that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign fund-raising is less impressive than it appears. Aside from Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland Governor, who reported raising $2 million for his campaign, Mrs. Clinton has no competition for the Democrats’ big-donor establishment, which handed out a combined $80 million to a crowded Democratic primary field during the equivalent fund-raising period in 2007, the last open primary. She also has been slow to seize the chance to raise money jointly with the Democratic National Committee. Under legislation passed in December, the party can accept up to $334,000 from each donor every calendar year — 10 times the amount in past years. One leading Democratic donor, who asked not to be identified so as not to damage his relations with Mrs. Clinton, estimated that the Democrats could be leaving $60 million to $70 million on the table. While some Clinton allies say they are not concerned about the campaign’s potential to excite small donors, the difficulty that Mrs. Clinton has faced presents a paradox of her position as a kind of de facto incumbent in the fight for the Democratic nomination. Without a pitched primary battle — like the one she faced against then-Senator Barack Obama eight years ago — it is far more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to create urgency among her financial and political base this early in the campaign. But an all-out fund-raising blitz, or a campaign built around larger events, could stoke the aura of “inevitability” that she is determined to avoid. A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Josh Schwerin, said the campaign was “thrilled to have 250,000 donors in our first quarter in the race, and our Hillbuilder program is already paying off with a rapidly growing list that is active and engaged.” *The fallacy of the ‘real Hillary Clinton’ <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/the-fallacy-of-the-real-hillary-clinton/> // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has been campaigning either for herself or her husband since 1991, with the exception of the four years she served as secretary of state (and including time in office, which one should). That's 20 of 24 years, which is why Mark Leibovich's New York Times coverage of the latest effort necessitates several extra "re-"s before "reintroducing Hillary Clinton." Leibovich argues that the drip-drip release of e-mails from Clinton's time as secretary of state has inadvertently helped the campaign achieve that dream goal of every candidate: Presenting the real Hillary Clinton. None of this what-I-read-in-the-papers stuff about who Clinton is and what she's like, but the real, unfiltered, only slightly sanded-down Hillary Clinton that her friends and family know. And heck, they'd all vote for her in a heartbeat! Those old enough to remember back to 2012 will remember another candidate who bemoaned that his realness was sheltered (and, of course, he features in Leibovich's very next sentence). If only people had known the real Mitt Romney, the thinking goes, they'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. This was son Josh's stated goal in 2012, to "help voters to get a different side of him … to really see the real Mitt Romney." Between January 2012 and January 2014, there were at least 1,400 news articles talking about the "real Mitt Romney," according to Nexis — a wave cresting with the release early that year of the documentary "Mitt." Here, at last, was the real Mitt. (But somehow, when he talked about running for president a third time earlier this year, people were still only lukewarm.) Here's the thing, though. This "get to know the real so-and-so" thing is not new. The day after the 2004 debate, Newsweek's Evan Thomas figured the debate helped John Kerry's chances because George W. Bush's allies "made him just a flip-flopping, effete, sherry-sipping, windsurfing joke, and when the American public finally saw the real John Kerry" he was "pretty good." The Lowell (Mass.) Sun spoke to Kerry's neighbors, folks that "had a chance to watch the real John Kerry, up close and unguarded." A syndicated column that went around before the election asked the real Kerry to "please stand up," perhaps marking Eminem's recent influence on the culture. Scores of articles between 2004 and 2006 demanded or revealed the "real" John Kerry. Just as, four years earlier, scores had looked for the "real Al Gore." ''Whatever he does, he has to be real,'' pollster John Zogby advised shortly before the 2000 election. ''Who is the real Al Gore?'' After the first debate, CBS' Russ Mitchell figured that viewers had seen him. Maybe. "If there is such a thing, though, as a real Al Gore, then voters probably saw him last night," he said. And on and on. The same concern didn't seem to surround George W. Bush that year. Far fewer people worried about uncovering the real Dubya than the real Gore or Kerry. In 2008, there was a lot of handwringing about the real Barack Obama, but some of that was of the birther variety. In 1984, it was Walter Mondale's turn. The Washington Post spoke with his team as the election approached. "Mondale's advisers also are trying to bring out a 'real Mondale,' " we reported, "who they say is, among other things, really a 'pragmatic, progressive Midwest politician' — not the ultra-liberal Reagan decries." Mondale offered the same — unsuccessful — advice to Michael Dukakis for his — unsuccessful — 1988 bid. "He's just got to go out and show us the real Dukakis and tell us where he wants to take the country," Mondale told the Times. "Don't worry about advisers. I didn't at this point. I said things my way." And how'd that work out? What's really being said, of course, is usually that the candidates are too candidate-y — that they seem as though they're trying to leverage their communications sophistication to hide who they really are. Kerry wasn't hiding a bubbly, easygoing persona when he ran in 2004; he doesn't really have one. Voters saw the real Al Gore and the real John Kerry. Voters in 2008 saw the real Hillary Clinton. Sure, they're all nice and easy-going sometimes, but who isn't? Sometimes, like when they're campaigning, they aren't. Or, look at it another way: Is the you that you offer on Facebook "the real you"? Of course not. The "real" us is never really knowable by another person. What candidates who want you to know the "real" them are really saying is, "I know you don't like me, but trust me that you would." Often, as we've seen, that sales pitch doesn't work. *Democrats release now-abandoned hearing schedule for Benghazi committee <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/democrats-release-now-abandoned-hearing-schedule-for-benghazi-committee/> // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015 * Former defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and, of course, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton were among the high-level witnesses who Republicans intended to call to testify this year about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Democrats on the special House committee investigating those attacks made public Wednesday a list of witnesses and hearings they claim Republicans outlined as part of a 2015 schedule for the committee. In a letter to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and distributed widely, the Democrats accuse him of abandoning the investigation in favor of skewering Clinton during her presidential run. According to the Democrats, Panetta and Gates were supposed to testify in April for a hearing entitled, “Why were we in Libya?” Rice, who famously was the White House mouthpiece in the days after the attacks, was to be summoned in July to discuss the “motivation of the attackers, as well as what was said after the attacks.” And Clinton was going to come before the committee in May to discuss “How did we respond?” Gowdy has previously blamed the committee’s slow walking the investigation on the State Department not turning over documents fast enough. He has said they can’t hold hearing until they have all the relevant facts. But the Democrats wrote in their letter that it doesn’t explain why no hearings, except for one in January, have been held. Particularly ones focused on other agencies like Defense, which shouldn’t be dependent on State documents. An Associated Press story Tuesday said the committee has “devolved from an investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Libya into a political fight over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails and private computer server.” The conclusion was that the purpose of the committee’s work is to uncover Clinton’s wrongdoings, not how and why the Benghazi attacks occurred. *2016 Campaign Cash Flowing to Clinton and Bush <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/16/us/politics/ap-us-2016-political-money.html> // AP // July 16, 2015* WASHINGTON — The major parties' top presidential candidates in the fundraising race — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush — are collecting cash in the huge amounts needed to fuel the extensive political organizations they are building for the 2016 campaign. Their financial backers have poured more than $176 million into their campaigns and the super PACs specially designed to boost them. Clinton's campaign is spending money at a rapid clip, according to initial fundraising reports filed Wednesday with federal regulators. The former first lady and front-runner in the Democratic race has paid out 40 percent of the $47 million in donations that she amassed by the end of June, employing some 364 people and building infrastructure across the country in preparation for next year's general election. Bush, the former Florida governor and son and brother of ex-presidents, spent more than one-quarter of the $11.4 million in fundraising that he collected in the final 16 days of June, according to the reports. The campaign invested heavily in payroll and policy consulting. The Federal Election Commission reports cover financial activity between April 1 and June 30, a period when almost all of the 22 presidential hopefuls jumped into the race, and list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution for the primary is $2,700. The FEC documents also showed how candidates are spending — or saving: In the crowded Republican field, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio started July with almost $10 million, just ahead of Bush and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and in front of the rest of the GOP pack. Yet a candidate's own campaign is just one page in the money story. Super PACs, which are required to file similar documents at the end of the month, can accept contributions of any size. They're limited on how closely they can work with the campaigns but are often staffed with close confidants of the candidates. In many cases, the candidates themselves have "blessed" the super PACs and pitched in with their fundraising. These and other powerful outside groups account for about two-thirds of the roughly $400 million raised so far for the presidential election, according to an Associated Press tally of FEC documents and financial totals provided by the groups that haven't yet reported. No current candidate has made as much use of super PACs and their unlimited-donation potential as Bush. Before he officially declared his candidacy, he spent the first six months of the year raising huge sums of money for Right to Rise. That group says it has raised a record $103 million. Outside groups are furthering the ambitions of at least four other Republican presidential aspirants: Rubio, Cruz, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In each case, the fundraising for those entities is outpacing the fundraising for their campaigns. Rubio's overall take from donors — $44.7 million to his campaign and two outside groups — includes $15.8 million for a nonprofit that won't file any public budget information until at least next year and keeps its donors secret. Some donors are secret for another reason: They're too small. The FEC only requires names and identifying information for people who give more than $200. These kinds of contributors are underwriting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' Democratic presidential campaign, FEC reports show, accounting for more than three-quarters of the $13.7 million in contributions he collected. Sanders also transferred $1.5 million from his dormant Senate campaign account. Also doing well on the small-donor front is Republican retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. About 68 percent of his $10.6 million raised this year was in contributions of $200 or less. Carly Fiorina, a California technology executive also seeking the GOP nomination, raised 43 percent of her $1.7 million this way. Because the money is coming directly to those candidates, they have tighter control over how it is used. By comparison, 3 percent of Bush's campaign cash and 17 percent of Clinton's came from small donors. A few major Republican candidates are missing from the initial campaign finance reports. Kasich hasn't officially launched his campaign yet. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made their campaigns official too recently to file second-quarter FEC reports, although a Christie-allied super PAC said on Tuesday that it has raised $11 million. The first look at their campaign numbers will come in mid-October. *Hillary Clinton Spends $18 Million, Hires Hundreds <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-spends-19-million-hires-hundreds-32480930> // AP // Lisa Lerer and Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton spent more than $18 million and hired hundreds of employees in the first three months of her presidential campaign, creating a national operation that vastly outpaces her rivals in both parties. She has the money for it, having raised more than $46 million for the Democratic primary contest. But building a campaign Goliath hasn't come cheap. Clinton spent more than $5.9 million on 343 employees, $700,000 on computers and other equipment, and nearly half a million renting offices, including her 80,000-square-foot Brooklyn headquarters. Beyond paying for salaries and space, her campaign purchased lists of voters in four early primary states, paid six figures to a super PAC devoted to defending her record and spent heavily on building a digital team, according to campaign finance documents filed Wednesday with federal regulators. It's a strategy aimed at a contest that's nearly a year away. The overwhelming favorite for her party's nomination, Clinton's team has set its sights on building the massive infrastructure they'll need for the general election. The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more competitive primary race against then-Sen. Barack Obama. During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices — like spending nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus, a contest she lost. This time, her staff has emphasized its "cheapskate" mentality — particularly to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May, top donors were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn. Campaign aides like to brag about taking the bus from New York to Washington, rather than the more expensive Acela train. Even so, her campaign spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election Commission report shows. All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during this campaign than she did eight years ago. During the first three months of her 2008 bid, Clinton spent 14 percent of the $36 million she raised, according to FEC documents. In the launch of this campaign, she's burned though nearly 40 percent of what she has taken in. Her campaign also reported that Clinton received more than 250,000 contributions, with an average donation of $144.89. About 17 percent of her contributions were $200 or less. By comparison, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2 million through the end of June, and three-quarters of his donations were $200 or less. Though they've highlighted their lower-dollar contributions, Clinton's team also released a list of campaign bundlers who each raised more than $100,000 for her primary bid. Some of the donors included Clinton's most ardent financial backers, including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor who was a major donor to the Ready for Hillary super PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a longtime friend and college classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire J.B. Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan Patricof, a New York-based financier who served as Clinton's finance chair when she first ran for Senate in New York. Clinton's team also successfully courted some of Obama's biggest backers, including New York financiers Marc Lasry, Charles Myers and Blair Effron. Others included former Clinton aides like Minyon Moore, Tom Nides and Lisa Caputo, former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and current members of Congress like Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut and Grace Meng of New York. *Hillary Clinton’s not-so-cheapskate campaign <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-official-haul-46-million-120189.html?ml=tl_4> // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti and Annie Karni – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s cheapskate campaign is sure spending a lot of cash. The Democratic front-runner, who has pledged to run a thrifty operation, started off with a historically lucrative fundraising quarter, but it’s also gone through campaign funds at a rate surpassing any of her rivals in either party. Racing against a Republican field full of highly funded campaigns and super PACs, the Clinton machine spent more than $18.7 million since launching in mid-April — that’s more than the rest of her Democratic rivals raised, combined, according to filings released on Wednesday. It could afford to do so after raising roughly $47.5 million — including $46 million in primary money, the most of any campaign in its first quarter, ever. The report, which came in late Wednesday as the federal filing deadline loomed, showed a campaign investing heavily in organizing, but also in a large staff around the country. It also showed an operation heavily reliant on a handful of large donors: Just $8 million of its haul came from donations of $200 or less, though the campaign said 94 percent of its contributions were less than $250. In a bid for transparency, the campaign voluntarily disclosed its bundlers of over $100,000 — a long list that included several stand-by Democratic megadonors and a handful of elected officials. But, for a campaign that has publicly promoted its allegedly frugal ways, the report also showed a few particularly large or eyebrow-raising expenditures and liabilities. Hillary for America reported a debt of $574,000 for the first three months of its campaign since its April 12 launch, including over $553,000 owed to pollster John Anzalone’s firm. When Clinton last ran for president, in 2008, her campaign finished in debt, and the candidate used nearly $13 million of her own dollars — circumstances the operation has been keen to avoid repeating. So far this time, Clinton herself donated about $279,000 to her own 2016 campaign. And while the campaign has highlighted how it encourages even its top staffers to take the cheap Bolt Bus to travel along the Northeast corridor, the filing showed the campaign has also spent more than $8,700 on Amtrak. Much of the campaign’s money was spent on payroll and organizing expenses, but some expenditures — such as nearly $180,000 for a charter plane company — stood out. Other noticeable expenditures included a $500 payment to former Rep. Anthony Weiner — husband of top aide Huma Abedin — for office furniture, and over $387,000 in legal fees. The campaign did spend considerably in the early-voting states, including $370,000 for voter files in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. And it has spent almost $815,000 on services from pollster Joel Benenson’s firm. Background=istockphoto Clinton has been raising money aggressively in a bid to raise $100 million in primary election money by the end of December. Much of her fundraising pitch to donors has been based around her likely Republican rivals’ own campaign cash, including Jeb Bush’s super PAC haul of over $100 million. But Clinton’s filing on Wednesday covered only her campaign, not its supportive groups. The main pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, raised over $15 million in the first half of the year despite raising money particularly actively in only recent weeks. “With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Amerians to get ahead and stay ahead,” said campaign manager Robby Mook. Clinton’s total puts her miles ahead of her Democratic rivals, including Bernie Sanders — who raised north of $15 million — and Martin O’Malley — who brought in $2 million. In fact, Clinton spent more than the rest of the Democratic field raised, combined. Her three-month haul was larger than that of any Republican’s official campaign, but super PAC numbers will not fully be reported until the end of the month. At this point in 2007, Clinton was already in her second quarter as a candidate, and she reported a $27 million haul that July, with $45 million cash on hand. In that bid, less than 10 percent of her contributions came from people donating $200 or less. The campaign on Wednesday noted that over 250,000 individual donors contributed this time, and that over 60 percent of its donors were women. It voluntarily disclosed a list of over 100 top bundlers — the National Finance Committee members known as “Hillblazers” — which includes a mix of major Obama backers in 2008 and Clinton standbys, as well as a handful of current and former lawmakers. Included in the roster are former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh; Rep. Joaquin Castro; Rep. Grace Meng; Rep. Jim Hime;, former Clinton press secretary Lisa Caputo; longtime supporter and Clinton Foundation donor Lynn Forester de Rothschild; Sean Eldridge and New Republic owner Chris Hughes; media mogul Fred Eychaner; billionaire venture capitalist J. B. Pritzker; Morgan Stanley executive Tom Nides, who served as part of Clinton’s brain trust at the State Department; megadonor and Univision owner Haim Saban; Steve Rattner; and Democratic National Committee member Robert Zimmerman, among others. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $47.5 million Total spent: $18.7 million Total cash on hand: $28.85 million Total debt: $574,000 *Republican field walloping Clinton in money race <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/republican-field-walloping-clinton-in-money-race-120175.html> // Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton, the dominant front-runner in the Democratic field, is facing a massive pile of money on the Republican side, with early numbers showing that the GOPers have outraised Clinton more than four times over. So far, the 15 candidates vying for the Republican nomination have raked in more than $280 million to Clinton’s $69 million, through a mix of campaign fundraising, super PAC donations, and other money groups. Yes, the field is lopsided, but that doesn’t diminish this fact: Hillary’s squaring off against a lot of Republican cash. Federal Election Commission numbers are trickling in on Wednesday, the deadline for candidates to provide their official campaign figures. The numbers provide an initial snapshot of the cash dash, with 16 months still to go before Election Day. But there was already a pretty good money picture before the deadline. Over the past couple weeks, the 2016ers have leaked, announced and — in some cases — boasted about their fundraising hauls. Among the sea of numbers, one has stood out: Jeb’s. Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC, which will take on an unprecedented role in tandem with his presidential campaign, announced last week that it had banked $103 million in the past six months, exceeding its own ambitious goal of $100 million. On top of that, Bush’s official campaign announced it raised $11.4 million over 16 days since he announced his bid for the White House (Bush’s camp confirmed that in its filing on Wednesday). A third money group raised $5 million, bringing his total amount to a formidable $119 million. The figures showed Bush’s prowess on the fundraising front. In two weeks, his campaign raised more than some of his rivals have over several months, and the super PAC’s take is unprecedented in American politics. The numbers confirmed some of the worries among Clinton supporters, who believe now is the time for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action to get its act together and start becoming a fundraising machine that can counter the Jeb juggernaut. But Bush is not the only Republican who has successfully flexed his fundraising muscle. Sen. Ted Cruz was not far behind with a $51 million pull, while Sen. Marco Rubio’s combined haul was $43.8 million. The rest of the field drops off from there, at least from initial reports. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s war chest stands at roughly $18 million (he reported $1.1 million in official campaign fundraising on Wednesday), groups backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich (who will announce his candidacy next week) raised $11.5 million, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s super PAC has reported bringing in $11 million, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s campaign said it raised $10.5 million. Others have so far raised in the single-digit millions. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was the first to have his paperwork appear on deadline day, reporting on Wednesday that his campaign had raised just under $579,000 during the seven days before the June 30 deadline. An adviser for the governor’s super PAC said later on Wednesday that pro-Jindal groups have raised nearly $9 million. On the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is shunning super PAC money, comes in a not-close second with $15.2 million, while former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley brought in roughly $2 million during his first month as a candidate. Clinton, meanwhile, has set off on a solid clip of fundraising, with $45 million in campaign money during her first three months as a candidate (a primary record, her campaign notes), and an additional $24 million through pro-Clinton super PACs. Stuart Roy, who formerly advised a pro-Rick Santorum super PAC in 2012, said the GOP’s numbers looks huge against Clinton, but cautioned against reading too closely into the numbers. “The Republican spin doctor inside of me wants to tell you that Hillary Clinton is going to get crushed but I really don’t think that July of this year that it’s terribly indicative of the general election. Most of the donors that are giving now are early donors and are giving because they believe in the candidate and you’re not getting too much of the momentum money which is what you get when people believe you can win.” *Poll: Hillary Clinton’s lead shrinks among Democrats <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-hillary-clinton-lead-shrinking-democrats-120140.html?ml=tl_16> // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is still leading the Democratic field for 2016, but her lead has shrunk in recent months, according to a Monmouth University poll out Wednesday, as independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to make steady gains, despite trailing by a wide margin. Among Democrats and those leaning toward the Democratic Party, Clinton picked up the support of 51 percent, down from 57 percent in June and 60 percent in April. Sanders came in second with 17 percent, followed by former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb with 1 percent each. Lincoln Chafee, the former governor and senator from Rhode Island, registered no support. If Vice President Joe Biden were to run, however, the results suggest that he would take some votes from Clinton. He has not announced his intentions, but poll respondents backed him with 13 percent, just behind Sanders. Among voters who said they were likely to vote for Biden in the event of his candidacy, 68 percent said they currently support Clinton, while 18 percent said they are backing another candidate, with 14 percent undecided. Clinton continues to have the best favorability ratings among her Democratic rivals in the Monmouth poll (74 percent favorable to 17 percent unfavorable), though Biden is close behind (67 percent to 17 percent). The poll was conducted via landlines and cellphones from a larger July 9-12 survey, which sought the opinions of 1,001 adults nationwide. This particular sample included 357 registered voters who identified themselves as Democrats or leaning toward the Democratic Party, carrying a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points. *3 Charts That Show Why Hillary Clinton Wants to Increase Profit-Sharing <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/3-charts-that-show-why-hillary-clinton-wants-to-increase-profit-sharing> // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015 * In a speech at the New School in New York City on Monday, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for building a “growth and fairness economy.” “Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they helped produce,” she said, adding that "studies show profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets.” The philosophy behind Clinton’s proposals is sometimes called inclusive capitalism. Rather than focusing on higher tax rates for the rich, Clinton is proposing reforms that would change the incentives of the current economic system in hopes of making it more equitable. Unlike Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, her presidential rival, and a self-described socialist, Clinton is looking to amend the rules of the game, not toss the board up into the air. The following charts help explain why she is promoting profit-sharing: The one-percent The percent of wealth controlled by the top one percent now hovers near 20 percent, double where it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Skin in the game Clinton says she would incentivize businesses to share profits through the tax code. By increasing profit sharing, the plan would give more employees a stake in the business’s growth and put that growth directly into employees' pockets. An increase in the share of income lower level employees take home could decrease inequality, but it may not make up for the structural inequality created by improvements in technology, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Defining issue of our time Few deny that inequality has risen dramatically over the last thirty years, though its causes are disputed. Even low tax republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are making it a central issue of their campaigns. *Hillary Clinton Takes in $46.7 Million from 250,000 Donors <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/hillary-clinton-second-quarter-fundraising> // Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised close to $47 million in primary money during its first quarter and has $28.85 million in cash on hand, according to a report filed Wednesday with the Federal Elections Commission. The Democratic front-runner is focused on raising money for the primary, and brought in more than $46.7 million—including in-kind contributions of nearly $280,000 from Clinton, who financed the testing-the-waters pre-campaign phase with her own money—once all the checks for the second quarter of 2015 were totaled. The campaign is not actively soliciting general-election money but still took in close to $825,000 that can only be spent if she becomes the Democratic nominee. More than 250,000 people from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories gave to support Clinton's candidacy, the campaign said in a statement, and 94 percent of donations were of $250 or less. The average donation was $144.89 and, showing Clinton's appeal to female voters, 61 percent of donors were women. “Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a written statement. While Clinton's team touted broad-based support, the breakdown by dollars is slightly less kind, with about $8 million—just under 17 percent—of Clinton's haul coming in contributions of $200 or less. The campaign was the first to voluntarily disclose a list of major fundraisers, and posted on its website the names of 122 individuals or groups that bundled at least $100,000 for Clinton. Many of those people hosted fundraisers for Clinton, including Facebook cofounder and New Republic owner Chris Hughes and his husband Sean Eldridge; Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner; and Avenue Capital Group CEO Marc Lasry and his wife Cathy. Texas Reprepsentative Joaquin Castro—the twin brother of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, a possible Clinton vice presidential pick—is listed as a bundler, as are Connecticut Representative Jim Himes and New York Representative Grace Meng. A few former Hillary Clinton staffers, including Minyon Moore and Lisa Caputo, are also listed as bundlers. The campaign reported $2.1 million in donations bundled by registered lobbyists, including FTI Consulting's Jackson Dunn, who raised the most at $231,554, and former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, who raised $28,000. Campaign chairman John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta raised $74,575, while Tony Podesta's ex-wife Heather raised $31,150. More than a dozen Hollywood stars and moguls gave the maximum $2700 to the campaign, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Bryan Cranston, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Richard Gere, Kate Hudson and Stephen Spielberg, who has also written a big check to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action super PAC. Clinton's second-quarter primary haul, which her campaign had initially estimated at $45 million, beats the record-setting $41.9 million that President Barack Obama's reelection campaign brought in during its first quarter in 2011. While the campaign's expenses were sizable—disbursements totaled just under $18.7 million, more than any other campaign has even raised—aides insist that they were focused on making smart investments for the rest of the campaign, including starting off with a substantial number of staffers working in a large Brooklyn office, hiring dozens of staffers in early primary and caucus states, and buying voter files and e-mail lists outright rather than in installments. The campaign spent its funds at a rate of about $230,000 per day and its overall burn rate is about 40 percent, much faster than the 20 percent rate of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders or the 27 percent rate of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Even so, the $28.85 million in cash on hand exceeds any of her opponents from either party by more than double. Still, there's plenty of financial pressure on Clinton and the outside groups backing her, which in total raised about $70 million during the second quarter. The campaign spent more than $900,000 on polling, with just over $800,000 going to Benenson Strategy Group, run by top Clinton adviser Joel Benenson. David Binder's polling firm was paid $90,000 by the campaign. The campaign ended the quarter owing $553,113.66 to another polling firm, Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. While the campaign has sought out media attention for its thrift – especially on travel expenses – the numbers are less generous. The campaign's filing details $661.50 spent on Bolt Bus and Best Bus, and $8,700 spent on much pricier Amtrak trips. (There are also plenty of reimbursements to staffers for travel expenses which could of course include ground transportation.) Clinton initially relied on commercial flights to get to campaign stops but has increasingly been using private planes as her travel schedule has picked up, and disclosures show nearly $180,000 paid to just one aircraft company, Executive Fliteways. The campaign spent $463,656.63 on rent, including $105,875.34 a month for its Brooklyn headquarters at 1 Pierrepont Plaza. “With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," Mook said in his statement. Groups supporting Jeb Bush brought in $114.4 million during the first half of 2015—including $11.4 million raised by his official campaign between its launch in mid-June and the end of the second quarter. The Clinton team is "without a doubt" worried about being outraised by the efforts backing Bush and more broadly by the flow of massive amounts of money to super PACs backing Republican candidates, Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri said Wednesday on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect. "I am concerned that Democrats aren't taking it seriously enough and they should be really worried about this," she said. "We are really worried about this. We are still going to be outspent—we still think [Clinton] can win—but this is a big threat." *Democratic House Members Accuse Benghazi Panel of Abandoning Duty <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/democratic-house-members-accuse-benghazi-panel-of-abandoning-duty> // Bloomberg // Billy House – July 15, 2015 * The five U.S. House Democrats on the special committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi on Wednesday criticized Republicans for not planned hearings this year, accusing their colleagues of instead focusing on partisan attacks against Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state now running for the Democratic nomination for president. "It appears that much of the Select Committee's work has been shelved while Republicans pursue every possible avenue of political attack against Secretary Clinton," states a letter sent by the Democrats to committee chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. It's the latest salvo in a partisan battle over the work of the committee, formed to look into the State Department's handling of the 2012 terror attacks in Libya that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. In the Wednesday letter, the panel's Democrats, led by Elijah Cummings of Maryland, said their Republican colleagues had initially provided them with information about plans to hold 11 hearings between January and October on a wide range of topics relating to the Benghazi attacks. Since then, however, the letter states Republicans "have completely abandoned this plan — holding no hearings at all since January and instead focusing on former Secretary Hillary Clinton. "Amazingly, the last eight press releases on the Select Committee's webpage deal entirely with Secretary Clinton," the letter adds. There was no immediate response from Gowdy and Republicans on the committee. The letter goes on to specify topics of hearings that were promised, but never held. Those include: - A January hearing with State Department eyewitnesses to the attacks to address the question of what happened in Benghazi; - A February hearing with non-State Department eyewitnesses to the attacks to address the question of what happened in Benghazi; - A March hearing with State Department witnesses to address the question of "Why were we in Libya?" - An April hearing with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary Leon Panetta as witnesses to address the question of "Why were we in Libya?" - A May hearing hearing with Clinton as the planned witness to address the question of "How did we respond?"; - A June hearing with former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morrell as the witness to address intelligence matters related to Libya, specifically about what was said after the attacks; - And a July hearing with former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as the witness to address the motivation of the attackers, as well as what was said after the attacks. The letter states that the committee has not only postponed its hearings with Clinton and other State Department witnesses, "but it has abandoned all of its other hearings as well, including those examining other agencies like the Department of Defense and the CIA. "In the entire 14 months since the Select Committee has been in existence, the Select Committee has not conducted a transcribed interview or deposition of even a single Defense Department employee," the Democrats contend, adding: "In the past, Republicans have attempted to blame the Select Committee's glacial pace on Secretary Clinton and the State Department. But it seems difficult to understand how they could be responsible for the Select Committee abandoning every single hearing it had planned to hold since January." Republicans have acknowledged that the the findings of the Republican-led committee investigating Clinton’s response to the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, likely will not be released until next year, just months before the 2016 presidential election. Democrats have previously noted there there already have been as many as seven congressional inquiries into the fatal Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Libya. Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and her Republican critics contend that she failed to bolster security before the assault and should share blame for what they say is the Obama administration’s initial, erroneous account that the attacks were spontaneous and not the result of a terror attack. *Hillary Clinton Far Outpaces Democratic Rivals in Spending <http://time.com/3960164/hillary-clinton-campaign-spending/> // TIME // Sam Frizell - July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent $18.7 million since its launch on expenses ranging from payroll to voter files and office furniture, as the Democratic frontrunner sought to build a huge national operation that includes staff in all 50 states. Her campaign has spent more money than both her Democratic rivals have raised. “Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House,” said campaign manager Robby Mook. Some of the campaign’s more significant expenditures included $370,000 for the New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina Democratic party voter files, nearly $2 million outsourcing its direct marketing to a Washington, D.C.-based firm, and millions of dollars in payroll for the campaign staff of nearly 350. The campaign also spent around $440,000 on legal fees, according to filings, including $163,000 to the law firm of the campaign’s lawyer, Marc Elias. The campaign can afford to spend, having raised $46.7 million since mid-April, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, raised about $15 million in the first quarter. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley brought in around $2 million. The spending represents some 40% of the money Clinton has raised since her official launch. The campaign has taken a famously cheap approach, with staff forced to take buses, fly commercial and buy minimal office furniture and supplies. Some of that was reflected in the expenditures: in the month of June, for example, payroll expenditures to campaign manager Robby Mook totaled just $4,910, according to the filings, though Mook holds one of the most senior positions on the campaign. The average donation to the Clinton campaign was $145, and the campaign said that 61% of its donors were women. Celebrity donors to the campaign included Steven Spielberg, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, Disney Chairman Alan Horn, and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg. Notably, neither Chelsea Clinton nor Bill Clinton donated to the campaign, while the Bush family has already maxed out its contributions to Jeb’s campaign. Nearly 33,000 people have purchased items from Clinton’s online store, which includes tongue-in-cheek items like a “Chillary” koozie and a “pantsuit tee.” *Warren pushes for return of Glass-Steagall after Clinton adviser said she won’t back measure <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-glass-steagall/index.html> // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 * Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pushed for the reinstatement of a major Depression-era banking law on Wednesday, emailing her large list of supporters to push for the measure. The plea from the progressive icon comes two days after an economic adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign said the presidential candidate wouldn't reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act if elected. "Wall Street spent decades -- and millions of dollars -- to repeal the original Glass-Steagall Act, and you can bet they'll do whatever it takes to keep it from being reinstated," Warren wrote in an email titled "Let's get real." "We need grassroots support from all across the country if we're going to fight back to make our financial institutions smaller and safer." The email asked supporters to sign a petition supporting Warren's "21st Century Glass-Steagall Act," which was introduced by the senator -- along with Republican Sen. John McCain -- last week. The Glass-Steagall Act was a Depression-era law passed in 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. The law was in place for more than 60 years until President Bill Clinton, with the backing of Congressional Republicans, repealed the law in 1999. On Monday, Clinton outlined her economic vision for the country in a speech at the New School in New York. The former secretary of state promised to get tough on Wall Street and called lifting middle-class wages the "defining economic challenge of our life." After the speech, Alan Blinder, an economist who the Clinton campaign says is advising the former first lady, told Reuters that Glass-Steagall was not going to be part of the candidate's economic platform. "You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," Blinder said. A Clinton aide, however, refuted Blinder on Wednesday. "She will be announcing her ideas for dealing with the continuing problem of 'Too Big To Fail' in the coming weeks, and nothing has been taken off the table," the aide said. In a 2013 interview with CNN, Bill Clinton blamed deregulation -- and the repeal of Glass-Steagall -- on Congressional Republicans. "The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative Republicans," he said. "When they passed bills with the veto-proof majority with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn't stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come on." The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall has become something liberal -- and some conservative -- leaders have championed since its repeal and the market crash of 2008. Clinton's top progressive challengers in the 2016 Democratic field, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have pushed for the law to be reinstated. And Sens. Warren, McCain, Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, and Angus King, I-Maine, proposed reinstating the law in 2013. The next year, the group wrote that "reinstating and strengthening the wall between federally insured commercial banks and investment banks would discourage the largest financial institutions from exploiting regulatory loopholes in order to take excessive risks at taxpayer expense." *Clinton has spent 40% of campaign funds <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-fec-report/index.html> // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's campaign filed it's first report with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, stating that they raised a substantial $47 million, but spent roughly 40% of that. Clinton, whose campaign has been focused on raising money for the primary, brought in $46,725,329.13, according to the report. Some donors, however, sent the campaign money twice the $2,700 primary donation minimum, leading the campaign to raise $824,620.51 in general election contributions. The campaign has spent heavily, though. While they have about $29 million in cash-on-hand, they spent about $19 million in their first quarter as a campaign, giving the campaign a burn rate of 40%. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, by comparison, spent 22% of the money his campaign raised. Clinton's 40% burn rate is far higher than her first quarter as a candidate in 2007. During that quarter -- from January to March in 2007 -- Clinton raised $36 million and only spent about $5 million, giving that campaign a 14% burn rate. In the second quarter of 2007, Clinton's campaign brought in $27 million and spent about $13 million, giving it a 47% burn rate. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said thanks to their 250,000 donors, the campaign has "had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House." "With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," Mook said. A release from Clinton's campaign said 94% of their donations were $250 or less, with an average donation of $144.89. Sixty-one percent of the donors, the campaign said, came from women. Clinton and her team have focused intently on raising money during their first quarter, criss-crossing the country at a frenetic pace. Clinton personally headlined 58 fundraisers in 18 states in the three-month quarter, a sizable number for a frontrunner. Her campaign aides headlined a number of other fundraisers. Hillary for America's high burn rate smacks against campaign aides's claims of being thrifty. For much of the quarter, aides joked and bragged about spending little money, providing journalists with anecdotes about taking the bus, not the train, and not being given business cards. "It is a big dollar number," an aide said Wednesday as the FEC report was filed. "But we have more cash on hand than any other campaign by far. We feel good about where we are. Robby and the whole team made a plan and executed on that plan and it was about spending smartly and spending in ways that make sense. We are very comfortable with where things are and how we are moving." Despite the burn rate, Clinton still far outpaces her Democratic opponents. Sanders raised about $14 million during the quarter, $1.5 million of which came from his Senate committee, according to his campaign's FEC report. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who was a candidate for 30 days this quarter, raised $2 million, according to his campaign. *Hillary Clinton video pushes pathway to citizenship <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-immigration/index.html> // CNN // Tanzina Vega – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton continued to amplify her support for a pathway to citizenship, particularly for young Latino immigrants commonly known as DREAMers, in a new campaign video released Wednesday morning. In the video, called "Sueños" or "Dreams," Clinton is seen meeting with a small group of young Latino immigrants at a roundtable discussion she held at Rancho High School in Las Vegas who are telling her about their goals for the future. One young woman, Betsaida Frausto, who arrived in the United States when she was two, tells Clinton she wants to go to Yale and become a doctor but won't be able to fully realize her dream because she is not a citizen. Another young man, Rafael Lopez, who arrived when he was one, tells the story of how his parents were deported after being in the United States for 15 years. "I'm not about to let anybody who can make a contribution to our economy and our society get thrown away," Clinton tells the group. In addition to scenes from Clinton's meeting with the DREAMers, the video contains scenes from a Clinton campaign rally where a young woman addresses the crowd in Spanish. The Clinton campaign released the bilingual video one day after Clinton addressed a crowd of thousands of Latinos at the National Council of La Raza in Kansas City. In her speech there, she called for a clear path to citizenship for young immigrants and highlighted economic inequities Latinos face in the United States including the millions of Latino youth that cannot find work and the fact that Latinas make just 56 cents on the dollar compared to white men. Clinton also called out Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush for comments he made about Americans having to work harder. "He should tell that to the farmworkers breaking their backs picking fruit in Southern California," Clinton said to a rousing applause from the crowd. Bush aides have argued that his comments were taken out of context and said he meant that more part-time workers need full-time jobs. In addition to her speech at La Raza, the largest Latino civil rights group in the country, Clinton has also met with officials in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Last month Clinton addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Las Vegas where she accused the entire GOP field of seeking to relegate immigrants to "second-class status." *Hillary Clinton campaign’s ‘highest priority’: Getting email addresses <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-list-buidling/index.html> // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 * A lot changes in seven years. Just ask Hillary Clinton's campaign. When Clinton launched her campaign in April, her staff -- armed with the list of 2.5 million email addresses from the former secretary of state's failed 2008 campaign -- hit send on their first 2016 message. The realization they received shortly after that stunned them: Less than 100,000 of Clinton's 2008 emails addresses were still active and usable. Teddy Goff, Clinton's top digital strategist, had thought going into the campaign that around 1 million of the 2008 emails would still be active. But the realization that only a fraction of those emails still worked was a slightly sour point on an otherwise "successful" day for the campaign, he said. "It wasn't as if we all kind of retreated into a bunker to drown our sorrows or anything like that," Goff said Wednesday. "In the midst of that day, discovering that we were really rebuilding a list virtually from scratch, it was a realization that there was going to be a tough road ahead." To respond to this problem, Goff and the campaign launched what they dubbed The "Hillbuilder Project," an internal campaign push that urged all staff members to think about and act on how they could build the campaign's email list. Goff called building the email list the "the single highest priority, for now" on the tech and digital side of the campaign. Signs were put up around the Brooklyn headquarters that read, "What are you doing to grow the list today?" Organizers in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states were urged to get emails from everyone they spoke with and add them to the database. And at an all staff meeting on June 12, the day before Clinton's first big rally in New York, campaign manager Robby Mook included list building as one of the campaign's top three priorities for the summer. "This is not just a digital thing," Goff said, "this is a campaign priority." The campaign's goal, Goff added, was to provide "relevant content" and allow people to connect with the campaign so that they can "provide an experience that people are going to like." Part of that is content that taps into the news of the day. Most campaigns do this: A big news event happens, so the team blasts out an email and post social media content that looks to build their list. When the Supreme Court decided to make same sex marriage legal in all 50 state, Clinton's campaign sent an email -- subject line: "Full Hearts" -- that asked people to "celebrate history" by adding their name to a list. The campaign made similar pitches on Twitter and Facebook, including a video titled "Equal" about gay marriage that received more than 3 million views on Facebook. The goal of these emails and lists is to make people who support Clinton feel like they are missing out by not being on the list, campaign aides have said about their digital strategy. Another way Clinton's campaign grew the list was by swapping with other groups, including Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that spent 2013 and 2014 urging Clinton to run. While the super PAC had a number of priorities, including engaging grassroots organizers who wanted to support Clinton, Ready for Hillary's top aides long said that their main focus was building a sizable list of current and engaged Clinton devotees. The campaign gained access to the Ready for Hillary email list in May and started to use it for fundraising and other pitches shortly thereafter. But Goff said Wednesday that while the list was helpful, it couldn't make up for name generated by the actual campaign. "I think all of us are very appreciative of Ready for Hillary and what they did," Goff said. "It has been valuable, but at the same time, it is incumbent on us to build our own community." He added, "The fact of the matter is an email address that an entity acquired on its own either by a petition or by an online ad is always going to be a little bit more active and engaged than an email address that is acquired by the way of a swap." The biggest reason email lists matter is fundraising. Previous presidential campaigns, including President Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, have raised huge sums of money through email and online fundraising. Goff was the digital director of President Obama's 2012 reelection bid. Like other campaigns, Clinton's operation will release their first FEC report on Wednesday. Campaign aides have already previewed that they raised over $45 million in primary money during their first quarter, part of that through digital fundraising. The FEC report, however, will not itemize what money came on line, however, and what came through other venues. Campaign aides also would not disclose the current size of their list or goals they have for the list building project. Goff did say, however, that the campaign is "more concerned with the output of the list than with the size of the list." "We would rather have a couple million really good email addresses by election day," he said, "than 15 million really bad ones." *Clinton campaign rebuilds from a digital meltdown <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-digital-20150715-story.html> // LA Times // Michael A. Memoli – July 16, 2015* Hillary Rodham Clinton wound down her political operation in 2008 with 2.5 million email addresses in her campaign database. Seven years later, when campaign officials turned on the lights in April, they were stunned to find fewer than 100,000 still worked. Campaign aides learned the bad news in much the same way a reunion organizer trying to reconnect with old friends might, albeit on a much larger scale: an in-box clogged with bounce-back messages on the day Clinton announced her campaign and sent messages to supporters. The huge attrition of valuable data is not unique to Clinton -- a typical email list will lose 1 in 5 subscribers each year, said Jordan Cohen, chief marketing officer for Fluent, which specializes in email list acquisition. But it created one of the first big challenges for the campaign’s growing digital team and sparked a response that illustrates the high priority campaigns now place on acquiring digital data. “It wasn’t like we all had time to retreat to a local bar and drown our sorrows,” said Teddy Goff, the Clinton campaign’s digital director – a role he also filled for President Obama’s reelection campaign. “It was an instantaneous recognition on the part of a lot of us that we had a bigger challenge ahead of us than we realized.” Rebuilding that digital infrastructure became one of the most critical goals that campaign officials set this year, prompting what became known as the “Hillbuilder” program. During the campaign’s first all-staff meeting, on the day before Clinton’s public campaign launch on Roosevelt Island in June, campaign manager Robby Mook identified building the email list as one of the top three goals in the year’s third quarter. On the cubicle walls of the offices used by the digital staff, a sign asks: “What are you doing to grow the list today?” In 2012, Obama’s reelection campaign, which boasted 30 million addresses at its peak, raised $485 million – more than 40% of its total haul – through its endless, and often parodied, email appeals, according to a former campaign official who provided the internal fundraising data on condition of anonymity. The rest of the fundraising total was split equally between major donors and direct marketing through traditional mail and phone contacts. Increasingly sophisticated methods for analyzing large amounts of data have made emails more and more valuable to campaigns, and not just as a vehicle for direct communication. The ability to track a user’s online experience helps the campaign develop a profile that is then used to send more-targeted communications. “The campaigns are looking at not just ‘are they going to contribute $1, $10 when I send them an email,’ but ‘are they opening, are they clicking, are they forwarding this email to their friends. Are they taking the email and posting it onto social,’” Cohen said. “There is just inherent value in having engagement that will lead, hopefully, into votes.” The Clinton campaign’s digital handicap wasn’t limited to its email lists. The former secretary of State had no Facebook page, no Instagram account and only 3.3 million Twitter followers at her launch date (President Obama’s campaign-run account has more than 60 million today, by comparison). The campaign would not disclose how much its list has grown since April. But it has reached 5 million followers across its accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Spotify and Pinterest, officials said. The campaign launched each of those platforms over the last few months, with a goal of reaching would-be supporters where they normally spend time online and creating a ripple effect that would expand their contact lists. One early, successful tactic was to create a daily, rapid-response-style newsletter that supporters could subscribe to called “The Briefing,” launched to coincide with a new book critical of the Clinton Foundation. The campaign also sought to build suspense around the Roosevelt Island rally by promising exclusive details about the event to those who signed up on Clinton’s website. And last week, Clinton emailed supporters inviting them to tell her when their birthdays are, so she – or her digital avatar, at least -- can send a note when the day arrives. “We're part of a team together,” the email read. “We're going to work hard and have a lot of fun through it all. Part of that is taking some time to celebrate and appreciate each other, and that’s what I’d like to do on your birthday.” The idea, Goff said, grew out of the fact – attested to by her own, now public, emails – that Clinton has always gone out of her way to offer birthday wishes to those around her. A successful digital effort, he noted, depends on the authenticity of each communication. “That’s a true thing about her that reflects something that we think people are going to enjoy that can also be turned into an online program that’s going to help us build our community,” he said. Expanding the digital infrastructure isn’t just happening organically, of course. The campaign also engaged in more transactional efforts, including exchanging active contacts with the Ready for Hillary organization. They have also already spent $2 million on an online advertising campaign that has helped add names to the list. “The core of what we’re trying to do is serve people with an experience that they’re going to enjoy, that’s going to enlighten them and hopefully inspire them to get more deeply involved in the campaign,” Goff said. *Hillary Clinton's campaign raised nearly $47 million in first quarter <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-campaign-raised-nearly-47-million-in-first-quarter/> // CBS // Julianna Goldman and Steve Chaggaris – July 15, 2015 * Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has filed her first fundraising report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and her campaign says that she raised $46.7 million in primary dollars, a record for an opening quarter in a campaign. She has also spent a sizable amount - among the expenditures is $18.6 million on gearing up for the campaign ahead - voter files for the first four early-voting states - a one-time cost - plus organizers, technology and list-building. Still, Clinton had plenty of cash on hand at the end of the fundraising period, about $28.8 million. The Clinton campaign says that more than 250,000 contributors representing every state and Washington, D.C. donated and 94 percent of the donations were $250 or less, with the average donation coming in at just under $145. Sixty-one percent of the donors were women. Clinton herself made $278,000 in in-kind contributions, mostly to pay staff working with her during the testing-the-waters, including Huma Abedin, Robby Mook, and Nick Merrill) The previous record for primary money raised in a candidate's first quarter was set by President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, which pulled in $41.9 million during three months in 2011. The fundraising total does not include the money raked in by a number of Clinton-friendly outside groups, like super PACs, non-profit organizations, and others. Clinton's campaign fundraising may be record-breaking, but its super PAC numbers - which have not been released yet - are not expected to be as robust for the second quarter, a Clinton campaign official told CBS News. Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in 2016, formally launched her campaign in mid-April. *Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of Obama’s Iran deal <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-comes-out-in-favor-of-obamas-iran-deal/> // CBS // Stephanie Condon – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night clarified that she supports the agreement that President Obama's administration and its world partners have reached with Iran to freeze its nuclear program. "I support this agreement because I believe it is the most effective path of all the alternatives available to the U.S. and our partners to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," she said. Her statement Tuesday night went a step further than her remarks earlier in the day, when Clinton she stressed she needed to learn more about the deal's details. She said Tuesday morning that based on what she knew at the time, the deal was "an important step in putting the lid on Iran's nuclear program." GOP 2016 candidates put onus on Congress, Hillary Clinton to reject Iran deal In her latest statement, Clinton added that she is still "studying the details." "But based on the briefings I received and a review of the documents, I support the agreement because it can help us prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon," she continued. "With vigorous enforcement, unyielding verification, and swift consequences for any violations, this agreement can make the United States, Israel, and our Arab partners safer." Given Iran's past behavior, she said, "the highest priority must be given to effective enforcement of the agreement. Signing is just the beginning." She argued that her experience shaping the deal as secretary of state will help her enforce it if she wins in 2016. "As Secretary of State, I logged tens of thousands of miles and twisted a lot of arms to build a global coalition to impose the most crippling sanctions in history," she said. "That unprecedented pressure delivered a blow to Iran's economy and gave us leverage at the negotiating table, starting in Oman in 2012. I know from experience what it took to build a global effort to get this done; I know what it will take to rally our partners to enforce it." While Clinton signaled her endorsement of the deal earlier in the day, the Republican National Committee (RNC) suggested the Democratic frontrunner was trying to keep an ambiguous position. The RNC spotlighted one report in which a reporter asked Clinton's staff whether she fell "somewhere on a spectrum between support and opposition." Clinton's spokesman responded, "Everybody lives somewhere between support and opposition." Meanwhile, as Republicans work to thwart the deal, the RNC continues to refer to it as the "Clinton-Obama nuclear agreement." *Is Hillary Clinton all talk, no substance on climate policy? <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-all-talk-no-substance-climate-policy?cid=sm_tw_msnbc> // MSNBC // Tony Dokoupil – July 15, 2015 * “She spoke on climate. She is into it,” enthused one lawmaker. “She was incredible,” swooned another, a climate-minded senator. “Hillary Clinton wants to run on climate. And she thinks Democrats should too,” blared a headline in National Journal. By Wednesday afternoon, word of Hillary Clinton’s closed-door luncheon this week with House and Senate Democrats was everywhere. But while the Democratic presidential candidate covered a long list of hot-button issues, her climate change policy — quite literally the hottest issue of all — seemed to dominate the political reactions. The only problem is, well, Hillary Clinton doesn’t actually have a climate change policy. There are precisely five mentions of the word on her entire campaign website, none particularly illuminating. There’s talk of “adapting for tomorrow” with “domestic action” and “intensive global engagement” on “the global threat of climate change.” How exactly will all this happen? Clinton doesn’t say. There are precisely five mentions of the word on her entire campaign website, none particularly illuminating. Her competitor Bernie Sanders brought up that lack of detail in his own impromptu press conference in the Capitol on Tuesday. For the socialist junior senator from Vermont, it’s unacceptable for Clinton to smile-and-wave her way through issues of “planetary” importance. All the major environmental groups are likely to feel the same way. “Our movement is looking for a candidate who has the political courage to move us off fossil fuels in time to avert catastrophic global warming,” Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for 350 Action, said in an email. “Given her murky history on this issue, Hillary Clinton needs to do a lot to show us that’s her.” “We aren’t going to give her a demerit for failing to give a big climate speech by this date,” added Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club. “But we are looking for an agenda that’s bold, ambitious, and – hopefully – coming soon.” There’s no doubting that Clinton appreciates the problem. She’s called climate change “one of the defining threats of our time,” and suggested she’d like to take more money from carbon polluters and funnel it toward clean energy. In a statement to Politico, a spokesperson for Clinton promised there would be more details to come. For now, however, the best we can do is return to the rare details that she’s already put down on the record. There is good news and bad news for environmentalists, and it all starts with a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is very likely to be a third term of President Barack Obama when it comes to climate policies. Her campaign chair is John Podesta, one of Obama’s closest advisers on climate policy. She also defends Obama’s controversial policies on coal-fired power plants, which he has pursued without congressional support. That’s the good news for the greens. Hillary Clinton is very likely to be a third term of President Barack Obama when it comes to climate policies. Obama has been aggressive when it comes to cutting carbon emissions, and Clinton has said she’ll not only protect his legacy but extend it. Here’s a passage environmentalists can love from her speech last December at the League of Conservation voters: “You pushed for and rallied behind President Obama’s use of the Clean Air Act to set the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are driving the most dangerous effects of climate change. As you know so well, power plants account for about 40% of the carbon pollution in the United States, and therefore must be addressed. And the unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be protected at all cost.” That’s a big deal. Obama’s proposed regulations have already been attacked by Republicans, and a Republican president would almost certainly weaken or repeal them. The battle to preserve Obama’s policy is important because it will help determine how many coal plants close in the near future. The more coal plants that close, the better chance we have of lowering U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, and as much as 28% by 2025. The more that we lower those emissions, the more likely it is that other nations will follow. In turn, the more likely it will be that world will really — seriously, no joke — slow the rise of the oceans and help the planet correct its course before it’s too late. If Clinton is a third-term of Obama, however, there’s also a lot still to be desired. She supports clean energy, for instance, but like Obama she seems to favor an “all of the above” approach to energy production. That means expanded offshore drilling, which Clinton supported as a senator in 2006. It also means more use of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to slurp up previously trapped oil and natural gas. She promoted the practice abroad when she was secretary of state, according to reporting by Grist and Mother Jones. That’s a deal-breaker for some voters, no matter how well she eventually defines her “smart regulations.” The biggest deal-breakers of all, however, are all still pending. What is Clinton’s position on continued drilling in the Arctic? What does she think about the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline? She hasn’t taken a stance on either project yet. But activists have come out in force to fight both, and unless Clinton falls in line — and soon — they might end up fighting her as well. *Hillary Clinton Releases Campaign Fundraising Report <http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-releases-campaign-fundraising-report-n392971> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald - July 16 2015* Clinton Stops Short of Fully Supporting Iran Deal, Calls It An 'Important Step' 0:39 Women made it rain for Hillary Clinton in the first three months of her presidential campaign — representing more than 60 percent of the donors who supported the former secretary of state. The campaign had already announced that it raised $45 million for the Democratic primary as of June 30, but a new campaign finance report made public Wednesday evening sheds new light on the campaign's haul. More than 250,000 people contributed to Clinton, according to the campaign, and 61 percent were women. That's especially notable since men typically make up the vast majority of campaign donors — just over 70 percent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The campaign also raised almost $825,000 in money that can only be used for the general election. That brought the total haul to more than $46 million. But the campaign also spent heavily, burning through $18.7 million in the second quarter of the year, leaving the campaign with $28.85 million in the bank. A campaign aide defended the spending, telling msnbc that it included large upfront investments that won't need to be repeated in coming months on items that most campaigns wait to invest in until later in the cycle. While Clinton held dozens of high-dollar fundraisers across the country, her small-dollar fundraising operation also proved successful. According to the campaign, 94 percent of donations were for $250 or less, and the average donation was $144.89. Clinton herself contributed in-kind more than $275,000 to her campaign, mostly from staffers she paid before the campaign officially kicked off, the aide said. *Women open wallets for Hillary Clinton <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/women-open-wallets-hillary-clinton> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015* Women made it rain for Hillary Clinton in the first three months of her presidential campaign — representing more than 60% of the donors who supported the former secretary of state. The campaign had already announced that it raised $45 million for the Democratic primary as of June 30, but a new campaign finance report made public Wednesday evening sheds new light on the campaign’s haul. More than 250,000 people contributed to Clinton, according to the campaign, and 61% were women. That’s especially notable since men typically make up the vast majority of campaign donors — just over 70%, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The campaign also raised almost $825,000 in money that can only be used for the general election. That brought the total haul to more than $46 million. But the campaign also spent heavily, burning through $18.7 million in the second quarter of the year, leaving the campaign with $28.85 million in the bank. A campaign aide defended the spending, telling msnbc that it included large upfront investments that won’t need to be repeated in coming months on items that most campaigns wait to invest in until later in the cycle. While Clinton held dozens of high-dollar fundraisers across the country, her small-dollar fundraising operation also proved successful. According to the campaign, 94% of donations were for $250 or less, and the average donation was $144.89. Clinton herself contributed in-kind more than $275,000 to her campaign, mostly from staffers she paid before the campaign officially kicked off, the aide said. *Hillary Clinton enjoys a warm welcome in Washington <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-enjoys-warm-welcome-washington> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 14, 2015 * So far on the trail of her second presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has spent days meeting with bowling alley owners in Iowa and passing out ice cream cones in New Hampshire. But on Tuesday, she took her campaign to Washington, where Clinton returned to the playing field where she may be at her strongest – marble floors, behind closed-doors. Hoping to lock down support from Democratic lawmakers and labor unions, Clinton showed her strength at playing the inside game. Her whirlwind day in Washington began early with breaking news on Iran’s nuclear program, did not relent as she met with Democratic members of Congress – including her top rival for the Democratic nomination – and continued into the evening with an audition before leaders of the nation’s largest organized labor group. As the nation’s capitol was processing the national security breakthrough, Clinton returned to Capitol Hill with a cadre of heavyweight political aides in tow for six separate meetings with various groups of Democratic lawmakers. In between, she spoke to reporters about her position on the Iran deal, calling it an “important step.” After that, between more meetings with House Democrats, she dialed into a conference call with three current cabinet officials and several former secretaries of state to learn more about the deal, a briefing made available to her by her status as a former secretary of state. And after she left the Capitol, Clinton headed to the offices of the AFL-CIO to pitch herself to the executive council of the massive labor federation, hoping to earn their endorsement. It’s unclear when – or if – Clinton even had time to eat. By the time she made it across the Capitol to meet with Senate Democrats during their weekly luncheon, she had missed the meal. “She got there late, she didn’t get lunch,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. One Senate Democrat left the room early. It was Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but has found more enthusiastic support at large rallies in places like Madison, Wisconsin than among his colleagues in the halls of Congress. “I have known Secretary Clinton for 25 years, since she was first lady. I served with her in the Senate. I like and respect Hillary Clinton,” he told reporters at a press conference. “But there are differences of opinion that we have which should be the basis for a serious discussion.” “I helped lead the effort to stop the deregulation of Wall Street. I believe the biggest banks should be broken up and that Glass-Steagall financial regulations should be reinstated. To the best of my knowledge, she isn’t for either one,” he said. Sanders was respectful inside the luncheon and stood and applauded for Clinton other senators said. Meanwhile, Clinton has already secured the support of almost two-thirds of Sanders’ Democratic colleagues, according to one tally. That’s a stark contrast to last time Clinton ran for the presidency, when the caucus split and many of her fellow senators were supporting her then-colleague, Barack Obama. The defectors included leaders like Reid – who declined to endorse Clinton today out of loyalty to Vice President Joe Biden – and some of the lawmakers who hailed Clinton’s visit today. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi quietly supported Obama then, but exchanged kisses with Clinton today in front of the cameras, and said she couldn’t wait for the candidate to enter the White House. Among others, Clinton received almost uniformly positive reviews, even from lawmakers who have been skeptical of her in the past. “She expressed values that are very consistent with the Progressive Caucus,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who had hoped Sen. Elizabeth Warren would throw her hat in the ring. “No matter where people end up gong, they’re two awesome progressives, in our view,” said Ellison of Clinton and Sanders. Clinton had initially not scheduled a meeting with the Progressive Caucus, but added it later. Thirty-eight of its liberal members turned out to meet the candidate, according to a congressional aide. After a different meeting, Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Clinton ally who represents New York was asked if she thought Democratic lawmakers might side with Sanders. “Bernie Sanders is running as an independent, I think, isn’t he?” she told reporters. “I remember quite well hearing he was not a Democrat, so I’m not exactly clear why he’s running on our ticket to be honest with you.” Clinton twice led a stampede of reporters through the entire length of the Capitol building, as she moved from the House to the Senate and back again. The train behind grew as more staffers and reporters attached themselves, meandering through a throng of iPhone-wielding tourists in rotunda who screamed for selfies with the candidate. But Clinton kept a brisk pace as her entourage pressed itself through narrow stairwells. The former secretary of state was not the only fair-haired celebrity allegedly spotted in Congress today. Rumors swirled that singer Taylor Swift, in Washington for a two-night stand, had come to the Hill. A persistent lack of sighting of the pop star did not stop some – including members of Congress – from hoping for a selfie of the two. “Staff tell me @taylorswift13 is roaming Capitol Hill. @HillaryClinton can you confirm? We could do a selfie,” tweeted Rep. Debbie Dingell. *Hillary Clinton’s Resurrection <http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hillary-clintons-resurrection> // New Yorker // Nicholas Lemann – July 15, 2015 * The twenty-first-century boom in new translations of the great nineteenth-century Russian novels has not encompassed one significant work: the last of Leo Tolstoy’s three full-length novels, “Resurrection,” originally published in 1899. The English translation of “Resurrection” that is easiest to find is the first, from 1900, by the Tolstoy acolyte Louise Maude, and there hasn’t been a new one in decades. It’s easy to see why this is so. Both “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” have Tolstoy-like characters—Pierre Bezukhov and Konstantin Levin—who chafe at the self-satisfaction, relentless social striving, and oppressive economic underpinnings of the Russian aristocracy into which they were born. Both are drawn to reformist spiritual and political ideas. But in “Resurrection” the main character, Dmitri Nekhlyudov, another landowning aristocrat, goes a step further, into what appears to be full-bore rejection of his world and its values. He institutes land reform on his estates, and leaves the Russia of cities and country homes to undertake a long eastward journey to Siberia, where a household servant he seduced and abandoned years earlier has been unjustly imprisoned. Where “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” presented the life of a corrupt society with astonishing richness and subtlety, “Resurrection” is relentlessly preachy, prudish, and joyless. There is a strain of American liberalism that offers government as a sensible, useful way to make society function better than it does now—as a problem-solving instrument that conservatives are too stubbornly prejudiced to employ. That is Bill Clinton’s liberalism. And then there’s the Tolstoyan strain, in which it’s evident that society works well only for a fortunate minority, whose elaborately enjoyed well-being may even have come at the expense of the majority. Tolstoyan liberalism is, like its namesake, élite liberalism—more Franklin Roosevelt (who grew up on an American inherited dacha farmed by peasants) than Eugene Debs, or for that matter Elizabeth Warren. Tolstoy offers a harsh critique, but from an insider’s perspective; it treats the system as deeply flawed, but not as utterly alien. In her 2016 Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has been publicly flirting with Tolstoyan liberalism. Long before she announced her candidacy, Clinton surrounded herself with advisers from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and banished the centrists who controlled her last campaign. Her April announcement video and first campaign speech last month hinted at a left-populist direction that continued, with more bite, in her first big economic-policy address this week. This wasn’t where her husband had ever gone, or where she had been in 2008. Has she decided never again to be in the thankless position of running as a moderate in a Democratic primary campaign, no matter how prohibitive her lead? Is Bernie Sanders’s surge in the first two primary states pushing her leftward? Is she seeing research that indicates, or just concluding instinctively, that the financial crisis changed the way Americans think about the economy? Does she finally feel free to express what have always been her opinions? This week’s speech left the answers to such questions where they usually are with Clinton—tantalizingly uncertain. She left all but a few specifics of her economic policies to be unveiled in speeches to come, and she made sure to praise small business, entrepreneurship, and investment. But she criticized Wall Street by name and by specific practices (her Web site has a section called “Rein in Wall Street”), and criticized Uber and AirbnB, sacred causes in Silicon Valley, without naming them, by saying that their advent is “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.” This demonstrates a willingness to risk alienating the subcultures where some of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors dwell. (On Friday, President Obama will appear at a fund-raiser at the San Francisco home of Shervin Pishevar, one of Uber’s founding investors.) And there was no commensurate implicit challenge to organized labor, which both Clintons and Obama have tangled with in the past. It felt as if Clinton were crossing a line, policy specifics or no, in the way she was choosing to frame economic questions. First, she made it clear that the traditionally safe zone for American political discourse about the economy—calling for equality of opportunity, not equality of result—was no longer sufficient for her. Her target is “strong and steady income growth” for ordinary working people, which can presumably be measured only by how much money people wind up with, not how fair a chance they had to make it. And second, she at least toyed with the theme of resentment of the rich—another area Democratic politicians of the past generation, including Clinton herself, have generally avoided—as when she responded to Jeb Bush’s exhortation to Americans to work longer hours by saying, “Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the trucker who drives all night. Let him tell that to the fast-food workers marching in the streets for better pay. They don’t need a lecture—they need a raise.” Tolstoy, even though he was deep into his final holy-moralist phrase, didn’t quite know what to do with Nekhlyudov at the end of “Resurrection.” Having set out on his Siberian journey resolved to give everything away and to marry his wronged former mistress, the hero is perhaps relieved to learn that she refuses to marry him. He’s free, and it seems possible that he might return to some version of the former life he had been determined to reject. He still seems more comfortable at a dinner party than in the company of the political prisoners he encounters in the proto-gulag. Hillary Clinton wasn’t born an aristocrat, but she functions as one now, and, assuming she becomes a major-party nominee, she can only take her new and rather profound critique of how well American society functions so far. She won’t, and can’t, run, or live, as a radical. So it’s a question of finding the right equipoise. The practice of American politics almost always requires rhetorical optimism; the practice of liberal American politics now seems also to require just the right measure of opprobrium directed at the way our country is run. What’s interesting about Clinton’s struggle to find the balance is that she is struggling to find it, as she hasn’t in the past. And it will be even more interesting to see what she does with it, if she gets the chance to govern. *Hillary Clinton Becomes First 2016 Candidate To Release Bundler Names <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers_55a6f70ce4b0c5f0322c5852> // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released the names of 159 campaign bundlers on Wednesday, the first 2016 contender to disclose big-money fundraisers. The bundlers include many of the names appearing on fundraising invitations sent out over the past three months by the Clinton campaign. Many of these people were bundlers for Clinton’s last presidential bid in 2008. Clinton is the first candidate in the crowded 2016 race to disclose bundlers. Two Republican candidates, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, said they will disclose their bundlers in October. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), won't voluntarily disclose their bundlers. Clinton's list of bundlers was limited to those who had helped raise $100,000 or more. The campaign also reported on Wednesday that it had raised $47.5 million and spent $18.7 million since its launch on April 4. The minimum total amount raised by her bundlers was $15.9 million. Among the names are Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell; Comcast lobbyist David Cohen; hedge funders Blair Effron, Orin Kramer and Marc Lasry; Chicago billionaires J.B.Pritzker and M.K. Pritzker; Hollywood honcho and Israel booster Haim Saban; trial lawyer and medical marijuana proponent John Morgan; and The New Republic owner Chris Hughes and his husband Sean Eldridge. Lynn Forrest de Rothschild is back as a Clinton bundler in 2016. After Clinton's loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primary, de Rothschild flipped her support to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. She backed former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in the 2012 Republican primary, and Mitt Romney in the 2012 general election. A number of members of Congress, current and former, are among Clinton’s bundlers. They include Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). One notable bundler is Gordon Giffin, a former lobbyist for the Canadian company working to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin is also on the board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches she gave immediately before announcing her presidential campaign. Clinton also disclosed, in a filing with the Federal Election Commission, a list of 40 registered lobbyists who had raised a combined $2 million for her campaign. The lobbyists included some, like Steve Elmendorf, who appeared on her list of $100,000-plus Hillblazers, and others, like former senator-turned-lobbyist Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who did not. The top lobbyist bundlers were FTI Consulting's Jackson Dunn, with $231,554; Elmendorf, with $141,815; Capitol Counsel's David Jones, with $120,675; and McGuireWoods's Andrew Smith and Jim Hodges, with $133,350 and $106,750, respectively. *Clinton In 2011: Iran Only Has Right To Enrich After Nuclear Weapons Program “Irreversibly Shut Down” <http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2011-iran-only-has-right-to-enrich-after-nuclear#.auYeMz4y2> // BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton said in 2011 that it was her and the Obama administration’s position that Iran would not have a right to enrich uranium until it had “irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program.” On Tuesday, as a Democratic presidential candidate, Clinton endorsed a deal that would restrict Iran’s nuclear fuel for 15 years, while allowing it to continue to enrich uranium at levels well below bomb-grade, in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions. At a hearing of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs on March 1, 2011, Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot asked then-Secretary of State Clinton whether the administration believed that “the current regime should be allowed to enrich or reprocess domestically.” Clinton did not specifically answer the question with regard to the regime of the time, which, below Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, was led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was widely seen as less open to compromise than current President Hassan Rouhani. Clinton did, however, say that Iran would have such a right “sometime in the future,” if it met certain conditions, such as the irreversible shutdown of its nuclear weapons program. “Well, Congressman, it has been our position that, under very strict conditions, Iran would sometime in the future, having responded to the international community’s concerns and irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program, have such a right under IAEA inspection,” she said. “I think that is the position of the international community, along with the United States.” Months before, in December 2010, Clinton said to the BBC that the administration had told Iran “that they are entitled to the peaceful use of civil nuclear energy,” once they had “restored the confidence of the international community,” but did not mention an irreversible shutdown of their weapons program as a prerequisite for that. On the other hand, in a story published in August 2014, Clinton told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic that “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment” and that the assertion of such a right was “absolutely unfounded.” Of the deal reached on Tuesday, which is now awaiting Congressional action, Clinton said, “I support this agreement because I believe it is the most effective path of all the alternatives available to the U.S. and our partners to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” *Bill Clinton apologized for his 1994 crime bill, but he still doesn’t get why it was bad <http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8565345/1994-crime-bill> // Vox // Dara Lind – July 15, 2015* Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, among other things, an end to the era of mass incarceration. Awkwardly, Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, signed a law in 1994 that did a lot to accelerate mass incarceration. Bill Clinton has been doing a lot to demonstrate that he has seen the error of his ways, and supports his wife's reform efforts. He's made several statements acknowledging the errors of the 1994 crime bill he passed. And speaking to the NAACP on Wednesday, July 15, Clinton put it as bluntly as he ever has: "I signed a bill that made the problem worse. And I want to admit that." He's right. But does he understand how it made the problem worse? He didn't in May, when he told The Hill: "We have too many people in prison. And we wound up spending — putting so many people in prison that there wasn’t enough money left to educate them, train them for new jobs and increase the chances when they came out that they could live productive lives." That was a problem! But that is not the problem that Clinton's bill made worse. There were two big reasons the prison population rose so drastically from the 1980s to the late 2000s. One of them was, yes, that more people went to prison. But the other was that the people who went to prison were going for longer. This chart is a little hard to read, because the red line for murder sentences is so bright and distracting. But there were very few murder sentences compared to other crimes. Instead, check out the more gradual, but definite, sentence increases for other crimes: The 1994 crime bill Clinton signed was a big reason for the second trend: longer prison terms. The law used funding for new prisons as a way to pressure states to get rid of parole and adopt "truth-in-sentencing" laws that required prisoners to serve out their sentences. Since states are responsible for much more incarceration than the federal government, this was one of the more influential things the federal government could do. And it worked. When Clinton signed the bill, five states had truth-in-sentencing laws. In 1995, 11 new states passed them. Another 13 states passed truth-in-sentencing laws in the next five years. (Many of these states didn't explicitly say they were doing it to go after federal funding, and some of them didn't ask for it.) That didn't just end up taking up money that could have been used for prison programming, to help people "live productive lives" when they got out. It deliberately forced them to spend more of their lives in prison. They had less of a chance to live productive lives after release, because they had less of their lives to live. A lot of the progress that's been made at the state level over the past several years has been aimed at reducing the length of prison sentences — in other words, undoing what states had done during the Clinton era. The Clinton crime bill doesn't deserve all the blame for the push for longer sentences. But that is its lasting legacy. The Clintons are politicians, and it makes sense that they've shifted their positions in response to the demands of the public and their party. In the 1980s and 1990s, Democrats were afraid of being seen as "soft on crime," and felt that cracking down on crime might help African-American communities; today, Democrats are responding to growing awareness that mass incarceration perpetuates a lot of the problems it's supposed to solve, and a grassroots movement protesting police killings of young, often unarmed black men. Their party is now more worried about policing and prison than swing voters are about crime. But when it comes to actually proposing solutions, a politician has to do more than understand that something is a problem. That leads to exactly the same kind of "do something" politics that got us into this mess to begin with. Understanding what the solutions will be — and why they might have to include politically difficult measures, like reducing sentences for violent crime — requires understanding why it's a problem. *Lobbyists, lawmakers rake in cash for Hillary <http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/248140-clinton-releases-bundlers-list> // The Hill // Megan R. Wilson – July 15, 2015* More than 100 individuals each helped bundle together $100,000 or more for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run since April, according to an announcement from the campaign Wednesday evening. Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) made the list, in addition to lobbyists David Jones of Capitol Counsel and Steve Elmendorf of Elmendorf|Ryan. The website does not include the exact amount that individuals raised. Former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now works as a partner at McGuireWoods, also appears. Bayh, his wife and the firm’s political action committee hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last month. "We had a fantastic turnout and the event was a huge success raising more money than we had expected,” L.F. Payne, president of McGuireWoods Consulting, said in a statement. The Clinton campaign says it raised about $47.5 million in the second quarter — which spans from April to June. It spent about $18.7 million and still has $28.9 million cash on hand. Bundlers play a key role, especially in presidential races, proving to a candidate that they can bring in much-needed cash needed to keep the expensive operation running. Campaigns are not required to disclose their bundlers unless they are registered lobbyists, although Clinton and GOP contender Jeb Bush vowed to do so. Also on Clinton’s big bundler list: abortion rights group EMILY’S List, billionaires M.K. and J.B. Pritzker; her campaign’s treasurer Jose Villareal, who also works at top law and lobby firm Akin Gump; Morgan Stanley executive and former Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides – and many others. More than 250,000 individuals donated to the Clinton campaign, it said in a release Wednesday evening, and 94 percent of those people gave $250 or less. In the release, campaign manager Robby Mook blasted Republican candidates, saying they had relied on “billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money.” “We are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead,” he said. Clinton has two super PACs raising money to support her — Ready PAC and Priorities USA — but they have not yet released the amount they have raised. The super PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's bid for the White House recently announced $103 million in donations. Bush raised $11.4 million in the second quarter, according to newly released reports. *Dems: Benghazi panel has ‘abandoned’ its work to focus on Hillary <http://thehill.com/policy/defense/247982-dems-benghazi-panel-has-abandoned-work-to-focus-on-hillary> // The Hill // Martin Matishak – July 14, 2015 * Democrats serving on the House Select Committee on Benghazi say the panel’s GOP chairman has “abandoned” plans for hearings to shift the focus of the investigation to Hillary Clinton. “At the beginning of this year, Select Committee Republicans provided Democrats with detailed information about their plans to hold 11 hearings between January and October on a wide range of topics relating to the Benghazi attacks,” the panel’s five Democrats wrote Wednesday in a letter to chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). “Since then, however, Republicans have completely abandoned this plan — holding no hearings at all since January and instead focusing on former Secretary Hillary Clinton,” they added. The missive gives an outline of the hearings the panel was supposed to convene, including: one in April with former Defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta to examine why the U.S. had an outpost in Benghazi, Libya; another in May with Clinton to discuss the same topic; another in July with former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice; and finally one in October to hammer out specific oversight recommendations to help prevent a similar attack from happening in the future. Gowdy and panel Republicans have maintained that the probe into the 2012 attacks that killed four Americans cannot move forward until the State Department hands over all emails Clinton's top aides. They have also argued that Clinton should give the private email server she used while in office — which the presidential contender's attorney says has been wiped clean of data — to a third-party to determine if any information can be recovered. Democrats are upset that no work on the panel has been completed recently. “The Select Committee has not only postponed its hearings with Secretary Clinton and other State Department witnesses, but it has abandoned all of its other hearings as well, including those examining other agencies like the Department of Defense and the CIA,” according to Democrats. They say the Republican-controlled panel “has not conducted a transcribed interview or deposition of even a single Defense Department employee” and waited until April before sending a document request to the CIA. “In the past, Republicans have attempted to blame the Select Committee’s glacial pace on Secretary Clinton and the State Department. But it seems difficult to understand how they could be responsible for the Select Committee abandoning every single hearing it had planned to hold since January,” Democrats said. “It appears that much of the Select Committee’s work has been shelved while Republicans pursue every possible avenue of political attack against Secretary Clinton,” they added. Democrats said the actions by the select committee “which lack any legitimate basis — serve only to delay its work further into the election season and subject it to increasingly widespread criticism for its highly partisan actions.” *Clinton’s fundraising surpasses $47 million <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/15/hillary-clinton-fundraising-report/30216357/> // USA Today // Fredreka Schouten – July 15, 2015 * Democrat Hillary Clinton drew more than $47.5 million in donations since announcing her presidential campaign in April and swiftly spent nearly 40% of the money to build her staff and infrastructure in early primary states, figures released Wednesday show. The vast majority of Clinton's haul — $46 million — is reserved for the primary election, a record amount of primary dollars for a candidate at this point in the election cycle. She started July with nearly $29 million in cash reserves. Clinton and other presidential candidates filed reports Wednesday detailing their fundraising and spending with the Federal Election Commission. Clinton also voluntarily released a list of 122 individuals and couples who raised money for her campaign, becoming the first 2016 candidate to disclose her bundlers. The lists includes long-time allies, such as Esprit clothing co-founder Susie Tompkins Buell, and prominent political figures, such as Washington lobbyist Steve Elmendorf and former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. The former secretary of State spent nearly $279,000 of her own money during the "testing the waters" phase of the campaign to help underwrite travel and staff expenses, the filings show. Clinton, who has not run for office since her 2008 unsuccessful presidential bid, sought to quickly ramp up her political operation this year, buying voter files in the early states and hiring staff to rally voters in states such as Iowa and her Brooklyn, N.Y., headquarters. In a news release, her aides touted the size of her contribution base, noting that 250,000 donors had given to Clinton. The campaign said six in 10 were women. The filings show that 17% of her money came in amounts of $200 or less. More than 80% came from donors who gave $2,700 or more, the maximum amount an individual can donate for the primary. "Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton's campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House," campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders posted the second-largest haul among Democratic presidential candidates. He raised $15.2 million, more than two-thirds of which came from donors who gave in small amounts. Republican field is outraising Democrats, boosted by independent groups that can collect unlimited sums. A super PAC supporting Republican Jeb Bush, for instance, has raised more than $103 million. Outside groups backing Clinton have trailed behind, drawing about $24 million. *Hillary Clinton says she called for Wall Street regulations early in the financial crisis <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/> // PolitiFact // Lauren Carroll – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being cozy with Wall Street -- but in her 2016 campaign, she’s been striking populist tones. Clinton introduced her plan for a variety of economic issues in a speech at the New School in Manhattan on July 14, 2015. As president, she said, she would go "beyond Dodd-Frank" -- the regulations on financial institutions that took hold in 2010, following the economic crisis of 2007-08. She said she had been calling for financial regulations since the very early stages of the crisis. "As we all know, in the years before the crash, financial firms piled risk upon risk, and regulators in Washington either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep up," she said. "I was alarmed by this gathering storm and called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight." Clinton used to be the senator from New York, the home of Wall Street. She has a history of campaign backing from the finance industry and of delivering high-priced speeches to finance firms, such as Goldman Sachs. And her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed the repeal of a bank break-up bill, the Glass-Steagall Act -- a deregulation that some critics believe contributed to the financial crisis. So we questioned Hillary Clinton’s record of addressing financial regulations. Did she address derivatives, subprime mortgages and financial oversight so early in the crisis? The 2008 primary campaign While the financial crisis came to a head in summer 2008, problems with housing started to bubble up in 2007 during Clinton’s ill-fated presidential primary campaign. On the trail, Clinton addressed these nascent issues -- particularly the mortgage crisis -- as early as March of that year. Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people were ignoring warning signs. "The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street," Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families." She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent foreclosures. In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals, and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders. "I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here.’ " It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these policies in September 2007. The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in Iowa. (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.) "We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out. Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments. Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply because the securities they own are worth less than they thought." In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution. And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent." This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according to the New York Times. At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections. After becoming secretary of state in 2009, Clinton made noticeably fewer comments on domestic policy and financial regulation. But the record shows that establishing policies to address the then-nascent financial crisis was a key point of her campaign platform in 2007 and 2008. Our ruling Clinton said she "called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight" early on in the financial crisis. The crisis hit a peak in summer 2008, though it started to gain traction in 2007. Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing oversight of financial institutions. Her statement is accurate, and we rate her claim True. *Clinton’s Model Staffers <http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/hillary-clinton-staffers-online-store-20150710?utm_content=bufferda28a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer> // National Journal // Emily Schultheis – July 11, 2015 * Half a dozen Hillary Clinton staffers lounged on a backyard patio in Brooklyn's Bushwick neighborhood one afternoon in June, sporting campaign T-shirts as they chatted and laughed. Communications staffer Ian Sams stood by the barbecue, wearing sunglasses, skinny black jeans, and an apron emblazoned with a play on his boss's name: "More Like Grillary Clinton." Sams watched hot dogs sizzle on the grill as he talked with Amanda Renteria, the campaign's political director, whose son, Diego, played nearby. Others sat around a table that had been set with place mats and plates. A midsummer staff get-together? Not exactly. The occasion was a photo shoot for Clinton's online campaign store. Launched in May, the store has everything from bumper stickers and T-shirts featuring the campaign's "H" logo to branded grilling spatulas and beer koozies that say "Chillary Clinton." And every single model on the website works for the campaign or, in the case of the children, is related to someone who does. The barbecue scene, which now tops the campaign's store page, was shot over the course of about an hour in the Bushwick backyard of a Clinton staffer's friend. (There was no food budget; an aide picked up the hot dogs at a nearby convenience store.) But most of the photos on the site were taken by staff photographers at the campaign's Brooklyn Heights headquarters, in a glass-walled conference room that gives other campaign workers a chance to peer in and cheer on their colleagues as they pose. For some, the practice has added a new—and unexpected—dimension to working for Clinton. Communications staffer Jesse Lehrich says he was used to being behind the scenes and modeling had never crossed his mind—until the campaign solicited volunteers for a photo shoot, and someone from the merchandise team handed him a shirt from the campaign's "Pride" collection. "What can I say? I'm a team player," he tells me. "Our photog grabbed me and asked me, and between my willingness to do anything for the campaign and the room full of people egging me on, I capitulated." (A photo of the blue-eyed, bearded Lehrich rocking a tank top adorned with a rainbow version of the campaign logo went up on the site in June.) Others are more openly enthusiastic about their moment in the sun: "My family was very excited to see me modeling items in the store," says Alexandria Phillips, a press assistant with springy brown curls and a broad smile, who on the website wears a purple T-shirt that says, "Women's rights are human rights." "Even my grandmother, our family matriarch and last Republican holdout, had to admit that she thought I made the Hillary items look good!" But the arrangement has earned the staffer-models a certain amount of good-natured ribbing as well. Political operatives and reporters have recognized the aides in question and teased them on Twitter about their moonlighting. The photos have even popped up in snarky articles. One post from New York magazine, titled, "Hillary Knows Exactly What Kind of Dumb Beach-Themed Merch You Want," featured a large photo of Ian Sams in the "Grillary Clinton" apron. (He didn't get to choose his apparel either, he tells me: The merchandise team gave him the apron and that's what he wore.) "I never thought I'd be compared to an Urban Outfitters model by New York magazine," he says. "But cross that off the bucket list." No other 2016 campaign is using staffers to show off its apparel in quite this way; the closest is Rand Paul's, which has several photos of young people—some of whom are staffers—in "Rand 2016" gear at the top of its merchandise page. But individual items aren't displayed on models, professional or otherwise. The Clinton campaign's official answer for why it went this route was that using in-house talent was a cost-cutting measure cribbed from Obama 2012. But they could have done without the human mannequins entirely, as most other campaigns have. Cost-consciousness aside—and with Clinton's record $45 million fundraising haul from her first quarter in the race, she's not exactly hurting for cash at the moment—the decision to use staffers as models is also, clearly, a marketing move. The question is: What does this marketing move actually communicate? "Everyday items made by everyday Americans" is the tagline of the store, and the phrase "everyday Americans" is one that Clinton frequently invokes on the stump. As a group, however, these young, Brooklyn-based Democratic operatives give off more of a hipster vibe; they seem, in short, like the kind of people you're likely to see hanging out at a Bushwick barbecue. Meaghan Burdick, who ran merchandising for the 2012 Obama campaign and herself modeled for the Obama store (as a redhead, she frequently showed up in the St. Patrick's Day—or O'Bama—apparel section), says the site "shows youthful energy" and is in keeping with the campaign's efforts to cultivate a looser, more laid-back image. "It's the whole, 'This is fun,' trying to take the edge off the serious aspect of it, I think," she says. Sean Duffy, a brand marketing expert, says it's about projecting diversity and youth: "There's the obvious demographic thing going on: a more or less youthful group of people, racially diverse, you've got kids, so it hints at the family thing. For me … it just said she's trying to portray this kind of young normalcy." Jasmine Sandler, a digital marketing strategist, looked at the photo of Sams and said it brought to mind "a techie dad, who is as comfortable managing the grill as he is his tech team at work. He has a sense of domestic stability to him and good employment." Will the strategy sell shirts? The campaign wouldn't talk about how many apparel items had been purchased thus far, or whether the images on the site were getting as much attention from potential buyers as they were on social media. But some have their doubts. "I keep saying, they may have saved money by using me as a model," says Lehrich, "but there ain't nobody that's going to buy that tank top now." *Hillary Clinton Has Already Spent $18.7 Million <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-campaign-fundraising-fec-20150715> // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton spent a massive $18.7 million in her first quarter as a presidential candidate, an enormous sum that is more money than any of her rivals, Democratic or Republican, have even raised. The spending amounts to roughly $230,000 for every day since she declared her candidacy on April 12, an incredible pace at a time when Clinton was not purchasing expensive television ads. Instead, the funds have gone toward building a national political apparatus helmed by campaign manager Robby Mook. "We have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House," Mook said in a statement. Despite the spending, Clinton still ended the quarter with roughly $28 million in primary cash, according to the campaign and reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. She raised a total of $46.7 million, including $824,000 in general election contributions. Clinton also released a list of 122 of her bundlers Wednesday that have raised at least $100,000 for her campaign. One name that stands out is Rep. Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of Julian Castro, the secretary of Housing and Urban Development who is often listed as a potential Clinton running mate. The Clinton campaign said that it had received money from more than 250,000 people, with an average-sized contribution of $144.89. Her campaign said 61 percent of her donors were women and that 94 percent of donors had given $250 or less. Earlier on Wednesday, her chief Democratic rival in the polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders, revealed he had 284,000 contributors who had given an average of $35. All told, Clinton's fundraising dwarfs that of Sanders, who reported raising $15.2 million, including $1.5 million he transferred from his Senate committee, and spent roughly $3 million in the second quarter. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has not yet filed his disclosure. Clinton's new FEC filing suggests that her campaign's spending choices this time are informed by her previous run, when she also began as the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. In that first run eight years ago, Clinton found herself nearly out of cash by the time of the Iowa caucuses, despite having raised $100 million and having started her ground operation relatively late, compared to rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. In the second quarter of 2007, Clinton spent a total of $2.5 million on salaries and $1.1 million on travel and $237,000 on polling. In 2015, she has spent $3.8 million on salaries, plus another $391,000 on "organizing services," while keeping travel costs to $465,000. The amount spent on polling, meanwhile, nearly quadrupled, to $905,000. S.V. Dáte contributed to this article. *Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/hillary-clinton-fec-filing-shows-46m-raised-with-women-60-of-donors> // The Guardian – July 15, 2015* FEC filing shows hundreds of staff hired and big online operation built up, but does not include money being accumulated by super PACS Hillary Clinton’s campaign has detailed $46m worth of fundraising activities to the FEC. Hillary Clinton has spent nearly $19m and hired hundreds of staff during the first three months of her presidential campaign. In total, Clinton’s official campaign raised more than $46m from more than 250,000 contributors, according to records filed with the FEC, the US election finance watchdog. About 60% of donors were women, the Clinton campaign said, and 94% of the donations came in amounts of $250 or less. The average donation was $144.89. Clinton’s spending underscores her early effort to build a national campaign, even as aides say she is focused on the primary contest. Beyond paying salaries for 343 new employees, her campaign purchased lists of voters in four early voting states and spent heavily on building up a digital team. Her campaign also released a list of campaign bundlers, donors who each raised more than $100,000. Some of the donors included Clinton’s most ardent financial backers, including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor who was a major donor to the Ready for Hillary super PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a longtime friend and college classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire JB Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan Patricof, a New York-based financier who served as Clinton’s finance chair when she first ran for Senate in New York. Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly $390m that official presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates say they have raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton’s and Bush’s, were required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission by midnight on Wednesday. The FEC reports cover financial activity between 1 April and 30 June and list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution for the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also show how candidates are spending their money on consultants, office space, advertising, polling and more. Wednesday’s reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are handing over. The candidates also benefit from “super PACs” – political action committees – usually created specifically to help them. Those groups, which accept contributions of any size and are subject to legal limits on how closely they can work with the campaigns, file their FEC reports at the end of the month. The pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that counts on seven-figure donors and previously backed Barack Obama, raised an additional $15m, according to an Associated Press assessment. The AP found that donors have handed over nearly $400m, more than two-thirds of it to outside groups rather than to official campaigns. That total is more than the presidential candidates raised for the entire primary election of 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks election spending. Since announcing her White House bid in April, Clinton has positioned staff in all fifty states with the majority working out of a large and pricey Brooklyn headquarters. The overwhelming favorite for her party’s nomination, Clinton and her team have set their sights on building the massive infrastructure they will need for the general election. The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more competitive primary race against Barack Obama. During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices like spending nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus, a contest she lost. This time, her staff has emphasized its “cheapskate” mentality particularly to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May, top donors were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn. Campaign aides like to brag about taking the bus from New York to Washington, rather than the more expensive Acela train. Even so, her campaign spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election Commission report shows. All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during this campaign than she did eight years ago. During the first three months of her 2008 bid Clinton spent 14% of the $36m she raised, according to FEC documents. In the launch of this campaign she has used up nearly 40% of what she has taken in. By comparison Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2m through the end of June and three-quarters of his donations were $200 or less. *Hillary Clinton Wants to Run on Climate. And She Thinks Democrats Should Too. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-climate-change-democrats-20150714> // National Journal // Clare Foran and Jason Plautz – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton isn't afraid to talk about global warming—and she wants her fellow Democrats to join her. In closed-door meetings with House and Senate Democrats Tuesday, Clinton jumped at the chance to discuss the hot-button topic in political terms, numerous lawmakers said. Clinton delivered a clear message: Democrats must convince the American public that action to combat Earth's rising temperatures is urgent, and her party can make that case by tailoring their message to different kinds of voters. "She was incredible," said Sen. Ben Cardin. "She really relates [climate change] to the current political communities and how we have to do a better job. We know the policy, but we have to do a better job on the politics." Clinton wants Democrats to grasp the importance of Paris climate negotiations later this year and speak about global warming in a way that resonates with millennials, according to several Senate Democrats. That would be an easy way for Democrats to draw a clear contrast with a GOP presidential field dominated by climate skeptics. She wants to keep her left flank clear as well, delivering a message guaranteed to appeal to the party's progressive wing. Clinton framed global warming as a pressing and serious threat and touted the climate credentials of John Podesta, the chairman of her 2016 campaign and a former climate adviser to President Obama. But Clinton doesn't want Democrats to run too far to the left. According to several senators, she cautioned members of her party that Democrats can't forget that coal country is an important part of America and can't be left behind in the fight to tackle global warming. "She pointed out to those of us who are passionate about climate change that it's a big country, and a lot of our previous economic growth was dependent on coal country, and that as we pursue a transition to a clean-energy economy, that it's not like Americans to leave folks behind. So we have to really think deeply about how we help folks who are experiencing challenges during this transition," said Sen. Brian Schatz in an interview. That message offers up an olive branch to moderate Democrats who have felt spurned by the Obama administration's climate agenda, and it could help the party win over centrists in purple states. "She was very much concerned," said Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from West Virginia. "She said people need to realize what coal has done for this country. ... People don't realize that; they just want to condemn it now, and she was very compassionate about that." Manchin added that he invited Clinton to visit West Virginia so that she can see coal country up-close. Environmentalists have been frustrated by what they view as a lack of specifics from the Clinton campaign when it comes to climate change and energy, even though Clinton has spoken of the need to act on climate change in campaign speeches. Many progressive green groups worry that Clinton's ties to Wall Street will discourage her from taking a strong stand in the fight against global warming, and they are concerned about the fact that she has not come out firmly against the Keystone XL pipeline—an issue that congressional Democrats did not press her on when she met with them on Tuesday. But rather than interpreting Clinton's silence on Keystone and sympathy for coal country as suspect, progressive Democrats were encouraged and energized by her remarks. "I thought it was pretty solid," Rep. Raul Grijalva, one of the cochairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said after hearing Clinton speak. "Some of the progressive issues and members have kind of been crying in the wilderness for a while, and now these issues like climate change, income inequality, and the jobs agenda are resonating with the public. And I think that Hillary understands that. ... The fact that the progressive causes and organizations feel more in touch with and included with Hillary now is a mark that she understands that." "I think she recognizes that the politics of the legislative branch are stuck, and you have got to have an understanding of what people are going through if you're going to get to a 60-vote threshold to have legislative success," Schatz said. "I think she is trying to cobble together a coalition that can actually do something." Of course, even if Clinton's climate agenda wins over Democrats, it will be difficult for her to match the progressive record of her biggest challenger on the Left: Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders was quick to remind reporters of that, holding an impromptu press conference on Tuesday in the Capitol, where he touted his record on energy and the environment as one of many areas where he could break away from Clinton. "I have helped lead the opposition against the Keystone pipeline. I don't believe we should be excavating or transporting some of the dirtiest fuel on this planet," Sanders said. "I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue." *Benghazi Republicans slam ‘one-way letter war’ of committee Dems <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/benghazi-republicans-slam-one-way-letter-war-of-committee-dems/article/2568346> // Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 15, 2015 * Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi slammed Democrats on Wednesday for refusing to assist the majority in the investigation of the 2012 terror attack. "Unlike committee Democrats, who believe all has been asked and answered, and who have never made a single document request of the administration during the entirety of the existence of this committee, committee Republicans continue to doggedly pursue getting all the facts regarding Libya and Benghazi," said Jamal Ware, the majority's spokesman, in response to a Democratic letter accusing Chairman Trey Gowdy of diverting the committee's focus to Hillary Clinton. "To the extent the Committee has had to focus on Secretary Clinton to try to recover relevant portions of what should have been her public record, we would not be here today had Clinton decided the right thing instead of the 'convenient' thing to do was to use the official State Department system," Ware said. The select committee discovered earlier this year that Clinton had shielded all of her government communications on a private email server, undermining claims that the formation of the committee would merely retrace the steps of several previous congressional investigations. "We would not be here had Clinton answered a letter from Congress two years ago that explicitly asked about her use of personal email to conduct official public business," Ware added. "We would not be here had she not found it convenient to keep her emails on her server for more than 20 months and only then to wipe it clean after the Committee came asking for records." Relations between the select committee's Democrats and Republicans have soured in the days since Clinton announced her campaign for president. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee's top Democrat, and its four other Democratic members sent a letter to Gowdy on Wednesday morning blasting what they saw as a dereliction of the committee's duties in favor of partisan attacks on Clinton. Democrats published a tentative schedule that indicated the committee had planned to hold 11 hearings between January and October, none of which had occurred. But Ware countered the notion that Republicans had allowed their investigative efforts to lapse. "The Select Committee has conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews to keep the focus on uncovering facts," he said. "These initial witness interviews centered on State Department and CIA witnesses because they were the eyewitnesses to the attacks and many have never before been interviewed by any committee of Congress." Witnesses from the Pentagon, the National Security Council and even the White House are slated to be interviewed before the committee, Ware added. Several of these interviews have been hampered by the government's reluctance to hand over documents related to the Benghazi attack. The committee said Monday it had not been given a pair of emails in which Clinton and her top aides discussed controversial talking points in late September 2012. State Department officials have withheld documents on three separate occasions without providing justification, although committee members have twice written to ask why the records were not disclosed. Gowdy and the Republicans on the committee have long criticized the minority for what they see as a failure to exert pressure on agencies that stonewall their congressional requests. Democrats have frequently accused the majority of using its platform to weaken Clinton's presidential prospects. Earlier this month, Cummings blasted Republicans for leaking "doctored" documents to the press in an attempt to smear the Democratic frontrunner. Gowdy later released a statement in which he instructed his staff not to spend time responding to the minority's public missives. "If Democrats insist on continuing to write, hopefully next time it will include what they are doing to bring an end to State Department stonewalling and to help the majority enforce subpoenas that have been outstanding for months," Ware said. *Why Hillary Clinton should take a tougher stance on banks <http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2015/0715/Why-Hillary-Clinton-should-take-a-tougher-stance-on-big-banks> // CS Monitor // Robert Reich – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall. This is a big mistake. It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks. Recommended: How is money reshaping American politics? Take our quiz. It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one. Some background: During the Roaring Twenties, so much money could be made by speculating on shares of stock that several big Wall Street banks began selling stock along side their traditional banking services – taking in deposits and making loans. Some banks went further, lending to pools of speculators that used the money to pump up share prices. The banks sold the shares to their customers, only to have the share prices collapse when the speculators dumped them. For the banks, it was an egregious but hugely profitable conflict of interest. After the entire stock market crashed in 1929, ushering in the Great Depression, Washington needed to restore the public’s faith in the banking system. One step was for Congress to enact legislation insuring commercial deposits against bank losses. Another was to prevent the kinds of conflicts of interest that resulted in such losses, and which had fueled the boom and subsequent bust. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks couldn’t both gamble in the market and also take in deposits and make loans. They’d have to choose between the two. “The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that reason.” For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system. But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits. They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall. Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal Glass-Steagall altogether. What happened next? An almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and sold them to their customers in the form of securities. Once again, there was a huge conflict of interest that finally resulted in a banking crisis. This time the banks were bailed out, but millions of Americans lost their savings, their jobs, even their homes. A personal note. I worked for Bill Clinton as Secretary of Labor and I believe most of his economic policies were sound. But during those years I was in fairly continuous battle with some other of his advisers who seemed determined to do Wall Street’s bidding. On Glass-Steagall, they clearly won. To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble. And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone. Other apologists for the Street blame the crisis on unscrupulous mortgage brokers. Surely mortgage brokers do share some of the responsibility. But here again, the big banks were accessories and enablers. The mortgage brokers couldn’t have funded the mortgage loans if the banks hadn’t bought them. And the big banks couldn’t have bought them if Glass-Steagall were still in place. I’ve also heard bank executives claim there’s no reason to resurrect Glass-Steagall because none of the big banks actually failed. This is like arguing lifeguards are no longer necessary at beaches where no one has drowned. It ignores the fact that the big banks were bailed out. If the government hadn’t thrown them lifelines, many would have gone under. Remember? Their balance sheets were full of junky paper, non-performing loans, and worthless derivatives. They were bailed out because they were too big to fail. And the reason for resurrecting Glass-Steagall is we don’t want to go through that ever again. As George Santayana famously quipped, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the roaring 2000’s, just as in the Roaring Twenties, America’s big banks used insured deposits to underwrite their gambling in private securities, and then dump the securities on their customers. It ended badly. This is precisely what the Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent – and did prevent for more than six decades. Hillary Clinton, of all people, should remember. *Wealthy Donors and Lobbyist Bundlers Are Largely Bankrolling Hillary Clinton’s Campaign <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fundraising-bundlers-lobbyists> // Mother Jones // Russ Choma – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton hauled in $47.5 million in the first three months of her campaign, besting both Republican Jeb Bush, who raised $11.4 million, and her surprising Democratic challenger, Bernie Sanders, who racked up $15.2 million. According to her campaign, she had more than 250,000 donors, of whom 61 percent were female, an unprecedented number of female donors. But what Clinton did not highlight was that she had relied on wealthy donors and lobbyists to pull together most of her money. Clinton reported raising $8 million—or 16.8 percent of her total—from small donors who gave $200 or less. Many politicians raise far less from small donors. Jeb Bush, for example, raised just 3 percent of his campaign cash from small donors. But Sanders blew Clinton out of the water when it came to grassroots fundraising, taking in $10.4 million (or 68 percent) of his warchest from $200-or-less donors. The bulk of Clinton's campaign funds came from an elite, wealthy class of donors—those who can afford to give the maximum donation. In 2014, roughly 0.04 percent of Americans made the maximum donation for a primary campaign of $2,600 (adjusted to $2,700 in this election cycle). Bush's campaign raised more than 80 percent of its cash from this upper-crust of donors, and Clinton raised 64 percent. Clinton may well have had 250,000 donors—but just 11,400 of them accounted for almost two-thirds of her total fundraising. Clinton also got a big boost from her bundlers—supporters who tap their personal and professional networks to amass donations for the campaign. Candidates are only required to list the names of registered lobbyists who have bundled for them, and Clinton did go above and beyond that by releasing on her website the names of 122 people who had raised $100,000 or more for her campaign. With much less fanfare, she also disclosed to the Federal Election Commission the names of 40 registered lobbyists who bundled just over $2 million for her campaign. By comparison, Bush's campaign listed the names of eight registered lobbyists who bundled $228,000 for his campaign. Sanders had no registered lobbyists fundraising on his behalf. The top lobbyist bundling for Clinton was Jackson Dunn, who represents Mastercard, Dow Chemical, Pepsico, and Noble Energy, a Houston-based oil and gas company. Dunn bundled more than $231,000 for the campaign. He wasn't the only lobbyist with ties to the oil and gas sector who went to work fundraising for Clinton. Lobbyist Ankit Desai, who works for natural gas company Cheniere, raised $82,000. Theresa Fariello, of ExxonMobil, raised $21,200 for the campaign. *Hillary Clinton spends nearly $19M during first three months of presidential campaign <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-spends-19m-3-months-campaign-article-1.2293695> // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton spent almost a whopping $19 million in her first three months as a candidate, a sign she's investing heavily in building out a huge campaign organization. That leaves Clinton with just under $29 million cash on hand, more than any other candidate's direct campaign, after raising almost $48 million in total with all the checks counted. All but $1 million of that money is earmarked for the primary. "Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton's campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House," said campaign manager Robby Mook in a statement. Clinton's high burn rate was a problem for her in 2008, when she spent heavily early on in the campaign on high salaries and unnecessary expenses. Her team insists that this time around the money is being put to better use in ways that will help her down the line: heavy investments in building a big digital presence and strong ground game. The Clinton campaign made big investments in analytical teams, technology and field, according to a campaign spokesman. Her main primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has $12 million in the bank after raising $15 million in the same time period, from approximately the same number of donors. Clinton's team says 94 percent of her donors gave $250 or less, even higher than the 76 percent of donors to Sanders who gave less than $200. Clinton loaned her campaign $280,000 while she was in the unofficial "testing the waters" phase of her campaign. While Clinton raised the most direct money for her campaign than any of her rivals in either party, that figure is lower than Jeb Bush's total haul. His super-PAC alone raised more than $100 million in donations, and $11 million more in direct contributions. Clinton staff are sounding the alarm about those hauls as they look to spur up more donations from scared Democrats. Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri predicted Wednesday afternoon that Clinton will be outspent in the general election. "People need to be more worried about the Republican super-PACs," Palmieri said on Bloomberg TV. "This is a big threat." Clinton's high burn rate was a problem for her in 2008, when she spent heavily early on in the campaign on high salaries and unnecessary expenses. Clinton also released a list of the more "Hillblazers," campaign bundlers who helped her raise $100 million apiece. That list includes Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), the twin brother of secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, who is rumored to be a top possibility to be Clinton's eventual running mate. Roughly one third of Clinton's bundlers are from the New York City area, including Facebook founder Chris Hughes and his husband Sean Eldridge, Citigroup Vice President Lisa Caputo, Morgan Stanley vice chairman and former deputy secretary of State Tom Nides, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.). *Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/hillary-clinton-fec-filing-shows-46m-raised-with-women-60-of-donors> // Guardian // July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton has spent nearly $19m and hired hundreds of staff during the first three months of her presidential campaign. In total, Clinton’s official campaign raised more than $46m from more than 250,000 contributors, according to records filed with the FEC, the US election finance watchdog. About 60% of donors were women, the Clinton campaign said, and 94% of the donations came in amounts of $250 or less. The average donation was $144.89. Clinton’s spending underscores her early effort to build a national campaign, even as aides say she is focused on the primary contest. Beyond paying salaries for 343 new employees, her campaign purchased lists of voters in four early voting states and spent heavily on building up a digital team. Her campaign also released a list of campaign bundlers, donors who each raised more than $100,000. Some of the donors included Clinton’s most ardent financial backers, including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor who was a major donor to the Ready for Hillary super PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a longtime friend and college classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire JB Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan Patricof, a New York-based financier who served as Clinton’s finance chair when she first ran for Senate in New York. Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly $390m that official presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates say they have raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton’s and Bush’s, were required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission by midnight on Wednesday. The FEC reports cover financial activity between 1 April and 30 June and list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution for the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also show how candidates are spending their money on consultants, office space, advertising, polling and more. Wednesday’s reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are handing over. The candidates also benefit from “super PACs” – political action committees – usually created specifically to help them. Those groups, which accept contributions of any size and are subject to legal limits on how closely they can work with the campaigns, file their FEC reports at the end of the month. The pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that counts on seven-figure donors and previously backed Barack Obama, raised an additional $15m, according to an Associated Press assessment. The AP found that donors have handed over nearly $400m, more than two-thirds of it to outside groups rather than to official campaigns. That total is more than the presidential candidates raised for the entire primary election of 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks election spending. Since announcing her White House bid in April, Clinton has positioned staff in all fifty states with the majority working out of a large and pricey Brooklyn headquarters. The overwhelming favorite for her party’s nomination, Clinton and her team have set their sights on building the massive infrastructure they will need for the general election. The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more competitive primary race against Barack Obama. During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices like spending nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus, a contest she lost. This time, her staff has emphasized its “cheapskate” mentality particularly to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May, top donors were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn. Campaign aides like to brag about taking the bus from New York to Washington, rather than the more expensive Acela train. Even so, her campaign spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election Commission report shows. All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during this campaign than she did eight years ago. During the first three months of her 2008 bid Clinton spent 14% of the $36m she raised, according to FEC documents. In the launch of this campaign she has used up nearly 40% of what she has taken in. By comparison Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2m through the end of June and three-quarters of his donations were $200 or less. *Hillary Clinton Has Spent $18M Of Over $46M In First 3 Months Of Her Presidential Campaign <http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-has-spent-18m-over-46m-first-3-months-her-presidential-campaign-2011151> // IB Times // Sneha Shankar - July 16 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hired hundreds of employees and spent more than $18 million in the first three months of her presidential campaign in an effort to outpace her rivals. Clinton had raised over $46 million for the Democratic primary contest, the Associated Press (AP) reported on Wednesday. Clinton reportedly spent over $5.9 million on 343 employees, $700,000 on computers and other equipment, and half a million on renting offices, including her 80,000 square feet headquarters in Brooklyn. According to campaign finance documents filed on Wednesday, Clinton also purchased lists of voters in four early primary states, paid a political action committee six figures to defend her record, and spent massively on building a digital team, the AP reported. The report also analyzed that the outlay for this year’s campaign is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three months of her last presidential campaign against then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. During that campaign, Clinton and her team faced accusations that they wasted a lot of money on strategies that did not work, including nearly $100,000 on party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus. Clinton lost that contest. At the first national finance meeting in May, Clinton’s team reportedly asked top donors to buy their own lunches and fund their own transportation to gatherings in Brooklyn. While campaign aides bragged about traveling from New York to Washington in a bus, and not the more expensive Acela train, Clinton’s team still spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus tickets, the AP reported, citing the Federal Election Commission report. During the 2008 campaign, Clinton spent 14 percent of the raised $36 million in the first three months, but this time she has reportedly spent nearly 40 percent of the raised amount in the same period. Clinton also reportedly received over 250,000 contributions and only about 17 percent of the donations were less than $200 dollars. A list of campaign bundlers, each of whom helped raise over $100,000 for her primary bid, was also released by Clinton’s team. Some of the donors included Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun; billionaire J.B. Pritzker of Chicago; and New York-based financier Alan Patricof, the AP reported. Her team also managed to attract some of Obama’s biggest backers, including New York-based financiers Marc Lasry, Charles Myers and Blair Effron. *DC Rep Says Hillary Wants To Make DC The 51st State <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/15/dc-rep-says-hillary-wants-to-make-dc-the-51st-state/> // Daily Caller // Josh Fatzick – July 15, 2015 * After speaking with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, D.C.’s Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton said she got Clinton’s personal support for the D.C. statehood movement. Norton had been following Clinton to various Capitol Hill Meetings and after the pair left a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, Norton popped the D.C. statehood question. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton did not immediately return a request for confirmation of Clinton’s support for D.C. statehood. In June, Norton, along with Democratic colleagues in the Senate, introduced legislation that would turn the district into the 51st state and give residents a real voice in Congress. Currently, the district has a similar position in Congress to Puerto Rico, with Norton serving as a non-voting delegate. Norton is not allowed to vote on the House floor, but she can introduce legislation and serve on committees. The issue, according to Norton, is that D.C. residents pay taxes just like everybody else in America, but they do not have a real say in how that money is spent by Congress. In a statement, Norton said she has known Clinton since her husband was in the White House, so she was not surprised by Clinton’s support for D.C. statehood. “President Bill Clinton was the first president to support statehood for the District of Columbia, and President Obama has followed in endorsing D.C. statehood,” Norton said. “President Clinton made phone calls that helped get Democrats to support my statehood bill when I first came to Congress.” President Barack Obama joined the fight for D.C. statehood last year during a town hall meeting when an audience member asked him about the movement. “I’m in D.C., so I’m for it,” he said. “It’s not as if Washington, D.C. is not big enough compared to other states.” With roughly 650,000 residents in the city, D.C. is on par with states like Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska, which have populations between 570,000 and 730,000, and each posses one vote in the House. It’s no surprise Obama and other Democrats want to see D.C. become a new state. 75 percent of registered voters in the city are Democrats, with Republicans at just 6 percent, right behind “No Party,” which has slightly more than 17 percent. If D.C. were to become a state, Democrats would most certainly pick up two new Senate seats and another House seat, and hold them indefinitely. *As Described By NYT’s Mark Leibovich, Reporters Covering Hillary Are A Bunch Of Monsters <http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/15/as-described-by-nyts-mark-leibovich-reporters-covering-hillary-are-a-bunch-of-monsters/> // Daily Caller // Betsy Rothstein – July 15, 2015 * New York Times Magazine writer Mark Leibovich paints a bleak picture of the press covering Hillary Clinton‘s every move in her quest to win the White House in 2016. They’re vultures, bullies and shouters. They’re self-aggrandizing. They care about stupid things — like what she ate for lunch at a Chipotle in Ohio — and seem to cause Clinton, in turn, to ask absurd questions while touring a microbrewery in New Hampshire. She wanted to hold grain in her hands. She asked, “Where does the Barley come from?” But it’s a vicious circle isn’t it? In his story, Leibovich describes a press team surrounding Hillary that says things that force a reporter to reveal the ridiculous depths her staff will plunge to in order to control her image. When Leibovich visited her Brooklyn campaign headquarters to meet with Robby Mook, her campaign manager, a press aide, Jesse Ferguson informed him that the office space would be off-the-record. Leibovich refused to honor it. Hilariously, Ferguson said he didn’t want guests devolving into a tweeting contest (you know, with the throngs of people who want to visit the building and brag on social media that they were there). Ferguson ultimately wanted anything Leibovich saw “embargoed” until his piece published. Embarrassingly, he even buttered the reporter up by telling him that this “still means you’re the first reporter who can report anything from the office.” (Oh boy, really?) Leibovich abided by a no-tweeting rule, but refused to keep a 40,000-foot space off record. That said, he didn’t really see anything juicy there unless you count spotting President Obama‘s former body man Reggie Love. (A little Zzzzzzz.) Even the way the NYT writer landed the interview became part of his lengthy profile. “Her campaign at first declined to make her available for an interview. It did offer me an ‘off the record’ meeting, which is highly irregular: an off-the-record sit-down with a profile subject who happens to be running for president, and who is not exactly new to these rodeos. (I demurred on the off-the-record sit-down, at least at first.)” Leibovich ultimately agreed to an off-the-record meeting and ultimately landed his partial on-the-record interview. On one hand he shows FNC’s Ed Henry bragging about getting Hillary to finally answer questions from reporters to shouts of “DO YOU HAVE A PERCEPTION PROBLEM?” But on the other, he depicts Hillary’s handlers as people who regularly treat members of press like “cattle” that they literally corral with rope. The writer makes fun of the notion that this was somehow appalling. He also notes that the national media made sure it became the day’s big news. “That image became the day’s takeaway, at least in the national media: proof, supposedly, of Clinton’s running scared from the ‘tough questions,’ thwarting press freedom on this day of our independence.” But maybe it isn’t reporters who occasionally deserve to be treated like animals. The most startling scene comes at a fourth of July parade when a smiling Hillary walks a parade route and telling a reporter what a “great time” she’s having. Meawhile, there’s Leibovich watching her face down Benghazi signs and shouts from complete strangers calling her a “LIAR” and a “CARPETBAGGER.” *Clinton, Dem Hopefuls Silent on Planned Parenthood Organ Sales Video <http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-dem-hopefuls-silent-on-planned-parenthood-organ-sales-video/> // Free Beacon // Bill McMorris – July 15, 2015 * The Democrats vying for the 2016 presidential nomination were silent about a new video showing a top Planned Parenthood doctor outlining plans to sell body parts from aborted babies. The undercover sting video shot by the non-profit Center for Medical Progress appears to show Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, talking about reselling body parts of babies subjected to abortions. Nucatola brags about the techniques Planned Parenthood doctors use to preserve valuable body parts as she eats lunch with two actors posing as prospective buyers. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not going to crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m going to crush above, and I’m going to see if I can get it all intact,” she says in an eight-minute video pulled from a nearly three-hour conversation that the group also posted online. Nucatola said that Planned Parenthood doctors enlist the help of ultrasound to make sure they don’t damage organs as they remove pieces of the baby from the womb. Planned Parenthood has called state ultrasound bills “cruel” in the past. “A lot of people want liver,” she says pausing to bite her salad. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.” The Washington Free Beacon reached out to the campaigns of all five Democrats running for president: former Secretary of State and frontrunner Hillary Clinton, insurgent socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. None responded to questions about whether they condemned the practice of organ harvesting, whether Democrats should distance themselves from Planned Parenthood, or return campaign donations from the group. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing around 300,000 abortions per year. It has received nearly $200 million taxpayer dollars since 2012 including $27 million in grants alone in 2015, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. Planned Parenthood has in turn spent major money supporting the Democratic Party, including nearly $18 million in outside spending in 2014 and 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly all of its nearly $6 million in direct contributions since 1990 have gone to Democrats. Each Democratic candidate enjoys a close relationship with Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby. Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of Rhode Island, is the only one without a perfect rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL. He has a 90 percent approval score. Clinton won Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. She received more than $10,000 from the organization during two Senate runs and failed 2008 primary against President Barack Obama. She opposes limits on late-term abortion. As president, Bill Clinton vetoed a ban on partial birth abortion methods that Nucatola appeared to discuss in the video. “The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago. So, I thank you,” Clinton said in a release upon winning the award. A campaign spokesman did not return a request for comment. O’Malley has also been honored by the organization, winning Planned Parenthood Maryland’s Betty Tyler award in 2014. “We are building a stronger future for all of our children and grandchildren. I am honored to receive this recognition from Planned Parenthood Maryland for Maryland’s hard-won progress,” he said in a release. Martin O’Malley receives awardMartin O’Malley receives award Sanders received $5,500 from Planned Parenthood between 2012, a steep increase from the $1,500 he received between 2004 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Chafee received more than $18,000 in 2000 and 2006 when he served in the U.S. Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Webb received no money from Planned Parenthood in his 2006 Senate run, though he still enjoys a perfect pro-abortion rating from NARAL. Neither O’Malley, Sanders, nor Webb returned a request for comment. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, was the first presidential hopeful to respond to the video, posting a link to her Facebook page. “I am proudly pro-life. I believe that every human life has potential and that every human life is precious. This latest news is tragic and outrageous. This isn’t about ‘choice.’ It’s about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment,” Fiorina said. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced his presidential run in June, launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood operations in his state following the video’s release. “The systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts is shocking and gruesome,” Jindal said in a statement. “This same organization is seeking to open an abortion clinic in New Orleans. I have instructed Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct an immediate investigation into this alleged evil and illegal activity and to not issue any licenses until this investigation is complete.” Jindal called on the Democratic field to return campaign donations and to condemn Planned Parenthood. “Even the most hardened liberal must feel some pang of conscience watching the callousness with which [Nucatola] discusses the dismemberment of defenseless babies. How could anybody, regardless of political party, refuse to condemn such barbarism?” Jindal told the Washington Free Beacon. “I hope those who oppose efforts to encourage a culture of life watch this video.” Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, said in a statement that these types of concerns led him to defund Planned Parenthood in his state. “The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life,” he said in a statement. “It is because of stories like this that I signed legislation defunding Planned Parenthood in the state of Texas—to protect human life and the health and safety of Texans.” The call to defund Planned Parenthood stretched beyond pro-life politicians. A campaign spokesman for George Pataki, the former governor of New York and the only pro-choice candidate in the GOP field, endorsed cutting off taxpayer dollars to the organization. “The video is abhorrent and Governor Pataki would support ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood,” said David Catalfamo, a spokesman for Pataki, in a statement. Planned Parenthood defended the practice as “ethical,” referring to the harvested body parts as “tissue.” It claimed to receive “no financial benefit.” “We help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,” it said in a release. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed.” Nucatola alluded to the fact that local clinics stand to gain in the harvesting of organs and other body parts. “For affiliates at the end of the day, they’re non-profits. They want to break even, and if they do a little bit better than break even and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that,” she says in the full video. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a 501(c)(4) non-profit that supports pro-life candidates, said that Nucatola’s statements mirrored the actions of the abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who kept jars of body parts in his Philadelphia clinic. Gosnell was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder in 2013 for stabbing babies born alive. “This barbarity is only a natural outcome for an organization that, according to their own annual reports, destroys more than 300,000 children a year and wounds that many women. Trafficking is the grotesque collateral damage following a gross violation of human life,” she said of the video. Dannenfelser said enacting safety regulations and signing 20-week abortion bans could cut back on such practices. She said such legislation would put pro-life politicians on offense as the measures have received more than 55 percent support in several polls. “The best way to end [harvesting] is to protect these distinct and unique human lives from destruction. This is why 15 states have enacted laws to put an end to abortion after five months, when the baby can feel pain,” she said. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who kicked off his 2016 campaign on Monday, is expected to sign a 20-week abortion ban in the coming weeks, while Sens. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Rand Paul (R., Ky.) have sponsored similar prohibitions on late term abortion in the Senate. *Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Give Middle Finger to Israel and Jewish People <http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-give-middle-finger-to-israel-and-jewish-people/> // The Blaze // Wayne Root – July 15, 2015 * Don’t look now, but President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just gave a collective middle finger to Israel and the Jewish people. Obama just agreed to an Iranian nuclear deal that is as dangerous and deadly to the Jewish people as any treaty in world history. It is the Neville Chamberlain agreement of our time. Neville appeased Adolf Hitler. That didn’t work out so well for the world. Neither will this deal. Even Iran points out it won this negotiation. They will be placed under limited arms deal restrictions for only five years. Then it’s off to the races. In the meantime Iran gets to continue it’s nuclear research and development and keep two key enrichment plants. “Its not a ceiling, but a solid foundation” said their foreign minister. Great job of negotiating, John Kerry! But this deal isn’t just bad news for America and deadly for Israel. It’s also deadly for the Democrat Party. This deal is the kiss of death in 2016 for any Democrat candidate that signs on. It’s a wrecking ball. It’s a, excuse the irony, nuclear bomb. Any Democrat that puts their name beside this terrible and tragic treaty will face devastating attacks by the GOP and pro-Israel groups, as well as the loss of Jewish donors. But the real story here is Hillary Clinton endorsing the deal. The smart move was for Hillary to oppose this deal as “not good for America, American interests or Israel.” She should have said she would negotiate a much tougher deal as president. That would have made Hillary look smart, tough and independent. Instead she looks like a political hack. And she has badly damaged her relationship with Jewish voters and donors. Why? Why would Hillary make such a serious miscalculation? One can only guess. But we know it’s dangerous to embarrass Obama. Ask Donald Trump. Ask Dinesh D’Souza. Ask retired Gen. David Petraeus. Or study the case of Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey – who dared to oppose and publicly criticize Obama on this very same Iranian deal months ago – and suddenly wound up indicted on federal charges. What did Obama offer Hillary to convince her to support a deal that makes it likely that Israel will one day face a nuclear holocaust? We know Obama plays by the rules of “Chicago Thug Politics.” So let me make an educated guess on the conversation. Clearly Obama must have intimidated Hillary. My educated guess is he told her: “Embarrass me by opposing this Iranian deal and I will see to it that you never get the Democrat presidential nomination. All of my support will go to Joe Biden or Martin O’Malley or a late entry by Elizabeth Warren. I’ll throw my weight behind ABH – Anyone But Hillary. I’ll cut off your donors… And for good measure, I’ll ask my Justice Department to open a criminal investigation against you and the Clinton Foundation for accepting bribes from foreign governments while secretary of state. This investigation will last through the 2016 election. No matter the outcome, your political career is over. But stand behind this Iran deal and my team will elect you president of the United States. I’ll put the old Acorn team on your side. I’ll teach you how to register millions of illegal aliens to vote in states with weak voter ID laws. I’ll show you how to stuff the ballot box in friendly districts, so you get more votes than registered voters. I’ll show you how to arrange hundreds of millions of dollars of donations from foreign donors – all under the $200 reporting threshold. I’ll twist the arms of corrupt frauds like Jon Corzine to become Hillary bundlers. Just make sure after the election you reward them with another another billion dollar stimulus bill and more corrupt green energy loans.” That’s a typical Obama conversation. Intimidation is his calling card. It’s his way, or the highway. And that highway is build with union slush funds. Support Obama or the dogs of hell are unleashed upon you: Personal attacks; insinuations; slander; investigations and indictment by the IRS, DOJ, FBI, or Securities and Exchange Commission will suddenly appear out of nowhere. Or… You can take what’s behind door number two: Support Obama and loads of money, media and manpower suddenly appear. How bad is this Iranian deal? First it all but guarantees that one day in the future Israel, or Paris, or New York will be hit by a nuclear bomb. Remember this date: July 14, 2015. It is a day that will live in infamy. It is the day a nuclear attack was set in motion by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party. But even more frightening and tragic is the immediate terrorism nightmare this appeasement will enable. This deal ends sanctions and reopens Iran’s oil spigots. It gives Iran hundreds of billions of new petro dollars that they will use to spread terrorism all over the world. They will use this expanded income stream to support Hamas, Hezzbollah, and Al Qaeda (to name just a few of America’s worst enemies). This blood money just injected by Obama into the Iranian economy will be used to kill Israelis, Jews, Christians and Americans across the globe. This deal is a middle finger to the Jewish people. But there is a one silver lining. That makes it a nuclear bomb to the historic relationship between Jewish voters, donors and the Democrat Party. This will not end well for Hillary Clinton in 2016. *Rep. Marcia Fudge endorses Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid <http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/07/rep_marcia_fudge_endorses_hill.html> // Cleveland.com // Sabrina Eaton – July 15, 2015 * Warrensville Heights Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge announced Wednesday that she backs Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. Fudge described her as "the fighter that everyday Americans need." "We are at a point in our nation's history when the right leadership is needed more than ever," said a statement from Fudge. "Hillary has spent her life advocating for poor and working class families. "Hillary will help build an economy for tomorrow and beyond; strengthen America's families; defend our country and its core values; and revitalize our democracy. In other words, she gets it. Hillary understands the issues that matter to people in my district and around the country, like income equality, women's rights and universal voter registration. Hillary is the best candidate for the job." Ohio Democrats in Congress who previously endorsed Clinton include Rep. Tim Ryan of the Niles area and the Columbus area's Joyce Beatty. According to a tally by "The Hill," more than 100 Democratic lawmakers in Congress have announced they're backing Clinton. Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland also supports her. *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE* *DECLARED* *O’MALLEY* *Martin O’Malley Raises $2 Million for Presidential Bid <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 * Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has explored a Democratic presidential campaign for the last two years, raised about $2 million in the month after he announced his candidacy. The amount was reported in campaign finance filings on Wednesday that covered the second fund-raising quarter of the year, the first when Mr. O’Malley was formally a candidate. Mr. O’Malley’s aides portrayed the dollar figure as a sign of his ability to connect with the grass roots. Yet the former governor has been heavily outpaced by another Democratic hopeful, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who raised $15 million in the filing period. But a bigger obstacle for Mr. O’Malley, a former Democratic Governors’ Association chairman who had donor contacts around the country, is Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised $45 million, much of it in increments of $2,700, the maximum amount allowed in the primary. Mr. O’Malley is “the only candidate who has actually gotten results on the issues progressives care about,” his senior adviser, Bill Hyers, said in a statement. It was not immediately clear how much has been raised for a “super PAC” created by Mr. O’Malley’s allies. The former governor is trying to sell himself as the true policy wonk of the race, and the one with the most appeal to progressives. *O’Malley raised $2 million during first month of presidential campaign, he tells donors <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/omalley-raised-2-million-during-first-month-of-presidential-campaign-he-tells-donors/?postshare=7581436977435311> // WaPo // John Wagner – July 15, 2015 * Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley raised $2 million in the month after launching his presidential campaign, he told donors during a conference call Wednesday morning. His take is well short of two other Democrats: Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign raised $45 million since mid-April; and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose campaign took in about $15 million since he joined the race in late April. O'Malley, who formally entered the race May 30, is positioned ahead of another Democratic hopeful, former Vermont senator and governor Lincoln Chafee, who reported this week that he had raised just $30,000 from donors, in addition to lending his campaign $364,000. Former Virginia senator Jim Webb, who is also competing for the nomination, did not have to file because he did not officially declare his candidacy until after the quarterly reporting period had closed June 30. The conference call with O'Malley and aides was described by three donors who participated. They requested anonymity to more freely discuss the call, in which O'Malley also provided an update on other aspects of his long-shot campaign. An e-mail advertising the call from O'Malley's national finance director, Michael Kurtz, described the past quarter as "successful." *O’Malley Raised $2 Million in June, Putting Him in Rear of Money Race <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/omalley-raised-2-million-in-june-putting-him-in-rear-of-money-race/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed> // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley raised $2 million in the month since he launched his campaign, a haul that places him far behind his rivals for the party’s nomination in the early money race. Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the nomination, raised $45 million in the 11 weeks after she announced her campaign, making her the second-most prolific fundraiser in the 2016 race, after Republican Jeb Bush. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $15 million in the two months after launching his campaign, exceeding expectations. These figures, including that of Mr. O’Malley, do not include funds raised by outside groups backing the candidates. The super PAC promoting his campaign, Generation Forward, will announce its fundraising numbers later this month. “We’re thankful for the support we’ve received from donors across all 50 states who are ready for the new leadership, progressive values, and track record of getting things done that Governor O’Malley brings to the race,” Bill Hyers, the campaign’s senior strategist, said in a statement Wednesday. The campaign is required to file a disclosure revealing its donors and its expenses with the Federal Election Commission by midnight Wednesday. That filing will offer numbers the campaign left out of its statement, including how much money the campaign has in the bank and how much money it has spent. A survey last month of 72 top fundraisers for President Barack Obama in 2012 found that Mr. O’Malley had been making an aggressive push to win their allegiance. Wednesday’s filing will offer a window into how successful that effort has been. *O’Malley campaign raises $2 million for Democratic contest <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0213a6d5f8ce4082bad4eaeb8695c0f2/omalley-campaign-raises-2-million-democratic-contest> // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * Martin O'Malley's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination says the former Maryland governor has raised $2 million. O'Malley is one of five candidates in a field dominated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a former secretary of state. Clinton, who began her campaign in mid-April, raised $45 million through the end of June. O'Malley's bid began May 30, and his supporters contributed $2 million in 30 days. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $15 million, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee is financing most of his campaign out of his own pocket. The fifth candidate, Jim Webb, a former Virginia senator, only recently became a candidate. Most of the presidential contenders are due to file their initial fundraising reports to federal regulators by midnight Wednesday. *Martin O’Malley campaign raises $2 million in the first month <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/martin-omalley-fundraising-2016-120149.html?ml=tl_4> // Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 15, 2015 * Martin O’Malley’s presidential campaign raised roughly $2 million in its first month, a person familiar with its fundraising told POLITICO on Wednesday. The former Maryland governor’s haul lags far behind that of Hillary Clinton — whose campaign raised $45 million — and Bernie Sanders — whose campaign raised $15 million — the party’s two leading candidates in early-state and national polling. The campaign confirmed the numbers in a release on Wednesday afternoon, noting that donations came from contributors in all 50 states. O’Malley informed donors of the numbers on a conference call on Wednesday morning, which was first reported by the Washington Post. The candidate’s campaign will also be supported by a super PAC, Generation Forward, which has yet to report how much it has raised. The campaign is required to file its fundraising disclosure paperwork with the Federal Election Commission by the end of the day Wednesday. *Martin O’Malley raises $2 million; lags behind Clinton, Sanders <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-2-million-lags-behind-clinton-sanders> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015 * Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley raised $2 million dollars since announcing his presidential campaign a month ago, his campaign announced Wednesday ahead of the deadline for campaigns to file their financial disclosure reports with the Federal Elections Commission. “We’re thankful for the support we’ve received from donors across all 50 states who are ready for the new leadership, progressive values, and track record of getting things done that Governor O’Malley brings to the race,” said O’Malley Senior Strategist Bill Hyers. “And he is the only candidate who has actually gotten results on the issues progressives care about.” The number puts O’Malley behind both Hillary Clinton (who raised $45 million) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (who raised $15 million), though both had significantly more time to fundraise before the report was due. O’Malley has so far languished in the single digits in polls, but is hoping for a late-game surge. Fellow Democratic candidate Lincoln Chafee announced he raised about $390,000, though the vast majority if came from a loan the candidate loaned to his campaign. Former Sen. Jim Webb will not have to declare his fundraising numbers until October because he waited until after the end of the second quarter to announce his presidential run. *Martin O’Malley Trails Rivals in Fundraising with $2 Million Haul <http://time.com/3959085/martin-omalley-fundraising/> // TIME // Sam Frizell – July 15, 2015 * Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has raised $2 million in the first month of his campaign, his campaign announced Wednesday, trailing far behind his rivals for the Democratic nomination in fundraising efforts. The two-term governor’s campaign said Wednesday that its total haul through the end of the first quarter on June 30 was $2 million, averaging about $65,000 per day since he announced a month earlier. “In his first 30 days as a candidate, Governor Martin O’Malley held 15 public events in Iowa and New Hampshire and raised $2 million for our grassroots campaign,” said Bill Hyers, the senior campaign strategist on the O’Malley campaign. “He is setting the standard on key issues like climate change, debt-free college, Wall Street reform, and immigration by proposing bold, progressive ideas on how to rebuild the American Dream.” O’Malley’s total haul reveals just how far he’ll have to go to win the nomination. A recent poll shows him with just 1% support in national polls, even as Sanders gains on Clinton. O’Malley’s competitors for the Democratic nomination have far outpaced him in fundraising. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has raised $45 million, or well over $500,000 per day since launching her campaign in mid-April, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has brought in $15 million, or around $250,000 per day. Sanders raised $1.5 million in a single day of fundraising after announcing his campaign. *O’Malley on Wall Street: ‘If you slap a bank robber on the arm, he’s going to rob the bank again’ <http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-omalleys-war-on-wall-street-2015-7> // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – July 15, 2015 * Former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland has made Wall Street reform a central component of his Democratic presidential campaign. Last week, O'Malley released a white paper detailing his plan to bring a mix of structural changes including the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and strengthened regulations to the financial industry. On Tuesday, O'Malley sat down with Business Insider for his first interview about his Wall Street-policy push. In that conversation, he railed against what he described as "lawbreakers" in the industry, whom he likened to bank robbers. O'Malley also discussed several aspects of his push for Wall Street reform including: - His thoughts on Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's policies and how he believes she should "be forced to" weigh in on Glass-Steagall. - The fact he believes Wall Street wants Clinton and former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida (R) to win their presidential primaries. - His desire to have a "sit-down" with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts). O'Malley's fiery rhetoric about clamping down on what he describes as the "dangerous activities" of "megabanks" has caused some to brand him an "enemy" of Wall Street. In his conversation with Business Insider, O'Malley said he didn't mind that label and would also be content if taking on Wall Street were seen as his major issue in the presidential campaign. "I don't mind," he said. "Look, there's a lot of really good and decent people who work in the financial industry in our country, and the vast majority of them are just as saddened at the sort of reckless behavior and the inability — the utter lack of any sort of restraint and what it's done to our economy. "So, I'm going to continue to speak truthfully about what I believe is in our country's best interest. And if that makes me the enemy of a small clique of CEOs of a small handful of big megabanks, so be it. I don't really care. I'm running to be president of the United States. I'm not running to be, you know, wined and dined." Overall, O'Malley characterized his efforts as an extension of a vow made by the Democratic Party after the financial crisis. "People are rightly angry that we as a party haven't followed through on what they thought was the commitment and the promise we made to institute Wall Street reform," O'Malley said. "We got part of the way there with Dodd-Frank. We didn't get all the way there. It makes no sense to think that an industry where this much money is at stake would police itself. You know, if you slap a bank robber on the arm, he's going to rob the bank again. The same holds true with people in suits." Even if O'Malley, who is polling behind Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) in the Democratic primary, manages to make it to the White House, there are questions about just how much he would be able to change Wall Street without congressional support. O'Malley told Business Insider he was confident he could make a difference. Specifically, he cited his desire to appoint federal prosecutors who would be willing to pursue cases against the industry. "Some of it comes down to the personnel appointments and the people that we'd put in place at the SEC and the Justice Department," O'Malley said. "I think that is something that will have a huge impact regardless of what Congress does or doesn't do." O'Malley also suggested he hoped to turn the 2016 elections into something of a referendum on Wall Street. "I also think it should be stated pretty clearly that the biggest impediments to Wall Street reform have been Republicans in Congress," O'Malley said. "I'm not saying that there aren't a few Democrats that have become weak-kneed as well, but the biggest impediment is Republicans in Congress. This national campaign, with the higher turnout numbers that are generally in national elections, is an opportunity for people to make a change and to make a change in their Congress as well." Additionally, O'Malley hinted that he would force other candidates to address this issue in the Democratic primary debates. "I'm not going to assume people aren't interested. I know they're interested," O'Malley said. "Other candidates who think they can just gloss over this and go back to business as usual ... I think that that attitude will only last until the first debates." O'Malley also issued a warning to anyone on Wall Street who wasn't worried about meaningful regulations coming about as a result of the 2016 election. He predicted there would be "a pretty abrupt awakening" for the industry's "lawbreakers" if his bid is successful. "People that actually do business and do it honestly on Wall Street would have nothing to fear," O'Malley said, adding, "I think the habitual lawbreakers will be in for a pretty abrupt awakening here. We need to restore deterrents. We need to put prosecutors in place and people that are willing to take cases criminally when the facts justify a criminal prosecution." Wall Street donors are generally an important source of campaign cash for presidential candidates. O'Malley, however, said he was not concerned about his Wall Street crusade hurting his war chest. "I really don't care. I'm running my narrow path," O'Malley said. "It's the path of putting the national interest first and putting it ahead of powerful wealthy special interests. I know the path is narrow. I know that it's probably the steepest path, but I also know it has the greatest audience, and I know that that's what people are looking for. They want a president that's going to fight for them, that's not going to compromise the national good for the sake of well-connected elites." Warren, the Massachusetts senator, is the most prominent advocate of Wall Street reform on the political scene. Her office has not responded to requests for comment on O'Malley's plan. O'Malley, however, said he was eager to "sit down" with Warren to discuss his platform. "I've met her before," O'Malley said. "We were together at a fundraiser up in Baltimore when she came in to campaign for the DCCC, and I had occasion to meet her there and hear her speak. "I'd like to have the opportunity to sit down with her, and I hope I'm able to do that in the not-too-distant future," he added. "I think she speaks very clearly, which is hugely helpful to building a consensus on this issue." Right now the politician O'Malley should be most concerned with is Hillary Clinton, who remains the overwhelming front-runner in the Democratic primary. Clinton unveiled her economic "agenda" on Monday. At that speech, she faced a heckler who challenged her to say whether she supported reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall, which was passed in 1933 and repealed in 1999, separated commercial banks and investment banks. Last week, Warren joined a bipartisan group of senators who are pushing to restore Glass-Steagall. Both O'Malley and Sanders support its reinstatement, but Clinton has not made her position clear. In his conversation with Business Insider, O'Malley said Clinton and all 2016 presidential hopefuls should be "forced to answer" questions about where they stand on Glass-Steagall. "I think it's a pretty important issue," O'Malley said. "I mean, for 70 years we protected our common good against reckless behavior by mega-speculation banks on Wall Street ... Wherever you stand, you should state where you stand. "I have stated I am very much in favor of reinstituting Glass-Steagall. I believe in doing the things that work, and in the hindsight of history, I think most people recognize that repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake and enabled this sort of reckless behavior ... and the crash that ruined so many families. So, I'm very much in favor of reinstating it, and I think that all candidates in both parties are going to be forced to answer that question." O'Malley's first major broadside against Wall Street came in his announcement speech in May, where he suggested Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein wanted Clinton and Jeb Bush to win their respective primaries. That claim has been called into question, but O'Malley doubled down on it in his conversation with Business Insider and predicted other major Wall Street executives feel the same way based on Clinton and Bush's "positions." "I thought it was pretty widely reported that Lloyd Blankfein sent word to his people that they'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton," O'Malley said. "I don't think I would be on their short list. That's what I believe. "I mean, given what we know now about the candidates' positions. And then, as I said at announcement day, I bet Lloyd Blankfein would be just fine with either Bush or Clinton. My guess is that probably Jamie Dimon would feel the same way." *Creating a 21st Century immigration policy <http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/creating-a-21st-century-immigration-policy-20150714> // The Gazette // Martin O’Malley – July 14, 2015 * My great grandparents came to this country from Ireland. My great grandfather, his name was also Martin O’Malley, had no money, and his first language was not English. But the hopes and dreams he had for his children were purely American. We are a nation of immigrants — whether our ancestors came from Ireland or from Mexico, or whether they immigrated generations before us or brought us to the United States. But today, the very essence of our country, the diversity that makes us great and rejuvenates us with each new arrival, is being eroded. Iowa knows well the importance of immigration and the need for reform. As a state economy leading the way in agriculture, immigration reform means greater economic success for Iowans. And as the state that has been home to some of the largest immigration raids in the country, you’ve seen families torn apart and thrown in a detention center in Waterloo. It’s not only heartbreaking, it’s disruptive to the workforce as well. Our outdated immigration laws aren’t meeting our economic needs, our national security imperatives, or our values. So here’s my goal: use bold executive action to provide immediate relief to the millions of new Americans waiting for Congress to act, while forging a new consensus for comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive reform must create a pathway to citizenship to help rebuild the American dream for us all. I offer not words, but action. As governor of Maryland, I signed the Maryland DREAM Act, allowed undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses and broke with national leaders and offered young children who had come across the border a home in Maryland. I stood up to the Obama Administration on deportation of unaccompanied minors, and have stood with President Barack Obama on his executive actions on DACA and DAPA. Now, to continue to attract the next generation of strivers, dreamers and risk-takers, and to be true to the values we hold dear, we must pursue a dynamic, modern approach to immigration policy as a nation. As president I will take immediate action to extend administrative relief to millions of new American families, so that all of the people who would have become eligible for legalization can continue to work and support their families. I would also make common sense reforms to keep families together, make sure that DACA and DAPA-recipients have access to affordable health care, and limit detention to only those who pose a clear threat to public safety. Most importantly, I will use my executive experience to finally secure comprehensive immigration reform legislation that creates a pathway to citizenship and builds a 21st century immigration system. Our current immigration system hasn’t changed much over the past 60 years. It’s not responsive to the hiring needs of employers, whether they’re looking for computer programmers or agricultural workers. And it tears families apart. My plan as president will be to overhaul the US immigration system by creating an independent agency to set immigration policy based on the real-time needs of our economy. That way, we won’t be in the position of having to fight for immigration reform again. Comprehensive immigration reform will help all families — by lifting wages, creating new jobs, growing our economy, expanding our tax base, and improving standards for all workers. With new leadership, we can and will come together to make immigration reform a reality so that the enduring symbol of our nation will forever be the Statue of liberty and never become the barbed wire fence. *SANDERS* *The Bernie Sanders campaign, brought to you by small-dollar donors <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/the-bernie-sanders-campaign-brought-to-you-by-small-dollar-donors/> // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) has raised more than $15 million for his presidential campaign, according to a Federal Election Commission document that reveals the vast majority of those contributions totaled $200 or less. The Sanders campaign reported to the FEC Wednesday that it raised nearly $10.5 million in small contributions, and an additional $3 million in donations of more than $200 each. That $13.5 million fundraising haul -- which accounts for money he has raised since he announced his candidacy in late May -- was bolstered by an additional $1.5 million he transferred from his Senate campaign account. The campaign is likely to use the larger-than-expected fundraising tallies, particularly his impressive haul among the grassroots, to reinforce the senator's claim to speak for Democratic Party base. In addition to his strong support among small donors, the second quarter FEC filing reveals the campaign has spent around $3 million. The bulk of those expenditures have gone to digital consulting and media advertising, on which the campaign spent about $1.3 million. Besides spending $350,000 on printing and mailing services, the campaign's remaining costs have been primarily operational. *There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/> // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015* A cornerstone of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is extracting billionaire influence from politics. So imagine our surprise when a Sanders supporter seemed to miss that point and filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday a super PAC called “Billionaires for Bernie.” Putting aside the fact that Eric C. Jacobson, the Los Angeles lawyer behind the effort, will have to change the name because unaffiliated PACs can’t bear the name of the candidate, the goal of “Billionaires for Bernie” is exactly as it sounds. Jacobson is a self-described progressive, who likes Sanders because he’s “unbossed and unbought.” But to get Sanders to the White House means competing at the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. And in today’s politics, that takes money. Jacobson believes liberals’ general position against unlimited contributions in politics is limiting their ability to compete. “I’m hoping to facilitate a level playing field where a billionaire of conscious can write a check … and I’m going to encourage them to do it,” Jacobson told the Loop. In his view, there are plenty of “well-heeled” liberals who should get in the big money game. He’s on the hunt now for those billionaires. He already has one in mind, Ronda Stryker, a Michigan philanthropist. He doesn’t know where her allegiances are, but he knows she cares about progressive causes. Too bad in 2013 Stryker was quoted in the Kalamazoo Gazette disparaging partisan politics. “I don’t have a passion for politics,” Stryker said then. “I don’t like what it does to people. I’m always disappointed.” But she did give $50,000 to President Obama’s first inauguration, so maybe she can be persuaded? Now, no one at Sanders campaign responded to our inquires about this new “Billionaires for Bernie” endeavor, but the Vermont socialist has made clear he does not want super PAC help. The Citizens United “decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians,” he said on “Face the Nation” in May. But Jacobson is not deterred. It will be a “very unaffiliated effort,” he told us. “There’s going to be full-court press to outspend the Sanders camp — the Hillary billionaire drown out,” he said. “This is about First Amendment freedoms. … I’m a pretty true believer in this and I think it can make a difference.” Brought to you by Billionaires for Bernie. *Bernie Sanders’ official haul: $15.2 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-campaign-finance-fec-15-million-2016-120164.html?ml=tl_11> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 * Bernie Sanders’ campaign reported Wednesday that it had brought in more than $15 million during the second quarter of this year. Part of that total was a $1.5 million transfer from his Senate campaign committee, meaning that the presidential campaign had raised $13.7 million in contributions during the quarter. Just under $10.5 million — more than 76 percent of his donations — were $200 or less, while he received about $3.3 million in donations that were more than $200. The campaign announced that it had received 390,730 donations from 284,062 individuals, with an average contribution of just over $35. The total is still far behind the $45 million that front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign is expected to announce later Wednesday. But it shows the significant grassroots backing of Sanders’ liberal insurgency, which has garnered huge crowds and is surging in the polls as he challenges Clinton from the left. Sanders also spent more than $3 million in the quarter — a large amount for an insurgent campaign and one that outpaces what many candidates on both sides raised in total. The candidate’s filing shows that the campaign spent $1,265,000 on “digital consulting and ad buy” from Revolution Messaging, the group helping to lead the senator’s digital fundraising and social media effort and led by several digital strategists for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Sanders — an ardent campaign finance reform critic who has shown little interest in fundraising and refuses to have a super PAC — has placed a significant emphasis on small-dollar online contributions and social media. It also spent more than $380,000 on printing — not to mention $822.46 for an in-kind contribution of ice cream to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben and Jerry’s used at his launch in Burlington. Sanders finds himself well ahead of other challengers such as former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who told donors that he had raised roughly $2 million in his first month. Sanders announced his campaign on April 30. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $15,247,353.43 Total spent: $3,085,615.76 Total cash on hand: $ 12,161,737.67 Total debt: $0 *‘Billionaires for Bernie’ Group Is Formed, With Neither Billionaires Nor Bernie <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/-billionaires-for-bernie-group-is-formed-with-neither-billionaires-nor-bernie> // Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015 * Bernie Sanders, the liberal Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination for president, has repeatedly discouraged the formation of super-PACs supporting his candidacy. That hasn't stopped some political activists from doing it anyway. The latest is Eric C. Jacobson, a Los Angeles lawyer who filed papers today with the Federal Election Commission to form a super-PAC he calls Billionaires for Bernie. Jacobson, 60, describes himself as a public-interest lawyer and activist who once volunteered on Gary Hart's campaigns. He says he's never met Sanders and doesn't have any billionaires lined up yet, but he already has some ideas for whom to contact, such as Michigan heiress Ronda Stryker. Unlike many liberals, Jacobson celebrated the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to loosen restrictions on big money in political races, and he's not troubled that Sanders himself is discouraging such efforts. “If it was good enough for the Founders to pledge their fortunes to found the country,” he said, “how could it be wrong for the well-heeled people of our time to pledge their fortunes to affect the destiny of our country?” Jacobson's first task may be to come up with a new name. It's illegal for super-PACs to use the name of the candidates they support. “Thank you for the heads up,” Jacobson said when asked about the legality of the name, adding that he would check with the FEC. “That is something I probably should have caught if it's true.” *The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men <http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122309/bernie-sanders-archive-bustling-mysterious-young-men> // TNR // Michael Tracey – July 15, 2015 * July is a sleepy time on the University of Vermont campus in Burlington, and ordinarily the basement of the Bailey/Howe Library would be sleepier still. However, in recent weeks it has been bustling—not with students conducting academic research, but outsiders conducting political research. They have all come with one purpose: to dig through the Bernie Sanders archive. Some are national journalists, but others are more mysterious figures. A reporter for local alt-weekly Seven Days recently speculated that "two casually dressed twentysomethings" at the archive were opposition researchers for Hillary Clinton—which her camp later denied, though not before Drudge Report picked up the story. Ever since then, a retinue of young men has streamed through the library basement. They refuse to identify themselves, and the librarians on duty do likewise, citing Vermont privacy statutes and their own code of ethics. These men work for Sanders's presidential campaign, the headquarters of which is a stone's throw away, and they have been tasked with digitizing the entire archive—a gargantuan effort that left the librarians flummoxed when staffers announced their plans last week. It's a vast trove of some 30 boxes of documents chronicling Sanders's eight-year mayoralty of Burlington and other early political activities. As material is not allowed to leave the special collections room, Bernie's workers sit for hours on end, scanning every last leaf of paper onto thumb drives. They say little, but in a rare moment of candor, one did ask me whether I was “with Hillary." Otherwise they refuse to engage, operating under strict orders not to speak with media under any circumstances. Asked if these men are paid Sanders staffers, campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said, "Interns are staff, and staff are paid." Otherwise he declined to comment on their task, what prompted their arrival, or how many there are. Campaign manager Jeff Weaver said of them, “Just collecting information for ads and to document his record of effective leadership as Mayor of Burlington." Sanders’s ad hoc 2016 operation in some sense is a reflection of the Vermont senator himself, who famously eschewed neckties until first entering elective office and reliably projects an image of rumpled earnestness. The campaign is powered thus far more by passion than structure, lacking the hyper-organized, corporatized polish of the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. Whatever the upsides of such an approach, the goings-on in Bailey/Howe Library suggest that the campaign might have been unprepared for the sudden surge of interest in Sanders’ past. The digitization of the Sanders archive began about a week ago, and that his campaign apparently only thought to do so now could indicate a refreshing lack of paranoia. But it's potentially a tactical misstep, too. As much as Sanders might have evolved since his leadership role in the Vermont’s renegade Liberty Union Party during the 1970s, his records from that period are housed in the UVM archive for all to see—and might require a bit of contextualization from his campaign, lest an opportunistic opponent portray them unflatteringly. Notwithstanding Politico Magazine's claim that "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret," no bona fide bombshells have emerged yet from the archive or elsewhere. Much of the material is fairly unremarkable to those schooled in Cold War-era socialist discourse, especially given that Sanders today is a self-identified democratic socialist. Nonetheless, his past statements could feasibly cause some disquiet among the culturally conservative working men and women whom Sanders hopes to court. To wit: Sanders described himself as “clearly anti-capitalistic” in a 1976 interview with the Cynic, UVM's weekly student newspaper. “Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” he said. “It’s quite obvious why kids are going to turn to drugs to get the hell out of a disgusting system or sit in front of a TV set for 60 hours a week.” Television's enervating influence was a recurrent theme for Sanders in those days; in 1972, he wrote a letter to FCC chairman Dean Burch denouncing as “banal” such classic Americana as “I Love Lucy” and “Gunsmoke.” “How many programs do we see which reflect what is really going on in this nation?” Sanders asked. “Where is the weekly T.V. network series which deals with the worker who is unable to find a job and who is drinking himself to death as a result?” In the Cynic interview, Sanders was asked to expound on the nature of socialism, a question that continues to arise 40 years later. But in something of a departure from his typical response today, Sanders confessed ambivalence about the term’s connotations. "I myself don’t use the word socialism because people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship, and lack of freedom of speech,” he said. “The [Liberty Union Party] more strongly than any other party in the State of Vermont defends civil liberties.” That defense of civil liberties included a commitment to unfettered gun ownership: The party, while Sanders served on its executive committee, adopted a platform in 1972 that called for the “abolition of all laws which interfere with the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms.” This may suggest that Sanders’s relatively permissive views on gun ownership, already the subject of much consternation among liberals, could be rooted in sincere principle—not simply in the practical realities of winning election in rural Vermont. While this position might irk the average Democrat, it could ultimately serve to broaden his appeal: Sanders has said he wants to forge a coalition that can “cross traditional liberal-conservative lines.” Other documents in the archive may help in that effort, such as those documenting his consolidation of municipal services as Burlington mayor, as well as his disdain for property taxes. During his Liberty Union years, Sanders endorsed the total elimination of “the very regressive property tax system,” to be replaced by a much more steeply progressive income tax. By his 1986 bid for governor, he had adopted “Vote tax relief” as a campaign slogan. You might even say he ran the municipal government as a fiscal conservative. All of which is to say, there's a lot to mine in the archive, for both the good and ill of the campaign. Sanders, who did not respond to an interview request, probably has as little patience for discussing the contents of those 30 boxes as his campaign leaders do. But his small army of digital archivists have no choice but to be patient as they toil their summer away in a library basement—scanning, scanning, forever scanning. As I overheard one of them lament, “My grandchildren will be working on this.” *The savvy tech strategy fueling Bernie Sanders’ upstart 2016 campaign <http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-campaign-technology-20150715-story.html> // LA Times // Evan Halper – July 15, 2015 * Bernie Sanders is more likely to sport a rumpled suit than a hoodie, has no affinity for geeking out on the gadgets of Silicon Valley and may prefer the company of protesters over programmers — yet no candidate running for president is more successfully leveraging technology. The liberal Vermont senator’s rapid rise from a token leftist to a rival with the potential to disrupt Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton’s path to the nomination confirms that technology, as political data wizards like to say, has become an equalizer in modern campaigns. “It is extraordinary how this has revolutionized politics in America,” Sanders said in an interview. He is the first to admit that he is no techie. “I consider myself smart enough to hire excellent people who know its importance.” The Sanders ascent is built on deft use of the campaign tools first developed a decade ago by fellow Vermonter Howard Dean. During his 2004 campaign for president, Dean also was not particularly tech-savvy, but his message resonated with those who were. Sanders is the same. Recently, he overtook Clinton in the number of people searching for his name on Google. His Senate Facebook page has 1.3 million followers, more than any other senator. An online effort to get volunteers to throw house parties in support of Sanders on a day this month has so many people signing up that the campaign is trying to figure out how to coordinate it all. “Can you imagine 20 years ago anyone thinking you could sit down in front of your computer and talk to tens of thousands of people in America at once and do it at such a reasonable cost?” Sanders said. Nobody doubts Sanders’ ability to draw a crowd. But until recently, a fiery liberal like him would have had considerable difficulty creating a durable campaign operation out of the large groups of peaceniks, environmentalists and college professors turning out to see him in liberal towns like Madison, Wis., and Iowa City, Iowa. Now, off-the-shelf technology is available to build detailed profiles of the thousands who come to rallies and use the data to find many thousands more just like them in early-voting states. Sanders’ staff can tap into a massive voter file the Democratic National Committee makes available to candidates to pinpoint with precision which people who show up at a rally are prospective precinct captains in Iowa. And instead of a balky, in-house online fundraising tool, Sanders can lean on the transformative liberal fundraising website ActBlue. Thousands of Sanders enthusiasts are playing the role of “microbundler,” enticing their friends to the Web page where making donations is as intuitive and addicting as shopping on Amazon. Most of these tools were not available until recently, at least not at a price affordable to a grass-roots candidate like Sanders, who disavows corporate money and refuses to launch a "super PAC." “We were trying to do this with bubble gum and Scotch tape,” said Joe Trippi, who managed the Dean campaign. “There is a Ferrari out there now for Bernie Sanders to use. He is doing well with it and can do even more than he has been. It can go even faster and a lot further. We will see where he takes it.” Trippi cautions, though, that technology will only get Sanders so far. Like other strategists, he says the appeal of the democratic socialist drops off considerably once he is no longer competing in parts of the country where primary voters share the demographic profile of those in his home state, Vermont — overwhelmingly white, very liberal and older. Still, only weeks ago, there was little talk that Sanders could actually win in New Hampshire or Iowa or both. Now victory in those states is at least conceivable, particularly after about 250,000 mostly small-dollar donors sent the Sanders campaign $15 million during his first quarter as a candidate, an amount that far exceeded the expectations of operatives in Washington. Sanders’ staff is cagey about particular technologies they are using. But unlike the days of Dean, when the software had to be created on the fly, progressives now have a deep pool of experienced political data-miners from which to draw. The techies working for Sanders are veterans of President Obama’s wildly successful digital team. Among them is Scott Goodstein, who was external director for Obama ’08. “We were looking for a candidate ... who could inspire a movement,” he said in a statement. Sanders may be no techie, but the gruff independent with the thick Brooklyn accent has a cult of personality that spawns clicks. In a campaign where strategists are competing with one another to come up with the most clever “404 error” page — the page that comes up when you hit on a bad link within a website — Sanders bested his rivals with a video message that mocks his Internet aptitude. Standing awkwardly before the camera in an unfashionable suit and tie, speaking too loudly and with the cadence of a grandparent trying to explain something extremely important and complicated, Sanders directs visitors on how to use the website. Swiping a meaty hand in front of the camera, he says, “Just scoot down to the bottom of the page and you will find your way back home to where you should be.” The Vermonter’s success at harnessing social media defies convention. “What we do not do,” the senator said, “is say, ‘Hi, I walked my dog this morning. What a beautiful day. And then tweet it out.” Not even close. Sanders writes detailed ideas about such concepts as America’s “grotesque level of income inequality” and the “moral responsibility we must accept to transform our energy system,” and his people push it out to his growing mass of followers. “In some cases, we will quote other people,” Sanders said. “Like the pope.… I am a big fan of the pope.” Digital strategists have seen this before. “Howard Dean was thought of as a conservative Democrat who did not know much about the Internet,” said John Hagner, a partner at the tech firm Clarity Campaign Labs in Washington and a veteran of the Dean campaign. “People who had a lot of technical sense opposed the Iraq war, and they liked what he was saying. He fit the zeitgeist.” *The Bernie Sanders Surge Is About Bernie, Not Hillary <http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bernie-sanders-surge-is-about-bernie-not-hillary/> // Five Thirty Eight // Nate Silver – July 15, 2015 * “The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week, “points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president. “The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to Clinton,” he explained. We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and Humphrey. But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low 60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among Democrats usually exceed 80 percent. Nor do Sanders’s gains in Iowa and New Hampshire say much about Clinton’s vulnerability. This is easy enough to test. When a candidate gains relative to another, it could be because he is growing more popular, or because his opponent is becoming less popular. Horse-race polls, in which voters reveal only their first preference, won’t always be able to distinguish between these causes. Favorability ratings allow us to say more. If Allen’s assertion is right — that Sanders’s gains represent an “anybody but Hillary” vote that could go to Biden — we should have seen a significant deterioration in Clinton’s favorability ratings. That’s not what we see, however. In the charts below, I’ve compiled all the favorability rating polls I could find among Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats since the start of the year. In Iowa, there’s been no change at all in Clinton’s ratings. Her favorability rating is about 85 percent, and her unfavorable rating is around 10 percent, right where it was in January. silver-feature-berniehillary Perhaps you can perceive a slight downturn in Clinton’s favorability numbers among Democrats in New Hampshire — they’re now in the high 70s instead of the mid-80s, while her unfavorable ratings have grown by a few percentage points. Her ratings are still very good, however, and (given the noise in the polling) the change isn’t statistically significant.1 Instead, it’s the Vermont senator’s ratings that have shifted dramatically. In Iowa, Sanders’s favorability rating has grown from about 35 percent at the start of the year to 60 percent now. And in New Hampshire, it has improved from around 45 percent to 65 percent. Some of that is from improved name recognition, but Sanders’s unfavorable ratings haven’t increased even as he’s become better known, remaining at about 10 percent in each state. The Bernie Sanders surge, in other words, has a lot more to do with Bernie Sanders than with Hillary Clinton. More specifically, it has to do with his left-populist politics. We’re going to break some news here: It turns out that some Democrats are really liberal, and they like a really liberal candidate like Sanders. Right now, Sanders is winning about half the support of white liberal Democrats, but little support from other groups within the party. That works out to around 25 or 30 percent of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire but more like 15 percent among Democrats nationally. It’s possible that Sanders’s standing will continue to improve. If he goes from winning half of the white liberal vote to most of it, he could win Iowa and New Hampshire, though not very many other states. But he could also encounter some headwinds. Sanders’s name recognition is now 70 to 80 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire, so he doesn’t have that much more room to grow on the basis of improved name recognition alone. And while he’s an appealing choice to some very liberal Democrats, Democrats who describe themselves as “somewhat liberal” may instead prefer Clinton. The policy differences between the Democrats aren’t all that profound; Clinton is pretty liberal herself, and she and Sanders voted together 93 percent of the time in the two years they spent in the Senate together. Sanders may also be benefiting from media coverage of his campaign, which has been favorable to him recently. Polls that show him gaining in Iowa and New Hampshire receive lots of press coverage, whereas those that show him stalling out, like this one released late last week, are all but ignored. Meanwhile, it was described as a “game-changer” when Sanders announced he’d raised $15 million in the spring, even as Clinton raised $45 million during the same period. Some of this has to do with the longstanding antipathy between the Clintons and the news media (a phenomenon that Allen has written about). But the media have another incentive to paint Sanders’s candidacy in a favorable light, the same one that encourages them to call for a Biden candidacy: Coronations are boring. They’d rather see a competitive Democratic primary, which means more to talk about and analyze, and thus more viewership and traffic. This isn’t an anti-Clinton thing, necessarily; in the past, the dynamic has sometimes worked toward Clinton’s benefit. The 2008 Democratic nomination was portrayed as anyone’s race until the bitter end, for instance, even though Barack Obama’s substantial lead in delegates made it difficult for Clinton to win. Ordinarily, Democrats might push back against what they perceived to be unfair or inaccurate coverage about Clinton. But Democratic activists and commentators are more liberal than Democrats as a whole. Many of them like Sanders’s policy positions — and even though they may also like Clinton, they’d like to see her pulled further to the left before the general election gets underway. What about the Clinton campaign itself? So long as Clinton retains 80 percent favorable ratings among Democrats, she has little reason to deflate the Bernie bubble. Sanders may satiate the media’s desire for a “competitive” Democratic primary without really making her vulnerable. Clinton has plenty of ammunition, however, including her money and the endorsements she’s received from her fellow Democrats (including many Democrats who are almost as liberal as Sanders). That’s likely enough to secure her the nomination without her going negative. If needed, she could also press concerns about the electability of Sanders, a 73-year-old self-described socialist who hasn’t run a national campaign before. In the meantime, you’re likely to see journalists misunderstand the reasons for Sanders’s gains, attributing them incorrectly to criticisms of Clinton. Her email scandal, for example, has received plenty of press coverage, but it isn’t likely to weigh her down in the primary. While only 42 percent of Americans overall say that Clinton is honest and trustworthy — a potential concern for her in the general election — 73 percent of Democrats think she is. And 80 percent of Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them. There isn’t much of a market among Democrats for an “anybody but Hillary” candidate, in other words. And it’s particularly illogical to argue that Biden might serve as a better foil to Sanders. Biden has lower favorable ratings and higher unfavorable ratings than Clinton and by statistical measures is further to the right. So if you’re going to speculate about a new candidate entering the race, at least do it in a way that’s consistent with the evidence. Since Sanders’s surge is mostly about Democrats liking a really liberal candidate, you could argue that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren should run for president. She’s also extremely popular with liberals but carries less baggage than Sanders.2 But it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to beat Clinton as long as she has an 80 or 85 percent favorability rating within her party. *WEBB* *Jim Webb Becomes Sole 2016 Democrat to Question Iran Deal <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/jim-webb-becomes-sole-2016-democrat-to-question-iran-deal/> // WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 14, 2015 * Former Sen. Jim Webb became the sole major Democratic presidential candidate to voice objections to the Iran deal struck by the Obama administration, telling an interviewer on Wednesday, “I have a lot of concerns about this deal.” Mr. Webb said the agreement means the U.S. is effectively “acceding” to Iran eventually developing a nuclear weapon. Bernie Sanders Calls on Clinton to Take a Stand on Minimum Wage, Other Issues He spoke about the Iran deal on the Diane Rehm radio show, a day after the landmark agreement was announced. His four main rivals for the Democratic nomination – former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee – all spoke favorably about the agreement in the hours after it was announced. A Wall Street Journal poll last month showed Mr. Webb in third place with 4% of registered voters who said they would vote in the Democratic primary. Mr. Sanders was in second place with 15%; Mrs. Clinton was in first with 75%. Both Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Chafee trailed Mr. Webb. This was not the first time Mr. Webb has taken a position that put him at odds with his rivals. As leaders of both parties called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state capitol grounds, Mr. Webb posted a statement on his Facebook FB +0.65% page last month that struck a contrarian note, calling on people to acknowledge “the complicated history of the Civil War.” He wrote that “honorable Americans fought on both sides of the Civil War.” Last week, though, he said in a TV interview that he approved of the South Carolina legislature’s decision to remove the flag. In the radio interview, Mr. Webb said that in the long-running negotiations over its nuclear program, Iran did well for itself. He said he has asked himself “What does Iran get out of this?” “And they get a lot out of this,” he said. “They get immediate lifting of sanctions and over a period of 10 years they are going to be able to say they can move forward with a nuclear weapons policy with the acceptance of the U.S. and the other countries” involved in the negotiations. Asked what the U.S. achieved, Mr. Webb laughed and said: “That’s what I’ve been trying to figure out.” He said the U.S. had secured only “vague guarantees” that Iran will scrap efforts to develop a nuclear weapon. For his part, President Barack Obama has said the deal was a diplomatic victory, compelling Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program without the use of military force. “Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,” Mr. Obama said in a statement from the White House on Tuesday. Congress is now set to review the nuclear deal. Mr. Webb, who served one term as senator from Virginia, said if he were still in office he would be “very skeptical” of the deal. “We cannot send a signal to this region that we will in any way accept the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran,” he said. *Jim Webb breaks from 2016 Dems in Dinging Iran deal <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jim-webb-criticize-iran-deal-120145.html?ml=tl_13> // Politico // Nick Gass – July 14, 2015 * Jim Webb on Wednesday broke with fellow Democrats running for the White House, calling the nuclear agreement with Iran a signal to the Middle East that the U.S. is accepting the eventuality that Iran will one day acquire a nuclear weapon. “My concern really is that at the bottom line of the agreement, here is what we have. We have Iran having their sanctions lifted, having a number of these other issues with respect to their activities not addressed and having the rest of the region receiving a signal that we, the United States, are accepting the eventuality that they will acquire a nuclear weapon,” Webb said Wednesday on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR. The former Virginia senator and Navy secretary’s remarks are in contrast with those of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, all of whom praised the agreement to varying degrees on Tuesday. “So, however you get through the checks and the measures as the agreement moves forward … that’s where we end up after 10 years, even if everything works,” Webb told Rehm. “The bottom line is: Even if it all works, is this where we want to be in that region as a country with Iran having been so empowered in recent years,” he said, noting that he has been a proponent of improving relations with Iran and removing sanctions in a measured way that keeps regional balances in check. “We should, with respect to the situation with Iran right now, we do not want to be signaling in the region right now that we have accepted that Iran would have a larger role in this balance than would be good for the region,” Webb said. *Webb skeptical of Iran deal, worries Dems bow to interest groups <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-skeptical-iran-deal-worries-dems-bow-interest-groups> // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb said Wednesday that he is “very skeptical” of the deal Western nations recently struck with Iran over its nuclear program, and said he worries the Democratic Party has become “less inclusive” and too focused on social issues. In an interview with public radio host Diane Rehm, Webb says he thought Iran gets “a lot out of this” deal while he was still “trying to figure out” the American interest in the agreement to halt Iran’s nuclear program struck Tuesday. “I have a lot of concern about this deal,” he added, explaining that he thought the deal would result in Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and that Congress should have had more oversight. That puts Webb at odds not only with President Obama, but with all four other Democratic presidential candidates, who have said they support the deal. That’s a comfortable position for the former senator and Navy Secretary, who touted himself as an “independent voice” Wednesday and is used to charting his own course. Later in the interview, he criticized his party for prioritizing “social issues.” “I worry that the Democratic Party’s message has has become less inclusive even that is as it has become more focused on different interest groups,” he said. “If you look at the [20]10 elections and [20]14 election, you will see the Democratic Party, I believe, needs to open up and be more inclusive to the people who traditionally part of the basic message of the Democratic Party.” On Sunday, Webb told Fox News that he thought his party had moved too far to the left. “That’s not my Democratic Party in and of itself,” he told Fox News Sunday. *CHAFEE* *Lincoln Chafee Bankrolls His Campaign <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/14/lincoln-chafee-bankrolls-his-campaign/> // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015 * Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee and his wife, Stephanie, had income of as much as $5.5 million in 2014 and are worth as much as $34.9 million, according to his financial disclosure report released Tuesday. The bulk of the former Rhode Island governor’s assets are held in a trust owned by his wife, a multimillionaire philanthropist whose family founded the Rhode Island School of Design in the 19th century. The trust holds between $19 million and $27.5 million, according to the disclosure. The couple also owns as much as $4 million of real estate in Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton Transcript: Building the 'Growth and Fairness Economy' Mrs. Chafee’s trust has stakes topping $1 million in companies including Amazon, Intel and AH Belo, a media company that owns the Dallas Morning News and formerly owned the Rhode Island-based Providence Journal. The Chafees have no liabilities. Mr. Chafee also reported this week that his longshot campaign for the Democratic nomination raised $392,743 in the first half of the year—$364,000 of which he loaned to his own campaign. The campaign has $329,000 in the bank. In Mr. Chafee’s successful gubernatorial bid in 2010, his wife donated about $1.8 million—about two-thirds of all the money raised. Candidates are required to disclose details of their personal income after launching their campaigns. Mr. Chafee’s wealth puts him at the upper end of the spectrum of 2016 candidates. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is worth as much as $52 million, and Republican Carly Fiorina has a net worth of $59 million. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush earlier this month released tax returns showing his total net worth to be between $19 million and $22 million. And Donald Trump told the crowd at his campaign launch that he is “really rich,” citing $9.2 billion in assets. *Literally No One Supports Lincoln Chafee In Latest Poll <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lincoln-chafee-support_55a663fde4b0c5f0322bd272?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Sam Stein – July 15, 2015 * Running for president can be a humbling experience. And former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee is testing the depths of a candidate's psychological endurance. The one time Republican-turned-Independent-turned Democrat barely raised any money for his White House bid, reporting less than $30,000 on hand. And on Wednesday morning came a new poll from Monmouth University that shows him with zero percent. As in, there is no registered support for him. Were this a one-time thing, perhaps Chafee could chalk it up to the variance of public polling. But, in fact, he's been hovering at 0.0 percent for some time now, according to the Huffpost Pollster averages. His campaign did not immediately return a request for comment. Chafee is contending with some of the same variables that have kept others in the field way down at the low rungs of public support. Eclipsed by the star power of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and unable to tap into the same type of grassroots support as Sen. Bernie Sanders, there really hasn't been much space to operate on the trail. Both former Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb registered at 1 percent in the Monmouth poll. Chafee has the type of liberal record that would suit a Democrat well in a presidential year. But his odd campaigning style, his complete lack of money or infrastructure, and his virtually non-existent name recognition have left him, basically, alone *Lincoln Chafee’s Presidential Bid has Zero Support, New Poll says <http://time.com/3958783/lincoln-chafee-poll-zero-support/> // TIME // Nolan Feeney – July 15, 2015 * Plenty of Democratic presidential hopefuls are trailing Hillary Clinton in polls, but no candidate seems to be trailing more than former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who has literally zero support according to new data from Monmouth University. The numbers, released Wednesday, show that the percent of people who say they’d back the little-known Chafee for the Democratic nomination stood at zero in both June and July. Clinton, meanwhile, is currently pulling 51% of support in the poll, down from 57% last month, and Bernie Sanders has 17% of support, up from 12% last month. The sample of 1,001 adults has a margin of error of 5.2 percentage points, so maybe Chafee’s just getting unlucky with the polls two months in a row. But even fellow candidates Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley each garnered support from 1% of poll participants this month. *UNDECLARED* *OTHER* *Bernie Sanders throws shade at Hillary Clinton during Senate visit <http://nypost.com/2015/07/15/bernie-sanders-throws-shade-at-hillary-clinton-during-senate-visit/> // AP // July 15, 2015 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was escorted by fellow Democrats, her way smoothed by uniformed officers and her every pre-planned step tracked by a pack of chroniclers as she made the rounds of private meetings in the Capitol. It was more than enough for Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is Clinton’s closest Democratic presidential rival in the polls. Emerging from one such meeting on Tuesday, Sanders strode, fast-paced and trailed by a couple of aides, to a collection of nearby television cameras. “Let me welcome Secretary Clinton back to the Senate,” he said, although in fact, the greeting could more fairly be described as brisk and bracing, rather than warm. His rival was behind closed doors with Democratic senators elsewhere in the Capitol when Sanders said that trade deals negotiated over the past two decades have been disastrous. “Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a different view on that issue,” he said, although he omitted that as president, her husband had negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement. “I strongly opposed the war in Iraq,” he added. He didn’t mention that Clinton supported it, but said, “sadly, tragically, much of what I predicted in fact took place.” Moving on to energy, Sanders said he has “helped lead the opposition to the Keystone pipeline.” He added dryly, “I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue,” referring to her unwillingness to state a position on the proposal despite repeated requests that she do so. While not exactly unplanned, Sanders’ appearance at the microphones was a reminder of the type of opportunistic campaign he is running as an underdog. The cameras were there in anticipation of comments by other lawmakers, but he made use of them. As a result, he got his say — and on a day that Clinton’s aides had designed to highlight her role as a front-runner conferring privately with Democrats who may well share the 2016 ballot with her. The news that the United States and other world powers had reached a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program only added to her standing. “She’s one of two of the most important, most influential voices in this debate, the other being President Obama,” said New York Rep. Steve Israel, who attended one of the closed-door meetings with the former secretary of state. Not surprisingly, given Clinton’s experience as secretary of state and their similar views on the deal, it wasn’t an issue Sanders dwelt on. Proceeding down his checklist, the Vermont senator said he believes large financial institutions should be broken up, adding that to the best of his knowledge, Clinton does not agree with him. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and spending $1 trillion to rebuild roads and bridges is another case, he said, where Clinton has been “less than clear about her views.” Finally, he said he favors a transition tax on “Wall Street speculators,” with the proceeds going into paying the cost of public college and university expenses for students. “The secretary’s position, I think, is unclear,” he said, avoiding mentioning that Clinton once represented New York and Wall Street in the Senate. His “welcome” nearly done, Sanders added of Clinton, “I like her. I respect her. … It is not necessary for people to dislike each other or attack each other just because they’re running for office.” A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign had no immediate response to Sanders’ comments. *Bernie Sanders gets his say on Clinton’s day in Capitol <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eddca299823549c5a2f7ea7a90e4e476/bernie-sanders-gets-his-say-clintons-day-capitol> // AP // David Espo – July 15, 2015 * Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was escorted by fellow Democrats, her way smoothed by uniformed officers and her every pre-planned step tracked by a pack of chroniclers as she made the rounds of private meetings in the Capitol. It was more than enough for Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont who is Clinton's closest Democratic presidential rival in the polls. Emerging from one such meeting on Tuesday, Sanders strode, fast-paced and trailed by a couple of aides, to a collection of nearby television cameras. "Let me welcome Secretary Clinton back to the Senate," he said, although in fact, the greeting could more fairly be described as brisk and bracing, rather than warm. His rival was behind closed doors with Democratic senators elsewhere in the Capitol when Sanders said that trade deals negotiated over the past two decades have been disastrous. "Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a different view on that issue," he said, although he omitted that as president, her husband had negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement. "I strongly opposed the war in Iraq," he added. He didn't mention that Clinton supported it, but said, "sadly tragically, much of what I predicted in fact took place." Moving on to energy, Sanders said he has "helped lead the opposition to the Keystone pipeline." He added dryly, "I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue," referring to her unwillingness to state a position on the proposal despite repeated requests that she do so. While not exactly unplanned, Sanders' appearance at the microphones was a reminder of the type of opportunistic campaign he is running as an underdog. The cameras were there in anticipation of comments by other lawmakers, but he made use of them. As a result, he got his say — and on a day that Clinton's aides had designed to highlight her role as a front-runner conferring privately with Democrats who may well share the 2016 ballot with her. The news that the United States and other world powers had reached a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program only added to her standing. "She's one of two of the most important, most influential voices in this debate, the other being President Obama," said New York Rep. Steve Israel, who attended one of the closed-door meetings with the former secretary of state. Not surprisingly, given Clinton's experience as secretary of state and their similar views on the deal, it wasn't an issue Sanders dwelt on. Proceeding down his checklist, the Vermont senator said he believes large financial institutions should be broken up, adding that to the best of his knowledge, Clinton does not agree with him. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and spending $1 trillion to rebuild roads and bridges is another case, he said, where Clinton has been "less than clear about her views." Finally, he said he favors a transition tax on "Wall Street speculators," with the proceeds going into paying the cost of public college and university expenses for students. "The secretary's position, I think, is unclear," he said, avoiding mentioning that Clinton once represented New York and Wall Street in the Senate. His "welcome" nearly done, Sanders added of Clinton, "I like her. I respect her. ... It is not necessary for people to dislike each other or attack each other just because they're running for office." A spokesman for Clinton's campaign had no immediate response to Sanders' comments. *Bernie Sanders narrows the gap as Hillary Clinton’s lead declines by double digits <http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/bernie_sanders_narrows_the_gap_as_hillary_clintons_lead_declines_by_double_digits/> // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s lead among Democrats is shrinking, dropping nine points since April, according to a new Monmouth University Poll released today. Clinton still holds an enormous lead over her nearest competitor, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, with 51 percent of the vote to Sanders’ 17 percent, but just last month, Clinton led 57 percent to 12 percent in the same poll. Increasingly, Democrats are supportive of a Democratic challenger to Clinton — with 53 percent agreeing that it would “be better if there was an active primary challenge,” up from 48 percent last December. But Clinton continues to have the best favorability ratings among her Democratic rivals — 74 percent favorable to 17 percent unfavorable. 15 percent of voters are undecided, besting the 13 percent of voters who indicated they are still holding out hope for a Joe Biden run. Biden holds the second highest favorability ratings in the Democratic field with 67 percent of Democratic voters viewing him favorably. For his part, Sen. Sanders’ favorability ratings have surged as more Democratic voters are introduced to his campaign. 36 precent of respondents held a favorable view of the self-described democratic socialist, up from 29 percent last month. The results in this poll release are based on a subsample of 357 registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party from a larger, national random sample of 1,001 adults age 18 and older. The poll was conducted July 9 to 12, 2015 with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points. *Bernie Sanders gaining on Hillary Clinton, with Biden looming <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/15/bernie-sanders-gaining-hillary-clinton-biden-looms/> // Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 15, 2015 * Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, has gained some ground against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past few months in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, though Mrs. Clinton still has a firm grasp on the top spot, according to a new poll. Mrs. Clinton was the first choice of 51 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters in the new survey from Monmouth University — down from 57 percent in June and 60 percent in April. Mr. Sanders was well back at 17 percent, but his numbers have increased since his 7 percent showing in April and his 12 percent support in June. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia were both at 1 percent, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee registered no support and 15 percent said they were undecided. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who unlike the other candidates has not yet officially indicated his 2016 plans, was at 13 percent, with an additional 12 percent of Democratic voters saying they would be very likely to consider supporting Mr. Biden if he enters the race and another 31 percent saying they would be somewhat likely to consider it. Among those who say they’d be likely to support Mr. Biden if he runs, 68 percent are Clinton backers, 18 percent are supporting another candidate and 14 percent are undecided. “Most people seem to be focusing on a Sanders surge among the liberal wing of the party. But the bigger threat to Clinton may come from a Biden candidacy, where the two would be fighting for the same voters,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute. A slight majority, 53 percent, said it would be better if Mrs. Clinton faced an active primary challenge, compared to 36 percent who said it would be better if the party got behind Mrs. Clinton early on. Seventy-four percent of Democratic voters held a favorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 17 percent who held an unfavorable view. Mr. Biden had a 67 percent/17 percent favorable/unfavorable split among Democrats, while Mr. Sanders had a 36 percent/12 percent split. Fewer than 30 percent of Democrats had an opinion on the rest of the field. The survey taken from July 9-12 of 1,001 adults had a subset of 357 registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percent for that subgroup. *Hillary Clinton’s Lead is Shrinking, and a New Poll Shows Growing Support for a Dark Horse Candidate <http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/369085-looks-like-support-hillary-clinton-waning-expense-democratic-candidate/> // IJ Review // Kyle Plantz – July 15, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is leading in most national polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, but that lead has been slipping in recent months as Bernie Sanders continues to make a splash in the race. The latest Monmouth University poll released Wednesday has Clinton leading with 51% among Democrats and those leaning toward the Democratic Party. However, this number has dropped from 57% in June and 60% in April, according to previous polling from the institute. Sanders continues to trail Clinton at a sizable margin, but his support has steadily grown to 17%, an increase from 12% in June and 7% in April. Martin O’Malley garners just 1% of support and Jim Webb, who threw his hat into the ring earlier this month, also earns 1%. Lincoln Chafee registers no support in the poll and another 15% of Democrats remain undecided. Vice President Joe Biden has not announced his intentions for 2016 yet, but the poll suggests that he earns 13% of support from voters currently, just behind Sanders. But the Monmouth poll shows that Biden’s support would grow if he entered the race. About 12% of Democratic voters said they would be “very likely” to support Biden and an additional 31% said they would be “somewhat likely.” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in the press release of the poll that most of this support would come at the expense of Clinton: “Most people seem to be focusing on a Sanders surge among the liberal wing of the party. But the bigger threat to Clinton may come from a Biden candidacy, where the two would be fighting for the same voters.” Among the voters who said they would support Biden if he decides to run, 68% are currently supporting Clinton, 18% are supporting another candidate and 14% are undecided. The Democratic National Committee has not released its Democratic primary debate schedule yet but said the first one might come as early as August. *GOP* *DECLARED* *BUSH* *Jeb Bush to Release Names of His Fund-Raisers <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/?ref=politics> // NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 * Jeb Bush will disclose the names of his “bundlers,” or volunteer fund-raisers, his campaign said on Wednesday. The announcement, which comes as Mr. Bush and other presidential candidates are preparing to submit detailed financial information to the Federal Election Commission, makes Mr. Bush the first — and so far only — Republican candidate to pledge to disclose his bundlers. “Governor Bush is committed to transparency,” said Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush. “We plan to release a list of individuals bundling donations for the campaign for the first two quarters by the time we file our next F.E.C. report.” Bundlers are the financial heart of any presidential campaign, which requires hundreds of volunteer fund-raisers to tap into networks of friends, family and business associates, each of whom can only give $2,700 for any one election. Federal law does not require candidates to disclose the names of bundlers unless they are registered lobbyists. But some major party candidates have done so voluntarily, including President Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and former President George W. Bush, Mr. Bush’s brother. Doing so makes it possible for voters to known who candidates rely on the most to raise money and what industries and interests those people represent. A spokeswoman for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said he would not voluntarily disclose the names of his bundlers. Officials at several other campaigns, including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, did not respond to emails seeking comment. *Lobbyists bundle nearly a quarter million dollars for Jeb Bush <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/lobbyists-bundle-nearly-a-quarter-million-dollars-for-jeb-bush/> // WaPo // Catherine Ho – July 15, 2015 * A key group of fundraisers for the 2016 presidential election, lobbyist bundlers, raised $228,400 for Republican candidate Jeb Bush during the second quarter, according to FEC filings submitted by his campaign on Wednesday. Bush also drew the financial support of top lobbyists at a number of Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, Goldman Sachs and Hewlett-Packard. People who raise more than $17,600 from friends, family and colleagues are known as bundlers and campaigns are required to disclose their names if they are federally registered lobbyists. Campaigns are not required to disclose the names of all bundlers, but both Bush and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton say they will do so. While the amount of money raised this way may be dwarfed by the unlimited sums that can be contributed to super PACs — hundreds of thousands of dollars compared to millions — it nonetheless offers a glimpse into who on K Street may have access and influence on a potential future president. Eight lobbyist bundlers raised a collective $228,400 for Bush during the second quarter of 2015. The top bundlers were William P. Killmer of the Mortgage Banking Association, who raised $36,200; Dirk Van Dongen of the National Association of Wholesalers, who raised $33,900; and Ignacio Sanchez, co-chair of the lobbying practice at DLA Piper, who raised $32,400. Former congressman Tom Loeffler, now a lobbyist at Akin Gump, raised $31,500 for the campaign. Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican Party of Florida and now a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs, raised $18,900. A number of lobbyists, though not bundlers, contributed the individual limit of $2,700 to Bush’s campaign. They include Kirk Blalock of Fierce Government Relations, David Beightol and Brian Sailer of Flywheel Government Solutions, Dave Boyer of BGR Group and Josh Holly, Kimberley Fritts, David Marin and Matt Johnson of Podesta Group. Bush also drew support from top lobbyists within major corporations, including Maria Cino of Hewlett-Packard, Ed Ingle of Microsoft, Tim McBride of United Technologies, Matt Niemeyer of Goldman Sachs and Woody Simmons Jr. of Verizon Communications. They all contributed the individual limit of $2,700. *Jeb Bush reports $11.4 million campaign haul <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-reports-11-4-million-campaign-haul/> // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015 * Former Florida governor Jeb Bush's campaign raised more than $11.4 million during the second fundraising quarter, according to a Federal Election Commission report, just a fraction of the $114 million total money he raised when factoring in his enormous super PAC haul. The $11 million figure was first disclosed by the Bush campaign last week and confirmed Wednesday, the formal FEC filing deadline for the second fundraising quarter. Bush's allied super PAC, Right to Rise USA, disclosed last week that it has raised $103 million in 2015 so far. With another $5 million from his leadership PAC, Bush's total haul is an unprecedented $119 million. The report reveals that Bush's campaign received $368,000 from small donors – less than the $390,000 the candidate himself donated to his own campaign. About $228,000 came from bundlers who are registered federal lobbyists, including $36,000 raised by William Killmer of the Mortgage Bankers Association and nearly $34,000 by Dirk Van Dongen, president and lobbyist for the National Association of Wholesale Distributors. The campaign has spent slightly more than $3 million since Bush formally announced his campaign in mid-June, primarily on operational fees. The biggest amounts of money spent by the campaign was for travel, campaign equipment, political strategy consultants and payroll. The campaign also spent around $400,000 on legal consulting fees. Bush donated $388,720 to his own campaign for “testing the waters” activities, covering travel, legal fees, polls and consulting done before he declared his bid in mid-June. Advocates for stricter campaign finance rules have argued that the former governor skirted reporting requirements by spending months traveling and raising money for his allied super PAC, all while maintaining that he had not decided yet whether to run. Bush aides said Wednesday that his donation to the campaign showed that he was following the rules. "Jeb 2016’s first report affirms what we have publicly stated over the past few months — that if Governor Bush engaged in any testing-the-waters activities that they would be paid for appropriately, and that if Governor Bush decided to run for office that any testing-the-waters expenses would be reported at the required time," spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said in a statement. "In the interest of transparency, the campaign has voluntarily identified all testing-the-waters expenses as such on this first report." All the expenditures are dated June 5 — 10 days before he announced he was running. *Jeb Bush to release names of campaign bundlers, joining Hillary Clinton <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-campaign-bundlers-joining-hillary-clinton/?postshare=1801436983294538> // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 * Former Florida governor Jeb Bush plans to voluntarily release the names of fundraisers bundling contributions for his presidential bid, going further than 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Bush aides said Wednesday that he will release a list of bundlers who have helped raise donations for his campaign by Oct. 15, when campaigns must file reports about their fundraising and spending during the third quarter of the year with the Federal Election Commission. "Governor Bush is committed to transparency," said spokeswoman Kristy Campbell. Bush's move puts the pressure on his GOP rivals to follow suit. Aides to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said earlier this week that he has no plans to disclose the names of bundlers. Other campaigns have not yet responded. Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to release the names of her campaign bundlers quarterly beginning with today's FEC filing deadline, officials said. That follows the practice of President Obama, who released information about his top fundraisers in 2008 and 2012. The 2008 Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, also shared details about his bundlers. But in 2012, Romney only released the names of lobbyists who bundled for his campaign as required by law. Bundlers play a key role in helping amass large sums for campaigns, which can only raise $2,700 per person for the primaries. Bush has already laid out big goals for his fundraisers as part of a program dubbed "Mission 2016 JEB," embracing a NASA theme that hearkens to his home state of Florida. To qualify for the first tier, called Apollo, bundlers need to bring in $75,000. The second tier, called Endeavour, is for fundraisers who reach at least $150,000. Top-flight bundlers will reach the Voyager level as they help rake in at least $250,000. *Wall Street Donated Generously to Jeb Bush, Filing Shows <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/wall-street-donated-generously-to-jeb-bush-filing-shows/> // WSJ // Beth Reinhard and Christopher S. Steward – July 15, 2015 * Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s first 15 days as a presidential candidate show Wall Street’s heavy hand, with nearly $145,000 in campaign contributions coming from employees at Goldman Sachs GS +0.38% and nearly $114,000 from four other big banks. Another large batch of contributions totaling $63,100 came from employees of the financial firm Neuberger Berman, run by his cousin George Herbert Walker IV, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs, according to campaign financial disclosure reports released Wednesday. During his six years as an adviser for the defunct Wall Street bank Lehman Bros. and later at Barclays BCS +0.81% PLC, Mr. Bush said he earned, on average, between $1.3 million and $2 million. Employees of Barclays have donated $29,700 so far. Other large contributions came from employees of companies on whose boards Mr. Bush served following his governorship, building a fortune of at least $19 million. Employees of timber company Rayonier Inc.RYN -0.54% gave $3,950 while those of hospital operator Tenet Healthcare contributed at least $30,500. Mr. Bush also filed a form disclosing lobbyists who have bundled at least $17,600. The top bundler was William Killmer of the Mortgage Bankers Association, who collected $36,200, followed by Dirk Van Dongen of the National Association of Wholesale Contributors, who collected $33,900. Some companies whose employees contributed large sums have longtime connections to the Bush family, including the private-equity firm Freeman Spogli & Co, whose employees donated $5,400 and whose chairman Brad Freeman raised millions for George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election. Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he will release the names of donors who are bundling contributions for his campaign when he files his next campaign fundraising report in three months. “This display of transparency is consistent with the high level of disclosure he has practiced during his life in public office and, frankly, should be expected from public servants,” said Allie Brandenburger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush. Not surprisingly, the former two-term governor of Florida received the biggest chunk of money from his home state: $2.56 million. New York came in second place with $1.27 million. Texas, home to his brother, former President George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush, contributed $1.18 million. Mr. Bush had previously announced raising $11.4 million for his campaign, along with $103 million by his super PAC and another $5 million from a related political committee. That makes him the far-and-away fundraising leader in the 2016 field. Mr. Bush also loaned his campaign $388,720 for “testing the waters” expenses before he was an official candidate, according to a spokesman. Mr. Bush’s campaign spent more than $3 million in its first two weeks, leaving him with $8.35 million. His biggest expense was $372,647 for computer equipment, followed by $308,687 for media production and political consulting, $280,835 for air charter and $259,201 for event production and travel. Of the $2,107.83 the campaign paid for “taxi fare,” $1,396.40 went to Uber. *Jeb Bush’s Iowa Travels Take Him East and West, Left and Right <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/jeb-bushs-iowa-travels-take-him-east-and-west-left-and-right/> // WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 15, 2015 * As Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush hustled between eastern and western Iowa this week, there were signs of the political divide between the moderate and conservative parts of the state, reinforcing the challenges of the nation’s first nominating contest. As one eastern Iowan who supports Mr. Bush put it, “Iowans can stand nose to nose and never see eye to eye.” Mr. Bush’s first stop Monday was in Sioux City, which is represented by Rep. Steve King, one of the best known immigration hardliners in Congress. Mr. King created a furor two years ago for saying many border crossers are drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling marijuana. Mr. Bush then traveled east to a local Republican Party dinner at a picturesque winery in Ames, which is near the capital of Des Moines and considered “liberal” by Iowans in the more rural west. “Mr. Bush appeals to the moderate crowd, the disaffected Democrats and the disaffected Republicans,” said Norman Rudi, the former local GOP chairman, proudly holding a bumper sticker that had been signed by Mr. Bush, his father and his brother. “Sooner or later we have to realize that electability is the key.” On Tuesday, Mr. Bush was back west in Council Bluffs, disparaged by some eastern Iowans as backwater “Counciltucky.” He was greeted by half a dozen protesters holding signs that said “Illegal Alien is not an Immigrant” and “No More Bushes.” Mr. Bush is at odds with conservatives over allowing illegal immigrants to earn legal status. He also supports the Common Core academic standards, which some conservatives view as a federal incursion into local schools. “This side of the state is the conservative side,” said one of protesters, Craig Halverson, the former statewide chairman of a border control group called the Minutemen Patriots. “We’re not for liberals or RINOS. We’re for our country.” Mr. Bush didn’t tailor his remarks to the geography of his audience, however, giving essentially the same stump speech in all three locations. Inside a packed Council Bluffs pub, Mr. Bush began his remarks by taking on Republican rival Donald Trump, who has come under fire in recent days for referring to illegal immigrants as rapists. “On our side there are people that prey on people’s fears and their angst as well. I don’t know about you, but I think it is wrong,” he said. “Whether it’s Donald Trump or Barack Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong. A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts.” He was asked about Common Core by a man who said “the folks in the Midwest aren’t particularly fond of that.” Mr. Bush, who has fielded this question many times, reiterated his belief in high academic standards, driven by state and local officials. “What the federal government role should be is none,” he said to applause. Mr. Bush repeatedly referred to himself as a “happy warrior” during his two-day Iowa swing. He said he would campaign by “hugging and kissing” and said he was not a “grievance candidate.” That’s message that the more moderate Republicans in eastern Iowa seem to like, but it could slow down Mr. Bush in the western part of the state, where voters seem to be itching for a fight against a political establishment they view as too ideologically squishy. “We could improve him,” quipped Betty Lou Law, who came to the Sioux City event. Her husband, retired farmer Verle Law, disagreed, saying, “I think he’s conservative enough.” The first question Mr. Bush fielded in Sioux City was from a man upset about Central Americans illegally crossing the border. Mr. Bush sought to empathize but noted the impossibility of building a fence across the Rio Grande. And when another a man thanked him for coming to western Iowa, Mr. Bush made a promise: “I’ll be back, too.” *Jeb’s official haul: $11.4 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jebs-official-haul-114-million-120167.html?ml=tl_2> // Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised more than $11.4 million during the second quarter of this year. Bush announced his candidacy June 15, giving his campaign just over two weeks to raise funds before the June 30 deadline. When combined with the super PAC supporting him, Right to Rise — which announced two weeks ago that it had raised $103 million — Bush’s war chest far exceeds any of his Republican rivals. His campaign’s per-day fundraising total was just under $714,000. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $11,429,897.64 Total spent: $3,078,087.31 Total cash on hand: $8,351,810.33 Total debt: $401,104.53 *Goldman Bankers Are Jeb Bush’s Biggest Backers for White House <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/goldman-bankers-are-jeb-bush-s-biggest-backers-for-white-house> // Bloomberg // Max Abelson – July 15, 2015 * Important people at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. want Jeb Bush to be the next U.S. president. And they’re giving him a lot of money to make it happen. More than 50 Goldman Sachs executives and employees gave the Republican more than $144,000 in the second quarter, with most of them sending $2,700, the maximum allowed, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The company that was the next-best source of money for the former Florida governor, Neuberger Berman, is run by George Walker, Bush’s second cousin. Employees at the money manager gave more than $63,000. It once was part of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., where Bush was an adviser. Goldman Sachs management committee members who gave to Bush include investment management co-heads Eric Lane and Timothy J. O’Neill, investment banking co-head David Solomon, mergers and acquisitions co-head Gene Sykes, risk chief Craig Broderick and merchant banking head Richard Friedman. Dina Powell, the head of the firm’s foundation, and Robert Zoellick, the chairman of the company’s international advisers and a former head of the World Bank, both donated to Bush. Goldman Sachs isn’t the only Wall Street firm with employees hoping to see a third Bush in the White House. Credit Suisse Group AG, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co. also were among the top sources of donations. No Goldman Sachs employees were listed as donors during the second quarter to Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. The Democratic senator has called for breaking up the biggest banks. *Republican Bush raises $11.4 million for 2016 presidential bid: filing <http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-election-bush-fundraising-idUSKCN0PP2IU20150715> // Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush raised $11.4 million for his 2016 campaign in the quarter ended June 30, his campaign said in a Federal Election Commission filing on Wednesday. His campaign had released that same total earlier in the month. A Super PAC backing Bush brought in a record $103 million, the group, Right to Rise, previously said in a statement. The total haul means that Bush will have a considerable war chest as he goes through a potentially contentious primary season. With a large Republican field, fundraising figures are also a way for candidates to separate themselves from the pack, and Bush has so far outstripped rivals such as senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Bush announced his bid for the White House on June 15, leaving his campaign only 16 fundraising days until the end of the quarter. The former Florida governor is one of 15 candidates, so far, who are formally seeking the Republican nomination for the November 2016 election. *Jeb Bush to release list of campaign bundlers <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/jeb-bush-bundlers/index.html> // CNN // Ashley Killough – July 15, 2015 * In an effort to help build a brand of transparency, Jeb Bush's team announced Wednesday that it plans to reveal a list of bundlers who helped raise money for his White House bid in the first two quarters. Bundlers are volunteer fundraisers who encourage their own circles of colleagues and friends to donate to a certain candidate, with a maximum contribution of $2,700 allowed by federal election law. Bundlers typically get credit or special access to a candidate if they cross a specific threshold of money raised. The former Florida governor is among the first 2016 candidates to announce such intentions, taking on a voluntary task that his brother George W. Bush was known for starting during the 2000 presidential campaign. For her part, Hillary Clinton will announce her bundlers quarterly. She also revealed her bundlers when she ran for president in 2008, as did President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain during their White House bids. "This display of transparency is consistent with the high level of disclosure he has practiced during his life in public office and, frankly, should be expected from public servants," said Allie Brandenburger, a spokesperson for Bush, in a statement. Plans to release the list were first reported by The New York Times. Later on Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the newly minted presidential candidate also plans to disclose his bundlers. Election law doesn't require candidates to name these fundraisers -- unless they are lobbyists. Representatives for other candidates said their campaigns don't plan to reveal that information. "We'll disclose what the law requires us to, but we don't discuss our strategy beyond that," said Alex Conant a spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who also gave the same quote to the Times. A spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also confirmed that he will not disclose his bundlers. Bush's campaign says it aims to release the list by the time it files its next report with the Federal Election Committee, which will be mid-October. Bush announced last week that his campaign raised $11.4 million by the end of June, while a super PAC supporting his bid said it raised $103 million since January. CNN reported that Bush has no plans to let his fundraising momentum stall, starting a new push called "8 by Eight" where bundlers who get eight people to donate the $2,700 maximum by the end of July will be invited to some special events in Cleveland next month and to a dinner with the candidate in Coral Gables on July 29. *Only 3 Percent of Jeb Bush’s Campaign Cash Came From Small Donors <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/only-3-percent-of-jeb-bush-s-campaign-cash-came-from-small-donors-20150715> // National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015 * Jeb Bush is a fundraising powerhouse among the Republican Party's biggest donors, but he is struggling among smaller donors. Of the $11.4 million his campaign raised during its first two weeks, only 3 percent came from donors who gave less than $200. Small contributors gave Bush only $368,023, the campaign's federal filings show. Donors who gave the legal maximum of $2,700 accounted for more than 80 percent of Bush's total haul. For comparison's sake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz raised $1.8 million from small donors during the first week of his campaign back in March, nearly half of his campaign's total. And, on the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that more than 76.5 percent of his fundraising ($10.5 million) came from small donors. Bush had 12,334 donors between June 15 and June 30, his campaign said. That means his average contribution was $926. The average Sanders contribution? $35. The new figures will likely only further fuel the perception among conservative activists that Bush is a candidate of the wealthy GOP establishment who is unable or unlikely to connect with the grassroots. In fact, the $368,000 in small-donor fundraising is less than Bush himself spent on the campaign during the brief, 10-day period in early June when he was formally "testing the waters" for a campaign. When the $103 million his super PAC has raised is factored in, Bush's fundraising from small donors is almost surely less than the 3 percent he reported for the campaign itself on Wednesday, and likely well below 1 percent. The super PAC said last week that it had a total of 9,900 donors—which would mean its average donor contributed more than $10,000. The super PAC said roughly 500 of its donors gave $25,000 or more. The new report does show Bush's tremendous appeal among the moneyed class of donors. In a remarkable static, the most common denomination for a donor to Bush was the legal maximum of $2,700. More than 3,400 donors gave Bush a maximum-sized contribution. *Clinton And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing <http://www.ibtimes.com/clintons-foundation-raked-cash-banks-admitted-wrongdoing-2010404> // IB Times // Andrew Perez and David Sirota – July 15, 2015 * On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is selling her version of economic populism, including calls for Wall Street executives who engage in financial wrongdoing to be held accountable more than they have been under President Barack Obama. She has pushed that message hard as she seeks to win support from the Democratic Party’s liberal base, with a speech Monday and a follow-up statement from her campaign the next day. “Yesterday, Hillary said that when Wall Street executives commit criminal wrongdoing, they deserve to face criminal prosecution. Not a slap on the wrist, not a fine paid by their employers -- prosecution,” said an email to supporters from Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive-turned-government regulator now serving as a top Clinton campaign official. Raking In Donations Clinton’s outrage, though, did not stop her family's foundation from raking in donations from many of the same banks that secured government fines rather than face full-scale prosecution. The Clinton Foundation has accepted $5 million worth of donations from at least nine financial institutions that avoided such prosecution -- even as they admitted wrongdoing. These include Barclays, HSBC and UBS, all of which entered into agreements with the Justice Department that allowed their employees to avoid criminal charges. The Clintons also personally accepted nearly $4 million in speaking fees from those firms since 2009. Neither the Hillary Clinton campaign nor Clinton Foundation responded to International Business Times questions about why her family and their foundation accepted money from firms that settled financial fraud cases and avoided the kind of prosecution Clinton now says is needed. Last week, former Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department’s treatment of banks was “appropriately aggressive” and told Financial Times that assessing fines was a better strategy than “trying to make examples of people” by prosecuting individual executives. On Monday, Clinton seemed to disagree. In a speech at the New School in New York City, she pressed for prosecutions and slammed regulators’ tolerance of lawlessness from financial firms like HSBC -- a bank that two years ago admitted to helping Mexican drug cartels launder money in its banks, and allowing transactions by customers in countries subject to U.S. sanctions. While HSBC paid a $1.9 billion fine, none of its employees went to jail. “Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking,” Clinton said. “HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money, five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.” Money After Wrongdoing But in 2014, two years after HSBC admitted to major violations of U.S. laws, the firm was the top sponsor at a Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event, paying at least $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Earlier, in 2011, HSBC paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech he gave in Florida. The HSBC relationship -- taking money from a bank after the firm admitted wrongdoing -- was not unique. In 2009, UBS avoided prosecution by the Justice Department when it agreed to pay a $780 million fine and admitted to defrauding the United States by allowing American citizens to hide income from the IRS. The Swiss bank has since entered into two more agreements with the Justice Department -- one for rigging the municipal bond market and the other for manipulating global interest rates. UBS has paid former President Bill Clinton more than $1.5 million for speeches since 2009, and the firm has given more than $550,000 to the family’s foundation. In 2010, the British banking firm Barclays entered into a settlement agreement with the Justice Department, and admitted to violating U.S. sanctions by making transactions for customers in countries such as Libya, Sudan and Myanmar. Weeks later, Barclays was a sponsor at the annual CGI event. Barclays has remained a CGI sponsor in the years since, even after the bank paid more fines under a new agreement with the Justice Department for manipulating worldwide interest rates. Barclays has paid the Clinton family $650,000 for speeches since 2009. The firm has given at least $1.5 million to the Clinton Foundation. *RUBIO* *Marco Rubio Has Missed Most Votes This Year of Senators Running for President <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/?ref=politics> // NYT // Jeremy W. Peters – July 15, 2015 * If you were absent from work a third of the time, you’d probably be fired. But among the many perks of being a United States senator is that you are your own boss and can set your own schedule. Nobody knows this better than the five senators running for president. On average, senators miss about 3 percent of their votes, or have an attendance rate of 97 percent. But Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, has a 70 percent attendance rate this year, meaning that for the 30 percent of the days he was out, he missed 69 votes. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another Republican, isn’t very far behind, with 55 missed votes, or 77 percent attendance. Both senators have been on fund-raising binges in the weeks since they announced their presidential campaigns, trying to rake in as much as possible before the June 30 deadline that marked the end of the second quarter. But their colleague, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has managed to miss just three votes, giving him a 99 percent attendance record. Mr. Paul must factor in one thing that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz do not: He is asking Kentuckians to re-elect him as senator this year while at the same time running for president. Mr. Rubio has decided not to seek re-election, while Mr. Cruz’s term ends in 2018. Mr. Paul’s record is about the same as Senator Bernie Sanders, the independent of Vermont, who is running for the Democratic nomination and has missed six votes so far this year. The fifth senator seeking the White House, Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has missed 45 votes. *WALKER* *A Sleep-Deprived Scott Walker Barnstorms Through South Carolina <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/a-sleep-deprived-scott-walker-barnstorms-through-south-carolina/?ref=politics> // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 * Scott Walker worked off little sleep on Wednesday during the first barnstorming trip of his presidential campaign. On a one-day, three-city swing through South Carolina, Mr. Walker tried to sell himself to voters as down-to-earth and easy to relate to by commiserating about commercial flight delays. Mr. Walker, the governor of Wisconsin who entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday, told a lunchtime crowd here that he had been awake for the last 31 hours because his flight from Las Vegas to Atlanta on Tuesday night had been diverted to Memphis because of bad weather. When he and his campaign team finally reached Atlanta, he said, they had missed their flight to Charleston, S.C. They opted to rent a van and make the five-hour drive, stopping at a Burger King in the wee hours Wednesday before reaching North Charleston for an 8 a.m. event at a Harley-Davidson dealership. “I tried to sneak in a few z’s, but it’s hard when your head is up against an armrest,” Mr. Walker said in Lexington. The lack of sleep doesn’t seem to have fazed him: Mr. Walker stayed on message during his first two campaign events. He has had a little coffee, aides say, but is drinking plenty of water. His stop at a Lexington barbecue restaurant was the second of Mr. Walker’s four events on Wednesday, the last of which will be a fund-raiser in Atlanta before boarding a flight to New Hampshire for a couple of campaign stops there on Thursday. *Scott Walker, in South Carolina, Skirts Gun Control and Flag Issues <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/scott-walker-in-south-carolina-skirts-gun-control-and-flag-issues/?ref=politics> // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 * Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, in his first visit to South Carolina since nine people died in the church shootings, chose to address the massacre by praising the people of the Charleston region for their unity rather than discussing the gun control issues or the Confederate battle flag debate that arose afterward. And Mr. Walker, who officially declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday, made a point of not giving any attention to the man charged in the killings, Dylann Roof. “I’ll never say his name,” Mr. Walker said, as he briefly addressed the shootings before a crowd of about 200 people at a Harley-Davidson motorcycle dealership. “It was amazing to see the kind of leadership you provided for this country in what could have been a negative not just for you all, but for this country,” Mr. Walker said of the peaceful and discerning responses to the massacre. “You all showed how to bring people together in this community and this region and this state and in turn you did it for this country.” He also hailed the leadership of “my friend Nikki Haley,” the state’s Republican governor, who he cites frequently as an ally during his campaign visits to South Carolina. He did not touch on her successful effort to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds after the shooting. As a newly announced candidate, Mr. Walker has not had time yet to give policy speeches on issues like gun control or government responses to the mass shootings that have been occurring in the United States. He often mentions his support for gun owners and for laws allowing them to carry concealed weapons. *Scott Walker Tries to Clarify Remarks on Gay Scout Leaders <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/> // NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 * Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy Scout leaders because it “protected children,” said on Wednesday that he did not mean that children needed “physical protection” from gay scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban. In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, “I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.” But during a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said the decision on the ban was “up to the Boy Scouts” and added that his earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people. “The protection was not a physical protection,” he said, but rather about “protecting them from being involved in the very thing you’re talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature.” Staking out increasingly conservative positions has emerged as a key part of Mr. Walker’s strategy to compete for votes against the 14 other Republicans running for president. He has been vocal in his opposition to same-sex marriage and his support for amending the United States Constitution to allow states to define marriage as between a man and a woman. In response to another question, Mr. Walker indicated that he would consider Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina as a vice-presidential running mate if he won the Republican Party’s nomination, though he repeatedly emphasized that the notion was premature. “Certainly Nikki’s a friend of mine, she has been a very capable governor, and there will be a long list of people like her, but again, like I said, it’s premature,” Mr. Walker said. He did sketch out the kind of person he would seek as a running mate, if he earned the nomination: “Primarily someone who is capable of being an outstanding president if god forbid something were to happen to me,” as well as someone who “shares my values and my concerns.” *Scott Walker Using Harley-Davidson to Burnish ‘Fighter’ Image <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/scott-walker-using-harley-davidson-to-burnish-fighter-image/> // NYT // Nick Corasaniti – July 15, 2015 * He could have been any one of the roughly 400 people gathered here. Clad in a black Harley-Davidson shirt, slim jeans with a slight fray and bike-ready boots, the only aspect distinguishing Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin from the rest of the crowd was he was holding the microphone, and running for president. “I ride a 2003 100th anniversary Road King, so I’m kinda thrilled to be here,” he told the crowd gathered at Red Rocks Harley-Davidson, a local dealership, minutes after taking the stage where he also introduced his wife and children. Indeed, in his initial swing through the first four nominating states, one thing is constant for Mr. Walker and his campaign: the Harley-Davidson. From holding his first campaign event as an announced candidate at a dealership in a nondescript mall miles from the glitz of the Las Vegas Strip, to the events planned at dealerships in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Mr. Walker is placing the revered Harley-Davidson motorcycle alongside Kohl’s department store shirts as key brands in his efforts to further burnish his Everyman persona. Holding events at Harley-Davidson dealers helps to “show his personality,” said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the campaign. She said they’re part of a larger effort to reintroduce Mr. Walker to the country, a sharp contrast to the more button-down attire of some of his rivals. To that end, Mr. Walker, speaking under a giant plastic American flag and surrounded by shiny, five-figure Harleys – most of them Road Kings, as Mr. Walker noted in his remarks — repeatedly referred to himself as a “fighter,” a characteristic he wants voters to see as evident from his battles with unions during his first term as governor and his subsequent recall election. He said the word “fight” or “fighter” nearly a dozen times in his speech and news conference afterward. The line is not exclusively directed at bikers, but for some in this audience, it reverberated with common themes in the motorcycle-riding community, hinting at a proud individualism and even a little rebellious spirit. “I like what he’s done in his home state,” said Darwin Rockantansky of Las Vegas, a motorcyclist – although not a Harley rider — who was proudly sporting a Sons of Liberty jacket. “In the local environment, there is a Spanish word ‘cojones.’ It has two meanings. One some people smile at, but the other means ‘courage.’ This particular candidate shows courage, and fortitude, and all those wonderful things.” Timothy Cashman, one of the co-owners of dealership hosting the event, said he thought Mr. Walker’s use of the brand further burnished his persona as an Everyman. “Harley-Davidson is pure American,” he said, having to speak a little louder as the rumble of a revving motorcycle spun in the background. “And that’s what a presidential campaign is about, speaking to the American people.” Mr. Walker will eventually step out of the dealers and hit the open road on a bike to do just as Mr. Cashman said. He had already promised to ride around New Hampshire and South Carolina and Wednesday, he promised to tour Nevada on a bike as well. But Mr. Walker, a veteran rider who says he has put over 20,000 miles on his personal motorcycle, knew that might have to wait a bit. “I’m gonna come back to Nevada, but I’m going to be wise, I’m going to wait till October or November before I ride,” he told the crowd, to a few knowing nods. And he is indeed eager to ride as much as possible before the election, because, as he put it: “They tell me, if I’m successful, I don’t get to ride a Harley anymore.” *Unbending (and unexcitable) <http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/07/14/scott-walker-unbending-and-unexcitable/?tid=sm_fb> // WaPo // Michael Fletcher – July 14, 2015 * He tells the story without a dose of excitement or flash of charisma. Scott Walker is standing on the stage of a Denver convention center, shirt sleeves rolled up, microphone cradled in both hands. Before him is an eager audience of more than 4,000 Republican activists at the Western Conservative Summit. In a slightly nasal, Midwestern monotone, the Wisconsin governor talks about the furor he created. He describes how 100,000 protesters descended on the State Capitol to denounce his plan to curtail collective bargaining for public employees. And he shares, in the least fiery way possible, how he forged ahead with other polarizing policies, overcoming a precipitous slide in the polls and a fevered recall effort that inspired headlines asking whether he had become “Dead Man Walker.” The bruising fights once threatened his political career. But he survived a recall campaign and was reelected after that. By prevailing, Walker transformed his battles into his calling card. He says one supporter summed up his appeal in a tweet: “I like Walker because he wins without caving.” At 47, Walker’s polite unwillingness to bend, his placid determination to stand his ground at all cost, both animates and complicates his presidential candidacy. Partisans love hearing about how he decimated Wisconsin unions, cut taxes, defunded Planned Parenthood and required photo identification at the voting booth - all while calmly staring down political opponents. It has helped catapult him to the first rank of Republican presidential hopefuls. The question is whether voters will see his style as evidence of clear vision or the mark of a man unwilling to compromise. And how far can he go without backing down as he enters an arena where the issues are more complex and the politics more treacherous? Already, there are cracks. Speaking to farmers in Iowa earlier this year, he endorsed the federal ethanol mandate, a reversal of his previous position. Years ago, as Milwaukee County executive, he supported a plan that would create a path to legal status for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. He said in March, “My view has changed.” But Walker is betting that voters want an unwavering, unflappable leader who knows exactly where he want to go and won’t stop until he gets there. He tells audiences he refused to back off on making change in Wisconsin even in the face of death threats, including against his wife, Tonette, and their children. “It is a myth that winning the center requires moving to the center,” he wrote in his autobiography. “The path to a conservative comeback lies not in abandoning our principles but in championing bold, conservative reforms and having the courage to see them through.” Pleasant. That’s even how Walker’s bitterest political foes describe him. In the heat of the state’s showdown with its union four years ago, Rep. Peter Barca, the Wisconsin State Assembly’s top Democrat, publicly denounced the governor at protests across the state. “You know, Governor Walker, you have defiled our heritage,” Barca said at one rally. “You have disregarded our values.” But Walker, who declined to be interviewed for this article, never took it personally. “I’d give a speech in front of 50,000 protesters saying, ‘Walker’s got to go,’ “ Barca says, “and you’d see him the next day and you’d think I just sent him a coffeecake or something.” Barca is part of a small group of leaders who meet regularly with Walker during the legislative session, but Barca said those gatherings are almost never satisfying. “Generally, when you meet with him on the major issues, you don’t feel like it’s a dialogue,” he says. “We get along just fine. He is sort of chitchatty. He exchanges pleasantries, makes some jokes. But you just feel like that on the big issues he is just there to tell you, ‘Here’s what I am going to do.’” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks in March at a high school in Concord, N.H. For this series, Washington Post photojournalists used a phone app with filters to capture the candidates as potential voters might. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post) The roots of his immovability may lie in what he calls being a “P.K.” - a preacher’s kid. In the tiny farming community of Plainfield, Iowa, where Walker moved when was 2, his father, Llewellyn Walker, was pastor at First Baptist Church and served on the city council. His mother, Patricia, was head of the Sunday school. The family, which would soon include Walker’s younger brother, David, lived in a parsonage next door to the church. Walker credits his no-frills upbringing and parents’ example for imbuing a deep religious belief and a clear moral vision that has guided him for as long as he can remember. He relied on that resolve, he says in his 2014 book, “Unintimidated,” even as tens of thousands of protesters marched on his office in Madison and, at times, outside his home in Wauwatosa. “It wasn’t always easy,” he writes. “What gave me the inner strength to go on was my faith.” Classmates, teachers and friends say Walker has always been earnest, the kind of guy people used to call a “straight arrow.” As a young boy, he founded a “Jesus USA” club. He was so concerned that Plainfield’s city hall did not have a state flag that he grabbed an old container, punched a hole in it, and started collecting donations. Before long, he had enough money to buy a flag that he presented to the city. “Scott has a very strong sense of right and wrong,” says Stephen Satran, who was in an antiabortion group with Walker in college. In 1977, his family moved to Delavan, Wis., an agricultural town about an hour’s drive southwest of Milwaukee. There, he was active in just about everything. He whittled down model wooden cars to compete in the Cub Scouts’ Pinewood Derby. On Sundays, he stood next to his parents greeting parishioners at First Baptist Church. As he got older, he would at times step to the pulpit and deliver sermons himself. “It was a biblically based church, but not fire and brimstone,” says Chris Stebnitz, who attended First Baptist. “The sermons were very conversational. They always had a tie-in to the Bible and how these teachings relate to everyday life.” Walker was focused and busy as a teenager. Yearbooks from his days at Delavan-Darien High School are filled with pictures of Walker in his numerous and varied roles: on the track, cross-country, basketball and football teams; playing percussion in the pep and symphonic bands; as a member of the foreign-language club; and performing the “Stray Cat Strut” with the Swing Choir. The book from his senior year features a photo of Walker with his black hair grazing his shoulders. The caption reads, “Scott K. Walker - the Desperado”- even if the wildest thing friends remember him doing back then was painting his bedroom deep red, with a black-and-white checkerboard ceiling. “He was very responsible for his age,” says Russell Draeger, Walker’s high school principal. “. . . He came from a great family. His mother would bring cookies to sporting events, and she would cut out newspaper photos of high school athletes and send notes congratulating kids for their achievements.” He became an Eagle Scout after completing a project that used old telephone poles to shore up a steep slope behind his father’s church. He also worked part-time jobs washing dishes at a local restaurant and later flipping burgers at McDonald’s. But the unyielding determination that has come to define Walker as governor was not evident the first time he ventured to the nation’s capital in 1985 to attend Boys Nation, the mock-government program run by the American Legion. In those days, Walker stood out as someone adept at forging compromise. “The dichotomy is he is no longer the person I knew then. He was an intelligent, compassionate young man who seemed to care about solving problems and bringing people together,” says Scott Adrian, who as a youth counselor recommended Walker for Boys Nation and now works as a Democratic staffer in the Wisconsin legislature. “Time sure changes a lot of things.” Scott Walker when he was a member of the Delavan-Darien High School marching band and with his parents, Llewellyn and Patricia, at home on his graduation day in 1986. (Photos courtesy of the Scott Walker campaign via Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) Walker returned from Boys Nation with a new sense of purpose. Seeing the capital’s monuments and being able to confer with the nation's youth leaders in Washington was mesmerizing. “As someone who loved history, that just blew me away,” Walker said in a 2014 American Legion video. At Marquette University, a Jesuit school in the heart of Milwaukee, Walker dove into student politics with much more enthusiasm than he hit the books. He helped lead a campus antiabortion group and won a seat on the student Senate, heading an investigation that ended up with student leaders resigning for charging a lavish dinner to organizational accounts. As a sophomore, he ran for student government president. Walker, who was known to wear suits to class, cited the job he did with the student Senate investigation, as well as his status as an Eagle Scout and his opposition to abortion. The campaign turned bitter, with charges and countercharges about election violations by both sides, and Walker lost. For some young men, a defeat might have ended any political aspirations. But not for Walker. “It’s funny - his friends were the ones losing their minds about the election,” says Satran, who supported his candidacy. “He was not upset. It was almost weird. He accepted it as God’s will.” Walker left Marquette without graduating, and soon after he made his first attempt at public office. He ran for an Assembly seat against Democratic incumbent Gwen Moore, now a member of Congress. He pushed an anti-crime message and papered the district with handouts. The odds were stacked against him in the heavily Democratic district, and he was trounced. Again, the defeat did little to curb Walker’s political ambitions. He volunteered in the campaigns of other Republican candidates and kept an eye peeled for future possibilities. Soon Walker moved to Wauwatosa, the close-in Milwaukee suburb that he still calls home. He ran again for an Assembly seat, and he won. Democrat Sheldon Wasserman, a Milwaukee doctor and former member of the State Assembly, says that, at first, Walker was a typical backbencher in all ways but one: He would not budge on the issues. At one point, Republican leaders wanted to raise the state gasoline tax to cover the cost of a new road construction. Walker had joined a group of Republicans who opposed the legislation, causing the leadership to turn up the heat. “They started working him over,” Wasserman recalls. “Leaders were coming over telling him: ‘You are part of the team. You have to do this.’ Some were yelling at him. Scott just sat there like a stone, with a little smile on his face. He never got upset. He just shook his head no, no, no. He was not going to change.” By the time Walker decided to run for Milwaukee County executive, his unbending political style was in full effect. In 2002, he saw an opening in the heavily Democratic county because of a pension scandal that prompted the incumbent to resign. Walker ran as fiscally conservative reformer. Although he was by then the father of two sons, he promised to return nearly half his salary as county executive. He won. Finally, he had a chance to put his ideas into action. He moved to privatize services, cut social service programs and reduce taxes. He pushed to lay off unionized county workers, although often the unions blunted his efforts. Members of the county’s Board of Supervisors, which was controlled by Democrats, recall an annual budget ritual in which Walker would propose a series of tax cuts and offer a series of spending reductions. The board would undo many of the changes. Walker would then veto the budget, and the board would override his veto. “We overrode more than 80 percent of his vetoes,” says Michael Mayo (D), a county supervisor. “He is a nice person, very pleasant. But he was determined.” Early in his tenure, Walker moved to eliminate some bus routes in the district of Supervisor John F. Weishan, a Democrat. Concerned, Weishan met with Walker to propose a more palatable alternative. He says Walker listened carefully and promised to think about rescinding the changes. Later that morning, Weishan was stunned when Walker’s office released a statement saying the routes would be cut. “With him, it was total warfare on everything,” Weishan says. Despite the pitched battles, Walker was reelected twice, and he took credit for reducing the county workforce by 20 percent. And in 2010, his uncompromising posture helped him win election as Wisconsin’s governor. Even when he encounters resistance in his family, he does not back down. He blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage last month as a “grave mistake,” despite the wishes of his two sons, who support gay marriage as well as their father’s candidacy. Now Walker is running for president with his trademark brand of bland but unshakable certainty. “The closer you get to being at the point of running,” he tells a Washington Post reporter in Wisconsin when she asks what’s fueling him, “the more you realize you have got to be crazy to want to be president of the United States. The only reason you should do it is you feel called.” Walker invokes all that he and his family have endured the past four years: the union protests, the death threats, the bitter recall, the tough reelection campaign. “If we made it through all that,” he says, “maybe it’s a little bit of God’s providence to say . . . this is what we are supposed to do.” *Scott Walker: Boy Scouts should decide if they want gay leaders, not me <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/scott-walker-boy-scouts-should-decide-if-they-want-gay-leaders-not-me/> // WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 15, 2015 * Scott Walker is no longer openly criticizing the Boy Scouts of America for taking steps toward allowing gay leaders. Walker said in comments published Tuesday that the Boy Scouts should keep its blanket ban on openly gay leaders because the policy "protected children and advanced Scout values." The comment quickly attracted criticism from LGBT rights activists, who accused the governor of suggesting that gay leaders are a threat to children. On Wednesday, Walker said the decision is up to the Boy Scouts, not him. It was another example of the governor appearing to back away from a controversial stance, even as he presents himself on the campaign trail as being a steadfast conservative not afraid of an unpopular fight. "That's up to the Boy Scouts," Walker said of the proposed policy change, following a campaign stop at a barbecue restaurant. "I'm an Eagle Scout... All that I pointed out was that the policy was perfectly fine when I was there and I thought they should be protected from all of the political and media controversy about it. There's nothing more to it than that. It's their decision." When asked by a reporter if he supports or opposes allowing gay Boy Scout leaders, Walker replied: "I'm not running for president of the Boy Scouts." Another reporter then pressed Walker on what he meant in saying that the previous policy protected children. At first Walker refused to answer the question, saying that he had already done so. But he relented. "The protection was not a physical protection," he said. "The policy protected them from being involved in the very thing that you're... talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature." Gay rights has become a mine field for Walker, who launched his presidential campaign on Monday and is aiming to win the Iowa caucuses, which are often dominated by social conservatives. Walker called the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing gay marriage in all 50 states a "grave mistake," frustrating some prominent East Coast supporters who worry he has gone too far to the right. Walker's two college-aged sons, Matt and Alex Walker, have said they don't agree with their father's stance and support gay marriage. The governor also called for a constitutional amendment that would allow states to decide if they want to allow gay marriage or not -- although he has yet to add it to the list of things he would do soon after becoming president, like repealing the Affordable Care Act and getting rid of excess regulations. This is not the first time this year Walker has appeared to back down from an issue when faced with opposition. In February, Walker introduced a budget that proposed massive reforms for the University of Wisconsin System, including changing its storied mission statement to focus on work force preparation instead of the pursuit of knowledge. University officials, alums and others erupted in protest. Walker quickly abandoned that idea and distanced himself, with an aide calling it a "drafting error." Earlier this month, as lawmakers scrambled to finish the state budget, Republicans added a provision that would greatly restricted the types of documents reporters and others could request under the open records law. Such a change would have shielded Walker as he jumps into the presidential race and faces greater scrutiny. Amid a burst of angry protest from both liberal and conservative groups, Walker and top Republican leaders quickly issued a statement essentially killing the proposal. Although Republican leaders said Walker's staff helped to draft the language, Walker said in a radio interview that the idea was "a huge mistake" that "didn't come from us." *In South Carolina, battle flag not an issue for Walker <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81ac78b645bf4ddca9579cfad7dd0ff2/gop-candidate-walker-finds-support-scrapping-iran-deal> // AP // Bill Barrow – July 15, 2015 * Republican Scott Walker pledged Wednesday to scrap the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran if elected president. The Wisconsin governor also vowed to repeal the federal health care law, mocked climate change and railed against "union bosses" in a visit to South Carolina. But Walker did not mention the Confederate battle flag, even as he praised South Carolinians for their response to the murders of nine worshippers at a historic black church. Welcome to the new paradigm for the South's first 2016 primary. Walker is the first high-profile presidential candidate to campaign in South Carolina since the Civil War era battle flag was removed from the Statehouse grounds last Friday. The result of an emotional vote in the Republican-controlled Legislature, the withdrawal of the flag from the premises came in response to the killings at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church; pictures of the accused gunman showed him displaying the banner that is still commonly seen throughout the Old Confederacy. Walker praised the assembly for how South Carolinians have reacted. "You all showed how to bring people together for this region, this state and, in turn, you did it for the country," said Walker, who formally entered the Republican presidential contest earlier in the week. He is among many Republican White House hopefuls who have tread cautiously on the flag issue, a political flashpoint for years. The state's influential conservatives have long viewed it as a symbol of Southern pride, while many minorities viewed the banner as a symbol of hate. The debate played out most conspicuously in the bitter 2000 primary between George W. Bush and John McCain. South Carolina leaders struck a compromise that year to move the flag from atop the Capitol dome to a ground-level pole where it remained until last week. Bush and McCain both declared that flying the banner was an issue of "state's rights," a buzz phrase that traces back to the pre-Civil War debate over slavery. Bush won that primary and the nomination; McCain later went on to disavow his position, writing in a memoir that he should have opposed its public unfurling. As Gov. Nikki Haley — a politician who once avoided questions on the flag as well — pushed for the flag's removal in recent weeks, presidential candidates including Walker avoided taking a firm position. Walker's stock answer was to say he wouldn't address it until after the victims were properly mourned. Cindy Costa, a Republican National Committee member from Charleston, said Wednesday it is "absolutely a good thing" that the flag is down. She called it "the right thing to do" at "a sensitive time in our state's being," but she also celebrated that the removal dulls a political attack "that Democrats used against us." The debate comes as the GOP works to win over minority voters who are becoming a more powerful voice in national politics. A Democratic leader in the Legislature summed up the GOP challenge. Haley did "the right thing," said state Rep. Todd Rutherford of Columbia, adding that she is "saving the Republican Party from itself — stopping all the presidential candidates from sounding silly saying the flag is a state's rights issue and not a human rights' issue." For her part, Haley even gives a nod to the politics. Recalling a recent conversation she had with Walker, she said, "I said if you have any uncomfortable things (regarding the flag), we'll help you get through it, but I'm going to take care of this." Walker supporters Wednesday said they were more excited to hear the Wisconsinite's pitch on national issues anyway. "He's a fighter, not an establishment Republican, and that will play very well here," said Edward Lynch, a self-employed security contractor. Walker was thin on details, including offering no explanation of how his promise of "crippling economic sanctions" on Iran would differ from the sanctions that have been in place for years leading up to the Obama administration's Iran deal. The pact offers trade aid and sanctions relief in exchange for Iran giving up most of its enriched uranium and granting inspections of its nuclear operations. But Lynch said those details don't matter. "I'm tired of the go-along-get-along politicians," he said. "He's got guts." *Scott Walker backtracks on reaction to gay Boy Scout leaders <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/walker-backtracks-on-reaction-to-gay-boy-scout-leaders-120166.html?ml=tl_3> // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015 * Scott Walker stumbled over his own prior comments Wednesday, saying that when he called on the Boy Scouts to reinstate a ban on gay leaders because it “protected children,” he meant the ban protected them from media scrutiny. “The protection was not a physical protection,” Walker said Wednesday at an event in South Carolina, according to The New York Times. Rather, the Wisconsin governor continued, he was referring to “protecting them from being involved in the very thing you’re talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature.” The Wisconsin Republican added that, ultimately, whether or not to reinstate the ban is “up to the Boy Scouts.” The comments came after the Independent Journal Review reported Tuesday that Walker supported the Boy Scouts’ “previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.” “I was an Eagle Scout, my kids have been involved, Tonette [Walker] was a den mother,” Walker told the IJ Review. “I have a lifelong commitment to the Scouts.” The Boy Scouts of America reversed a ban on gay youths in March 2013. On Monday, the Scouts adopted a resolution to allow gay Scout leaders; the resolution is expected to be ratified later this month. The group’s leader, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican, called for an end to the ban at the group’s national meeting in May. Walker, the son of a Baptist minister, obtained the Boy Scouts’ highest rank of Eagle Scout as a child. A social conservative, Walker opposes same-sex marriage and has called for a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision and leave states to decide on the definition of marriage they would like to apply in their legal system. *Waiting for Scott Walker <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/waiting-for-scott-walker-120136.html?ml=tl_29> // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 15, 2015 * When Scott Walker’s campaign was sketching out his post-announcement swing through New Hampshire, talks between his camp and the Strafford County GOP hit a snag. Local organizers suggested something simple and familiar to most candidates: a town hall meeting. But the Wisconsin governor’s camp, according to three people familiar with the conversations, wasn’t interested in taking questions. They simply wanted to deliver a speech and meet people afterwards. The event fell through. That interaction, as much as anything else, provides some insight into why the clear front-runner in Iowa is merely a middle-of-the-pack candidate in New Hampshire. When Walker arrives in the Granite State Thursday, three days after launching his presidential campaign, it will be a rare appearance — his first New Hampshire sighting since May. According to figures compiled by U.S. News and World Report, only one Republican has been to the state less than Walker — Rick Santorum. Over the July 4 holiday weekend as GOP rivals paraded down Main Streets here, not only was Walker absent – his campaign didn’t bother to have surrogates march in his absence. Walker’s post-announcement tour of the early states — touted by his campaign as “the most aggressive of all the 2016 hopefuls” — includes 16 stops in five states. That includes six cookouts, four stops at motorcycle showrooms and a town hall in Iowa, where his campaign swing culminates this weekend with a three-day road trip across the state. But in New Hampshire, he’ll be in and out in under 24 hours, shaking hands and making small talk at a diner in Amherst and a Portsmouth Harley Davidson dealership, before heading down Interstate 93 to a fundraiser in Boston Thursday night. The locals, accustomed to higher level of attention, have noticed. Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, for example, have both done close to 10 town halls each already, following the template of John McCain, who did 150 of them on his way to winning the primary here in 2008. “It sounds like the trip really isn’t to New Hampshire,” said Renee Plummer, a prominent GOP activist in Portsmouth. “It sounds like the trip is a fundraiser in Boston with a couple stops tacked on.” Walker’s absence from the state has cost him in the polls. As recently as April, he led the field in New Hampshire, with support from close to a quarter of those surveyed. But in the most recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll released Tuesday, Walker was in the third place behind Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. “New Hampshire people want to be able to look you in the eye, shake your hand and ask you the question,” said Sharon Carson, a Republican state senator from Londonderry who is backing Fiorina. “And if you can’t do that, you’re not going to do well here.” For some in New Hampshire, a moment during Walker’s last trip to the state in May serves as a metaphor for his campaign. Walker spoke to 500 Republicans aboard a 23-foot cruise boat as it sailed around Lake Winnipesaukee, but what some attendees remember is that the captain had to return to shore, mid-trip, to pick him up since he arrived late and, initially at least, missed the boat. “I’ve had a lot of conversations with people here about: ‘Where is Scott Walker?’” said Jamie Burnett, a GOP strategist from Concord who just signed on as a supporter with Bush’s campaign. “I personally was interested in him early on but he just hasn’t been here.” Gregory Slayton, a New York venture capitalist and part-time New Hampshire resident who is advising Walker’s effort in the state, remains confident that Walker will win over local voters. “Walker just connects extremely well with people,” said Slayton. “He’s a great retail politician. He’s great at town halls.” Slayton, who President George W. Bush tapped to serve as ambassador to Bermuda, said Walker hasn’t done any town halls in New Hampshire yet because he’s been focused on budget negotiations at home. “He’s got a day job,” Slayton said. “He’s not a blowhard former governor from decades ago.” While local Walker supporters say the governor, who is planning to do a town hall in Iowa over the weekend, will do one in New Hampshire eventually, some wonder if it might be too late. “When you’ve done more than a dozen trips to Iowa and four or five to New Hampshire, people are going to say, ‘Why don’t you just go on to South Carolina?’” said Matt Mayberry, the vice chairman of the state GOP. “People are taking note. The day of reckoning is going to come.” “The key to winning New Hampshire is being here now,” notes Steve Duprey, the state’s RNC committeeman. “By September, people here will be getting postcards inviting them to events every day. The candidates who work the hardest now will receive a disproportionate dividend.” After a six-week absence, it won’t be easy for Walker to jumpstart his campaign in New Hampshire, where so many other candidates have been busy campaigning as if it’s the only state that matters. “He better answer the questions,” said Plummer, who hosted Walker at her business roundtable in March but has been disappointed in his New Hampshire effort since then. “I would think he reads the news and sees what happens with the Hillary campaign and people being furious that she won’t answer questions. You’ve got Jeb and Carly and Christie here saying, ‘ask me anything’.” *Scott Walker: Gay Troop Leader Ban Protected Scouts From ‘Political Media Controversy’ <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/3-charts-that-show-why-hillary-clinton-wants-to-increase-profit-sharing> // Bloomberg // Ben Brody and John McCormick – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said Wednesday that he had been misunderstood when he said the Boy Scouts' now-defunct ban on gay troop leaders “protected children.” “The protection was not a physical protection,” Walker told reporters in Lexington, South Carolina, two days after announcing his campaign for president. “It’s a protection [from] discussion about the policy—protected them from being involved in the very thing you’re about to talk about right now, political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts are about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature.” The Wisconsin governor's remarks come as he seeks to court social conservatives in Iowa and other early nomination voting states. The 47-year-old is an Eagle Scout himself. The executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America unanimously approved a resolution this week that would end a ban on gay adult leaders and let local troops set their own policies. Walker told the conservative news outlet IJReview on Tuesday that he supported “the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.” The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, slammed the comments as “offensive, outrageous, and absolutely unacceptable” and said his “comments imply that [gays and lesbians] represent a threat to the safety and well-being of young people.” The policy should be “up to the Boy Scouts,” Walker said Wednesday. “The policy was perfectly fine when I was there and I thought they should be protected from all the political and media controversy.” “I’m not running for president for the Boy Scouts,” he added. Asked in 2013 whether gay people should be allowed into the organization, Walker declined to comment, saying he had “enough troubles and challenges dealing with what I have in state government to take on anybody else's challenges,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. *Scott Walker Confronts the Rigors of the Presidential Campaign Trail <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/scott-walker-confronts-the-rigors-of-the-presidential-campaign-trail> // Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015 * The brutal reality of a presidential campaign hit Scott Walker somewhere in the sky over the southern U.S. late Tuesday. The Wisconsin governor's commercial flight had been circling amid thunderstorms on its way to Atlanta, where he and his entourage were to catch a connecting flight to Charleston. The pilot informed the flight's passengers that they were running low on fuel and needed to divert to Memphis. After hours on the ground there, Walker resusmed his flight to Atlanta, and arrived at about 1:30 a.m., where he missed his connection by minutes. Walker's aides decided the only way they could get him to his 8 a.m. event Wednesday at a Harley-Davidson dealership in North Charleston would be to drive. About five hours later, the newly minted Republican presidential candidate arrived with a smile on his face, taking it all in stride and telling his audience of about 250 people that he hadn't slept in more than 24 hours. But it quickly became clear on Wednesday that Walker's challenges during his presidential announcement rollout week wouldn't involve just weather and delayed flights. For the second day in a row, reporters pressed him on his statements in opposition to a resolution unanimously approved by the executive committee of the Boy Scouts of America this week that would end a ban on gay adult leaders. Initially, Walker had stated that the earlier policy "protected children," but after facing criticism from gay rights groups, he sought to clarify his remarks. “The policy was perfectly fine when I was there and I thought they should be protected from all the political and media controversy," Walker said Wednesday. The topic served as a distraction at a time Walker wanted, as much as possible, to stick to a message of resolute leadership and conservative accomplishment that he'd outlined in his announcement speech Monday in Waukesha, Wisconsin. On Thursday, he's likely to face questions about an expected Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. That ruling will answer the question of whether a criminal investigation can move forward into whether Walker's 2012 recall campaign illegally coordinated with outside groups exempt from donor disclosure laws. Despite the distractions, Walker drew good-sized crowds at his stops Wednesday. A sprawling parking outside a barbeque restaurant where he spoke in Lexington was at capacity and beyond with cars double-parked and hundreds there to see him. "I've liked Scott Walker since the media started attacking him a few years ago," said Louie Cameron, 59, an insurance agent who drove more than an hour to attend the North Charleston event. "That's always a sign of a great leader." At that same event, Phil Schoonover allowed Walker to break one of his fundamental tenants when it comes to talking about and selling Harley-Davidson motorcycles. "We normally don't bring politics or religion into it," said Schoonover, who for 36 years has owned Low Country Harley-Davidson. As part of a five-state tour this week, Walker is using Harley dealerships as campaign props for four of his stops. They offer free space and help burnish his everyman image. "We get a free doughnut and some coffee," said Schoonover, a Republican still surveying his party's presidential field. Ahead of Walker's appearance, Schoonover's workers busily polished the dealership, moving roughly 40 motorcycles off the showroom floor to make room for Walker's stage and audience. A Walker political operative had stopped in on the 5th of July, a Sunday, to ask about using the space for a possible event, Schoonover said. Given the fact that the company he represents is based in Walker's Wisconsin, Schoonover said he didn't feel like he could say no. "My franchise is with Harley-Davidson, which has its home office in Milwaukee," Schoonover explained. Besides, Schoonover said he figured it would mean some free publicity for his business and brand. "We sell everything from baby bibs to dog toys. We sell a lifestyle," he said. Other than his history of confronting unions and the fact that he rides a Harley, Schoonover said he doesn't know much about Walker and isn't necessarily going to support him in February's South Carolina primary. "I think he's a balanced budget guy and that appeals to me," said Schoonover, adding that he's also intrigued by the candidacy of former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Walker, who owns a 2003 Road King, has for years used his Harley to connect with rural voters, veterans and other riders. "They tell me, if I'm successful, I don't get to ride a Harley anymore," he said Tuesday at a Harley dealership in Las Vegas. It was an apparent reference to limits the Secret Service might place on a future President Walker. That said, the rookie national candidate has many storms, canceled flights and controversies ahead of him before that could happen. *Flight Delays Add Exhaustion to Scott Walker’s Rollout Marathon <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/flight-delays-add-exhaustion-to-scott-walker-s-rollout-marathon> // Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said Wednesday he hasn't slept for more than a day after thunderstorms wreaked havoc on the commercial flight schedule his campaign created to stress his everyman persona and save some money. The Wisconsin governor arrived just a few minutes late to his 8 a.m. stop in the early primary state of South Carolina, after driving through the night from Atlanta following a missed connection there. Joined by his three family members and aides, Walker was trying to get to South Carolina from Las Vegas, where he'd made his first campaign appearance Tuesday after announcing his presidential bid Monday in Wisconsin. “Finally, when they got us into Atlanta, we had missed our flight to here by about five minutes.” "Because of the storms last night, we were diverted to Memphis for a while," Walker told about 250 people gathered at a Harley-Davidson dealership in North Charleston. "Finally, when they got us into Atlanta, we had missed our flight to here by about five minutes." The journey then continued by rental car. "A little before three o'clock this morning, we left Atlanta and drove here because we didn't want to let you down because we knew there was a great crowd," Walker said. The newly minted candidate hit all his standard lines during a 26-minute speech to those gathered on the dealership's sales floor, although his eyes did look weary. On a more serious note, Walked praised South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and the state's residents for how they reacted to the shooting deaths of nine people at a historic black church in Charleston last month. "Thanks to everybody in this region and this state for showing the nation about how to become united when something tragic happens," he said. "Obviously, what happened was something we denounce, not only the action, but the beliefs of the person involved. I will never say his name." It could be a long day for Walker. He has two additional stops in South Carolina, a drive back to Atlanta, and an evening appearance there. On Thursday, Walker heads to New Hampshire before starting a three-day tour of Iowa on Friday. *Scott Walker Sues Feds Over Food Stamp Drug Testing <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-food-stamps_55a64d15e4b0c5f0322bc850?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Arthur Delaney – July 15, 2015 * Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of many Republicans seeking their party's presidential nomination, is suing the federal government over his plan to make some food stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs. Federal law doesn't give states much room to impose new conditions on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The program is known informally by its former name, food stamps, and in Wisconsin it's called FoodShare. “This lawsuit seeks to provide clarity that the State of Wisconsin has the authority to require drug testing for FoodShare recipients,” Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a press release on Tuesday. While federal law doesn't allow states to impose drug tests on SNAP recipients, it does allow states to drug test and in general make up their own rules for the much smaller Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which serves about 4 million Americans. Roughly 46 million Americans receive SNAP benefits. The Wisconsin lawsuit appears to hinge on whether the state can treat SNAP recipients like TANF recipients. The state evidently thinks it can: The new law that calls for drug tests also claims that an "individual who is a recipient under the food stamp program is considered to be a welfare recipient." Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is the program most commonly called "welfare," though Republicans have used the term to describe most means-tested safety net programs. In its press release about the lawsuit, Wisconsin says the state's position is that "FoodShare recipients are 'welfare recipients' and therefore may be tested and sanctioned for the use of controlled substances." By any measure, TANF and SNAP are very different programs. SNAP is an entitlement that gives monthly food vouchers (in the form of debit cards) to anyone poor enough to qualify, with some restrictions on able-bodied adults without dependents and not too many differences across state lines. TANF, meanwhile, is generally for single mothers who meet a range of requirements that can vary widely by state. Annual federal spending for TANF is capped at about $16 billion, while annual spending for SNAP has surged to nearly five times that amount in the wake of the Great Recession. Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have frequently called for bringing "welfare reform" to food stamps and Medicaid, since the major welfare reform legislation of 1996 stunted TANF spending and enrollment. When Georgia tried to drug test food stamp recipients last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said no. "Requiring SNAP applicants and recipients to pass a drug test in order to receive benefits would constitute an additional condition of eligibility, and therefore, is not allowable under law," the USDA told Georgia. *Unions: This time, we’ll defeat Walker <http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/247952-unions-this-time-well-defeat-walker> // The Hill // Tim Davaney – July 15, 2015 * Labor groups are gearing up for another fight with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) now that he has entered the presidential race. After a failed recall bid in Wisconsin, unions are determined to make sure Walker never sets foot in the Oval Office. But organized labor’s opposition could play well for Walker in the GOP primary because it appeals to his conservative base. Some of the biggest unions are still formulating their plan of attack against Walker, even as they signal they will dip into their coffers to go after him. The strongest signal came from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. “Scott Walker is a national disgrace,” Trumka said in a six-word statement rebuking the Wisconsin governor. Walker has clashed with unions since taking over as governor of the Democratic-leaning Wisconsin, a state with strong union roots, pushing policies that have weakened public and private sector unions. Critics paint Walker as a union buster. “You can’t actually outlaw unions, but he did everything in his power to weaken unions in Wisconsin,” one labor official told The Hill. Walker raised the stakes for unions on Monday as he announced his bid for the presidency. “Since I’ve been governor, we took on the unions and won,” Walker said. “If our reforms can work in a blue state like Wisconsin, they can work anywhere in America.” Shortly after taking over as governor in 2011, Walker signed legislation that severely weakened the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees such as teachers. Under the bill, state and local government workers — excluding police officers and firefighters — can only bargain for raises up to the point of inflation. Unions argue this move holds down wages throughout the state. This led unions to attempt to recall Walker in 2012, which he ultimately survived. Walker again targeted unions earlier this year after he was reelected, this time going after private sector unions. He signed right-to-work legislation that gives workers the choice to not join a union even if they indirectly benefit from the union’s collective bargaining agreements. Walker’s campaign, which did not respond to a request for comment, is touting his record of standing up to Big Labor, but unions see it as a threat to their survival. The back-and-forth with unions will only help raise Walker’s profile among potential Republican voters, said GOP strategist Ford O’Connell. “This is political gold for Scott Walker in the Republican primary,” O’Connell said. “The fact that unions are attacking him and that he even won a recall election shows conservative voters that he’s a fighter who doesn’t back down and gets results.” Walker’s announcement that he is running for president fired up labor activists, who are churning out stories from local union leaders in Wisconsin to “warn” the country of what’s at stake. “A Scott Walker presidency is a scary, scary thing for America,” said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the AFL-CIO’s Wisconsin branch. Sheila Cochran of the Milwaukee Area Labor Council called Walker’s labor policies “idiotic.” “Labor has really taken a serious beating by the governor in this state,” she said. “He looks at us as if we’re trying to totally derail corporate America.” “It concerns me that he’s hit the national stage,” Cochran added. “I pray he never becomes president. This is a man that just cannot lead this country. I would be terrified.” Michael Bolton, the district director for the United Steelworkers in Wisconsin, said unions must “make sure that all workers in America understand Scott Walker is not a friend of the working person.” “We’re going to talk about what he has done to the state and what we believe he plans to do to the country if he were elected,” Bolton said. Labor activists plan to use aggressive social media tactics to spread the word about Walker’s treatment of unions in Wisconsin. “Scott Walker has made it his mission to crush the ability of workers to come together, stick together, have each other’s backs and have a meaningful voice at work through their union,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO’s Wisconsin branch. “The concern is that is a blueprint for what he would do as president,” a labor official told The Hill. Walker’s tough talk against labor generally plays well for him with many business-friendly Republican voters, but he faced backlash even from his own party earlier this year when he compared union protesters to terrorists. The governor had been asked about how he would handle the situation with ISIS. “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe,” he responded. Labor groups have not forgotten the comment. “That’s pretty much the most offensive thing he could say that working people who are standing up for their rights are equivalent to terrorists,” one labor official told The Hill. “I’ve talked to a lot of first responders who were there on 9/11, and they’ve also been to union rallies — and they don’t look anything alike,” the official added. *Scott Walker tells Laura Ingraham he doesn’t believe abortion should be between a woman and her doctor <http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/scott-walker-tells-laura-ingraham-he-doesn-t-believe-abortion/article_d6846dc9-797c-53cb-a1b7-61a0a076b84f.html> // Capital Times // Jessie Opoien – July 15, 2015 * In his more than 20 years in politics, Gov. Scott Walker has never wavered on his stance on abortion issues. But he has demonstrated flexibility in the way he frames it. The most illustrative example of this was his 2014 re-election campaign, running against Democrat Mary Burke. After being repeatedly slammed by pro-choice groups like Emily's List, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood for signing into law a bill that requires women to undergo ultrasound exams before getting abortions, Walker ran an ad that described the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy as "an agonizing one." "That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more information for a woman considering her options," Walker said, looking directly into the camera. "The bill leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens." The ad was knocked by some pro-life advocates for sounding too soft on the issue and by pro-choice groups who said it misrepresented his position. But Walker won the election, continuing a long streak of victories. That ad has continued to come up as Walker parlays his experience in Wisconsin into a presidential bid. A recent New York Times article reported that Walker "went on to write and design the commercial himself." "I didn’t like the ad. You’re using the other side’s garbage and it’s not helpful," Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance told Politico earlier this month. Nance told Politico despite her displeasure with the ad, she never doubted Walker's position on the issue. She said she was "thrilled" he would soon sign into law a 20-week abortion ban. But despite the conservative cred earned with the 20-week ban, Walker was asked about the ad once again by conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday. Ingraham told Walker she knows where his heart is on the issue, then played audio from the ad and asked why the ad included a line about leaving the decision to a woman and her doctor. "Because we wanted to make the point — you had the pro-abortion, the NARAL, and Emily’s List, and Planned Parenthood and others out there tying to twist our ultrasound language into something that it wasn’t. We wanted to make the case, this is all it does, it doesn’t do anything else for all them complaining about this, it doesn’t change that decision," Walker said. "I still believe that you’re talking about an unborn child as a human being, and I believe that, and I have articulated that for more than 20 years, all the way back — a lot of the people you were sitting with are folks I worked with at Marquette Students for Life when I was a student in college. I’ve always had a strong pro-life position, I’ve always defended that. But, for us, it made it able to wipe that issue right off the table because we pushed back and said, what we were proposing was a positive, strong common sense thing to do to get people information." Ingraham responded: "But you don't believe — I just want to clarify this, governor ... you don't believe the final decision should be between a woman and her doctor—" "No," Walker replied. "I believe it's an unborn child. My point was, in pointing that out, is the bill, all it does, is require an ultrasound. It didn't change what the law is." *PAUL* *Rand Paul’s official haul: $7 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-pauls-official-haul-7-million-120200.html?ml=tl_6> // Politico // Katie Glueck and Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 * Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign took in about $7 million in the second quarter. The libertarian-leaning Republican, who is currently running for Senate re-election as well, transferred $1.6 million from his Senate campaign committee to his presidential committee, meaning that his White House bid raised $5.3 million in the quarter. About 60 percent of contributions from individual donors came from those providing $200 or less to the campaign. The only GOP campaign with a greater percentage of small-dollar donations in the second quarter was Ben Carson. Below is a breakout of where Paul’s campaign finances stood as of the end of June: Total brought in: $6,932,779.14 Total spent: $2,771,264.00 Cash on hand: $4,161,515.14 Debt: $716,442.99 *Rand 2015 Runs From Rand 2007 On Iran <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/rand-2015-runs-from-rand-2007-on-iran.html> // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 15, 2015 * In 2007, Rand Paul gave his first interview to Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist radio host and founder of Infowars.com. Paul was helping his father, then-Congressman Ron Paul, campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and, Jones said, the entirety of his audience helped to make up the elder Paul’s base of fervent supporters. Jones was struck by the younger Paul’s similarity to his father. “You know, talking to you, you sound so much like your dad,” Jones said. “This is great! We have, like, a Ron Paul clone!” When Jones noted that the elder Paul was the only anti-war candidate, Rand replied, “I tell people in speeches, I say you know, we’re against the Iraq war, we have been since the beginning, but we’re also against the Iran war—you know, the one that hasn’t started yet. You know, the thing is I think people want to paint my father into some corner, but if you look at it, intellectually, look at the evidence that Iran is not a threat.” As evidence of this, he said, you needn’t look further than the fact that “Iran cannot even refine their own gasoline.” And further, Paul said, “even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat. My dad says, they don’t have an air force! They don’t have a navy! You know, it’s ridiculous to think that they’re a threat to our national security. It’s not even that viable to say they’re a threat to Israel. Most people say Israel has 100 nuclear weapons.” Eight years later, Paul’s beliefs are very different. “Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they're not a threat.” Rand 2007 In response to the agreement reached Tuesday between Iran, the United States, the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany to diminish Iran’s nuclear program, Paul, now the junior Senator from Kentucky and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, released a statement outlining his opposition. “The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance 2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity 3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran I will, therefore, vote against the agreement. While I continue to believe negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.” Asked how Paul’s position had shifted so dramatically since he was campaigning for his father, Doug Stafford, his senior campaign adviser, said, “Foreign policy should reflect events and events change. Senator Paul has always thought Iran getting a nuclear weapon was a bad idea and dangerous. But over the last eight years, as Iran has made progress in their nuclear enrichment program, it’s become more of a threat. Not allowing your opinions to reflect changing threats would be foolish.” But it’s just frankly not true, as the Alex Jones interview demonstrates. What is true is that the Iran deal places Paul in an impossible bind. Paul’s positions are usually so nuanced that they escape criticism of flip-flopping, but his shift on Iran is unusually clear—even if it was gradual. Whether compromise is a wise strategy for Paul in the primary is uncertain. Paul is currently polling at 6.6 percent—behind Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. Paul is not going to vault back into the top tier by siphoning off votes from more establishment candidates, whose supporters will never buy him as one of their own. And he won’t mobilize his libertarian base by taking them for granted. In April, reporter David Weigel, outlined in detail Paul’s transformation for Bloomberg Politics. In 2011, while in the Senate, Paul was still vocally opposed to war, telling reporter Zaid Jilani he wanted to “influence” Iran instead. In 2012, while again campaigning for his father, he reiterated their anti-war position while clarifying that Ron Paul “doesn’t want Iran to nuclear weapons…But should they get nuclear weapons, he thinks that there are some choices.” A few weeks later, Paul explained to CNN that when it came to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, “I did finally come down to the conclusion that doing something was better than doing nothing.” By 2013, Paul was saying that “the most pressing issue of the day” was how to contend with Iran’s nuclear program, and said that although he still did not want war, if he were in the White House while a deal collapsed, “I would say all options are on the table, and that would include military.” Back in March, Paul was faced with a choice: sign the open letter penned by his Senate colleague, Tom Cotton, which Cotton explicitly said was designed to halt negotiations, or be the only presidential contender in the Senate to not sign it, and risk losing support in the fallout. Despite the fact that Paul had maintained—and continues to maintain—that he favors negotiations, he compromised and opted for the first choice, contorting himself uncomfortably in his effort to explain his decision and irking some of the longtime libertarian supporters he inherited from his father in the process. He has pursued a similar strategy with the deal. The Atlantic’s David Frum made what on its face felt like a reckless prediction on Tuesday: “The Rand Paul Candidacy for the Republican Nomination Is Over.” Frum’s case was that throughout the course of his short Senate career, Paul has been able to carve out space for himself within his party by mostly focusing on the issue of domestic surveillance, which comfortably placed him in opposition to the hawks he bemoans and to President Obama. The deal presented for Paul a no-win: Were he to support the deal, however, Frum argued, he would “find himself isolated with the old Ron Paul constituency,” but were he to oppose it, he would vanish amid a sea of similar voices in the primary field. The best explanation for Paul’s new position may come from Paul himself. In an interview with The Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie in April, the same day two attack ads were released tying him to Obama on the issue, Paul said, “2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of time. We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office, when I was helping someone else run for office.” So when the facts change—be they the facts of the issue at hand or the facts of Paul’s personal political objectives—Paul changes his mind. *CRUZ* *Ted Cruz makes New York Times’ list <http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/ted-cruz-makes-new-york-times-list-210608.html> // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015 * Five days after accusing The New York Times of bias, secrecy and foul play, Ted Cruz is finally getting what he wanted: a highly coveted spot on the paper's bestseller list. Cruz's memoir, "A Time For Truth," will appear at No. 7 on the Times' list for hardcover nonfiction, reflecting its second-week sales, a Times spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday. The Texas senator's book had not been included on the list for its first week, on the grounds that its sales had been driven by "strategic bulk purchases." Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that the newspaper made no changes to its selection process, and so the fact that Cruz's book is being included now suggests a rise in individual purchases, spurred by his public battle with the paper. "This week's NYT best seller list was arrived at using the same process as last week's - and the week before that," Murphy wrote. "That process involves a careful analysis of data, and is not influenced in any way by the content of a book, or by pressure from publishers or book sellers." Both HarperCollins, the book's publisher, and Amazon, the largest Internet retailer in the country, said last week that they had found "no evidence" that bulk purchases drove the book's sales numbers. On Friday, Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler accused the Times of "obvious partisan bias," and called on the paper to reveal its methodology or else publicly apologize. The Times has resolutely stood by its claim, and has refused to reveal its methodology on the grounds that doing so might threaten the integrity of the process. "Our approach serves Times readers by authenticating broadly popular books through the confidential reporting of a wide range of retailers," Murphy said Wednesday. "In order to avoid compromising that process, we do not disclose who reports sales to us." “A Time For Truth” was published on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan’s hardcover sale numbers -- more than 18 of the 20 titles that appeared on the bestseller list for the week ending July 4. Cruz's campaign. is expected to comment shortly. We will update here if and when they do. *Ted Cruz challenges Fox debate standards <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-challenges-fox-debate-standards-120169.html> // Politico // Alex Isenstadt – July 15, 2015 * Ted Cruz’s campaign is leading a charge to pressure Fox News into raising their standards for the national polls that will decide who gets into the first Republican presidential debate. In a memo sent to fellow GOP campaigns on Wednesday, Chris Wilson, who serves as director of research and analytics for the Cruz campaign, called Fox News’s standards for deciding which national polls are used in its debate entry process “unclear.” Wilson asks the other campaigns to “consider joining with us” in encouraging the network to impose additional polling standards. As it stands, Fox News is allowing the top 10 contenders, based on an average of the five most recent national polls, into the Aug. 6 debate. “I’m sure you are aware, the standards set by Fox News for the first GOP Presidential debate are unclear and, it would appear, undefined,” Wilson wrote in the memo. Among the Cruz campaign’s suggestions: That polls included in the national average must have at least 1,000 interviews with primary voters and must be done by telephone (not online). However, no telephone poll conducted this year has surveyed that many GOP primary voters. Wilson also suggests that, for a survey to be included in the national average, it must not be conducted on a Friday or Saturday — when fewer voters are home to answer the phone. By almost any averaging of recent national polls, Cruz would make the cut for the top 10. But his position in the top 10 is less certain than many other candidates. “I’m very open to other criteria, so please let me know your thoughts,” Wilson writes. “Once I hear back from you, and the other campaigns, we will put together a joint letter to sent to Fox.” Wilson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, neither did a spokesperson for Fox News. *Ted Cruz owes donor’s firm $556k <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruzs-official-haul-10-million-120190.html?ml=tl_26> // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Katie Glueck –July 15, 2015 * Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign burned through more than half of $10 million he raised in the past few months and also ran up nearly $620,000 in debt — mostly to a data firm owned by a top donor — according to a report filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. Cruz’s campaign reported owing $556,000 to Cambridge Analytica for “survey research” and “donor modeling.” The firm is owned by the family of New York hedge fund magnate Bob Mercer, POLITICO revealed last week. Mercer and his family are among the biggest donors to a network of super PACs supporting Cruz that combined to raise $37 million. At least one of the super PACs is in discussions with Cambridge Analytica about retaining the firm’s services. The firm, which is relatively new to the competitive world of U.S. political data, provides nontraditional “psychographic” voter analyses to try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages. The Cruz campaign’s FEC report reveals now payments to the firm, just debt. The debt total would seem to indicate that Cruz is relying heavily on the firm for critical data work, but it also is an unusually large debt for a campaign to owe a single vendor early in the cycle. Cruz, a favorite of conservatives, announced his run for president a week before the first-quarter filing deadline. He had raised $4.3 million before that deadline. In the second-quarter fundraising period covered by Wednesday’s report, he raised another $10 million but also spent $5.5 million, leaving him with $8.6 million in the bank. Around 40 percent of his intake came from individual contributors donating $200 or less. A cluster of four super PACs supporting Cruz also claims a fundraising haul of nearly $38 million. They are due to file by the end of the month, but the overall pro-Cruz total estimate puts the candidate in the top tier of presidential fundraisers, even though his poll numbers place him in the middle of the pack. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised in the second quarter: $10,043,380.09 Total spent: $5,450,051.61 Total cash on hand: $8,527,595.93 Total debt: $618,006.57 *Ted Cruz threatens highway bill filibuster to block Ex-Im renewal <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-export-import-bank-highway-bill-filibuster-120147.html?ml=tl_11> // Politico // Seung Min Kim – July 15, 2015 * Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday raised the prospect of blocking a must-pass highway bill because the measure could be used to revive the Export-Import Bank, which expired at the end of June. Cruz, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, vigorously opposes the bank, which helps some U.S. exporters sell their goods overseas. At a news conference with other conservative GOP lawmakers and outside groups Wednesday, Cruz vowed to use “any and all procedural tools” to stop an Ex-Im reauthorization, particularly if it were attached to the highway bill later this month. “I am willing to use any and all procedural tools to stop this corporate welfare, this corruption from being propagated,” Cruz (R-Texas) said Wednesday when asked whether he would be willing to filibuster the highway bill. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) agreed, adding: “I think those of us who oppose it will continue to use any and all procedural tools at our disposal in order to oppose it.” The controversial export agency’s charter expired, making it impossible for the agency to underwrite new loans. But supporters of the Ex-Im Bank — mostly Democrats and business-aligned Republicans — have pushed to reauthorize it by attaching it to the highway bill that must pass Congress before the end of July. A test vote last month showed that 65 senators — a clear filibuster-proof majority — favor reauthorizing the export agency. But opposition to the bank runs deeper in the more conservative House. Cruz also took a subtle dig at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), openly musing that the Republican majority has not scored “conservative victories” even with a GOP-dominated Capitol. “It’s interesting. With a Republican majority, we haven’t had a lot of conservative victories. This is one,” Cruz said, referring to Ex-Im’s expiration. “We’re here today to praise Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They have the opportunity to deliver on their campaign rhetoric, and I am hopeful that actions follow words and every person here will gladly celebrate strong Republican leadership if we, in fact, have strong Republican leadership.” *Ted Cruz Forsees Military Action Against Iran <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/ted-cruz-foresees-military-action-against-iran> // Bloomberg // Kathy Kiely – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz thinks the proposed nuclear deal with Iran could force the next president to use military force and says he's prepared to make that decision. "I think the odds are very high the next president is going to confront an Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons," the Texas senator said in an interview that aired Wednesday on PBS' Charlie Rose. Asked what he would do were he to find himself in that position, Cruz replied, "I would do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." While Cruz did not specify his military strategy, he elsewhere in the interview expressed a preference for bombs over boots on the ground. Discussing the Obama administration's tactics against the Islamic State, Cruz called for "overwhelming air power." "Right now, we're engaged in what I call photo-op foreign policy," he said. "We drop a bomb here, a missile there but the rules of engagement are so strict, from ISIS' perspective, they're winning." He said he disagreed with his Senate colleague and presidential rival, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has called for sending 10,000 U.S. troops to fight the Islamic State. In the interview, Cruz alluded frequently to his new book, A Time for Truth, which, according to Politico, is going to be included on the New York Times bestseller list this week, after the senator accused the paper of deliberately excluding it. *He’s Ba-a-a-ack: Ted Cruz Hints He’ll Filibuster Ex-Im Bank <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/he-s-ba-a-a-ack-ted-cruz-hints-he-ll-filibuster-ex-im-bank> // Bloomberg // Heidi Przybyla – July 15, 2015 * Texas Senator Ted Cruz signaled today he may be about to return to his favorite battlefield -- the Senate floor -- to fight efforts to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Ex-Im’s charter expired June 30, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who opposes the reauthorization, has said an upcoming bill to extend highway funding past July 31 would be an “obvious” vehicle for supporters to try to revive it. Asked Wednesday if he plans to filibuster the legislation, Cruz told reporters he plans to use “any and all procedural tools” to block the it. Cruz’s use of Senate parliamentary procedure, including the filibuster, has turned the first-term Republican into a Tea Party sensation and bolstered his 2016 presidential bid. He portrays himself as a crusader against a “Washington cartel” of lobbyists, lawmakers and big business that, in the senator's view, works against the best interests of average Americans. The Ex-Im battle gives him another opportunity to sound those themes. The Ex-Im fight has pitted two traditionally Republican constituencies against each other. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pushed hard to keep the bank, provides loans, loan guarantees and insurance to aid overseas sales by U.S. companies. Supporters argue that it supports American jobs by providing financing for American companies to sell goods abroad. Small-government groups like Club for Growth argue that it should go because it interferes with the free market by choosing which deals receive financial backing. “There are a lot of campaign conservatives in the U.S. Congress,” Cruz said during the press conference. “If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell stand up and say ‘we simply will not allow the Export-Import Bank to be reauthorized, that will ensure this corporate welfare goes away.’” He also accused Republican leaders of making a "corrupt deal" in agreeing to allow a vote to reauthorize Ex-Im in exchange for Democratic support of trade legislation last month. “If there’s no corrupt deal, then congressional leadership should stand with Senate conservatives and House conservatives,” and block attempts to reauthorize the bank, Cruz said. *Ted Cruz relish silver medal standing on fundraising at confab <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/cruz-colorado-springs-donor-summit/index.html> // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015 * Presidential campaigns are releasing their fundraising numbers on Wednesday, but Ted Cruz's top moneymen already had their moment to be giddy. A week after announcing they had raised $52 million, the Texas senator met in Colorado Springs with about 45 of his top bundlers this weekend at The Broadmoor, a luxury resort at the foot of the Cheyenne Mountains, to celebrate the haul. Thanks to a mix of grassroots donors and a few billionaires, Cruz's supporters boast a position few anticipated: Second place in the crowded and competitive GOP fundraising race. In between expeditions of fly fishing and horseback riding (with Cruz himself taking part), the donors said they came to realize that the vaunted fundraising operations of their opponents aren't the juggernauts they once believed. "We dominated everybody in the field when it comes to hard money, and everybody when it comes to soft money except Jeb, and I think that surprised people," said Houston investor and summit attendee Christopher Zook, contrasting the so-called hard money raised by official campaigns with the soft money raised by outside groups that support the campaigns. Some Cruz loyalists acknowledge they need to keep the celebratory confidence from creeping into arrogance when sizing up others' fundraising potential. Fundraisers got a pep talk in Colorado, but one they hardly need as they hold a silver medal in a crowded field. The dollars have not translated as of yet to polling: Cruz still trails the top tier of candidates -- he got 3 percent of support from Republicans in the most recent CNN/ORC poll. Still even observers who weren't fans of Cruz admitted they were impressed. Small online donations powered that fundraising operation, and are powering this one too: 175,000 donors gave an average contribution of $81. Carla Eudy, a top fundraiser for John McCain who is no fan of Cruz, cautioned that his backers shouldn't get ahead of themselves despite their success. "It is better than what you consider 'a top-tier candidate' did," said Eudy, who knew Cruz would raise the small donations but thought he'd only bring in $15 to $20 million to his super PAC. "Look, you got to give hats off to the guy," adding, "which I hate to admit." Cruz allies raised $14 million for the campaign and an additional $38 million for its super PACs, which can collect checks of unlimited amounts but cannot coordinate spending with the campaign. As the first presidential campaign to launch and open an official bank account, Cruz raised more money for his campaign than any Republican rival. And while outside groups supporting Cruz raised far less than the groups backing Jeb Bush -- which raised $103 million -- they edged out those supporting any other Republican. So at briefings, receptions and dinners back in Colorado Springs, senior Cruz aides -- including his wife Heidi Cruz, a Goldman Sachs executive who is playing a leading role in the finance operation -- projected confidence to their donors that the race remained theirs to win. They introduced a new adviser, Ronald Reagan speechwriter Anthony Dolan, who is expected to help the oratorically gifted Cruz. And they advised that they would have the money to go the distance -- there's no need to be the "last-man standing" and merely exist as other Republicans make errors, said one person familiar with the campaign's message this weekend. That's especially so given other Republicans' fundraising, which both the Cruz campaign and its invited donors, who pledged to raise $100,000, see as underwhelming and not up to par. The outside groups backing Scott Walker, who announced his campaign on Monday, are expected to unveil a $20 million haul. And Marco Rubio and his allied groups raised a total of $44 million -- a sum that Cruz associates said they expected to surpass their own. As for Bush -- who has more cash than any other Republican aspirant -- top Cruz fundraisers charge that his official campaign is too poor relative to the super PAC that supports it, which has nearly ten times as much money. And they drew comparisons between Bush and David Dewhurst, the Texas millionaire who Cruz dethroned in a come-from-behind victory in the Texas senate election in 2012. Cruz donors heard this weekend from leaders like finance director Willie Langston and campaign manager Jeff Roe about polling, crowd sizes and the path to victory. But some Cruz donors expressed the most excitement about the data vendor employed by the Houston-based campaign, Cambridge Analytica, that uses "psychographic" profiling to predict potential supporters. The targeting, a brainchild of Cruz analytics director Chris Wilson, sifts voters into six personality types and tailors campaign messaging based on that profile. The campaign has modeled each state's electorate through March 15, having identified three times as many potential Cruz supporters in Iowa than the total number of expected voters in the state's Republican caucus, according to spokesman Rick Tyler. Donors ate it up. "Everyone's got their own little agendas," said Lawrence Gelman, a Cruz donor from Texas who said he was amazed at the targeting's "sophistication" in how it could put its finger on the pulse of each voter's thinking. "I guess they tried to find it," Contributors like Gelman weren't given fundraising targets for the next quarter -- just to raise more and more. The best way for donors to help the campaign might be to give to the super PAC run by longtime Cruz friends. But because the group is not allowed to coordinate with the campaign, no mention was made of the outsized power except merely to nod to it in appreciation. *Ted Cruz: ‘If you think Washington is going great…then I ain’t your guy’ <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-if-you-think-washington-going-great-then-i-aint-your-guy> // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz fully assumed the role of Washington outsider, aspiring change agent, and — potentially — anti-establishment victor on Wednesday in New York City. While speaking to a group of hedge funders, the Texas senator once again aligned himself with fellow White House hopeful Donald Trump and went after big business just as much as big government. “If you think Washington is going great, that we just need someone to fiddle around the edges, then I ain’t your guy,” Cruz told the crowd at the CNBC Delivering Alpha conference in New York. Speaking onstage with CNBC’s John Harwood, the 44-year-old Cruz again defended Trump’s controversial remarks on illegal immigration — though he conceded when pressed that the real estate mogul “speaks in a way that I wouldn’t speak.” Over the past few weeks, Trump has been under fire for describing undocumented immigrants as “rapists” during his presidential announcement and for saying that “when Mexico sends its people,” they bring drugs and crime. Nearly every member of the GOP presidential pack has criticized those remarks — including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But Cruz has repeatedly stood by Trump, telling reporters as recently as Wednesday morning that he’s a “big fan” of “The Donald.” Cruz reportedly met privately with Trump on Wednesday, though the reasons for that sit-down remain a mystery. “I think it’s important to highlight illegal immigration,” said Cruz, whose father came to the U.S. legally from Cuba as a teenager. He added during Wednesday’s conference: “I don’t think it’s appropriate to be impugning the integrity of other candidates.” Cruz did, however, accuse those now “smacking” Trump of “vigorously, vocally” advocating amnesty for many years — only to just switch their positions when politically convenient. “In politics, sometimes verb tenses matter,” Cruz said. “In every election, people become campaign conservatives.” In addition to potentially alienating some in his own party, Cruz also seemed unconcerned with alienating big business, long viewed as a reliable source of campaign cash for Republicans. The fast-changing landscape on social issues has started to change that relationship, however, and Cruz didn’t seem eager to want to stop it. “I think the Democrats are the party of the rich, and big government, and cronyism,” Cruz said. Earlier in the day, he praised Congress’ decision to allow the charter for the Export-Import Bank to expire, criticizing the 81-year-old institution — which acted as the U.S. government’s export credit agency — for disproportionately serving big business. Cruz also stood by what many in his own party have characterized as an extreme response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision that made marriage equality the law of the land. Shortly after that ruling came down, he vowed to propose a constitutional amendment that would subject justices to periodic retention elections — a clear violation of Article III in the Constitution, and one that stands virtually no chance of passing. Yet Cruz, who once clerked for former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, did not back down from that position Wednesday. “Under the Constitution, from the beginning of our nation, marriage has been a question for the states,” he said. “I don’t think it makes sense to have every major policy issue decided by five unelected judges.” *Several Hours Of Ted Cruz B-Roll And Interviews With Family Members Just Went Online <http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/several-hours-of-ted-cruz-b-roll-and-interviews-with-family#.cmxzBpQ26> // BuzzFeed // Megan Apper and Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015* Several hours of b-roll was uploaded to YouTube Wednesday morning featuring long interviews with families members of Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz. The hours of interviews uploaded by “Ted Cruz for Senate” feature interviews with Cruz’s wife Heidi, his mother, his father, his aunt, and several nieces and nephews. The interviews feature some interesting tidbits about Cruz: His family dressed him as a bald eagle one 4th of July. Cruz’s cousin made him play with Barbie dolls. His dad says Cruz was once bit by an octopus at the beach. It is unclear why the videos were uploaded. Campaigns legally can’t coordinate with PACs but often avoid the law by posting hours of b-roll of interviews and soundless footage of the candidate doing things like walking around and meeting with voters to get around the law. *CHRISTIE* *Christie picks up 2016 endorsement from Maryland governor <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e37edae9f7e941d6ad2d6ca6e388e467/christie-picks-2016-endorsement-maryland-governor> // AP // Brian Witte – July 15, 2015 * Chris Christie has picked up the presidential endorsement of Maryland's governor. Republican Larry Hogan says Christie tells it like it is and most politicians don't — and that the New Jersey governor can work with Democrats and independents. Hogan made the endorsement Wednesday during a stop at a diner near the Maryland Capitol in Annapolis. It's a bit of political payback. Christie was a strong supporter of Hogan's underdog campaign for governor last year in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1. Christie led the Republican Governors Association and made several campaign appearances in Maryland for Hogan. The association spent $1.2 million in the final weeks of the campaign on Hogan's behalf. Christie has been wearing a "Hogan Strong" bracelet since the Maryland governor's cancer diagnosis was announced last month. *Chris Christie Says Obama ‘Lied’ to American About Iran Deal <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/ted-cruz-foresees-military-action-against-iran> // Bloomberg // Elise Young – July 15, 2015 * New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said President Barack Obama "lied" to Americans about a deal among U.S. allies to ease economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for regulation of the nation's raw materials for nuclear weapons. "He lied to the American people," Christie, the 52-year-old Republican presidential candidate, said in a Wednesday interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. "He put his entire support of this agreement, as you heard yesterday, on verification. We’re not trusting anybody, and he said that we have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that we could inspect anytime, anywhere. Every reading of this agreement shows that all Iran has to do to stop inspections is ask. Christie also said Obama should have predicated any agreement on the release of four Americans held against their will in Iran. "He knows this is a bad deal," Christie said of the president. Obama on Wednesday delivered an exhaustive news conference in which he took on critics of the deal, and argued that without the accord, the Islamic Republic "could move closer to a nuclear bomb." Christie told radio host Hugh Hewitt that Iran could back out with a request to end inspections of nuclear facilities. An arbitration panel then could take as long as 24 days to restore the reviews—time enough, Christie said, for Iran to spirit evidence of weapons manufacturing around the country. The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, which also involves China, Russia, the U.K., France and Germany, Obama said at a news conference at the White House on Wednesday, a day after the deal was signed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the policy as a danger to the Jewish state, a key Middle East ally for the U.S. "The protection of the state of Israel has to be a top priority of the president of the United States of America," Christie said. "What I would do as president is immediately meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and try to repair this relationship that this president has so callously broken." Christie, scheduled on Thursday to appear in Camden, New Jersey, for a national policy speech on criminal-justice reform, then will head to New Hampshire for two days of campaign stops. *Gov. Chris Christie bags 2016 endorsement from Gov. Larry Hogan <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gov-chris-christie-bags-2016-endorsement-gov-larry-hogan> // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – July 15, 2015 * New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie picked up an endorsement for president from fellow blue state, Republican Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland on Wednesday. Outside the Double-T Diner in Annapolis, Hogan promised to “go anywhere and do anything” to help Christie –who has fallen towards the back of the emerging GOP field – win the party’s nomination. “My primary mission today is to officially and enthusiastically endorse Gov. Christie for president. I happen to believe he’s exactly the leader we need. I think he should be the next president and I think he will be the next president,” he said. The endorsement makes sense, as Christie, chairman of the Republican Governors Association last year, was a big supporter of Hogan during his underdog bid for governor in 2014. Christie made four campaign stops in Maryland before the general election and the RGA shelled out $1.2 million on Hogan’s behalf during the final month of the race. Christie has also shown support for Hogan—who was recently diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—since his win, sporting a “Hogan Strong” wristband on the campaign trail. During the announcement, Hogan pointed to Christie’s loyalty, noting when “nobody believed in our race he came here four different times.” He also said Christie was the first to call him to offer advice and help when riots broke out in Baltimore over the spring and has offered him continued support as he battles cancer. Speaking about his health, Hogan said “I feel great. I feel really good. They tell me it might not always be that way,” noting he underwent his first round of chemotherapy and has six more rounds to go. “I’m fighting this with everything I got,” he added. After the announcement, Christie took questions from reporters and skewered the Iran nuclear deal announced by Obama on Tuesday. The governor argued the announcement was “just another in a series of lies that he’s told the American people.” He took particular issue with the nuclear inspection part of the agreement. “When [Obama] said yesterday that inspections will happen in Iran anytime anywhere, the agreement itself undercuts the president’s position we want to inspect someplace in Iran, we have to give them notice, they could say no, it goes to an arbitration panel that they’re a part of and they have 24 days to make a decision, well if they’re playing around and cheating on this agreement and they have 24 days to clean up the evidence of the cheating. How’s that anytime anywhere Mr. President?” asked Christie. He also took aim at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton who has backed the deal. “Well you know, Secretary Clinton, I’ve said all along she owns the foreign policy of this administration. And now she owns the second term foreign policy of this administration as well even though she’s left to run for president,” declared Christie. Earlier this month, Christie also received an endorsement from Maine Gov. Paul Le Page. Christie on Wednesday called the governors’ endorsement “incredibly important” because both LePage and Hogan are the leaders of political infrastructure of states and will be able to help raise money. Separately, the super political action committee backing Christie’s presidential bid announced this week that it raised $11 million since February, a haul the group says is more than double its initial goal—but one that’s still significantly less than the candidate’s GOP competition. Christie has a busy week ahead. On Thursday morning, he’ll go Camden, N.J. to deliver what’s being billed by the campaign as a major policy speech on criminal justice reform. Later that evening, he’ll be in New Hampshire, where he’ll hold a town hall meeting in Franklin and another one in Milford on Friday. *PERRY* *To help get Rick Perry into debates, super PAC advertises on conservative talk radio <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/to-help-get-rick-perry-into-debates-super-pac-advertises-on-conservative-talk-radio/> // WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 15, 2015 * More than many other candidates, Rick Perry's presidential chances depend on his debate performances. The former Texas governor is determined to erase memories of his disastrous turns on the debate stage in the 2012 campaign and prove that he is a worldlier and better prepared candidate this time around. Yet Perry is among eight or nine candidates who are on the bubble of qualifying for the first Republican primary debate, scheduled for Aug. 6 in Cleveland. So to boost his popularity and ensure he stays in the top 10 in national polls, Perry's sanctioned super PAC, Opportunity and Freedom PAC, has begun an aggressive, $1 million national advertising campaign on cable television, conservative talk radio and the Internet. Over the next month, the super PAC will run ads promoting Perry during the nationally syndicated radio shows of Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager and other conservative commentators, according to Austin Barbour, the super PAC's senior adviser. The super PAC currently is running a 60-second spot that highlights Perry's upbringing in rural Paint Creek and his leadership record and will soon switch it out for an ad focused on his work as governor to secure the border with Mexico, Barbour said. The ads with Salem Broadcasting are expected to reach 10 million listeners per week, Barbour said. "That's a significant radio audience throughout the country, and obviously the vast, vast majority are conservative Republican voters, whether they're in Iowa or somewhere else in the country," Barbour said. Barbour said the radio advertising was "the hidden gem" in the super PAC's advertising plan because of the built-in audience of loyal and politically active conservative listeners. Barbour would not disclose how much the super PAC is spending on radio ads other than to call it a "very deep and thorough buy." Overall, Barbour put a $1 million price tag on the super PAC's national advertising push over the next month. The group also is running ads on Fox News Channel, the most-viewed cable network, which was first reported Tuesday by The New York Times. In addition to the TV and radio buys, the super PAC has a series of micro-targeted digital videos and banner ads designed to reach Republican voters online. Barbour said that people who care about social conservative views will be met by an ad about Perry's faith and record on abortion and guns; those who care about veterans issues will see an ad about Perry's military career; and those who care about immigration will be targeted with an ad about his work to secure the border. The ads were created by Vinny Minchillo, a Texas-based ad man who worked with Barbour on Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign. The super PAC's strategy is simple: Promote Perry with conservative voters who are most likely to respond favorably about Perry if pollsters call them for surveys. Currently, Perry ranks far back in the field of 16 declared or likely Republican candidates. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls puts Perry tied for ninth place with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Fox News, which is hosting the first debate, will only allow the top 10 candidates to participate. As of today, Perry would qualify. But polling has been rather fluid and a number of factors would squeeze Perry out — such as if Ohio Gov. John Kasich makes a big splash when he announces his campaign next Tuesday. or if technology executive Carly Fiorina finds a creative way to boost her standing, or if Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) harnesses the media attention he has received over the Iran nuclear deal to climb in the standings. "It's obviously very important that Rick Perry participates in that first debate," Barbour said. "We have to do what we feel helps Governor Perry the most — and spending this money this way helps him the most." *Rick Perry’s official haul: $1.1 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-perry-fec-2015-second-quarter-fundraising-120155.html?ml=tl_6> // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 * Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign on Wednesday announced that it had raised a little more than $1 million in the second fundraising quarter of the year. Perry, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2012, launched his second attempt at White House bid, a long-shot effort, in June. He spent about half of the money he took in this quarter, with much of that going to a firm that appears linked to Perry’s campaign manager, Jeff Miller. The firm, Abstract Communications, LLC, doesn’t have to further disclose its spending, and so could make strategic spending choices on campaign expenditures without the knowledge of other campaigns. Below is a breakout of his campaign’s finances for the second quarter of the year. Total raised: $1,139,366.89 Total spent: $597,542.44 Total cash on hand: $883,913.12 Total debt: $0 The bulk of Perry’s intake comes from donors who gave more than $200. Only about 8 percent of his individual donors would count as “small dollar” donors, contributing $200 or less. *Perry dismisses Trump on border policy <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/rick-perry-border-donald-trump/index.html> // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015 * Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he was the only presidential candidate with the relevant experience to secure the border, casting his Republican rivals as talkers, but not doers. "We know how to secure the border, and rhetoric's not going to do it," Perry, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the second time, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." Perry also said the plan submitted by Donald Trump -- also a 2016 Republican presidential candidate -- who is calling for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is impractical. "A wall without personnel there means nothing," he said. Perry has looked to parlay his executive experience from 14 years as governor to distinguish himself from his Republican rivals. As a border state governor, he's also highlighted his own record boosting the presence of patrolmen in the Rio Grande Valley. In recent weeks, Perry has also emerged as one of the sharpest critics of Trump's comments about undocumented immigrants from Mexico. When asked if Trump was qualified to be president, Perry declined to answer, only saying that he himself is "the most qualified." Trump was meeting in New York with Perry's fellow Texan, Sen. Ted Cruz, when speaking to Blitzer. Perry took a shot at his fellow presidential candidate when asked if he had any thoughts on the tete-a-tete. "Everybody gets to pick who they hang out with, so I have no idea whats going on," Perry said. *Rick Perry: Obama Is ‘A Very, Very Naïve Man’ <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-barack-obama_55a6df30e4b0896514d04c83?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Marina Fang – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry on Wednesday called President Barack Obama "very, very naive" for supporting the historic nuclear deal with Iran. "What I saw out of this president today, and this is of great consternation to me, it’s of great concern, I saw a very, very naive man who does not know how the world works, who cannot put the dots together, and stood in front of the American people and said, 'I really don’t care if Congress likes this or not, I’m going to do it,'" Perry told Hugh Hewitt, the conservative radio host. Perry, the former Texas governor, was commenting on Obama's press conference earlier Wednesday, in which the president vehemently defended the U.S. pact with Iran and five other world powers. Perry compared Obama's defiance of an adversarial Congress with the president's earlier efforts to pass his signature health care law. Perry and many other Republicans have continually claimed that Obamacare symbolizes what they see as the president's executive overreach. "It’s a continuation of actually what we saw, Hugh, going all the way back to Obamacare, and forcing something through," Perry said. As soon as the nuclear agreement was announced on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidates issued statements of condemnation, accusing the U.S. of ceding too much to Iran and creating the potential for more tensions in the Middle East. Perry told Hewitt that he feared the deal would strengthen rather than weaken Iran's nuclear capability. "They are celebrating today in the streets of Tehran because of this agreement," Perry said. "They know that they just got a 'get out of jail free pass' from the president of the United States." In Washington, congressional Republicans vowed to obstruct approval of the deal. On Wednesday, Obama implored them to read the details of the deal and put aside politics. "I'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about this is a bad deal," Obama said to reporters. "What I haven’t heard is, what is your preferred alternative?" "My hope is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts -- not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact that this is a deal I bring to Congress as opposed to a Republican president, not based on lobbying, but based on what’s in the national interest of the United States of America." *GRAHAM* *Lindsey Graham’s official haul: $3.7 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/lindsey-graham-fec-haul-120198.html?ml=tl_8> // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 * South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s presidential campaign will report Wednesday night that it raised $3.7 million during the second quarter of the year, his first as a 2016 candidate. Graham, who announced for president at the beginning of June, is a long-shot candidate, but he is generally respected within his own party as a prominent voice on national security, an issue that animates many of his donors. Below is a breakout of Graham’s presidential finances as of the end of June, according to his campaign: Total raised: $3,709,552.93 Total spent: $1,126,733.82 Total cash on hand: $2,582,819.11 Total debt: $0 *SANTORUM* *So Far, Little Reflection in His Fundraising of Rick Santorum’s 2012 Success <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/so-far-little-echo-of-rick-santorums-2012-success-in-his-fundraising/> // WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 15, 2015 * Four years ago, Rick Santorum ran a low-budget campaign for president because he was a little-known former senator trying to win the hearts of social conservatives in Iowa. Winning 11 states in the 2012 primary season hasn’t helped Mr. Santorum’s fundraising this time around. The former Pennsylvania senator, who now lives in Virginia, raised $607,617 in the quarter ending June 30 – just $25,000 more than he raised in the second quarter of 2011. Mr. Santorum’s fundraising figure places him near the bottom of the 2016 Republican presidential contenders. Only Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal raised less, and he formally launched his campaign with a week left in the second quarter. Mr. Santorum began his campaign in late May. Mr. Santorum’s financial supporters include Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt and Wyoming investment manager Foster Friess, who each gave the maximum $2,700 contribution for the primary season. Mr. Hunt gave an additional $2,700 for the general election, which Mr. Santorum cannot access unless he becomes the GOP’s presidential nominee. Mr. Friess bankrolled a super PAC backing Mr. Santorum in 2012 and is supporting him again this year. Super PAC reports aren’t due until the end of July. The Santorum campaign also reported a $1,000 contribution from Mr. Santorum’s mother, Catherine Santorum of St. Augustine, Fla. Mr. Santorum himself did not make a contribution or loan to the campaign. Mr. Santorum’s campaign reported $232,018 cash on hand. *Rick Santorum’s official haul: $607,000 <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-santorums-official-haul-607000-120170.html?ml=tl_6> // Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015 * Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised about $607,000 during the second quarter of this year. But Santorum had already burned through more than 60 percent of that haul, giving him only $232,000 in cash on hand as of June 30. Santorum, a social conservative who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, who is currently polling just outside the top 10 candidates, making it uncertain whether or not he will be on stage during the first GOP debate in Cleveland on Aug. 6. He announced his candidacy May 27, giving his campaign a little more than a month to raise funds before the June 30 deadline. He pulled an average of about $17,360 per day. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $607,617.07 Total spent: $375,598.81 Total cash on hand: $232,018.26 Total debt: $124,638.55 *Rick Santorum Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Just As Racist As The Confederate Flag <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-planned-parenthood_55a693b0e4b0896514d00067?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Matt Ramos – July 15, 2015 * Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Tuesday equated his fight against Planned Parenthood with recent efforts to remove Confederate symbols from public buildings. "You want to go back and take down the Confederate flag? Let’s take down Planned Parenthood," Santorum said in an interview with Simon Conway, an Iowa-based talk radio host. The 2016 hopeful appeared on the "Simon Conway Show" to discuss his presidential campaign. The conversation changed tone when Conway voiced his disgust with a recently released sting video allegedly showing Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood, discussing the sale of fetal abortion tissue. The mention of the video led Santorum to go off on a tangent about Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, whom conservatives often portray as a racist. “If you want to scrub all racism from America," Santorum said, "let’s start with Planned Parenthood because it was started by a racist named Margaret Sanger, who was a eugenist, who was someone that believed in the separation of the races, someone that started Planned Parenthood for the purpose of culling out the undesirables, including blacks in America." While it's true that Sanger wrote about eugenics, the claim that she "started Planned Parenthood for the purpose of culling out the undesirables” has been proven largely false. An examination of her papers indicates she used the word "race" to refer to the human race more generally. Sanger did not suggest that certain races were inferior; in fact, her work earned the support of civil rights activists from multiple eras, including W.E.B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King Jr. Santorum railed against Planned Parenthood in his interview on Tuesday, echoing the widely debunked claims from the video. “Planned Parenthood has continued to do disgusting things, from killing little children in the womb, to now selling their body parts and harvesting them,” he said. The video that went viral on Tuesday is an edited version of footage that was recorded almost a year ago. The full version makes it clear that the director was discussing the reimbursement cost for tissue donation. After the edited video was released, Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood, was quick to point out that tissue donation is done under the highest ethical and legal standards and that donors do not profit. That didn’t stop Santorum from calling for government action against Planned Parenthood. “If local prosecutors are not going to do anything about it, then clearly the state legislature and the Congress can try to hold hearings and force public pressure about the case,” he said Wednesday. Santorum’s wish may now become a reality, as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced Wednesday that Congress will look into investigating Planned Parenthood. While Santorum was quick to bring up federal action with regard to Planned Parenthood, he's been cautious about taking an equivalent stance on the Confederate flag issue. Last month, he told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the decision about removing the flag should be left to individual states. "I don't think the federal government or federal candidates should be making decisions on everything and opining on everything,” he said. As a staunch social conservative, Santorum frequently attacks pro-choice organizations, and has specifically targeted Planned Parenthood. In 2012, the Sunlight Foundation found that Santorum said the word “abortion” more than any other senator between 1996 and 2007. *HUCKABEE* *Mike Huckabee’s official haul: $2 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/mike-huckabees-official-haul-2-million-120173.html?ml=tl_2> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 * Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised about $2 million during the second quarter. But the 2008 Iowa caucus winner had already spent more than $1.1 million of that total in the quarter, leaving him with less than $900,000 on hand as he tries to ensure his spot in the first presidential debate in Cleveland on Aug. 6. The former Arkansas governor also owes more than $11,000 in debts. Huckabee received just over $580,000 in contributions of less than $200 or less — about 29 percent of his total haul. He announced his candidacy on May 5. Earlier this week, a senior Huckabee adviser said super PACs supporting the former governor raised $6 million so far, giving him an $8 million total that puts him well behind many of the top Republicans and behind some long-shot candidates such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Total raised: $2,004,360.63 Total spent: $1,118,991.72 Total cash on hand: $885,471.01 Total debt: $11,334.25 *Mike Huckabee Calls Children Of Gay Parents “Little Guinea Pigs” In His 2011 Book <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mike-huckabee-calls-children-of-gay-parents-little-guinea-pi#.gr7qlkOED> // BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called the children of gay parents “little guinea pigs” in his 2011 book, A Simple Government. Huckabee used the phrase in his chapter on gay parents titled, “Gay Parenthood: A Social Experiment.” “Still, I believe that we’re in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families,” writes Huckabee. “Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood.” Here’s the full section: I have often been criticized for my outspoken views on gay marriage and homosexuality, so let me be clear. I have no doubt at all that homosexual men and women love their children deeply. Just as deeply as heterosexuals love theirs. But love alone cannot always provide what children need. If that sounds harsh, bear with me for a moment. My main concern here is that the children, most of whom are heterosexual, will not, and really cannot, get critical early-life lessons in how a heterosexual family functions successfully. In general, men and women bring different outlooks and temperaments to the task of parenting. Those male/female dynamics that make themselves evident in parenting—including even the conflicts and inconsistencies that are likely to arise—teach a child about how men and women relate to each other. In the home with two gay parents, where is that learning going to come from? It’s already challenging enough to grow up, even when the parents are more conventional role models. Of course, I’m certainly not saying that all heterosexual parents provide, or are even able to provide, a good example to their children. I know that very well from years of conversations in my pastoral study, if not from just walking through a mall. Still, I believe that we’re in denial about potential problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families. Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood. *CARSON* *Ben Carson’s official haul: $8.5 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ben-carsons-official-haul-85-million-120193.html?ml=tl_21> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 * Ben Carson’s presidential campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised about $8.5 million during the second quarter, bringing his grand total since he started exploring a run to just over $10.6 million. He did it largely with the backing of small-dollar contributors. The retired neurosurgeon — who launched an exploratory committee in March and announced his candidacy in early May — raised nearly $5.7 million from donors contributing $200 or less, which amounts to 67 percent of his quarterly haul. That figure is significantly higher than the other Republicans that have filed their Federal Election Commission reports so far. Liberal insurgent Bernie Sanders, who has focused almost exclusively on small-dollar donations and grassroots organizing, raised 76 percent of his total dollars from donations of $200 or less. Still, Carson’s campaign had spent more than $5.4 million this quarter — roughly tied with Sen. Ted Cruz for the largest amount of any reported candidate to date and more than $2 million more than former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who outraised Carson. The filing reveals that Carson has spent a large amount on fundraising expenses and less crucial ones — large salaries for the staffers on his payroll and, for example, more than $60,000 to private-jet company Starbase Jets for travel and more than $60,000 for musical entertainment. He has more than $4.7 million on hand and still has not repaid a $25,000 loan he made to his campaign. The strong total is another sign that Carson — who has never held elected office and whose campaign has gone through some early turmoil — is resonating with grassroots voters. He currently sits fifth in national polling according to the Real Clear Politics average — ahead of Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee — and does well at conservative gatherings. In May, he won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll. And he has outperformed other conservatives such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and the past two Iowa caucus winners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, with his fundraising totals. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $8,469,048.33 Total spent: $5,416,772.63 Total cash on hand: $4,745,312.13 *FIORINA* *Why Aren’t More Women’s Groups Fighting to Get Carly Fiorina Into the GOP Debate? <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/why-aren-t-more-women-s-groups-fighting-to-get-carly-fiorina-into-the-gop-debate-?cmpid=yhoo> // Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 16, 2015* Yes, the presidential election is more than a year out, but how quickly now do we approach the first winnowing. On Aug. 6, 10 Republican candidates will take the stage in Cleveland for the first primary debate of the 2016 election cycle. Fox News, which is hosting the debate with Facebook, says it will determine which 10 candidates will participate based on an average of five as-yet-unspecified national polls. There is a top tier of candidates we can safely say will be there: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, for instance, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. But below the handful of front-runners, as Bloomberg's Steven Yaccino wrote last week, many microphones are up for grabs. Single percentage points may decide the fates of contenders such as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former New York Governor George Pataki, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Fiorina is the only woman in the jam-packed GOP presidential field. She has worked at every step of the process to situate herself in direct opposition to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee and the woman treated practically like a presidential incumbent. Fiorina has found that she can talk to (and about) Clinton as no other Republican can. And yet she may not pass the threshold to get onto the debate stage—which would make the event “all men in dark suits,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Imperfect optics, for a party trying to show how inclusive it is. “What purpose does a quota serve in a general election?” Ann Stone Yet little strategizing seems to be taking place that would help ensure a woman’s place under the debate-stage lights: a gender-blind approach or an aperture in Republican strategy, depending on where you’re standing. “Everybody’s taking a very hands-off approach,” said Ann Stone, a longtime GOP political operative and founder of Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion rights political action committee. “The Republican Party prides itself on not siding with people for their gender, their race, etcetera—not siloing people.” Stone said. “Anything that smacks of quotas, no matter how strongly people feel, we want people to be on the stage for their own merit.” “What purpose does a quota serve in a general election?” she said. “They need to be able to generate their own support.” Read more about the wide Republican field angling for the 10 available spots in the upcoming debates. Party infrastructure On the Democratic side, women’s groups have become a large and increasingly powerful voice. EMILY's List, a political group committed to electing female Democrats who support abortion rights, has five times as many members today (3 million) as it did in 2008 and twice as many donors, according to the New York Times. The Republican landscape is somewhat more scattered. Terri Hauser, political director of the National Federation of Republican Women—a group that was founded in 1938 and boasts a headshot of Fiorina on its homepage—declined to comment, as did spokespeople for Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, Iowa's first female Senate or House member, and Representative Mimi Walters, the sole female Republican member of Congress in California, the state where Fiorina ran for Senate in 2010. Maggie’s List, a political action committee that works to elect fiscally conservative women to Congress, did not respond to e-mails. “One of the reasons that there aren't more elected women on the Republican side is that there hasn't been a strong infrastructure pushing Republican women forward,” Walsh said. “That infrastructure exists on the Democratic side and that has made a difference.” EMILY's List press secretary Rachel Thomas sees a deeper problem. “The Republican Party can try to appeal to women voters all they want,” she said, “but as long as they prioritize policies that hurt women and families—such as restricting women’s access to health care, refusing to support raising the minimum wage, and failing to advocate for stronger equal pay laws—they will continue to have this problem.” Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a former Republican senator from Texas, emphasized her party's commitment to women politicians, even as she acknowledged it takes a different tack than the Democrats. Fiorina’s base “is the same as the Republican base,” Hutchinson said. “I think that our women candidates have been very supported by the party. Recruitment of candidates has been very focused on getting women. And when there are strong women the party apparatus is very supportive. That’s the way we have worked, and that’s how we have increased our numbers. And we have been very supportive of new women that have emerged and encourage them to run.” She added, “I’d say we do it in a different way from EMILY’s List.” Fiorina's optimism Campaign spokeswoman Anna Epstein elided the possibility that Fiorina might not make it to the top 10. “Carly is confident she'll make the cut for the first debate in August,” Epstein said by e-mail. “She is continuing to work hard to meet this goal and introduce herself to voters, whether it's through meeting with Americans across the country or taking numerous questions from the media.” Epstein did not respond to questions about advocacy from other groups. Katie Hughes, a spokeswoman for pro-Fiorina super-PAC CARLY for America, spoke energetically of her group's work to gain endorsements and help elect Fiorina. But she would not specify gender as a superlative reason for considering, or boosting, Fiorina. “Yes, she is a female so that does differentiate her,” Hughes said, “but she is a Washington outsider, she’s a cancer survivor who lost a child—she has a wide range of experiences in her life to draw from that differentiate her in the field.” 'Let Carly debate' Mallory Quigley, the communications director for Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works to elect anti-abortion women, pointed to a recent op-ed by Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, and Frank Cannon, the head of the American Principles Project, in which they called limiting the number of participating candidates “undoubtedly a mistake.” They wrote, “It’s true that the large number of candidates presents some challenges, but voters are ill served by debates that include, for example, a national celebrity such as Donald Trump but exclude Carly Fiorina or Lindsey Graham or Rick Santorum.” Nothing further. Only one group I encountered seemed to be working actively to promote Fiorina as a woman: Smart Girl Politics, which was founded in 2008 by Teri Christoph and Staci Mott, “two stay-at-home moms turned activists” who, according to their website, were “disgusted by the poor treatment of Sarah Palin and other conservative women in the public arena.” Smart Girl Politics launched a petition called “Tell Fox News: Let Carly Debate” that found fault with the eligibility criteria. It reads: Since poll numbers are notoriously flawed—just ask President Mitt Romney—this is an imprecise way to measure a candidate’s performance on the campaign trail. Carly Fiorina has been impressing audiences (and the media!) on the campaign trail with her forthright manner and passionate approach to campaigning. She is hitting out—and outsmarting—presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton in a truly impressive manner. She is in a unique position to set the narrative as we head into primary season … and beyond. Carly Fiorina’s voice needs to be heard. Were the debate to be held today, Carly might not be allowed to participate. And because the GOP field is so crowded, and getting more crowded every day it seems, good candidates like Carly might not have a spot on the debate stage. Christoph said she put forward this position chiefly because Fiorina, “being the only Republican female in the race, would add a diversity of thought and experience to the debate stage.” “We're not advocating for her merely because she's a woman,” she said, then added, “Let's face it, as a woman she can talk to certain issues—and certain candidates—in a way that a man simply cannot.” The petition, which they hope to personally deliver to Fox News, has a couple hundred signatures to date, Christoph said. That’s not many, and it's no match for money Fiorina or her supporters could use to buy television ads that might nudge her national poll numbers upward. Stone acknowledged a tension between her desire to have a female candidate and her party's hesitance to treat women in politics as special, for fear of behavior that might resemble affirmative action. “The male leadership in the party isn’t sexist,” she stressed. She offered an analogy by way of illustration. “They’re so gender-blind they’re like the nerds at the party standing in the corner with pocket calculator, they don’t know how to ask the girls how to dance. That’s how the men in the party are, they don’t know how to engage. That’s why they try to bring women in the party to try to reach out to women.” (Relative to these “kind of clueless” Republicans, Stone compared Democratic men to “the cool guys who can talk women into anything, if you catch my drift.”) For its part, the Republican National Committee, which sanctioned the debate calendar, says it supports the thresholds set by Fox and CNN, which will hold the second debate on Sept. 16 and similarly use polling to help narrow the stage to 10 candidates. (Both networks will host forums for lower-polling contenders as well.) “While by law the networks set the criteria, we are very proud that both CNN and FOX will be holding the most inclusive debates in the history of either party,” RNC spokeswoman Allison Moore said. *Carly Fiorina’s official haul: $1.7 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/carly-fiorinas-official-haul-17-million-120194.html?ml=tl_18> // Politico // Hadas Gold – July 15, 2015 * Carly Fiorina’s campaign raised $1.7 million in the second fundraising quarter of the year. Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard executive and the only woman currently in the Republican primary, reported that her campaign spent just over $714,000, and has just over $990,000 cash on hand. Around 43 percent of Fiorina’s contributions, $728,423, came from small donations of $200 or less. Robert Mercer, the New York hedge fund manager and his wife Diana, both donated to Fiorina’s campaign. Mercer also provided the lion’s share of the $37 million raised by the super PACs supporting Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign. Below is a breakout of Fiorina’s campaign’s finances for the second quarter of the year: Total raised: $1,704,703.74 Total spent: $714,044.94 Total cash on hand: $990,658.80 Total debt: $0 *JINDAL* *Bobby Jindal, a Late Entry, Reports Campaign-Finance Fillings <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 * Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor who is running for president, raised about $579,000 in the week since he entered the race, he reported in campaign-finance filings on Wednesday. The amount is smaller than many other Republican candidates in the primary field. But it comprises only a week from June 24 through June 30, the last seven days of the filing quarter. Mr. Jindal was one of the last entrants to the race. Struggling to overcome low polling, Mr. Jindal nonetheless is being bolstered by outside groups, including a “super PAC” and a nonprofit organization, which are reported to have raised about $8 million in the last six months. *Jindal, allies report $9 million take for presidential bid <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d9aa868eb42a4b5b9550961e2adbfe2b/bobby-jindal-reports-raising-597k-presidential-race> // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican presidential candidate, has raised about $579,000 for his campaign, while his outside allies say they've collected $8.7 million more to help spread his message. Jindal announced his candidacy June 24 and raised most of his campaign money in about a week. Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission show he is drawing most of his contributions from a base of supporters in Louisiana and spent about $65,000 by the end of June. Like each of the 17 expected GOP presidential contenders, Jindal also benefits from outside allies. There's a super PAC, a nonprofit policy shop and a third fundraising group — each of which can accept checks of any size from donors. That trio raised a collective $8.7 million, said Brad Todd, a senior strategist to the super PAC, Believe Again. Almost half of the total can't be confirmed because it went to America Next, a nonprofit that keeps its donors secret and doesn't have to disclose any fundraising information to federal regulators until next year. Most presidential candidates must file their initial fundraising reports with the FEC by midnight Wednesday. *Bobby Jindal’s official haul: $579,000 <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jindals-official-haul-under-579000-120141.html?ml=tl_2> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 * Louisiana. Gov Bobby Jindal’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised just under $579,000 during the second quarter of this year. Jindal, a long-shot candidate currently polling outside the top ten candidates in the field, announced his candidacy June 24, meaning that his campaign launched seven days before the June 30 deadline. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June. Total raised: $578,759.51 Total spent: $65,043.87 Total cash on hand: $ 513,714.64 Total debt: $0 Jindal’s total fell short of what several GOP candidates — including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — raised in their first 24 hours. Just over 10 percent of Jindal’s contributions were for $200 or less. Notable donors include CenturyLink CEO Glen Post and Louisiana state Rep. Gordon Dove, who both gave the maximum contribution of $2,700. *TRUMP* *Donald Trump Claims His Wealth Exceeds ‘TEN BILLION DOLLARS’ <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/> // NYT // Gerry Mullany – July 15, 2015 * Donald J. Trump’s wealth is rising with his polling numbers, if his characterization of his own net worth is to be believed. Mr. Trump issued a statement Wednesday saying that his net worth was now in excess of $10 billion, more than the $8.7 billion he said he was worth when he announced his presidential candidacy a month ago. The statement noted that Mr. Trump had filed his financial disclosure report with the Federal Election Commission, a requirement of presidential candidates, and the commission confirmed his filing. The Trump statement was full of the bombast often associated with Mr. Trump, including an all-capitalization declaration of his wealth: “Mr. Trump’s net worth has increased since the more than one year old financial statement produced at his presidential announcement. Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other places where he owns property have gone up considerably during this period of time. His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump‟s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” But Mr. Trump’s characterizations of his wealth have drawn skepticism in many quarters, partly fueled by his own statements. “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings — even my own feelings — but I try,” he once said. Mr. Trump continues to do well in polls of the Republican field, with a nationwide survey released Tuesday putting him in a statistical tie for the lead with former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida. Mr. Trump declared that he had an income of $362 million in 2014, not including dividends, interest, capital gains, rent and royalties. And he said that he had made $213 million during his 14 seasons hosting NBC’s “The Apprentice.” NBC recently ended its relationship with Mr. Trump after remarks he made during his presidential announcement speech in which he referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and “murderers.” In filing his financial disclosure, Mr. Trump apparently followed through on a pledge that he made on June 16 when he announced his campaign, saying he would be making the submission without requesting extensions. “We don’t need extensions,” he said at the time. During his speech announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump waved a document that he said was a report on his finances, prepared by a large, respected accounting firm, reporting the $8.7 billion figure as his net worth. (He noted then that an updated accounting would probably show his net worth higher than $10 billion.) He said that figuring out his finances was complicated. “My accountants have been working for months, because it is big and complex,” he added. Of his money, he said much was earning through real estate. “I made it the old-fashioned way,” Mr. Trump said. The Trump campaign included in its news release a summary of stock transactions dating to January 2014, trumpeting Mr. Trump’s prowess as a stock-picker. The records showed that Mr. Trump had gains from sales of numerous stocks, including making $6.7 million on Bank of America and $3.9 million on Boeing Co. Mr. Trump’s current investment portfolio, according to his campaign, including investments in a series of hedge funds, including some managed by John Paulson. The Trump campaign did not release on Wednesday the actual disclosure that it said was filed with the Federal Elections Commission. A spokesman for the F.E.C. could not immediately confirm that Mr. Trump had filed a disclosure. The F.E.C. has up to 30 days to make such a disclosure public. *So, Donald Trump looks like he’s serious about running for president <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/is-donald-trump-really-actually-running-for-president-heres-how-well-know-for-sure/> // WaPo // Amber Philips – July 15, 2015 * Update: Trump is making progress toward becoming an official, legitimate presidential candidate, so much so that we pretty much had to rewrite this whole story since posting it after his June 16 announcement. We honestly thought Donald Trump running for president was going to be kind of like that kid in high school who says his girlfriend lives in Canada and can't make it to the prom but shows you a picture of his girlfriend in front of a maple leaf flag to prove she's real (and Canadian). So we made a list of official candidacy-things Trump would have to do to prove to us he was serious -- like disclose the details of his finances -- with the make-or-break dates of when he'd have to get it done by. And sure enough, one by one, he dutifully checked off four of the five things on the list, all on time. Wednesday marked the biggest news of all: Trump actually shared with us his personal finances. Maybe Trump's fake-Canadian girlfriend is real after all? We're not quite sure. Trump assures our own Robert Costa and Philip Rucker that his girlfriend is indeed real ... er, that he's in it for the long haul. So back in June, we thought we'd help him. Here, Mr. Future President Trump, is exactly what you had to do to prove you're serious. 1. Spend $5,000 on your candidacy Once you do this, according to the Federal Election Commission, the law considers you a candidate. You can also receive $5,000 for your campaign to become a candidate. Mr. Trump, we know you said you'll finance your own own election -- "I'm rich," you reminded us when you announced -- and we're pretty sure your elaborate announcement at New York's Trump Tower where you rode down an escalator to wave to tourists you lured from the streets to cheer you on and rambled for 1,700 words in front of America-blue TRUMP signs cost more than $5,000. So, Mr. Trump, you have probably already passed this threshold. Well done. Make or break date for Trump: Done. The start of your candidacy was June 16, FYI. 2. Fill out a form As The Fix's own Philip Bump noted, the next step to running for president is to simply fill out a form with the FEC. There are 396 people who have filled out the FEC Presidential 2016 Form. Mr. Trump, you played by the rules here, too. You had 15 days from his announcement to file your statement of candidacy, which your did on June 20 -- ten days ahead of schedule. Make or break date for Trump: June 30. Done. 3. Make a Trump for President committee Within 10 days of filing your presidential form, you need to put together a campaign committee and announce its organization to the FEC. We see you've done that as well, Mr. Trump. Make or break date for Trump: July 10. Done. 4. Share your finances We must admit, this is the one we thought you'd never really do, Mr. Trump. A lot of other people tried to call your bluff, too: As you started surging in the polls, Fox News decided to limit its Aug. 6 debate to the top 10 candidates who actually filed their personal finance disclosures. You had 30 days after declaring your candidacy to to file these forms -- which require you to list all your sources of incomes and all your assets and liabilities. (But lucky for you, the forms were created by members of Congress, who also have to file them, so they're pretty vague. You can list your assets and liabilities in ridiculously broad ranges, like from $500,000-$1 million. ) We really thought you'd just say "I'm rich" or announce to the media you have $9 billion in assets which, as Bump notes, is far from having $9 billion in actual cash you can spend willy nilly to become president, and just call it a day. But on Wednesday, July 15th, you released those. "This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," your staff said. And they're kind of right: Anything worth $50 million or more simply gets listed as $50 million+, Bump notes. So you told us you're worth $10 billion, much of that in intentionally vague real estate. And that's all we'll know for now. Make or break date for Trump: July 22. Surprisingly, done. 5. Get on the ballot in all the states This is the hardest part of running for president. The GOP field is competitive (especially since you're in it), so again, here's some free advice, Mr. Trump: You'll probably need to be on the ballot for the Republican primaries and caucuses in all 50 states if you want to win enough delegates to move on to the general election. Why is this so hard? Each state has its own set of rules for how to go about that. They're designed to make it tough for random people to run for president -- not that that's you. In California in 2012, for instance, Bump reported candidates for president had to get "either 1 percent or 500 signatures (whichever was lower) from Democrats in each of the state's 50-plus congressional districts. They had two months to do so." In 2012, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, who finished second and third in the Republican nominating contest, both nonetheless failed to qualify for the ballot in some states. Make or break date for Trump: The dates vary. Consult with a really good campaign finance lawyer. We're sure you can afford it. *Donald Trump says he’s worth $10 billion. But we still won’t really know. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-just-filed-his-financial-disclosure-but-we-still-wont-know-his-true-worth/> // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 * When he announced that he was finally, actually running for president, Donald Trump held up a sheet of paper that outlined how much he was worth. "I have assets," he said, clenching a sheet compiled by a "big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected," of "9 billion, 240 million dollars." Less $500 million in debt, his net worth was a tidy, precise $8,737,540,000 (if you don't mind his accepting his contention that his "brand" and licensing was worth a third of that total). That was on June 16. On Wednesday, less than a month later, he issued a press release stating that he'd filed a more detailed list with the Federal Election Commission. His net worth now, after being dropped by sponsors and battered in the press? $10 billion. No, there's not a billion dollars in fast money to be found in anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump claims that the difference stems from the real-estate valuations that he used in June being a year out-of-date. Then, the big accounting firm pegged the value of the properties he owned at about $4.3 billion. Since then, it's apparently jumped a billion dollars in value. (Which, to be fair, he vaguely alluded to in his speech.) The line in Trump's release that has garnered the most -- completely justified -- snickering is the declaration that the FEC's report detailing income and assets "was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump‟s massive wealth." Un-humblebrag though it is, it is also demonstrably true. And that's why Trump's team was very careful to note that the new $10 billion figure comes from real estate. Because the vagueness of the form means that most of Trump's value will remain out of sight. Here's Mitt Romney's disclosure from 2011, via the Center for Responsive Politics. (Trump's actual disclosure isn't yet available online.) Notice the highlighted categories for valuations. Anything worth $50 million or more simply gets flagged as "over $50 million." So if a building is worth, as Trump's press release suggested, $1.5 billion, it's listed as "over $50 million." Notice that this always works in the other direction. If Trump's investment in a building is not worth $1.5 billion, but is instead worth, say, $50,000,001, it goes in the same category. Once the full form is released, Trump wants us to assume that he's worth far more than the sums displayed. One might as generously assume that he's not. In light of his assertions about real estate, all of the other details he released today -- Trump getting $213 million from NBC for 14 seasons of "The Apprentice," and his $27 million in stock deals -- are peanuts. One not assumed to view his assertions generously might consider them a bit of hand-waving, a look-at-these-big-numbers move meant to be the focus of attention. The FEC form was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's willingness to assert massive wealth. He could eliminate any questions by releasing details of the precise valuations of his property using some other mechanism. But for Trump, that "over $50 million" loophole probably feels more than comfortable enough. *Individuals give money to billionaire Trump and more from his FEC report <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/individuals-give-money-to-billionaire-trump-and-more-from-his-fec-report/> // WaPo // Colby Itkowitz and Rosalind S. Helderman – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump has filed his first presidential campaign filing. He's raised $1.9 million since entering the race in mid-June, of which $1.8 million was a loan from himself. He burned through most of his money, spending $1.4 million or 74 percent, leaving his campaign with $487,736 on hand. He also gifted his campaign $4,049. The loaned amount he could hypothetically get back. In his campaign announcement speech, Trump had declared he wasn't "using donors." Still, around 60 individual donors (who include a spice importer and a self-employed artist) from all over the country gave the billionaire's campaign $53,075, including nine who gave the maximum $2,700 contribution. We reached one of those top Trump supporters, Jim Shore, a figurine artist from York, South Carolina. Shore, who already gave Trump the maxed $5,400 - half for the primary and half for the general - acknowledged that Trump, who claimed Wednesday that he is worth $10 billion, is a wealthy man who might not need his money. Still, he noted that running for president is expensive--Hillary Clinton, he said, is wealthy but will fundraise for her campaign. Plus, being a contributor is more likely to give him a voice in the campaign, he reasoned. "I figured early on that I’m going to contribute support to the one that I want to win. It didn’t matter how they’re otherwise funding their campaign," he said. "If at some point I want to make a suggestion or have someone’s ear, it helps if you're participating contributor." Shore, 65, said he decided to donate to Trump after carefully researching the candidates and determining Trump's business background would make him a good president. He has followed Trump's careers, through his ups and downs, and has admired his ability to bounce back from past missteps. "I admire anybody who has faced adversity and has overcome it," he said. Regarding the controversy around Trump's remarks about illegal immigration, Shore said they'd been misinterpreted and that Trump was right that illegal immigration was a problem. "The perception was 'oh he’s anti immigrant, he’s a xenophobe, he hates immigrants'," he said. "The truth of the matter is that he is probably the only who’s standing up and saying something that protects our immigrant community." Other fun snapshots from Trump's FEC report: Trump's Iowa campaign manager, veteran GOP activist Chuck Laudner, was paid $11,605 since April. There had been rumors that he was paid as much as $30,000 a month, but Trump insisted he was paying the going rate. Meanwhile, his New Hampshire state director, Matthew Ciepielowski earned more than $33,680 in that time and Iowa advisor Chris Hupke earned $20,000. Big Mac or Fish Filet? Trump's campaign spent $457.72 at McDonalds. More than $66,645 went to Trump-related business entities, mostly for rent and hotel stays at his properties. Two days before Macy's cut off its business relationship with Trump because of his incendiary remarks about Mexicans, his campaign spent $94.85 in "event supplies" at the department store. He spent $506,486 on Tag Air, Inc., a private aviation company. *Donald Trump claims he’s wroth more than $10 billion <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-hes-worth-more-than-10-billion/2015/07/15/1c0ad262-2b29-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html> // WaPo // Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger – July 15, 2015 * Celebrity mogul Donald Trump says his net worth now exceeds $10 billion, a figure more than $1 billion higher than he estimated when he announced his presidential candidacy last month. Trump campaign officials said his wealth includes $362 million earned in 2014 alone and they estimated that he earned more than $213 million from NBC for his involvement with 14 seasons of “The Apprentice” television show. The disclosures came as his campaign said he had filed his legally required personal financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission, defying expectations from many who said Trump’s campaign was a vanity project and he would resist legal requirements to detail his wealth. However, his campaign did not immediately release a copy of the disclosure form. The FEC has up to 30 days to review the form before releasing it publicly. According to the campaign, the disclosure shows that Trump is involved with 500 different business entities and is sole owner of 91 percent of them. Just a few weeks ago, Trump estimated his net worth at $8.7 billion. But, his campaign indicated his net worth has increased since those financial documents were prepared a year ago. They also complained that the presidential disclosure form, which requires candidates to disclose assets, income and liabilities in broad ranges, is “not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth.” “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more,” the campaign said in a statement. “Many of these boxes have been checked.” The millions Trump indicated he has earned from NBC provides some measure of the potential cost to him of his recent controversial remarks on the Republican presidential trail about immigrants. The network announced earlier this month that it was “ending its business relationship” with Trump over his comments that many Mexican immigrant who come to the United State are criminals and rapists. In his statement Wednesday, Trump offered another view on the ending of his NBC work. The statement said that “Mr. Trump decided to turn them down in order to run for President of the United States.” Trump has long been dogged by private sector complaints that he overstates his wealth, as part of his larger-than-life celebrity persona as a successful developer and entrepreneur. One reason longtime Trump watchers had doubted he would ultimately submit the form is it requires swearing to the accuracy of its contents. Financial disclosure reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission “should show the full range of assets in which he has ownership,” said Karl Sandstrom, a former FEC commissioner who is part of the campaign law practice at the Perkins Coie law firm in Washington. Sandstrom is accustomed to warning clients about the serious criminal penalties that can result from knowingly filing a false report with the federal government. “Whether through commission or omission,” a false disclosure subjects filers to serious federal penalties, he said. A federal statute governing “destruction, alteration or falsification” of records would subject filers to fines and prison for up to five years. Separately, the Sarbanes-Oxley financial reform legislation makes it a criminal offense to file false financial information with the federal government. Trump has tangled in the past with analysts who have indicated he is worth less than he claims. In 2006, he sued New York Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien for asserting in a book on the mogul that several people close to Trump had estimated his worth as somewhere between $150 million to $250 million. The suit was dismissed in 2009. In 2011, he threatened to sue MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell after the O’Donnell insisted Trump was worth less than $1 billion. He never actually filed suit, prompting O’Donnell to respond that Trump’s true secret was that he could not afford to sue him. In a statement, Trump acknowledged the doubters, noting he had filed the form within 30 days of announcing his candidacy, without even taking advantage of extensions allowed under law. “I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country.” *Donald Trump claims ‘most people’ read his book. No one we talked to at Trump Tower has. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-claims-most-people-read-his-book-no-one-we-talked-to-at-trump-tower-has/> // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump's campaign is diverse in its complaints and unified on the one necessary solution: Everything bad in America would be fixed if only we didn't keep getting out-negotiated. In his interview with "Morning Joe"'s Mika Brzezinski on Wednesday, Trump revisited that argument in his favorite way. The deal with Iran is bad, he said, because the negotiators "didn't read 'The Art of the Deal,'" Trump's 1987 bestseller about, well, deals. "Most people did," Trump continued. "They didn't. It's a ridiculous deal." "Most people" read it he says, in the vague/impressive/vaguely impressive way that we've all grown accustomed to with Trump. In the past, he's implied that "The Art of the Deal" is the best-selling business book of all time, which Politifact rated "false." Data from Nielsen BookScan puts the two paperback versions of the books at 168,000 in sales since 2001, when the data-tracking began. In that same time period, the 1936 book "How to Win Friends & Influence People" has sold over two million copies. I figured there was another way to measure whether or not "most people" had read the book. I headed to Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan and asked people there whether or not they'd cracked its spine. I asked 15 people: businesspeople, tourists, people who worked in the building. Of the 15, precisely none had ever read it. Like most residents of New York City, I'd never been inside Trump Tower. Having watched the campaign announcement, the space beside the escalator that Trump descended at the bottom of the building's atrium seemed surprisingly small. Normally, on days like today, there's a restaurant down there. One level up, at street level, you find elevator banks and a little pop-up "Trump Store," selling a variety of Trump-branded merchandise. They have "The Art of the Deal," which sells for $19.95. They also have Trump: Make America Great Again campaign t-shirts -- $15 -- which seems like it probably crosses some campaign finance line. When I arrived, the cheerful woman tending the shop was folding the shirts; while I was there, I didn't see any sales. Chris, from Wyoming, hadn't read Trump's book, but still liked him as a candidate. "Out of all the choices, I actually am for Donald Trump," Chris said. "His views on immigration are similar to mine, and it's nice to see someone who doesn't back down. He stands for what he wants and doesn't sway back and forth." Stanca, sitting up on the second level near the Starbucks, agreed on Trump's immigration position but was a bit more skeptical on the candidate. "I don't know if I should take it seriously," he said. A few yards away, Rodi from New Jersey was a bit more enthusiastic. "We've had two Bushes, the last one for eight years. Why not Trump?" she said. "He cannot be worse than Bush." (Neither had read the book.) Larry Mortimer, in from Connecticut on business, hadn't read the book either -- but he did have a quick story about it. His father-in-law had written a business book called "Swim with the Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive" which came out shortly after Trump's. When Mortimer subsequently ran into Trump, he pointed out that "Sharks" was (at the time) outselling "Deal." Trump's response? "I know him! I want him to market my book!" That was it on supporters (and semi-supporters). (Though two people who worked in the building offered "no comment"s when asked about the candidacy.) Some of the detractors were generous in their assessments. Charlie (hadn't read it) said that Trump seemed like a "very intelligent person, but not as refined as someone would expect from someone of his caliber." One man who didn't want to be named ("it's a small town"; Editor's note: No, it's not) declared that Trump seemed like an "extraordinary businessman and entertainer." When he trailed off, I commented on his decision not to add any other titles. "Dot-dot-dot," he added with a grin. Some of the detractors, however, were not generous. The first group of people I met, right by the Trump store, were tourists in from Idaho, Nebraska and Hawaii. None had read Trump's book. Brian, the one from Hawaii, added, "Nor do I plan on it." "He's playing games," Brian said. "He's a buffoon. Why's he even bothering?" The others with him nodded. "And that's coming from three Republicans." I asked why the three were at Trump Tower in the first place. "Because our wives are enamored with the building," Brian said. He wasn't happy about it, and showed me a text he'd just sent to his spouse. It's easy to pinpoint what went wrong for Brian. When debating with his wife about where they should spend the day, he got out-negotiated. The irony of Brian having a book so close by that could have taught him how not to have had to visit Trump Tower at all appears to have been lost on him. *Donald Trump, middle finger of the Republican base <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-middle-finger-of-the-republican-base/> // WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 15, 2015 * When I left two weeks ago for vacation, Donald Trump was everywhere. I assumed by the time that I got back, he would be nowhere — or at the very least, that the massive amount of attention he was drawing to his presidential candidacy would have receded significantly. Boy, was I wrong. On Tuesday, USA Today and Suffolk University released a new national poll that put Trump at 17 percent and (gulp) at the front of the 2016 GOP field. New numbers from The Washington Post/ABC News out this morning show that almost six in ten Republicans have a favorable view of Trump — an unbelievable turnaround from a May poll by WaPo/ABC that had Trump's unfavorables at 65 percent. I have never seen such a reversal in poll numbers in such a short period of time. Never. There are, obviously, a few possible answers to that question. Trump would say he is tapping into what the American people really want: a brashness and boldness that makes us (America) the good guys and everybody else the bad guys. He tells it like it is and people respond. That the political establishment and media are so surprised at his rapid rise speaks only to how out of touch those groups really are. Then there's the explanation that in a very crowded field, name ID matters hugely — and that's something Trump has no shortage of. Philip Bump made that case here — and it's a compelling one. I think there may be a psychological element to add to the technical explanation offered by Philip. Put simply: I do think Trump's name ID plays a role in what's happening in polls, but I don't think that's all that's at work. Everyone knew Trump's name a month ago but he wasn't at or near the top of the polls then. So what's happened? What's led to such a stunning reversal in how he's perceived among Republican voters? And what makes someone (or 17 percent of someones) say, "Yes, I think Donald Trump is the best Republican candidate for president"? Here's my working theory: Trump's rise has very little to do with "Donald Trump" and very much to do with what Trump represents at the moment to voters. What is that? Someone who doesn't sound or, frankly, look like other politicians. Trump's willingness to say impolitic things (Mexican/rapists etc.) actually bolsters his appeal among a certain segment of the Republican electorate, not solely because they happen to agree with his hard-line views on immigration, but because they see him as being willing to say uncomfortable things and shake up the system. Trump's purposeful(?) positioning as the ultimate anti-politician is perfectly suited to the consequence-free mindset that dominates among likely Republican primary voters at the moment. The election is a million miles away to the average voter, so what's the harm in telling a pollster you like Trump right now? You almost certainly won't stick with him when it's time to actually vote — just 41 percent of Republicans view Trump as a "serious" candidate for president in a new Gallup poll — but he is a great vehicle to send a message to the political establishment that you're sick of them. Think of it this way: You're single. You're in your 20s. You start dating a bad boy/girl who makes you laugh/kind of scares you/your parents hate with the white-hot passion of 1,000 suns. You are not planning to marry this person. In fact, if he/she did happen to pop the question — they wouldn't because they are a bad boy/girl and "don't like to be tied down" — you would almost certainly say no. You are going out with this person because it's fun and it's different and you are tired of the squares — is that a word people still use? — you've dated up to this point. Sure, you'll probably settle down with one of those squares (I am just going with it) but not just yet. The tendency in politics — particularly among the journalistic and consultant classes — is to overthink things. And so it is with Trump. But I think his appeal may actually be very, very simple: He's different — and different, at least right now, is intriguing for Republicans. My strong belief is that as the election gets closer and Trump goes from colorful oddball to "Hey, wait a minute, he believes what?!?" his support will slip — probably considerably. For now, Trump represents a middle finger from a segment of Republican voters directed at the GOP establishment. Which seems about right. *Donald Trump word cloud: Nazism and consumerism <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-word-cloud-nazism-and-consumerism/> // WaPo / James Hohmann – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump spent Tuesday in the political sweet spot between Nazism and consumerism. Our Zignal Labs partners, who measure what people are talking about across social and traditional media, showed that the chatter about the reality TV star and businessman revolved around two main themes: a tweet (later deleted) that included images of Waffen-SS solders and his ongoing dispute with Macy’s about pulling his merchandise. “Retaliation” also factored big into the equation. On the first point, the controversy began when The Donald tweeted an image of himself emblazoned on an American flag, with soldiers in the background. Only, it turned out, those soldiers came from Waffen-SS stock images, according to Internet sleuths. As for Macy’s, TMZ reported on Tuesday that 30,000 customers were so angry that the store refused to carry Trump ties that they were cutting up their credit cards as a result. The store, the website said, was “taking it in the shorts” for breaking with The Donald over his comments about Mexicans. Recently escaped Mexican drug lord “El Chapo,” in a Twitter account reportedly linked to him, threatened Trump in a profanity-laced tirade on Twitter. “I’m better than them,” El Chapo wrote. Trump took the threat seriously, increasing his security and saying he’s alerted the FBI. “We have officials all over the place, including right outside hanging out in trees,” Trump told reporters during an appearance at a Virginia winery, according to the New York Post. So the word “retaliation?” Seems like it could apply to any of the above disputes. *The best of Donald Trump on ‘Morning Joe’ <http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/the-best-of-donald-trump-on-morning-joe/> // WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July 15, 2015 * Sometimes it’s best to let Donald Trump’s quotes speak for themselves. Trump, now surging in the polls, joined MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday to discuss the Iran deal, his position in the Republican field and his previous comments on immigration. He also weighed in on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the Hispanic vote, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Enjoy the best quotes below: Trump on the Iran deal and “The Art of the Deal”: They [U.S. negotiators] didn’t read The Art of the Deal. Most people did, they didn’t. It’s a ridiculous deal … I have seen the deal. I have seen it broken down in every newspaper you can imagine, and I have, I think I know the deal quite well because other people, I assume, are going into it in great detail. I have seen every newspaper article you can. I have seen the good points and the bad points and the good points are not very strong. That I can tell you. Trump on President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin: If you had a president that was a leader, he would be able — he can’t even talk — when you look at where we are with countries, as an example, with Russia, they can’t even talk together, Putin can’t stand him. In all fairness, he can’t stand Putin, but Putin doesn’t respect him. Trump on Hillary Clinton and the Hispanic vote: Hillary was the worst secretary of state in the history of our country. I think that the person she doesn’t want to run against is me because I say it, and [Jeb] Bush doesn’t say it, nobody says it … I would beat Hillary and I’ll tell you what, a vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote … I’ll create jobs, and I’ll get the Hispanic vote … the Hispanics love me. Trump on why he’s meeting with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.): Ted Cruz called me and I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest, but I do have respect for him. I respect the fact that, along with a couple of others, he came out and he came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal immigration … I like him. He called me, he wanted to meet, and we are going to meet. What it’s about, I have absolutely no idea. Trump on Iranian nuclear capabilities: I’d hate to inherit the deal [with Iran] … Ultimately, they’re going to have the nukes all over the place. Trump on illegal immigrants: Illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problems coming in … There’s crime, it’s a crime wave, it’s a disaster … I have hundreds and hundreds of Mexicans working for me. I love Mexican people, I love their spirit … Mexico is sending a lot of their people over that they don’t want, and that includes people that should be in Mexican prisons, and you know it and I know it and nobody wants to talk about it. Trump on how he knows Mexico is “sending a lot of their people” over who belong in prison: I heard from five different sources … I’ll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources, Mark [to Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics]. I have a lot of information on it and so do — so does everyone else, and you probably do, too, and for some reason they don’t want to put out this information. Trump on Jeb Bush and his fundraising numbers: We have grossly incompetent leadership. That is the one overriding theme, and [voters] don’t see it any better with Bush. He doesn’t have the energy, he’s not going to produce, and I will tell you that when he raises $100 million … every single person that he gave every single dollar is expecting something for that money. Every single person … So the $100 million that he raised is a bad thing, not a good thing. *Trump Files Disclosure, Touts $10 Billion Net Worth <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/donald-trump-files-disclosure-touts-10-billion-net-worth/> // WSJ // Heather Haddon – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump boasted his net worth has grown to more than $10 billion as he filed his personal financial disclosure, removing a potential barrier for eligibility in the GOP debates. “First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did,” Mr. Trump said in a statement. “They said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions.” In a statement laden with bravado released Wednesday, the real-estate developer and entertainer said that his net worth had been boosted by rising property values in New York, San Francisco, Miami and elsewhere, and nodded to gains in the stock market as well. A one-page sheet summary released by his campaign previously showed total assets of $9.2 billion and liabilities of $502 million. In Wednesday’s statement, the campaign said that the FEC’s disclosure forms couldn’t capture Mr. Trump’s full value, as maximum worth of assets in certain categories were set to a range of simply above $50 million. The value of some of Mr. Trump’s buildings well exceeded that, the campaign said. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his campaign stated. The campaign didn’t immediately release a copy of the disclosure Wednesday. A FEC spokesman said Wednesday that the agency was in receipt of Mr. Trump’s financial disclosure form. The spokesman couldn’t immediately say when the FEC would made the filing public. The commission has 30 days to do so. Filing the personal financial disclosure removes one of the largest hurdles for Mr. Trump to go forward with a full-scale presidential bid, including appearing in televised debates. Some of Mr. Trump’s rivals had pushed Republican officials and television networks hosting the debates to exclude him if he didn’t file the lengthy disclosures first. Fox News and CNN host the first two GOP debates, and the networks have chosen to contain the main debates to the candidates placing in the top 10 in an average of national polls. Lower tier candidates have been angling for ways to boost their national standing leading into the debates. Mr. Trump, who has become a lightning rod for criticism after labeling some Mexican immigrants “rapists,” said during a television appearance on MSNBC “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning that he would put out the forms Wednesday or Thursday. A spokeswoman for the campaign said they weren’t yet certain if they would release the full report or allow those interested to go through the FEC. Mr. Trump’s income last year was $362 million, not including investments, rents or royalties, according to the campaign. The campaign didn’t release figures on his debt, but said it was “a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates.” The campaign released a list of 45 stocks that Mr. Trump sold last year, saying their sale earned him $27 million. Bank of America, Alcoa, Best Buy and Facebook accounted for the largest number of shares in the portfolio, according to the list. The gains came “even though stock market purchases are not something that Mr. Trump has focused on in the past,” the release stated. Mr. Trump also said he held assets in 11 market funds valued at $90 million, with the largest amount of purchased shares in the Obsidian Fund LLC, Baron Funds and Oppenheimer, according to the list. Whether Mr. Trump would go through in making the detailed filing required by those running for president has been a source of speculation since the mogul announced his candidacy last month. Mr. Trump has never disclosed a detailed accounting of his wealth. *Trump campaign sets his personal fortune at $10 billion <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/00a8539211dd4306a9e84c4fe1cdac96/trump-campaign-sets-his-personal-fortune-10-billion> // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump filed financial documents with federal campaign regulators on Wednesday and set his personal fortune at more than $10 billion with an annual income of more than $362 million. Members of his staff had said that Trump would release the financial documents themselves, but they issued only a press release that announced the filing and included a few financial details. It provided little information about how he calculated his net worth. The $10 billion figure — up nearly 15 percent since the previous year, by Trump's calculation — would make him the wealthiest person ever to run for president, far surpassing previous magnates like Ross Perot, business heirs like Steve Forbes or private-equity investors like Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee. Among the sources of Trump's income has been $214 million in payments from NBC related to 14 seasons of the business reality television show "The Apprentice." NBC recently cut its ties with Trump following his controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants. Trump is relying almost exclusively on his personal wealth to fund his White House bid. His fortune could help maintain his status as a major player in the Republican presidential primary, much to the dismay of GOP officials who worry that his hardline immigration statements could alienate Hispanic voters. Filing a personal financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission is one of the requirements, set by the hosts, to participate in next month's televised GOP debate. Trump's statement Wednesday noted that a hypothetical Trump building worth $1.5 billion would be reported as simply worth in excess of $50 million on the federal forms, which offer broad ranges for asset values. Previous reviews of Trump's real estate holdings by both Forbes Magazine and commercial real estate trade publication The Real Deal did not identify any single property with a valuation in excess of $1 billion. His campaign noted that Trump held stakes in almost 500 business entities and said the federal forms are "not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth." "I have a Gucci store worth more than Romney," Trump told the Des Moines Register last month, referring to the fashion company's flagship store in New York's Trump Tower. Trump also valued his personal brand and marketing deals at $3.3 billion when he announced his candidacy. Forbes Magazine, however, valued his brand at just $125 million. And that was before Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants cost him business partnerships with companies such as Macy's and Univision, which experts on brand valuation said have at least temporarily tarnished the value of his name in corporate sponsorship deals. While the Forbes estimate is likely low, "the spread between Forbes $125 million and his own estimate of $3.3 billion is explained primarily by hubris," said Weston Anson, chairman of Consor Intellectual Asset Management, a California-based consulting firm. Anson said it was too early to evaluate the effect of Trump's comments on value of his name, but noted the rapid cancellation of partnership and sponsorship deals. The notoriety could also likely erode Trump's ability to charge a premium for his real estate, Anson said. Trump in the past has taken umbrage at suggestions he might not be as fantastically wealthy as he says. In 2009, he sued author Timothy O'Brien for defamation after O'Brien wrote that Trump's net worth might be as low as $150 million. Trump lost the suit and a subsequent appeal. In a deposition, the panel of appellate judges noted, Trump conceded that his public disclosures of his wealth depended partly on his mood. "Even my own feelings affect my value to myself," Trump said. *Trump indeed funding own presidential bid: $1.8 million loan <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/005daf1aaca74092b15035b08ac9b466/trump-indeed-funding-own-presidential-bid-18-million-loan> // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * When he announced his Republican run for president a month ago, billionaire businessman Donald Trump said he didn't need the help of donors. That's proved true. Federal documents Trump filed Wednesday show that he has lent his high-profile campaign $1.8 million. In a press release, he set his net worth at more than $10 billion. The documents show that Trump has not solicited any money for his campaign, collecting only $92,000 from other people. At of the end of June, Trump had about $488,000 left in his campaign account. Trump is vying with 16 others for the Republican nomination. *British Open waits on Turnberry call after Trump remarks <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/52abf4e7686f4061b51730a87e764a1f/ra-waits-turnberry-call-after-trump-remarks> // AP // July 15, 2015 * British Open organizers are biding their time before deciding whether Turnberry should be removed from the championship rotation following comments by the course's owner, Donald Trump, about Mexicans. Trump, a Republican candidate for U.S. president, is facing a backlash after saying some Mexican immigrants to the U.S. bring drugs and crime, and some are rapists. Trump recently purchased Turnberry, a links resort on the west coast of Scotland that has hosted the British Open four times. Asked if Trump's comments compromised Turnberry's place on the Open rotation, Peter Dawson, chief executive of the R&A, said: "We'll just let a bit of time pass, and future championship committees will deal with them at the time." The PGA of America announced last week it will move the Grand Slam of Golf from Trump's course in Los Angeles. The Women's British Open is to be played this month at Turnberry, and organizers have said there are no plans to change the venue. Turnberry last staged the British Open in 2009, when Stewart Cink beat Tom Watson in a playoff, and is one of nine courses on the rotation. Royal Portrush will be added in 2019. "It's had a lot of publicity, hasn't it?" Dawson said about Turnberry and its links with Trump. "We don't have any decisions to make about Turnberry for quite some time." *Donald Trump: ‘A vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote’ <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fd4902f2968f430e83d778812d534ba3/donald-trump-vote-i-will-win-hispanic-vote> // AP // July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he's confident he could win substantial Hispanic votes if he's the party's nominee. Brushing aside the controversy over labeling Mexican immigrants as "rapists" and "criminals," Trump argues "the Hispanics love me." He tells MSNBC: "I employ thousands of Hispanics." Trump also says he's not worried about any lack of support in the Latino community and argues he hasn't been hurt politically by his calls for clamping down on illegal immigration. Trump has refused to soften his stand on immigration, even after a plea by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (ryns PREE'-bus) that he tone down his remarks. The GOP fared poorly with the Hispanic community in the 2012 presidential election. *5 things to know about Donald Trump’s personal fortune <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5-things-know-about-donald-trumps-personal-fortune> // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says his personal fortune is more than $10 billion, making the businessman the wealthiest person to ever run for the White House. Five things to know about Trump's wealth: TRUMP IS ALMOST CERTAINLY THE RICHEST PERSON EVER IN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE His net worth claim eclipses that of Ross Perot, the billionaire Texas entrepreneur who ran a third-party campaign in 1992. Aside from Perot, no other candidate has reached the $1 billion dollar mark, including publishing empire heir Steve Forbes (roughly $400 million) or private equity titan Mitt Romney ($250 million.) IT'S GOOD TO START OFF RICH Trump has cited his ability to become rich as an important qualification for public office. Though he has earned a huge sum of money, Trump started off in the upper reaches of the 1 percent. His grandfather, Fred Trump Sr., was a successful builder. His father, Fred Trump Jr., earned a fortune estimated at several hundred million dollars through building solid-but-modest housing in the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens — sometimes with government support. TRUMP HASN'T BEEN BANKRUPT, BUT HIS COMPANIES HAVE — FOUR TIMES "Stop saying I went bankrupt!" Trump demanded on Twitter last month, a sentiment he expresses regularly. The confusion stems from the difference between personal and corporate bankruptcy. Various arms of Trump's hotel and casino business underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganizations in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. But only in the first instance — where Trump had personally guaranteed a vast debt owed by the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, New Jersey, — was Trump's personal fortune at risk. In the other bankruptcies, his exposure was limited to just his stake in the particular venture. While plenty of other entities with Trump's name on them have failed, including the Trump International Golf Club in Puerto Rico this week, those were just companies that were renting Trump's name. HE TALKS UP RISK-TAKING, BUT HIS CURRENT PORTFOLIO IS QUITE CONSERVATIVE Setting aside Trump's $3.3 billion valuation of his personal brand, most of Trump's wealth is in the form in the real estate. Yet the summary of his finances he presented at his campaign kickoff last month lists more than $4 billion in mature, fully-owned assets, with less than $500 million in debt. That's extremely safe — and completely out of keeping with the heavy borrowing that is standard for owners of marquis commercial real estate. In his book "The Art of the Deal," Trump extolled such borrowing: "Leverage: Don't make deals without it." CAVEATS ABOUT HIS WEALTH MAY BE WARRANTED Doubting Trump's fortune can be hazardous. In 2006, Trump sued author Tim O'Brien for citing anonymous Trump insiders lowballing Trump's net worth in the book "TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald." Precisely valuing a fortune such as Trump's is difficult, subjective work under the best of circumstances. Trump lost his lawsuit against O'Brien on First Amendment grounds, but the panel of judges who killed the case in 2011 noted Trump's history of claims, such as asserting that a 72-story building with tall ceilings was actually a 90-story building. Because of numerous caveats, the judges declared that even a 2004 financial statement authored by Trump's accountants had "limited value as an accurate representation of Trump's net worth." *Trump campaign to reveal wealth details: ‘I’m really rich’ <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c2adf4b3591a4c64a186bcba7dd23000/trump-campaign-reveal-wealth-details-im-really-rich> // AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 * As other presidential candidates fight to raise money, Donald Trump is reminding everyone he's already got a lot of it. The celebrity businessman's campaign is expected to reveal details Wednesday of his fortune, which he estimated last month at nearly $9 billion when announcing his Republican presidential candidacy. If accurate, that number would make Trump the wealthiest person to ever run for president, far surpassing previous magnates like Ross Perot, business heirs like Steve Forbes or private-equity investors like Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee. "I have a Gucci store worth more than Romney," Trump told the Des Moines Register last month, referring to the fashion company's flagship store in New York's Trump Tower. On an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Trump said the personal financial disclosure forms will be filed Wednesday or Thursday. "The numbers will be far in excess of what anybody thought," he said. "I built a great company." How much the personal financial disclosure form will reveal is uncertain. Personal financial disclosures generally require candidates to list the value of their assets within broad ranges, with "above $5 million" as the top bucket. Many of Trump's holdings, such as Trump Park Avenue in New York, or the hundreds of millions he says he holds in cash, would far exceed that upper limit. Even if Trump were to include a detailed summary of his assets and debts, skepticism about his net worth will likely remain. Trump, for example, valued his personal brand and marketing deals at $3.3 billion when he announced his candidacy. Forbes Magazine, however, valued his brand at just $125 million. And that was before Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants cost him business partnerships with companies such as Macy's and Univision. Trump in the past has taken umbrage at suggestions he might not be as fantastically wealthy as he says. In 2009, he sued author Timothy O'Brien for defamation after O'Brien wrote that Trump's net worth might be as low as $150 million. Trump lost the suit and a subsequent appeal. In a deposition, the panel of appellate judges noted, Trump conceded that his public disclosures of his wealth depended partly on his mood. "Even my own feelings affect my value to myself," Trump said. *Donald Trump grows up <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-grows-up-politico-interview-120196.html?ml=tl_13> // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 * In a matter of days, Donald Trump has gone from flame-throwing insurgent to statesmanlike front-runner, at least in his own mind. As national polls continued to roll in showing Trump in first or second place in the Republican presidential primary, he showed restraint and message discipline in a phone interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, passing on multiple opportunities to level his trademark insults at political opponents and steering the conversation instead towards the economy and “making America great again.” Trump’s ego remains intact — “I have been victorious against China on numerous occasions” he bragged minutes before his campaign forwarded a statement claiming he is now worth more than “TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” But during the interview, away from the cameras and the packed crowds, Trump’s tone was markedly different from Saturday, when he ranted for over an hour against everyone from Jeb Bush to “Lyin’ Brian Williams” and the brands that had cut ties with him at a raucous campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona. Even the accent had softened from Queens to Westchester. In Arizona, Trump cracked of Bush, “How can I be tied with this guy? He’s terrible.” On Wednesday, he was more measured. “I think Jeb Bush is a very nice person, but I think he’ll be a terrible president in terms of negotiating trade deals with China. They’re just too tough and too smart,” said Trump, framing his critique of Bush in a way that that pivots to his own carefully crafted image as an expert negotiator, crystallized in, “The Art of the Deal,” the book he promotes relentlessly in campaign appearances. When asked which of his opponents would make the worst president, Trump responded, “I don’t want to say that, because that would be disrespectful.” Of Republican elites, who have been fretting out loud that Trump is tarnishing the party’s brand, especially among Hispanic voters, Trump said, “I know the elites. Many of them are friends of mine. They’re fine. They go with whoever’s going to win.” When asked about the possibility that he could run as a third-party or independent candidate in the general election, a nuclear option that could make him a spoiler for the eventual Republican nominee, Trump said, “Everybody wants me to run as a third-party candidate but my sole focus is running as a Republican because my best chance to take this country back … is for me to run as a Republican.” On Sunday, Trump taunted the notorious Mexican drug trafficker Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, who escaped from prison over the weekend, tweeting that he “would kick [Guzman’s] ass!” only to receive back a threatening tweet from the drug lord’s account. On Wednesday, Trump said only, “Law enforcement is very strong. It’s really in the hands of law enforcement right now, ” before steering the question of his personal safety back to his campaign theme: “Making our country great again is much more important than me as an individual.” A Suffolk University/USA Today poll released on Tuesday that showed Trump in first place with 17 percent support solidified what polling began to show last week: that Trump and Bush are currently neck-and-neck among Republican voters nationally. Trump’s campaign announced on Wednesday that he had filed a personal financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission, a step required of all candidates before they can participate in the first Republican debate next month and one that many political observed predicted Trump was not willing to take. Many commentators continue to dismiss Trump’s viability in the Republican primary, pointing out that in the last presidential election former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain both achieved front-runner status in Republican polls before voters ditched them for candidates with more sober temperaments and traditional backgrounds in the actual primaries and caucuses. But Trump isn’t the only one taking Trump seriously this week. On Wednesday evening, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz walked over to Trump tower in Manhattan to pay the mogul a visit. A person with knowledge of the meeting described it as “very, very amicable” and said the two candidates discussed media coverage of Scott Walker’s Monday presidential launch, Jeb Bush’s fundraising prowess, Cruz’s own impressive fundraising haul, and Trump’s view that Bush does not enjoy campaigning. They also discussed border security, the national debt, and the October 2013 government shutdown in which Cruz played a leading role, according to this person, who said the two left the door open to future meetings. Unlike other Republican candidates, Cruz has defended Trump’s comments about the alleged criminality of undocumented Mexican immigrants. “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth,” Cruz said of Trump last month on Fox News, calling NBC’s decision to cut ties with the mogul “silly.” Trump for his part on Wednesday backed off of questions he’s raised previously about Cruz’s fitness for the presidency. When asked whether the fact that the Texas senator was born in Canada should affect his eligibility, Trump told POLITICO, “I don’t know. I mean I haven’t looked at it. I have not looked at it at all.” When asked about the issue by a New York-based Fox affiliate in March, Trump had said, “It’s a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts will rule on it.” But Trump has apparently concluded that times have changed, and so will his tone, at least for now and to a degree: “No matter how good you are, timing is so important, and some people have timing and some people don’t, and I have it.” *Donald Trump snipes at Karl Rove <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-karl-rove-fight-120146.html?ml=tl_14> // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump went on the attack against Karl Rove on Wednesday. “Why do people listen to clown @KarlRove on @FoxNews?” the real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate tweeted. “Spent $430M & lost all races — a Bushy!” Later, he added, “.@FoxNews should not put @KarlRove on — he has no credibility, a bush plan who called all races wrong.” Trump and Rove have been feuding in recent works, and the tiff shows no sign of dying down. On Wednesday morning, Rove appeared on Fox News and downplayed recent poll results that show Trump surging in the GOP 2016 presidential primary. “The fundamentals matter a lot and Mr. Trump’s fundamentals are not good,” Rove said on “America’s Newsroom,” adding that as the campaign goes on he believes Trump will be exposed as a fundamentally unserious candidate. Trump has previously bashed Rove for incorrectly predicting the results of the 2012 presidential election, and for what he perceives as ineffective spending by the Rove-linked American Crossroads super PAC, but Wednesday was the first time he specifically called on Fox News to take Rove off the air. Rove, a longtime aide to George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on July 8 under the headline “Trump and Sanders, the Disrupter Brothers.” In it, Rove wrote that “Trump could become the 2016 version of Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who tarnished the GOP brand in 2012 with an offensive statement about rape.” *How Barack Obama Created Donald Trump <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-appeal-of-donald-trump-120162_full.html#.VabOP5NViko> // Politico // Keith Koffler – July 15, 2015 * It is an unassailable doctrinal truth in the modern Republican Party that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that the United States can be restored to its former glory—i.e., the 1980s—if he is resurrected and returned to earth in the form of someone just like him who claims the GOP presidential nomination and then wins the general election. That is, someone who, like Reagan, combines genial optimism with disciplined strength. Someone with longstanding, core conservative convictions based in a comprehensive ideology that he or she can articulate convincingly to the masses. And someone with wit, charm and never-ending charisma. In other words, someone who is the opposite of Donald Trump. And yet today millions of conservatives are swooning for The Donald, nothing less than the anti-Reagan. They ignore Trump’s surly, intolerant suggestions that illegal immigrants are largely rapists and other types of miscreants. They tolerate his meanness, boastfulness and vengefulness against those who have crossed him. And they believe his fantastical claims, like that he can build walls atop the Mexican border and make Mexicans pay for it. And yet I am here to tell you that despite what you’ve read in the media, even some outposts of the conservative media, these Trump acolytes in general are not racist against Latinos and they have not been seized by madness. They are, however, angry. Very angry. And many are agonizingly fearful about the future of the nation. They believe that vast changes to the country are being wrought in ways that are undemocratic, dishonest and perhaps even illegal. Trump, who seems perpetually angry, is an expression of the angst of conservatives who believe the United States has gotten so deep into a mess that a little extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. What they adore about Trump is that he is a pugilist who has emerged at a time when someone needs to start throwing punches. His blunt promise to stop illegal immigration touches on perhaps the conservatives’ deepest concern of all: that their culture and the Constitutional order are disintegrating with such rapidity that they hardly recognize the country they are living in. There is a sense of desperation that is fueling support for a proven achiever and fearless confrontationalist like Trump. As the editor of a conservative website, I am in contact with the Republican base every day. I read their voluminous comments on my website, and I exchange emails with them about their concerns. Many of them right now genuinely, and even passionately, support Trump. They are happy to contradict me when I write that Trump is a self-aggrandizing demagogue who lacks a coherent agenda—conservative or otherwise—unless a scattered list of personal grudges and obsessions can be considered an agenda. In a poll last week on my website he won easily, cornering 25 percent of the vote. Though I disagree with them, these comments make complete sense to me. Because I share much of the worldview that is animating support for Trump. Let’s start with immigration. America is, as President Barack Obama and his “immigration reform” allies like to say, a land of immigrants. But it is not a land of endless immigration from one culture that is different than ours and in many ways far less successful. Most immigrants from Mexico, no doubt, are good, hardworking people seeking a chance to better their circumstance in America. But they are not Americans. And in the numbers they are coming, the serious concern is that they are not easily assimilated. Other cultures are supposed to augment ours, not replace it. What’s more, so many of these immigrants have, as their first act in this country, broken the law by coming here illegally. This indisputable fact is so minimized that it has become politically incorrect to call them “illegal immigrants.” They are to be termed “undocumented,” as if their lack of papers were a clerical error. This is a big problem for conservatives, who feel the rule of law is eroding fast under Obama. Obama attempted to give millions of illegal immigrants legal status by simply not enforcing the law. This recourse to “prosecutorial discretion” is a shocking development, an effort to circumvent Congress and write de facto law out of the West Wing. Many conservatives understand that millions of people cannot just be carted back to Mexico. But they want to be sure that this would be the final amnesty, unlike the last final amnesty, a law ironically enough signed by Reagan in 1986 that was supposed to mitigate illegal immigration. They don’t trust Obama to enforce immigration reform that would block further illegal immigration, since he has a habit of not enforcing laws. And they believe their own Republican Party leaders are captive to business interests ravenous for cheap labor. That is why Trump’s unequivocal promise to build a wall has such resonance. They believe he’ll do it. And most likely, put his name on it. But Trump fever is about much more than immigration. Obama’s immigration fiat—which is thankfully running into trouble with the judiciary, which has halted it for now—is apiece with other solo measures he has taken that seem to many conservatives designed to dispense with the inconvenience of our system of check and balances. All in the name of doing what is “correct” as perceived by one side of the debate. The unilateral imposition of a certain viewpoint is exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent. Many were shocked when Obama peremptorily decided the statutory due dates of the Affordable Care Act were not to his liking and simply changed them. They were aghast that the president misled everyone about the consequences of the law, saying that people would be able to keep their doctors and health plans when they could not. The law itself, perhaps the most sweeping legislation in half a century and a wholesale change in the way health care will be administered in this country, was rammed through Congress not by any consensus, but in a partisan vote that defied the will of the people, who opposed it. Norms were sacrificed to advance an agenda, contrary to how a republic is supposed to operate. Meantime, the president is set to implement carbon emissions reductions that he could never get the people’s elected representatives to approve. He decided on his own that the Senate was not in session and appointed judges the senate didn’t approve. The IRS targeted the president’s opponents, while Obama’s secretary of State employed her own email server and then, after releasing what she wanted from it, erased it. The president who cynically pretended to be “evolving” on the issue of gay marriage and then simply jettisoned beliefs supposedly grounded in his religious faith. This president, who sold himself as “post-political,” is seen by conservatives as very political, and more accurately described as “post-Constitutional.” The climate of Constitutional disorder perpetrated by Obama paves the way for demagogues like Trump to gain traction. With the rules of the game already being violated, there is greater tolerance for a man doesn’t seem temperamentally inclined to obey any rules at all. In many ways, Trump is the creation of Barack Obama. Society, many conservatives feel, is simply unraveling. The administration informs Americans that Obama has fixed the economy, even as it slogs along about around two percent growth. The nation debt soars skyward without anyone even faking that they have a plan to stop it—not even the supposedly budget-conscious Republican Congress. Even the Republican presidential candidates have mostly failed to explain how they will curb entitlement benefits to retirees that have been promised but cannot possibly be provided. The institution of marriage—the foundation of society—is collapsing, as the out-of-wedlock birth rate explodes, with what conservatives fear are dire consequences for children and for women who have to raise their kids alone. Even so, the Supreme Court—at Obama’s urging—unilaterally redefines marriage to include members of the same sex instead of allowing people to democratically change the status quo and—if they like, sometime in the future—change it back. Men can now be women and women can now be men simply if they choose to, no matter what’s actually in their pants. The Court’s notion that personal desires and an individual conception of “dignity” is the basis of the right to marriage surely opens the door to polygamy. Culture seems to be falling apart—and society seems to be coarsening. Art and music alone aren’t good enough anymore for commercial success; a good chanteuse today needs in her arsenal of skills a talent for twerking. Police are becoming hesitant to do their jobs lest they be accused of racism, and the murder rate in major cities is rising. Overseas, a new terror threat in the form of ISIL is permitted to emerge and metastasize throughout the Middle East. Its virulence may soon be coming to a skyscraper near you. Iraq, which had been stable, is in pieces, as are other portions of the Middle East. China pushes up islands out of sea as it prepares for future conquests. A deal struck this week to prevent the extremist, expansionist and possibly insane leaders of Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon will actually allow them to do so within 15 years. Israel, one of our closest friends, is treated like a foe. It is into this leadership void that Donald Trump has stepped. Say what you will about The Donald—and people certainly say plenty—but no one doubts that he’s decisive and confrontational. A strong hand like that wielded by Trump is seen as one that can help piece the seething disorder back together. That is always the promise of demagogues, who convey a sense of certainty during bewildering times, and who blame “others” and foreigners—in Trump’s case Mexico and China—for the ills besetting the homeland. What conservatives who support him are missing is that he too is a unilateralist who will only carve further cracks into the foundation of the republic. But it is understandable that they are fooled by him. Because they are just not sure that temperate, compromising people can save the country. And in this, given how far we have fallen, they may be right. *Donald Trump: I’m getting richer <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-im-getting-richer-120163.html?ml=tl_4> // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 * If Donald Trump is worried about the financial toll of his inflammatory comments on the campaign trail, which have caused many major American brands to cut ties with him, he isn’t showing it. He now claims to have a net worth greater than $10 billion. Or as, Trump’s campaign put it in a statement on Wednesday, “As of this date, Mr. Trump’s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” The statement attributes Trump’s supposed gain in net worth to rising property values over the past year in American cities where he owns real estate. Trump’s net worth has long been a matter of contention. In recent public statements, he’s claimed to be worth nearly $9 billion, while Forbes magazine, which has been tracking his net worth for more than 30 years, pegs it at $4 billion. Much of that difference can be attributed to the value of his personal brand. Trump values his brand at more than $3 billion, while Forbes believes it is worth less than $150 million. In the statement, Trump claimed an income of $362 million in 2014 on top of $27 million in profits from selling stocks last January. He filed a personal financial disclosure with the FEC on Wednesday, a prerequisite for participating in the first Republican primary debate next month. *Trump’s official haul: $1.9 million <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trumps-official-haul-19-million-120180.html?ml=tl_4> // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump, the real estate mogul, reality TV star and Republican presidential candidate, took in nearly $2 million in the second quarter of this year — nearly all of which was a loan from the candidate himself. Trump, who has sparked controversy with several inflammatory remarks but appears to be gaining in some polls, loaned the campaign $1.8 million; overall the campaign took in about $1.9 million. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June. Total raised: $1,902,410.45 Total spent: $1,414,674.29 Total cash on hand: $487,736.16 Total debt: $1,804,747.23 *Trump claims $213M payout for ‘Apprentice’ <http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/trump-claims-m-payout-for-apprentice-210595.html?ml=tl_1> // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump claims that NBCUniversal paid him more than $213 million for his work on "The Apprentice," the reality show that Trump hosted up until the launch of his presidential campaign this year. The total figure -- $213,606,575, over the course of 14 years -- was included in a news release announcing that Trump had filed his personal financial disclosure statement with the Federal Election Commission, making him eligible to run for president. "NBC/Universal renewed, at the upfronts this year, The Apprentice (for a 15th season), but Mr. Trump decided to turn them down in order to run for President of the United States. NBC was not happy," Trump's office wrote. "During the 14 seasons of The Apprentice, Mr. Trump was paid $213,606,575." An NBCUniversal spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of that figure. Trump's office claimed that the real estate magnate's total net worth is 'in excess of ten billion dollars," and added that the FEC report "was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth." Trump himself used the opportunity to strike back at critics who dismissed his presidential run as a charade. "First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions," Trump said in a statement. "Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again," he continued. "I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with a big heart toward the care of our people.” Trump finished first in the most recent Republican presidential primary poll, conducted by USA Today and Suffolk University. He finished second, to Jeb Bush, in previous polls conducted by Monmouth University, CNN/ORC and Fox News. *Poll: Trump’s favorability increasing, but not with Hispanics <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-donald-trump-favorability-increasing-120139.html?ml=tl_21> // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015* Americans have increasingly positive views of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump since his remarks on immigration, though many more still dislike him by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday. Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of the billionaire real-estate mogul, while 61 percent said they did not. Still, that is an improvement from the last ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in May before Trump’s campaign announcement, when 71 percent viewed him unfavorably and just 16 percent said they had a favorable impression of him. Among Hispanics, however, his negatives are soaring. Just 13 percent said they have a positive opinion of Trump, who last month decried undocumented immigrants who are “rapists” and “killers” coming across the border from Mexico and other countries. More than eight-in-10 (81 percent) of Hispanics said they have an unfavorable impression of him. The only groups that see Trump favorably are Republicans and strong conservatives, according to the poll. Republicans view Trump favorably by a margin of 57 percent to 40 percent, while those identifying as very conservative view him favorably, 55 percent to 37 percent. Among all whites, 53 percent see him unfavorably, along with 74 percent of nonwhites, 58 percent of independents and 60 percent of moderates. Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating (52 percent to 45 percent) tops that of Bernie Sanders’ (27 percent to 28 percent), though a plurality (45 percent) of those surveyed said they had no opinion of the independent Vermont senator. The poll was conducted July 8-12 via landline and cellphones in English and Spanish, surveying a random national sample of 1,011 adults. The results carry a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points. *The Trump Litmus Test <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/the-trump-litmus-test> // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 14, 2015 * In the course of 24 hours, two of Donald Trump's Republican presidential rivals have said two very different things about him that had the benefit, for both, of attracting a bit of the media attention that follows the self-described billionaire candidate. Jeb Bush has generated quite a bit of chatter with a comparison he made Tuesday at a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, a city on the western edge of Iowa. "We need to stop tearing—separating ourselves by race and ethnicity and income. We need to focus on the things that tie us together. And whether it's Donald Trump or Barack Obama their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong," the former Florida governor told the crowd. "A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts." Ted Cruz had a markedly different take. While in New York on Wednesday for a financial conference, the Texas senator planned to meet with his Republican competitor. Before the session, he described to NBC himself as "a big fan" of Trump and adding: "I think he brings a bold, brash voice to this presidential race." The real estate mogul has drawn widespread condemnation for recently likening Mexican immigrants to "rapists" that are "bringing drugs; they're bringing crime" to the United States. His unrestrained attacks on illegal immigration have poured gasoline on an already explosive debate that has divided the party. Some conservatives have praised his focus on an issue they say the Republican Party isn't sufficiently concerned about. The Trump schism reflects the divide within the crowded Republican field—Bush fares best among establishment figures and moderate Republicans who detest Trump and fear his ascent will damage the party. Many of his rivals, meanwhile, are competing the for the anti-establishment conservative base that Trump is effectively channeling. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina—who have said favorable things about Trump tapping into anger about illegal immigration. Bush's broadside wasn't an off-the-cuff moment. His campaign clipped a 45-second video of those remarks and distributed them widely to reporters. But by comparing Trump to Obama, Bush is leveling a critique calculated to resonate with conservatives. Among Republicans, it's an article of faith that Obama is one of the most divisive presidents in history, if not the most divisive. Their evidence for this generally focuses on his calls for upper income people to pay higher taxes. To his critics, that amounts to "class warfare." So the assertion is hardly novel. But the comparison to Trump—loved and hated for his incendiary, unrestrained rhetorical style—certainly is. Bush's campaign didn't respond to a message asking how he ranks Trump's divisive rhetoric against Obama's. "The strategy is to show just how negative Trump is with his campaign and in order to effectively lead, there must be a positive vision going forward," said Ron Bonjean, a Republican operative who isn't working for any of the presidential candidates. "It's effective because it calls out how negative Trump really is with his sensationalist comments and takes it a step further by tying him to Obama's anti-Republican rhetoric." One Democratic strategist speculated that Bush was trying to disqualify Trump with Republican voters by comparing him to Obama. That's more likely to sway Republicans than labeling Trump a racist, the theory goes. A poll by Suffolk University and USA Today released Tuesday, the same day Bush made his remarks, found Trump leading the Republican primary field with 17 percent. Bush came second with 14 percent. *Donald Trump Claims Net Worth Over $10 Billion as He Files Disclosure <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/trump-claims-net-worth-over-10-billion-as-he-files-disclosure> // Bloomberg // Richard Rubin – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed a net worth exceeding $10 billion and a 2014 income of $362 million as he filed his financial disclosure with the U.S. government. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his campaign said in a news release. “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked.” Trump, a real estate developer, property owner and media personality, claimed a net worth of $8.7 billion last month. In Wednesday’s statement, Trump’s campaign said that number was actually more than a year old. The Trump campaign didn’t release the actual form that he filed with the Federal Election Commission, and campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred a reporter to the FEC. The FEC has 30 days to release forms publicly after they are filed and reviewed. It won’t confirm whether Trump’s has been received. When it’s released, the form will show that Trump has “almost 500 business entities” and that 91 percent of them are fully owned by him, according to the campaign statement. The $8.7 billion statement from last month included an assumption that Trump’s brand was worth more than $3 billion. That was before companies including Macy’s Inc. severed ties with Trump over his comments calling immigrants from Mexico “rapists.” Real Estate “Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other places where he owns property have gone up considerably during this period of time,” the campaign said. “His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates.” Wednesday’s statement didn’t include a precise number, instead describing his net worth as “in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” The campaign also released a list of stock transactions, showing that Trump made $6.7 million in profits from selling shares of Bank of America Corp. and $3.9 million from Facebook Inc. It also said that Trump has more than $9 million invested in hedge funds run by Paulson & Co. The Trump campaign said he made $213,606,575 from NBC during the 14 years that his show “The Apprentice” was aired. “First people said I would never run, and I did,” Trump said in the statement. “Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions.” *Donald Trump Says He'll Release Financial Disclosure by Thursday <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/donald-trump-says-he-ll-release-financial-disclosure-by-thursday> // Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Wednesday that his personal financial disclosure form will come out by Thursday, and “the numbers will be far in excess of what anybody thought.” Calling into MSNBC's Morning Joe show, Trump also confirmed he plans to meet with primary rival Ted Cruz. The Texas senator called him asking for the meeting, Trump said, and he doesn't know what it will be about. “I respect him, I like him,” Trump said of Cruz, noting the senator's support during the fallout from Trump's comment about Mexican immigrants being “rapists.” (The Washington Post first reported on plans for the meeting, set for the Trump Tower in New York, citing Republicans familiar with the campaigns. Cruz aides declined to comment for that report, according to the newspaper, and his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.) Also on Bloomberg Politics: Just How Rich Is Donald Trump, Exactly? During the interview, Trump also derided the Iran nuclear deal as a “disgrace” and, turning to immigration, said he had five sources supporting his claim that the Mexican government intentionally sends criminals across the border. Asked by Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin to name those sources, Trump said, “I'll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources, Mark.” Trump edged out former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for the top spot in a nationwide USA Today/Suffolk University poll of Republicans released Tuesday. *Donald Trump: I’m worth $10 billion <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/donald-trump-financial-disclosure/index.html> // CNN // MJ Lee – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump -- to quote the businessman himself -- seems to be a "very rich" man. His campaign boasted Tuesday that the Republican presidential candidate's net worth is "in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS," and that his income in 2014 was $362 million. The campaign sent out a release to press Tuesday afternoon saying it had filed Trump's financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission -- the FEC confirmed receipt of the disclosure. When asked for a copy of the full disclosure, campaign officials told CNN to request it from the FEC. For Trump, who has never held public office, his financial disclosure would offer the most comprehensive public look yet into his massive wealth. Submitting this document to the FEC is also a requirement for any presidential candidate that intends to participate in the first GOP primary debate hosted by Fox News in August. "This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," the press release said. "As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is '$50,000,000 or more.'" The amount of cash Trump has on hand will be particularly significant, showing how much money Trump has at his disposal to potentially put towards his own campaign. His campaign previously released a summary of Trump's finances as of June 2014. It put Trump's net assets at $9.2 billion, and with approximately $500 million in liabilities, the businessman's net worth was stated as $8.7 billion. "[T]hey said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions," Trump said in a statement. "Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again." Trump's White House campaign, now just a month in, has been a costly affair. His controversial comments that some people illegally crossing into the United States from Mexico are "rapists" and "criminals" have drawn widespread backlash. Numerous corporations including Macy's and NBC subsequently announced that they were severing business ties with Trump. Macy's said earlier this month that it is phasing out the Trump-brand menswear line. And with NBC, there's more than one business venture at risk: Trump was the host of the popular reality TV show "The Apprentice," and the network also decided it would no longer broadcast the Miss USA pageant, which Trump partly owns. Tuesday's press release claims that Trump was paid $213 million over the course of 14 seasons of "The Apprenftice." Trump's business deals with the city of New York have also come under scrutiny: Mayor Bill de Blasio said he is reviewing the real estate mogul's contracts with the city, including for a recently opened Trump golf course in the Bronx. But Trump has downplayed whatever financial hit he's taken so far. "Here's the good news. I'm very rich," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper earlier this month. "The money you're talking about is a lot but it's peanuts for me." Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's campaign and a pro-Bush super PAC announced raising more than $114 million. *Donald Trump claims he’s worth $10 billion <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-claims-hes-worth-10-billion> // MSNBC // Carrie Dann – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump’s campaign claims that he is worth over $10 billion and that he made $362 million in income last year. His campaign made the estimate in a press release announcing that he has filed his personal financial disclosure information with the FEC. But in the statement, Trump’s campaign itemized only about $50 million of his assets, including profits from stock sales and hedge and mutual fund investments. Trump’s team also made a point to lament that the FEC’s personal financial disclosure form doesn’t allow for a full reflection of Trump’s cash. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” the press release stated. “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is “$50,000,000 or more.” Trump did not make the entirety of his personal financial disclosure available to the public or to NBC News, although his campaign indicated that it was filed to the FEC Wednesday. The FEC has 30 days to release the information to the public. When he announced his presidential candidacy last month, Trump cited his net worth as $8.7 billion. The campaign says that figure was out of date and that the increase is due in part to increasing real estate values in New York City, San Francisco and Miami. But analysts have suggested that the real number is likely much less than that. Forbes, which has been tracking his finances for more than 30 years, estimates that his net worth is closer to $4.1 billion, less than half of Trump’s figure. *CPAC Chairman: Trump a plausible president <http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/cpac-chairman-trump-plausible-president> // MSNBC // Jesse Bergman – July 15, 2015 * In his some of his strongest language defending Donald Trump’s candidacy, the head of the influential American Conservatives Union says Trump has a reasonable shot for the Oval Office. When asked by “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews if Trump is a “plausible President,” Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservatives Union, said “Yeah. Definitely. Definitely.” “Being an outsider at this particular time in American politics sure seems to be an advantage,” said Schlapp, who also serves as the chairman of CPAC. Trump has risen to the top of the polls for the Republican Presidential primary. Whether his candidacy has staying power has been the subject of debate among analysts. According to Trump, rival candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called him requesting a meeting. Cruz responded in a joking tone when asked by John Harwood at CNBC’s “Delivering Alpha Conference” if his motive for the meeting was to inherit Trump’s followers in the event of a campaign collapse. “I’m running to win,” Cruz said. “I expect everyone to collapse and I want to inherit everyone’s votes, so at the end of the day, I will readily plead guilty to that.” Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown echoed a sentiment expressed by many Democrats that Trump’s candidacy would be a boon to Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. “I think Mrs. Clinton is just hoping the Republican Party continues with its insanity towards Donald Trump, and nominates Donald Trump, that will almost ensure that we’ll have the first woman President in the history of the country,” Brown said on “Hardball”. In response to Schlapp’s argument that Trump’s outsider status is an advantage in the current political environment, Brown said that in order to be taken seriously, a candidate must show talent, skill, humanity and common sense. “Trump provides none of those things,” Brown said. *Donald Trump's Team Says His 'Massive' Net Worth Is More Than 'TEN BILLION DOLLARS' <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-net-worth_55a6a342e4b0c5f0322c1726?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump usually can't go more than a minute without reminding everyone about his huge crowds, his huge poll numbers and his hugely opulent wealth. And on Wednesday, the day presidential candidates were required to disclose their fundraising with federal regulators, Trump's campaign issued perhaps the biggest brag yet about the real estate mogul. In a statement announcing his filing with the Federal Election Commission, Trump aides said that the FEC report "was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth." "For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked," the statement says. "As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is '$50,000,000 or more.'" During his presidential announcement in New York last month, Trump estimated his own net worth to be nearly $9 billion, adding that it was probably even higher. However, financial experts, including those at Forbes, have cast doubt on that claim, because Trump had evidently not factored in his estimated $5 billion in liabilities. Trump's campaign said Wednesday that when the candidate initially brought up the $9 billion figure, it was based on data that was, in fact, more than a year old. Trump's net worth has gone up since then, the campaign's statement said, possibly because of higher property values on Trump's holdings in several cities. "His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump's net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS," the statement reads. The Huffington Post has not been able to verify that claim, because Trump's official form is not yet available on the FEC's website. Trump has risen steadily in the polls since he announced his bid for president in June, despite widespread public condemnation of his remarks about undocumented immigrants. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Tuesday showed the celebrity hotelier in first place among a very crowded Republican presidential field, with 17 percent support from likely GOP voters. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) trails Trump with 14 percent. Trump touted his own ascent in the statement provided by his campaign, and thumbed his nose at critics who'd been skeptical about his presidential run. “First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days [sic] extensions," he said in the statement. "Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with a 'big heart' toward the care of our people.” Trump loaned his campaign more than $1.8 million since announcing his bid for the White House, according to an FEC report that was posted online Wednesday evening. He raised a mere $96,298, while spending more than $1.4 million of the total sum on operating expenditures. His campaign has $487,736 cash on hand. *Donald Trump Exaggerates Crowd Size At Phoenix Rally <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-crowd-size_55a56d2de4b04740a3de3d26?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Jacob Kerr – July 15, 2015 * Despite Donald Trump's assertion that the crowd at his Saturday campaign event in Phoenix was the largest of any presidential candidate so far in the race, all other estimates put the number of attendees significantly below what the Trump campaign said. The campaign moved the rally from the Arizona Biltmore hotel to the Phoenix Convention Center to allow more people to attend. When Trump arrived at the podium, he claimed the crowd was larger than those at Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) presidential campaign events. "This blows away anything Bernie Sanders has gotten," Trump said. By comparison, Sanders' largest crowd was 10,000 in Madison, Wisconsin. In a tweet, which has since been deleted, Trump said he was "[s]peaking to 20,000+ patriots in Arizona." A post on his Facebook page claimed 15,000. After the event, a campaign press release also had the crowd at 15,000 and called the event "the largest campaign event of any presidential candidate this cycle." But the Washington Post report on Trump's event put the audience at 4,200 individuals, less than a third the size of Trump's estimate. The Phoenix Fire Department said the crowd was capped at that number in accordance with the fire code for the ballroom. Trump, who is now leading opinion polls in the Republican presidential primary race, has a theory on why no one agrees with his estimates. This isn't the first time Trump's crowds have come under question. After his announcement speech last month, a Hollywood Reporter article said Trump paid audience members $50 to cheer for him. *Donald Trump’s ‘Miss USA’ Pageant Earns Record-Low Ratings <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/15/donald-trump-miss-usa-ratings_n_7801426.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics> // HuffPo // Gabriel Arana – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump’s "Miss USA" pageant has set a record -- but, uh, not a very good one. The show, which networks Univision and NBC recently dropped after the Republican presidential candidate decided to stake out a position about Mexican immigrants being rapists, garnered its lowest ratings ever after airing on the little-known Reelz channel on Sunday. A mere 925,000 people tuned in to the pageant, according to the ratings agency Nielsen. For Reelz, which reaches less than 60 percent of TV-watching homes, that's actually a pretty good number. But it’s a far cry from the roughly 5.5 million viewers who tuned in to the pageant on NBC last year. It's even a major step down from 2013, when the show’s viewership reached a then-record low of 4.6 million people. Trump, who is currently kicking up dust on the Republican primary field, has sued Univision for $500 million for dropping the show. The larger question here, as The Onion recently pointed out, is why, nearly a century after women won the right to vote, we still have these pageants where they're paraded around like farm animals at an auction -- and why any network would be willing to air them. *That Time Im 1988 Trump Told Oprah What Was Wrong With America’s Foreign Policy <http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-in-1988-trump-told-oprah-what-was-wrong-with-ameri#.xh0dpB0Re> // BuzzFeed // Ilan Ben-Meir – July 15, 2015 * In the final months of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Donald Trump appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss the advertisement criticizing U.S. foreign policy that he spent nearly $100,000 to place in three major newspapers the previous fall — and the possibility that he might run for president, himself. Trump told Winfrey in April of 1988 that he was “tired of seeing what’s happening with this country,” and said that America was supporting its foreign allies at the expense of its own citizens’ well-being. Winfrey began by asking Trump about the “open letter” to the American public that he had paid to place in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe a few months before, at a time when some were speculating that Trump was planning to enter the race for the Republican nomination to succeed Reagan in 1988. Trump’s advertisement was a sharp critique of American foreign policy, including the claim that “[t]he world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help.” After Winfrey pointed to the advertisement to ask what Trump would “do differently,” the tycoon reiterated many of the arguments contained in the letter, telling Winfrey that he would “make our allies pay their fair share.” “We’re a debtor nation,” Trump said. “Something’s going to happen over the next number of years with this country, ‘cause you can’t keep going on losing 200 billion.” Trump argueed that the Japanese “are beating the hell out of this country,” because “[t]hey come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs, they knock the hell out of our companies” — all while taking advantage of American largesse. The solution, he suggested, was to require countries like Japan and Kuwait to pay the United States for it’s ongoing support. When Winfrey asked Trump if he would consider a run for the White House, the billionaire said he “probably” wouldn’t do it. “I just probably wouldn’t do it, Oprah,” said Trump, “I just don’t think I really have the inclination to do it. I love what I’m doing, I really like it.” “But I do get tired of seeing what’s happening with this country,” Trump continued. “And if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out totally, because I really am tired of seeing what’s happening with this country — how we’re really making other people live like kings, and we’re not.” Trump offered praise for all three of the major candidates in the race. “I think that probably George Bush has an advantage, in terms of the election,” said Trump. “But I think Jesse Jackson’s done himself very proud, I think Michael Dukakis has done one hell of a job. […] I think people that are around all three of those candidates can be very proud of the jobs they’ve done.” Asked by Winfrey if he believed he could win, Trump said he “would have a hell of a chance.” “I would say that I would have a hell of a chance of winning, because I think people — I don’t know how your audience feels — but I think people are tired of seeing the United States ripped off,” Trump argued, promising that if he were in charge, “[t]his country would make one hell of a lot of money from those people that for twenty-five years have taken advantage” of the United States. Trump concluded by insisting that he would abandon an unacceptable status quo. In Donald Trump’s America “[i]t wouldn’t be the way it’s been,” Trump declared. “Believe me.” *Trump To USA: Look How Rich I Am! <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/trump-to-usa-look-how-rich-i-am.html> // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 14, 2015 * On Wednesday, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump announced in a press release that he was too rich for the Federal Election Commission forms but he filed them anyway. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” the release began, lest you had forgotten that Trump is, in his own words, “really rich.” “For instance,” the release helpfully explained, “they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is ‘$50,000,000 or more.” Prior to his campaign, pundit wisdom surrounding Trump was that he would never really run for office because if he did, it would mean admitting he wasn’t as rich as he said he was. That was why, it was believed, he’d chickened out of formally announcing for close to twenty years. But, according to the press release, the pundits were wrong. The financial disclosure is not yet available from the FEC, but Trump claims his net worth “is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” (Caps his, of course). He also claims that in 2014 he made “$362 million (which does to include dividends, interest, capital gains, rents and royalties).” Trump’s compulsory declarations of wealth are his defining characteristic. During his June 16 announcement, he made sure to clarify “I’m really rich.” “Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country.” In total, he uttered the words “rich,” “money” and “net worth” 30 times in 45 minutes. He also claimed his exact net worth was $8,737,540,000. Trump, whose corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy over 10 times, is highly sensitive to accusations that he is not as wealthy as he claims. In 2006, when Trump claimed to be worth $2.7 billion, he sued Timothy L. O’Brien, author of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald and its publisher, Warner Books, for saying Trump was worth $150 million to $250 million. The suit was dismissed. In 2011, when MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell mocked Trump by suggesting he was worth fewer than $1 billion, Trump responded on Twitter by threatening a lawsuit and claiming to be worth “substantially more than 7 billion dollars” with “very low debt, great assets.” In an interview with The Daily Beast about the downfall of Atlantic City in 2014, Trump declared, without prompting, “I made a lot of money in Atlantic City” over half a dozen times—five of which made their way into print. At one point, he said, “I hope you can say in your article that Mr. Trump sold out a long time ago and did well. I made a lot of money.” Having defied expectations, the tone of Trump’s release was jovial. “First people said I would never run, and I did,” he said in a statement. “Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 day extensions. Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with a ‘big heart’ toward the care of our people.” *GOP Gives Up on ‘Dump Trump’ <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/gop-gives-up-on-dump-trump.html> // Daily Beast // Tim Mak – July 15, 2015 * Republican grief over Donald Trump’s all but assured presence on the debate stage next month seems to be entering it’s final stage: acceptance. Whether it’s the winery-owning mega donor, or the Koch-backed Hispanic outreach group or the former head of the American Conservative Union, there is a distaste for the abrasive reality television star and businessman. But although there was preliminary chatter about finding a way to marginalize Trump or keep him off the debate stage in Cleveland, Ohio, the unhappiness with his recent insulting comments about Hispanics has yielded to mere condemnation and an unhappy acquiescence to his presence in the race. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” Trump said recently. John Jordan, the multi-millionaire winery owner and the third largest donor to super PACs in the country in 2013, had originally contemplated gathering signatures to keep Trump off the debate stage. “Someone in the party ought to start some sort of petition saying, ‘If Trump’s going to be on the stage, I’m not going to be on there with him,’” Jordan told the Associated Press last week. “I’m toying with the idea of it.” But several days later, Jordan was thinking differently. He told The Daily Beast that he would not be putting together a petition effort. “I’m content right to let the process play out, that is for the party and the candidates to figure out,” Jordan said. “I have one concern, and one concern only, and that is next November. I want to make sure that the nominee has the possible chance to win.” “He’s a lunatic, but we’ve had other lunatics run for president. The problem is not that he’s on stage—it’s if you don’t respond and rebuke him,” Alfonso Aguilar said. Al Cardenas, the former chairman of the American Conservative Union and Florida’s first Hispanic GOP state chairman, said he hoped the primary process would naturally weed out Trump’s candidacy, rather than a top-down effort to push Trump out. “[A]s distasteful as his comments have been to me, we should let the process play out. Hopefully, it’s the rejection by the voters, not a group of party leaders ,that should determine his fate as a presidential candidate,” Cardenas said. “I respect the feelings of a number of our colleagues who feel differently—and strongly—about this and argue that his continuation in the race is detrimental to our party and to our brand. And they may be right, but the end does not justify the means in this case.” “It’s a mild form of censorship to say that because we disagree with his tone or comments about the immigrant community, [he] should leave the race,” added Daniel Garza of the Koch-backed Libre Initiative, which seeks to appeal to Hispanic voters. “You allow him to mouth off… He has the right to speak, and we have the right to disagree with him… calls to have him leave the race are ludicrous.” Alfonso Aguilar, the head of the conservative American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, views Trump’s “insulting and baseless” comments as creating pressure on other presidential candidates to step up their Hispanic outreach. “Instead of seeing him as a problem, I see it as an opportunity—but one that requires strong leadership,” he told the Beast. “He’s a lunatic, but we’ve had other lunatics run for president. The problem is not that he’s on stage—it’s if you don’t respond and rebuke him.” “He has shaken up the primary in a way that might not be welcome. But now that you have it, if you’re smart and astute, maybe you can use it in your favor,” agreed Garza. “Obviously you have to draw the contrast. If Donald Trump is showing how not to do Latino outreach, you show the way to do it effective.” As for the Republican National Committee, it wants no part in any effort to sideline Trump. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had called Trump to preach civility after the businessman’s controversial comments—then got mired into a he-said, he-said with the Donald over the contents of the call. Asked about whether Republicans or big-dollar donors were making an effort to keep Trump off the debate stage, an RNC official merely said that, per Federal Election Commission guidelines, the networks and debate sponsors were responsible for setting up the guidelines for the presidential debates. Meanwhile, a small plurality of Republican voters are favoring Trump. In a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released this week, Trump leads the field with 17%. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is close behind him with 14%. Two polls out last week showed him leading the field of Republican 2016 candidates, receiving 15 percent in a Economist/YouGov poll and 16 percent in a PPP poll. Aguila, who was in Arizona to counter-message an event Trump was having with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said the key to convincing Republican primary voters to steer clear of Trump, was to point out the businessman’s prior positions like Trump’s praise of Bill Clinton and his donation to the Clinton Foundation. “Before he was friends with Hillary, now he’s friends with Joe Arpaio,” he said. “Are you really sure he’s conservative?” *Donald Trump Claims $10 Billion Net Worth After Filing Election Forms <http://time.com/3959314/donald-trump-wealth-net-worth-billion/> // TIME // Zeke J. Miller – July 15, 2015 * Business mogul Donald Trump claimed a personal net worth of over $10 billion after filing a personal financial disclosure form with the Federal Election Commission, a key procedural hurdle for his presidential campaign. The filing clears the way for Trump to appear on the first GOP debate stage on Aug. 6 in Cleveland, and comes as he has risen to the top of polls of Republican voters. Trump reported earning more than $362 million in 2014, according to his campaign — dwarfing the rest of the GOP field’s net worth by a significant margin. In typical Trump fashion, the campaign released a statement full of braggadocio to commemorate the occasion. “This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his campaign said “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is “$50,000,000 or more.” The filing reportedly shows that Trump is affiliated with nearly “500 business entities of which 91% are owned 100% by him.” According to his campaign, he earned $213,606,575 during the 14 seasons of The Apprentice, the NBC reality show which was renewed in May without Trump’s participation. Last month, Trump filed a preliminary financial statement claiming a net worth of about $8.7 billion. “Mr. Trump’s net worth has increased since the more than one year old financial statement produced at his presidential announcement,” his campaign said. “Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other places where he owns property have gone up considerably during this period of time. His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump’s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” (Emphasis theirs.) In a statement, Trump needled those who said he would never file the official forms, which must be certified by the candidate as “true, complete and correct to the best of [their] knowledge.” “First people said I would never run, and I did,” Trump said. “Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions. Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with a ‘big heart’ toward the care of our people.” *Heat on GOP Candidates Paul, Rubio to Derail Iran Pact <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/14/heat_on_gop_candidates_paul_rubio_to_derail_iran_pact.html> // Real Clear Politics // Caitlin Huey-Burns and Rebecca Berg – July 14, 2015 * As the Obama administration and most Democrats celebrated a nuclear deal with Iran as a historic achievement, Republicans running for president uniformly denounced it as a historic failure. The swift opposition was expected; it’s become something of a rallying cry on the campaign trail as part of slamming the administration’s foreign policy and, by virtue, Hillary Clinton’s, as weak and caving. But the formalized terms place a spotlight on the presidential pool’s contenders from the U.S. Senate, particularly Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, whose hopes of standing apart from a crowded field rest in part on their foreign policy bona fides. The freshmen senators both sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will take the first crack at the Iran deal, and have publicly sparred over their differences in this arena, most notably over the administration’s thawing of relations with Cuba. Paul, the libertarian from Kentucky, has focused more on domestic policy issues like government surveillance and privacy, but has also mostly maintained a more anti-interventionist view. Rubio, from Florida, has taken an approach to foreign policy that has been among the most hawkish in the GOP field. In a sign of how politically untenable support for this particular deal is in this Republican primary, the two senators came out on the same side on this issue. “It will be very hard for the GOP candidates to support this deal and still argue they are tough on national security,” said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “It is not simply that Hillary Clinton’s resume is foreign policy heavy -- it is the fact that this president will bequeath a world in such disorder that any pretense of comfort with the world Barack Obama built will be viewed by voters as an abdication of leadership.” While Paul has said he would be open to diplomacy with Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities instead of waging war, he ultimately opposed the deal that will come soon before Congress for review. But he was not as quick with a response as his rivals. In a statement, Paul argued that sanctions would expire before evidence of compliance and that it still leaves Iran with significant nuclear capability. Additionally, Paul said, the agreement will lift an arms embargo with Iran (the administration argues that the ban will remain for the next five years). “While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal,” Paul said, noting he would vote against it. For Rubio, who has staunchly opposed an agreement with Iran from the start, the deal presents an opportunity to further elevate rhetoric he has embraced on the campaign trail for months. In March, Rubio was among 47 Republican senators, along with Paul, who signed an open letter to Iranian leaders noting that “the next president could revoke ... an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen.” That same month, during a political event in New Hampshire, Rubio suggested that the proliferation of Iranian weapons might even warrant military intervention by the U.S. “We may have to decide at some point what is worse: a military strike against Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran,” Rubio said, according to a Politico report at the time. “I am not cheerleading for war. I don’t want there to be the need to use military force, but a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk for the region and the world.” On Tuesday, Rubio indicated in a statement that he would undo the agreement with Iran if he were elected president. “It will then be left to the next president to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security,” Rubio said. And, almost immediately, Rubio’s political network sprang into action to capitalize on the deal. An ad released Tuesday by a nonprofit group supporting Rubio for president said he “is leading the fight” in the Senate against the deal with Iran, and pressed people to urge their senators to ”join Marco Rubio and defeat Obama’s deal with Iran. In large field of candidates, a rivalry has emerged between executive-minded governors and legislatively experienced senators. The difference becomes especially relevant, the senators argue, when it comes to foreign policy, as congressional lawmakers have more intimate knowledge and experience with classified information and international affairs. While the GOP field is largely united around foreign policy — with Rand Paul as an outlier — the nuances lie in style and past experiences. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has also made his foreign affairs experience a centerpiece of his campaign. He came out in perhaps the starkest of terms against the Iran deal in various cable news interviews on Tuesday, calling it “the most dangerous and irresponsible step I’ve ever seen” and one that would ensure that Iran becomes “a nuclear nation.” Graham said he fears “that we’ve set in motion a decade of chaos.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also vehemently condemned the deal that he argued “legitimized” Iran’s nuclear program, taking special objection to the fact that the negotiations did not bring about the release of three American captives held in Iran. “We owe it to our fellow Americans to elevate, not ignore, their plight, to demand their swift and unconditional release by the implacably hostile regime that holds them,” Cruz said in a statement. Relative to the former and sitting governors running for president, Republican senators will be able to more directly affect the party’s path forward on this issue from their perch on Capitol Hill. That might lend some advantages, but also adds the responsibility of potentially presenting some legislative alternative to the agreement with Iran. “Your Iran policy can’t just be issuing the most hyperbolic press release,” said Tommy Vietor, a former spokesman for the president on national security. “If you disagree, you need to propose a viable alternative that can unite the international community the way Obama has and actually move us closer to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” Vietor added, “I haven’t heard any of these guys articulate a viable alternative.” On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator challenging Hillary Clinton for the nomination, called the deal “a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling.” He said it “could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East.” Sanders crossed paths with Clinton on Tuesday as she spent the day on Capitol Hill meeting with Democrats, with a special focus on Iran. For her part, Clinton, who worked to bring the negotiations about as secretary of state, called the agreement “an important step in putting the lid on Iran’s nuclear program.” Clinton, who will play a key role in persuading lawmakers to support the agreement, also said the deal will enable the United States in further negotiations over Iran’s other “bad actions,” including the detainment of American citizens, threats to Israel, and state-sponsored terrorism. Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement before voting on it. With Republicans opposed and a handful of Democrats with constituent ties to Israeli interests skeptical of the accord, the president will have to work to win over his party and get enough support to sustain a veto if need be. President Obama will make a public address on Wednesday about the Iran deal, while Vice President Joe Biden will go to Capitol Hill to discuss the agreement with Democratic lawmakers. Administration officials warned that stepping away from the accord would only unravel the sanctions placed on Iran: “A vote to kill this deal could potentially be a vote to kill the sanctions regime.” *Trump Swears He’s Not Running For President As A Democratic Plant <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-carlos-curbelo-democratic-plant> // TPM // Catherine Thompson – July 15, 2015 * Real estate mogul Donald Trump on Wednesday brushed off speculation that the Democratic Party orchestrated his presidential run to disrupt the GOP primary process. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) said in a recent local radio interview that he thought there was a "small possibility" Trump could be a Democratic plant in the Republican presidential field. "I think there's a small possibility that this gentleman is a phantom candidate," Curbelo said, as quoted by The Miami Herald. "Mr. Trump has a close friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were at his last wedding. He has contributed to the Clintons' foundation. He has contributed to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaigns. All of this is very suspicious." Trump shot down that theory on Fox News' "Fox & Friends." "Believe me -- from Hillary's standpoint, the one person she doesn't want running against her is Donald Trump," he said of the Democratic presidential frontrunner. The former reality TV star argued that contributing to the Clintons and others was just the price of doing business prior to entering the political arena. "I'm a businessman. I contribute to everybody," Trump said. "When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say 'go to my wedding,' they go to my wedding." In his presidential announcement speech, Trump had emphasized his ability to self-fund his campaign and eschew donors. "That's part of the problem with our system," he said on "Fox & Friends." "They're going to do for me and all their donors things that aren't necessarily good for the country, but that are good for their donors." *Republican Voters Like Trump More Than Boehner, McConnell <http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/republican-voters-like-trump-more-than-boehner-mcconnell/> // Morning Consult // Reid Wilson – July 15, 2015* Republican voters have a higher opinion of billionaire real estate magnate Donald Trump than they do of their party leaders in Congress, according to a new Morning Consult survey. Forty-nine percent of self-described Republican voters said they view Trump favorably, higher than the 36 percent who have a favorable view of House Speaker John Boehner and the 31 percent who said they see Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a favorable light. But Trump’s favorable ratings have actually slipped in the month since he announced he is running for president — both among Republican voters and the electorate as a whole. In an early June survey, 54 percent of Republican voters said they viewed Trump favorably, five points higher than his rating today. And the number of those who see Trump in a very unfavorable light has spiked, from 14 percent of Republicans in June to 26 percent today. The number of registered voters who view him unfavorably is also up considerably, from 34 percent a month ago to 46 percent today. Still, Trump is running high among Republican primary voters. A new Suffolk poll conducted for USA Today show he leads the Republican field with 17 percent. The Morning Consult poll also showed Trump as the top choice of 17 percent of Republican primary voters, up from 5 percent the previous month, though running second behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who took 19 percent. Bush and Trump run far ahead of the rest of the Republican field, in which no other candidate tops 10 percent. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) finishes a distant third, at 9 percent, just ahead of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), at 8 percent. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) clocks in at 7 percent, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) clustered at 6 percent. Thirteen percent of the 762 Republican voters surveyed said they didn’t know who they would support. While Trump’s presidential candidacy has led the national news for weeks, Boehner and McConnell have gone about their work more quietly. Consequently, fewer Americans have formed an opinion about the two most powerful men in Congress. Among all registered voters, Boehner’s favorable rating sits at just 23 percent, while 48 percent view him unfavorably. Even among Republicans, 31 percent don’t know enough about the three-term speaker to have formed an opinion. McConnell, who took over as Majority Leader after Republicans won control of the Senate last year, is even less well-known. Just 19 percent see him favorably, while 39 percent see him unfavorably, and 41 percent of voters – including 44 percent of self-identified Republicans – don’t know enough about him to form an opinion. The Morning Consult survey polled 2,019 registered voters between July 8-13, for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent. *UNDECLARED* *OTHER* *Paul Singer, Top Republican Donor, Is Still on the Sidelines <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/> // NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – July 15, 2015 * The billionaire Paul E. Singer, one of the most sought-after donors in the Republican Party, said Wednesday that he was not committed to any political candidate yet. Speaking at hedge fund conference in Manhattan, Mr. Singer said he was “not on the verge of committing to anyone,” adding that he liked several candidates, including Senator Marco Rubio and former Gov Jeb Bush, both from Florida, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who formally announced his presidential campaign on Monday. Mr. Singer also added, “We like Carly Fiorina, as well.” In recent months, Mr. Singer, founder of the $26 billion investment firm Elliott Management, has held a series of dinners to introduce associates to the vast array of Republican candidates. *Candidate Forum Planned in New Hampshire Before First Republican Debate <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/> // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015 * Local news outlets in states with early primaries are teaming up to hold a Republican candidate forum in early August amid complaints that subsequent full-fledged debates are excluding candidates based merely on polling. The New Hampshire Union Leader, along with news organizations in Iowa and South Carolina and C-Span, are sponsoring a candidate forum in Manchester, N.H., on Aug. 3. The forum, which will give each candidate five minutes to respond to questions, would come before the Aug. 6 debate hosted by Fox News, which is limiting the stage to the 10 Republicans leading in recent national polls. “Fox says only the ‘top’ 10 candidates, as judged solely by national polling, will be allowed on its stage,” the news organizations said in a joint statement. “That may be understandable later, but the first votes are half a year away and there are a lot more than 10 viable candidates.” The forum is not technically a debate but is expected to give candidates an opportunity to stand next to one another on stage and spontaneously answer questions. With 15 Republican candidates currently announced, television networks and the Republican National Committee have been fearful that early debates will become chaotic unless participation is limited. However, lower-tier candidates worry that they will not have the chance to showcase themselves if they are shut out from competing so early in the election cycle. So far Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; Ben Carson; Senator Ted Cruz of Texas; Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; Carly Fiorina; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; Gov. John Kasich of Ohio; and former Gov. George Pataki of New York have agreed to attend the forum. Representatives for Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said they did not yet know if they could make it. Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the R.N.C., said the party was allowing the forum because the candidates would be speaking one at a time. *Sniping Intensifies Between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/sniping-intensifies-between-donald-trump-and-jeb-bush/> // NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015 * Donald J. Trump and former Gov. Jeb Bush have been deadlocked in recent polls and sniping between the two Republican presidential candidates is getting increasingly personal. Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that the former Florida governor lacks energy and will not deliver on his promises because he is beholden to the big donors who are filling his campaign war chest. “Somebody that’s reliant on all of these lobbyists and special interests and donors, they have no power,” Mr. Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He added, “The $100 million that he raised is a bad thing, not a good thing.” Mr. Bush is leading the crowded Republican field in fund-raising so far, and Mr. Trump, a billionaire businessman, argues that his personal wealth empowers him as a candidate. He also said that he will file the required personal financial disclosure forms on Wednesday or Thursday. “Every single person is expecting something for that money and that’s not good for the country,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Bush. “That means you can’t make deals that are good for the country.” Mr. Bush has taken issue with Mr. Trump’s comments in recent weeks, particularly his remarks that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are criminals and “rapists.” Mr. Bush also took offense to Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he has an affinity for Mexicans because his wife is Mexican-American. “A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts,” Mr. Bush said in Iowa on Tuesday, suggesting that his rival was preying on people’s angst. Mr. Trump continues to stand by his remarks, but said that they have been distorted and blown out of proportion. He vowed again on Wednesday that he will win the Hispanic vote because he employs thousands of them and knows how to create jobs. “The Hispanics love me,” he said. *Trump, Carson, and Santorum burn through campaign cash fastest <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/trump-carson-and-santorum-burn-through-campaign-cash-fastest/> // WaPo // Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015 * The so-called burn rate -- comparing money raised with money spent -- showed Trump in the lead, spending 74 percent of the campaign funds he has raised so far in his official campaign account. The New York real estate and entertainment magnate is running ahead of other candidates in recent polls. Carson, the Baltimore neurosurgeon, burned through 64 percent of the money he has raised to date, putting him close to Rick Santorum, who had a 62 percent burn rate, according to numbers filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. Trump spent heavily on travel and staff, including more than $506,486 on private jet services. In total, Trump's campaign reported spending about $1.5 million dollars as of June 30 from his mostly self-funded campaign. Typically candidates hold on to the funds they raise early in a campaign. But this year there is enormous pressure on candidates to maintain visibility and credibility in an unusually crowded GOP field. Despite Trump's recent rise in polls, burn rate is not necessarily an indication of success. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who also ranks at the top of recent polls, reported a burn rate of 27 percent. The Bush campaign spent slightly more than $3 million in the two weeks after Bush announced his campaign in mid-June, primarily on operational fees, including around $400,000 on legal consulting fees. Expenditure reports showed large payments went to political consultants, including more than $350,000 to FP1 Strategies, the firm founded by Bush campaign manager Danny Diaz. Senior adviser Sally Bradshaw was paid $25,550, including $13,300 for her work while Bush was “testing the waters.” Bush, who touted support for Uber in face of warnings from Hillary Clinton about economic questions raised by the "sharing economy," spent $1,396 on Uber rides. Hillary Clinton's filing revealed a burn rate of 39 percent compared with 20 percent for her nearest challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton, who raised the largest sums of any official campaign, was quick to start spending money. Her committee raced through nearly $19 million in less than three months, even before beginning expensive TV buys. Millions went to hire hundreds of staffers, a sign of how rapidly it has sought to ramp up a national infrastructure. A quick review of spending by Carson and Santorum showed that the three were spending a lot on fundraising efforts. This spending appears to have paid off in one way way for Carson, who reported a large number of small donors. All told, Carson received $5.7 million from donors contributing less than $250 each. His high proportion of small donors was exceeded only by by Sanders, whose small-donation haul topped $10.4 million, about 68 percent of his entire campaign receipts. Overall, Sanders reports show a burn rate of 20 percent. Another GOP candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, collected a little more than $2 million this cycle, and spent $1.1 million, giving him a burn rate of 56 percent. Huckabee’s spending for his 2016 run so far includes consulting fees and salaries for a lot of familiar names from his 2008 bid. Other than the campaign’s American Express bills, Huckabee paid the Wickers firm, where his son-in-law Bryan Sanders is a partner, the biggest single check: $55,586 for media consultant services. Firm CEO Bob Wickers is Huckabee’s political and media consultant. Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is managing her father’s campaign this time around. She advised Tom Cotton in his winning Senate campaign last year and managed John Boozman’s 2010 Senate bid against incumbent Blanche Lincoln. Another sizable payment went to the Political Law Group, Doug Chalmer’s political law firm in Georgia, which received $52,773. Next came Unisource Direct, a Wisconsin firm, which collected $39, 459 for direct mail services. The campaign also wrote checks totaling $20,107 to J. Hogan Gidley and $18,524 to Alice Tadlock, both of whom worked on Huckabee’s 2008 campaign and are leaders in Huckabee’s 2016 communications strategy. Gidley also directed HUCK PAC, Huckabee’s political action committee. Huckabee's close rival for support from Christian conservatives, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, was behind Huckabee in his rate of spending with a burn rate of 54 percent. Rubio, who filed late in the evening Wednesday, showed a burn rate of 35 percent and a hefty total of $9.9 million cash on hand. *As Jindal and Huckabee struggle with fundraising, super PACs bolster tallies <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/as-jindal-and-huckabee-struggle-with-fundraising-super-pacs-bolster-tallies/> // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 * Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s campaign raised just $579,000 in the second quarter, according to a Federal Election Commission filing submitted Wednesday, an underwhelming campaign finance report that in past elections would have seriously called into question his ability to finance a national campaign. But that meager sum is bolstered by more than $8.7 million raised by his allied outside groups this year – including a super PAC and a political nonprofit organization – which dwarfed his campaign’s fundraising tally while highlighting the disproportionate role allied campaign committees are already playing in the 2016 election. So it goes in the 2016 election: with bottom-tier candidates struggling to fundraise among broad bases of voters, astronomical super PAC hauls can prop up candidates as they find their footing in an exceptionally crowded 2016 presidential field. And the campaigns and their allies have gladly publicized those numbers alongside each other -- either through closely staggered media disclosures or blatantly coordinated press releases -- to demonstrate they have the money they need to compete. Jindal’s fundraising is particularly striking: his allied super PAC raised $3.7 million throughout 2015, according to a report published Wednesday by the Washington Examiner. In addition to that sum, an allied political nonprofit – classified as a tax-exempt 501(c)4 by the IRS -- raised an additional $4 million. Yet another group, American Future Project, a 527 political committee, raised an additional $1 million. That brings the governor’s war chest to more than $9 million, of which about 5 percent actually came from official campaign. His allies' decision to release the numbers at the same time serves the goal of silencing criticism over his fundraising power. That approach has become the strategy du jour for campaigns. Former Texas governor Rick Perry last week reported raising $1 million around the same time his super PAC disclosed it had released $17 million. And it's not just back-of-the-pack candidates; financial frontrunner Jeb Bush's campaign and super PAC released their tallies on the same day, prompting stories about his unprecedented $114 million haul that combined both sets of numbers. The coordinated release of fundraising records has raised eyebrows among campaign finance watchdogs but does not necessarily indicate any wrongdoing. Although super PACs -- which can accept unlimited sums of money -- are legally barred from coordinating on strategy with campaign officials, they are not specifically prevented from communicating directly. In that sense, conversations between outside groups and official campaign advisers frequently fall into grey zones that even legal experts disagree over. The 2016 is in that sense the wild west on campaign finance reform, with campaigns and outside groups continually pushing the boundaries of what is appropriate and what is questionable. Consider former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, whose advisors on Tuesday night released the campaign's total contributions alongside tallies for several outside groups, which also included a super PAC and a political nonprofit. That moved Huckabee’s fundraising tally from $2 million to a significantly more robust $8 million. The key importance super PACs are playing this cycle has run amok of laws that prohibit coordination between campaign committees and super PACs in other areas. The Post's Matea Gold reported some examples last week: Before former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) announced his bid in mid-June, the Right to Rise super PAC filmed footage of him that the group plans to use in ads. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is collaborating directly with Correct the Record, a super PAC providing the Democratic hopeful’s team with opposition research. Top advisers to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) have been positioned at two big-money groups as they await his presidential announcement next week. GOP candidate Carly Fiorina has gone even further, outsourcing core functions such as rapid response and event preparation to her allied super PAC, the aptly named ­CARLY for America. As Matea noted last week: It's bold, but it's legal. *2016 fundraising shows power tilting to groups backed by wealthy elite <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016-fundraising-shows-power-tilting-to-groups-backed-by-wealthy-elite/2015/07/15/4c915a74-2b05-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html> // WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 * A small cadre of super-wealthy Americans are dominating the fundraising for the 2016 Republican presidential nominating contest, doling out huge sums to independent groups that overwhelm total contributions to the candidates. Nearly $4 of every $5 raised so far on behalf of GOP White House contenders has gone to independent groups rather than the official campaigns. Outside groups have already amassed more than $235 million — more than four times the $60 million raised collectively by the Republican field through June 30, according to reports filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission. So far, the dynamic is different on the Democratic side, with 80 percent of the nearly $78 million raised so far to support Hillary Rodham Clinton and her competitors flowing to their campaigns. The lopsided war chests on the right underscore how the financing of political campaigns has been fundamentally rewired in the five years since federal courts loosened restrictions on political spending by corporations and rich individuals. Those decisions triggered a rush of big donations and political operatives to independent groups that can accept unlimited donations, a trend that has dramatically accelerated this year. This election cycle has already seen bolder collaboration between super PACs and campaigns than previous races, as well as a proliferation of nonprofit groups aligned with individual candidates. The 2016 elections are now poised to mark a tipping point: the first time outside groups outstrip the clout and resources of many campaigns. “It’s pretty clear that the super PACs are playing an unprecedented role,” said Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks political contributions. “This whole development to me is staggering,” he said. “You’re in a fundamentally different system than 12 years ago or eight years ago.” The huge pack of well-funded independent groups flanking the Republican candidates has fueled anxiety among party elders that the GOP is in for a drawn-out, bloody primary fight — one that could possibly roll into the nominating convention in July. “It could end up with the Republican vote split up in a lot of different ways,” said Ron Weiser, a former finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, who is neutral in the 2016 race. “No one is going to go away if they have a lot of money in their super PAC.” “There are people who are concerned that this could end up a long and very extensive primary that could allow the opponent to gain substantial advantage,” Weiser added. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is far aheada of his rivals in the money race with $119.4 million raised by various entities supporting his bid. In second place, Sen. Ted Cruz is being bolstered by $51.2 million raised by his campaign and aligned super PACs, while supporters of Sen. Marco Rubio have donated $45 million between his campaign, a super PAC and a nonprofit. Strip away their outside allies and the top contenders are more evenly matched. Cruz, who jumped in the race first in late March, has raised $14.2 million for his campaign. Rubio pulled in about $12 million, while Bush collected $11.4 million in just two weeks as a declared candidate. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson is not far behind, with $10.5 million. Even longer-shot candidates are able to tout big fundraising hauls by their outside allies. Former Texas governor Rick Perry raised just $1 million for his campaign, but has generated more than $16 million in super PAC money, largely from three wealthy backers. The biggest sum came from his campaign finance chair, oil pipeline executive Kelcy Warren, who donated $6 million. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who pulled less than $600,000 during his first official week as a candidate, will benefit from three different groups — a super PAC and two nonprofits — that have collected more than $8 million so far. Brad Todd, the GOP strategist running the pro-Jindal Believe Again super PAC, said an expanding universe of donors has helped fuel the big takes. “It used to be that once you went through the Bush ambassador list, you were at the end of the rainbow,” he said. “But there are people who are very engaged in this presidential contest who were never a Ranger or a Pioneer,” the titles given top bundlers for former president George W. Bush. The biggest campaign haul in the second quarter was by Clinton, who pulled in $45 million in 2-1/2 months. Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing her, raised another $15.6 million. One of her challengers for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, also posted a strong showing, raising $15.3 million — the vast majority from small donors who gave less than $200. But other contenders on the left lagged behind. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley announced he pulled in $2 million, while former Rhode Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee reported that he had raised just $30,000 from donors, in addition to lending his campaign $364,000. Several contenders — including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — declared their runs after the close of the last quarter, so will not file their finance reports until mid-October. *The Trump-Bush feud: Frontrunner edition <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/the-trump-bush-feud-frontrunner-edition/> // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 * Last week, Jeb Bush said he was done talking about Donald Trump. What he meant was "done for the week": on Tuesday, he took a major swing at the mogul, who has surged to the top tier in recent GOP national polls. Trump, of course, never pledged to hold his fire. On Wednesday, he again took aim at Bush. "[Bush] doesn't have the energy, he's not going to produce, and I will tell you that when he raises $100 million -- nobody knows about campaign contributions more than me because I've probably given more than almost anybody," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday morning. "When you give $100 million to Bush, he's got his $100 million sitting there, every single person that he gave every single dollar is expecting something for that money. Every single person." He added: "And that's not good for the country. You know, that's a problem. Bush on Tuesday jabbed Trump by name during a Tuesday event in Iowa, suggesting that the presidential candidate's brand of politics are toxic and saying he doesn't "want to be associated with the kind of vitriol that he’s spewing out these days.” “On our side, there are people that prey on people’s fears and their angst. I don’t know about you, but I think it is wrong," he said. "I believe we need to unify our country. ...And whether it’s Donald Trump or Barack Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong. A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts." Later, Bush's campaign highlighted the comments about Trump, emailing them to reporters and posting a clip of those remarks to the Web. Bush himself didn't seem to mind either, as The Post's Ed O'Keefe reported: On Tuesday, the same day a Suffolk University/USA Today survey showed Trump atop the fractured Republican presidential field, Bush walked into an overheated sports bar here and took a direct shot at his surging rival. With a group of Trump supporters picketing outside, Bush seemed to relish the chance to call out the mogul’s attacks on Mexican immigrants and to cast himself as an adult alternative. Trump, for his part, said Wednesday that Clinton and Bush are worried about his surge in the polls and insinuated they are in cahoots to play down his candidacy. "Look, Hillary was the worst secretary of state in the history of our country. I think that the person she doesn't want to run against is me because I say it, and Bush doesn't say it, nobody says it. I don't know if they have, like, a deal, these politicians...they don't speak truly about others. But they have some kind of a deal," he said. Trump also said he wasn't sure exactly why Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), one of the only presidential candidates to speak in his defense in the wake of his controversial comments about Mexican immigrants, was coming to visit him at Trump Tower Wednesday. “Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest, but I do have respect for him,” Trump said. "I respect the fact that along with a couple of others, he came out and he came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal immigration. And he came out very strongly and he came out early, and I respect that. I like him." Earlier this year, Trump took a more skeptical stance on Cruz, saying there were real questions about the Canadian-born senator's eligibility to run for president, despite his U.S. citizenship and U.S.-born mother. "[His birthplace is] a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very seriously," he told a Fox affiliate in March. "He was born in Canada. If you know, and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts will rule on this." Trump also hinted that one of Cruz's main campaign themes was borrowed. From him. "The line of 'Make America great again' -- the phrase, that was mine, I came up with it about a year ago and I kept using it, and everybody's now using it, they are all loving it," Trump said then. "I don’t know, I guess I should copyright it. Maybe I have copyrighted it." *Bush, Walker to reveal top presidential money-raisers <http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:12ed09f1e6fe4dffad8dae4ff6cf0539> // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * Jeb Bush's campaign is promising to reveal the names of top money-raisers in October, making him the first Republican presidential candidate since 2008 to take such a step. Called "bundlers," these fundraisers gather up many $2,700 checks — the maximum legal limit for the primary contest — from fellow donors, making them critical players in any campaign. There's no legal requirement to make bundler names public, except in the case of registered lobbyists. After Bush announced his plan, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's campaign indicated he'll also disclose bundlers. The other Republican candidates have either declined to follow suit or not responded to requests for comment. The Republican moves come after Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton said she'll be releasing names of top fundraisers on Wednesday. *Cruz sets meeting with Trump, praises ‘bold, brash voice’ <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/513fb8d6ac38420590857576a9473c94/cruz-sets-meeting-trump-praises-bold-brash-voice> // AP // Erica Werner – July 15, 2015 * Two of the most outspoken Republican presidential candidates on illegal immigration — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and businessman Donald Trump — are set to talk. Cruz, who requested the Wednesday meeting, told reporters at the U.S. Capitol that Trump "is bringing a bold, brash voice to this presidential race." "One of the reason you're seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their way to smack Donald Trump is they don't like a politician that speaks directly about the challenges of illegal immigration," said Cruz. "Many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack Donald Trump have for years or even decades been vocal advocates of amnesty," he said. "I for one am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these issues, they're critical issues, they're issues I've been fighting for a lot of years." Trump has drawn controversy for calling immigrants arriving illegally from Mexico "criminals" and "rapists." Many GOP contenders including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio have criticized the comments, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called Trump to ask him to tone it down, which Trump said he would not do. Cruz declined to offer details on the purpose of the meeting. Trump said earlier in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he doesn't know what the meeting is about. "He came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal immigration, and he came out very strongly and he came out early, and I respect that," Trump said. "I like him. He called me, he wanted to meet, and we are going to meet. What it's about, I have absolutely no idea." *Early-state newspapers plan GOP forum before Fox debate <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3f2f85e234634653a73abe9bc07cbe4a/early-state-newspapers-plan-gop-forum-fox-debate> // AP // Kathleen Ronayne – July 15, 2015* A trio of newspapers in the early presidential nominating states is pushing back against the plan by Fox News to allow only 10 Republican candidates on stage in its Aug. 6 debate, the first of the 2016 campaign. The New Hampshire Union Leader plans to host a candidate forum Aug. 3 at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, in partnership with The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, and The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The event will be live on C-SPAN as well as TV stations in Iowa and South Carolina and a New Hampshire radio station. All 15 candidates now in the Republican pack have been invited to participate and about half have committed so far. The Union Leader initially threatened to host a forum on the same day as the Fox debate after more than 50 prominent New Hampshire Republicans wrote to Fox protesting the network's debate format. Fox plans to limit its debate to 10 candidates based on their national polling averages. Most contenders at risk of not making the debate stage have committed to the newspaper event, including South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has yet to declare his candidacy. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former technology executive Carly Fiorina, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie also are coming, according to the Union Leader. No details were released about the format. The publishers of the three newspapers said it's important for early-state voters to have a look at each candidate on a level playing field. "There are a lot more than 10 viable candidates," they said in a statement. "The early primary process gives all candidates a chance to be heard. If networks and national polls are to decide this now, the early state process is in jeopardy, and only big money and big names will compete." The Republican National Committee has authorized nine debates, from August through March. It is up to the organizations holding the debates to decide the entry criteria and format. Party rules say any candidate who participates in an unapproved debate will not be eligible for the approved ones. Allison Moore, speaking for the committee, said participation in the New Hampshire newspaper forum will not exclude candidates from the authorized debates. The campaigns of other candidates — among them former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul — did not immediately say whether those candidates would join the New Hampshire forum. The first presidential caucuses are in Iowa. The first primaries are in New Hampshire and South Carolina respectively. *Charleston massacre, flag debate put Haley in 2016 spotlight <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b5dc7baa2b014050863aa78b38a9b0a7/charleston-massacre-flag-debate-put-haley-2016-spotlight> // AP // Bill Barrow and Meg Kinnard – July 15, 2015 * From her public statements of grief to removing the Confederate battle flag from outside her Statehouse office, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has drawn wide praise since the massacre of nine black churchgoers from a historic Charleston congregation. Now the 43-year-old looks to her next role as the self-described host of a key early presidential primary, with the national attention feeding chatter about her potential as a running mate and as a voice for a Republican Party that needs more votes from women and minorities. Just how prominent she remains in 2016, though, depends on factors well beyond this latest chapter in Haley's intense, complicated rise from state representative to her tenure as South Carolina's first female and minority governor, a five-year stretch that has rankled many of her fellow Republicans. "There are sometimes events in an elected official's life that transcend politics, and this certainly was one for Gov. Haley," said Ted Newton, who helped lead the research team that vetted vice presidential prospects for Mitt Romney in 2012. Newton praised Haley's "skill and grace" in recent weeks. Yet, he said, "The fact that she's in the headlines briefly doesn't guarantee anything. If she stays on a short-list (for vice president), it will be because she survives more intense scrutiny." Besides, he said, more often than not, the deciding factor for a nominee picking a running mate is quite simple: personal and political compatibility. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina for the first time since formally launching his bid, the first out-of-state Republican candidate to visit since the Confederate flag came down Friday. According to her aides, Haley has met in recent months with Walker, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and her hometown senior Sen. Lindsey Graham, fully 10 of the GOP's 15 prominent declared candidates. Haley refuses to discuss the massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in the context of her future, and she maintains that her change of heart on the battle flag — she had steadfastly sidestepped questions about the banner despite longstanding calls for its removal — was not a political calculation. "If people are talking about that, then I'm not working hard enough to talk about the (Emanuel) families," Haley said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "I don't want to think about it or talk about it or even acknowledge it at this point." South Carolina's place as the first Southern presidential primary next February, weeks after Iowa and New Hampshire open the nominating process, offers a different reality. "Everybody was going to covet Nikki's endorsement already," said Katon Dawson, a former state Republican Party chairman who backs the White House candidacy of Perry, the former Texas governor. "Now business is really going to pick up for her." Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, first garnered national attention in 2010, when she won a bruising Republican primary and a competitive general election. She has sought to define her administration on job creation, primarily through the decisions by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Boeing and a host of tire makers to establish or expand plants in South Carolina. But she's also had to fend off ethics complaints and routinely battles with her fellow Republicans in the Legislature on tax and budget issues. In the weeks leading up to 2012 presidential primary, Haley endorsed Romney, who went on to lose South Carolina. The move angered tea party conservatives critical to Haley's 2010 election, but established her as a team player for the national party. State Rep. Rick Quinn, who has aligned with Haley in her fiscal fights, said the governor faces "jealousy" in the Republican-controlled state. But he said presidential candidates should take note of the governing skill she demonstrated in cajoling lawmakers to remove the battle flag. "To get 170 politicians to come along with her was a tough task," Quinn said, adding, "She did a lot more than just go have press conferences. She brought us in. ... She showed that she's more than just a talking head or a mouthpiece." The decision also helps presidential candidates who now won't have to answer uncomfortable questions about the banner, as candidates have faced in previous election years. Recalling a conversation she had with Walker about the flag after the church attack, Haley said she told him, "If you have any uncomfortable things, we'll help you get through it, but I'm going to take care of this." *GOP candidates slam Iran deal, but will it play in 2016? <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b607b8507a844dda85625f996070b5e/gop-candidates-slam-iran-deal-will-it-play-2016> // AP // Nicholas Riccardi – July 15, 2015 * Republican White House hopefuls are already vowing to overturn President Barack Obama's deal with Iran. The stance may help Republicans score political points among the conservatives who dominate the GOP presidential primary electorate. But Tuesday's unanimous opposition could be less effective among general election voters in the fall of 2016. Politically speaking, experts predict the issue could be a wash. Republicans are seizing on American voters' deep distrust of Iran, while Democrats say that the deal is much better than another war in the Middle East. The contrast was clear as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly embraced the deal. At the same time, several Republican candidates, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush vowed to rescind the agreement. *Officials say Cleveland on track for 2016 GOP convention <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39fbd81b1b9f4c5895e549d7f8b16027/cleveland-needs-25m-more-cover-gop-convention-expenses> // AP // Mark Gillispie – July 15, 2015 * Organizers say Cleveland must secure 4,000 more hotel rooms and raise an additional $25 million to meet its money commitment for the 2016 Republican National Convention next July, but preparations are nevertheless on pace. About 50,000 people, including 15,000 members of the media, are expected to attend the convention and more than 1,000 related events. Officials from Cleveland 2016 Host Committee see the four-day event as Cleveland's opportunity to show the world how the city has been transformed in the past decade. Mayor Frank Jackson said at a news conference Wednesday that the hope is to "present Cleveland in the greatest light that we can." MILLIONS TO BE RAISED Cleveland's winning bid included a commitment to raise $64 million in cash and in-kind services to pay for convention-related expenses. Most of the money will be spent preparing Quicken Loans Arena for the convention, David Gilbert, head of the host committee, said in an interview last week. Cleveland has raised about $39 million, mostly from within Ohio. Fundraising efforts will now focus nationally on corporations and individuals, Gilbert said. Philadelphia is expected to raise $84 million for next year's Democratic convention. GIVE THEM SHELTER The host committee's effort to secure the 16,000 hotel rooms required by the RNC stumbled in recent months after some hotels reneged on voluntary agreements to provide about 1,500 rooms. Those rooms, Gilbert said, represent a big chunk of the 4,000 rooms that still need to be secured. Gilbert said some of the hotel rooms could be located outside the 35-mile radius from Quicken Loans Arena established in the host committee's agreement with the RNC. THE BUS STOPS HERE Gilbert is mindful of the transportation problems that plagued the 2012 Republican convention in Tampa, Florida. Some delegations had to endure long waits for buses taking them to and from the convention site. A transportation consultant is being hired to help Cleveland figure out how best to move thousands of people in and out of downtown. Gilbert hopes that the 5,000 downtown hotel rooms will help reduce traffic snarls. Parking will be at a premium and shuttle buses will be needed for lots situated outside of downtown, he said. SECURITY MINDED The city will be responsible for administering a $50 million federal grant to pay for a security plan created by the U.S. Secret Service. A good chunk of that money will be spent on uniforms, housing and food for thousands of law enforcement officers who will be hired for the convention. A security perimeter will be established around Quicken Loans Arena where only those with credentials will be allowed inside. An area will be established outside that zone for protesters. LONG-TERM BENEFITS While the convention will result in hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in Cleveland in the coming months, local officials like Gilbert, who is also president and CEO of the region's tourism agency, see the convention as a prime opportunity for the city to shine. Roads are being resurfaced and streetscapes are being gussied up. A $30 million makeover of iconic Public Square is expected to be completed. Gilbert said the convention's biggest benefit would be a boost in tourism and convention bookings that will help sustain the city and region for years to come. "We want people to understand that it's not only about that one week," he said. "We think this will position us incredibly well for the future." *George Pataki’s official haul: $256k // <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/george-patakis-official-haul-256k-120199.html?ml=tl_5> Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 * Former New York Gov. George Pataki’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised just under $256,000 in the second quarter of this year. Pataki, who launched his campaign on May 28, is a long-shot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. His hopes are pegged to New Hampshire, where his more moderate stances on issues such as gun control and the environment might be better received than in Iowa. He is currently not polling among the top 10 candidates and is not expected to make the cut for the first nationally televised Republican debate next month. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June: Total raised: $255, 794.96 Total spent: $48,174.71 Total cash on hand: $207,620.25 Total debt: $0 *Donald Trump changes tune on Cruz <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-changes-tune-on-cruz-120182.html?ml=tl_28> // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 * All of a sudden, Donald Trump is a lot less willing to question Ted Cruz’s fitness for the presidency. After raising questions in March about the Canada-born senator’s eligibility to run for president, Trump told POLITICO on Wednesday that he didn’t know if Cruz’s birthplace affected his eligibility and had not paid attention to it. Trump’s remarks came hours before he was set to hold a private meeting with the Texas senator. “I don’t know. I mean I haven’t looked at it. I have not looked at it at all,” Trump said in an interview, when asked whether Cruz, who was born in the Canadian province of Alberta, should be eligible for the presidency. When asked in March by a local New York television station about Cruz’s birthplace, Trump said, “It’s a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are While many Republican candidates have condemned Donald Trump’s comments about the alleged criminality of undocumented Mexican immigrants, Cruz defended Trump recently on Fox News, saying, “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth.” Cruz also took issue with NBC’s decision cut ties with Trump over the comments, calling it “silly” and “wrong.” On Wednesday, Trump told POLITICO that he appreciated Cruz’s defense of his comments. “I have great respect for him,” said Trump. Cruz was born to an American mother, making him a United States citizen at birth. Most experts agree that this means he meets the Constitution’s requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen,” though the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question. Trump has been a leading proponent of the theory that President Obama was born in Kenya, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Cruz called the planned Wednesday evening meeting with the real estate magnate, but Trump said Wednesday morning that he did not know the purpose of the sit-down. *Donald Trump: I don’t know why I’m meeting Ted Cruz <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-meet-ted-cruz-2016-120138.html?ml=tl_22> // Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump is meeting with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Manhattan on Wednesday, though he claimed in an interview on MSNBC that he does not know why. “Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest, but I do have respect for him,” Trump said on “Morning Joe” in a wide-ranging interview in which the Republican presidential contender commented on issues foreign, domestic and everything in between. “I respect the fact that along with a couple of others, he came out and he came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal immigration. And he came out very strongly and he came out early, and I respect that. I like him,” he added. Asked about Tuesday’s announcement of a nuclear agreement with Iran, Trump said “it’s a ridiculous deal” and “a disgrace.” The United States, he said, “should have doubled up the sanctions.” “Well, they didn’t read The Art of the Deal. Most people did; they didn’t,” he said. “I have seen the deal. I’ve seen it broken down in every newspaper you can imagine, and I think I know the deal quite well,” he added, when pressed about whether he had read the deal himself. Trump also had harsh words for the political media discussing his first month on the campaign trail. One thing he has learned is “how dishonest … some of the political media” is, in contrast to the financial journalists with whom he normally interacts. “They don’t want to print the truth. They don’t want to say what you said. They don’t want to say what you mean. They know what you said, they know what you mean, and they put it in totally different words. It’s like you didn’t say it, it’s incredible to me,” Trump said, noting that he has become “more careful” in dealing with some people in the media as a result. One such media distortion, Trump said, stemmed from the reaction to reports of his remarks about undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. illegally from Mexico. Trump cited “five different sources” at the border telling him that Mexico is sending its worst. “They’re almost crying,” he said. Pressed to provide the sources by Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin, Trump demurred. “I’ll reveal my sources, Mark, when you reveal your sources,” he countered. He also took the opportunity to slam Republican rival Jeb Bush on jobs and once again claim that he would win the Hispanic vote. “The Hispanics love me,” Trump said, adding that he would open up more jobs for everyone in the economy. “Jeb Bush wouldn’t know where to go to create a job,” he declared, telling host Joe Scarborough that Bush “only can follow you or a pollster. I can only go with what’s right.” Trump, who came out on top of a recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll of GOP contenders, also trailed former secretary of state Hillary Clinton badly in a head-to-head matchup. “I think that the person that she doesn’t want to run against is me,” he said. *Rivals Cruz, Trump play nice en route to 2016 <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html> // CNN // Eric Bradner – July 15, 2015 * Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and their wives were scheduled to have lunch in New York City in June, before the real estate mogul became a candidate for president. Senate votes intervened and Cruz couldn't make it and the two postponed. A month later, the two Republican presidential candidates -- this time, without their wives -- finally got together Wednesday afternoon at Trump Tower. Trump said Cruz had called him Tuesday to ask for the meeting. And in that time, what would have been a low-key meeting took on new importance. Trump surged to first place in the GOP primary polls, and Cruz's warm words toward Trump separated him from a crowd of candidates denouncing the real estate mogul over his controversial remarks about undocumented immigrants. From the outside, Wednesday's meeting made it look like a calculating Cruz was actually betting against Trump -- cozying up to him in hopes of earning an endorsement if Trump's campaign ultimately collapses. But after the meeting, Cruz said that wasn't happened at all. "We had a conversation about the race," Cruz said. "He's running, I'm running and we both agreed that we started out as friends and will end as friends." "Donald and I have gotten together and visited a number of times before he was a presidential candidate, and it was a good visit. It was the first time we've really sat down since he launched, and so we had a good conversation," Cruz said. "And I enjoy Donald. He's one of a kind." The two have praised each other on the campaign trail in recent weeks. Before heading to New York, Cruz said on Capitol Hill Wednesday that he's "a big fan of Donald Trump." He praised Trump as a "bold, brash voice" and criticized -- though not by name -- other GOP contenders who "go out of their way to smack Donald Trump." Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said the fact that the two got together -- despite other GOP candidates like Jeb Bush turning against Trump -- shouldn't be surprising, since during the 2012 campaign most Republican candidates, and some non-candidates like Sarah Palin, sought meetings with Trump. "They are both anti-Establishment candidates unafraid to shake up the system," Conway said. "Cruz's approach is different. He has said he will level no personal insults against other candidates. Clearly, in going foursquare after Jeb and (Karl) Rove, Trump has not made a similar promise." Trump had met with many other GOP presidential hopefuls, including Cruz, in the months before he decided to launch his own bid. Trump also donated $5,000 to Cruz's political action committee last year. Other political observers said Cruz's meeting -- highly publicized after Trump announced it would happen during an appearance on MSNBC -- was a savvy play for conservative hardliners' support in case those voters ultimately decide against supporting Trump. "Politically this is a smart move by Cruz. While no one can know for sure, there is a fair to good chance Trump will drop out or cease active campaigning at some point," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. "Who will inherit Trump's backers? Certainly not Jeb Bush. And Trump has criticized others by name, too," he said."Should Trump leave the field, Ted Cruz would be a likely beneficiary. He is considered an immigration hardliner, like Trump. And Cruz is showing Trump respect, and Trump has already shown us that he has a good memory for respect and slights." *Donald Trump meeting with Ted Cruz on Wednesday <http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/donald-trump-meeting-ted-cruz/index.html> // CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 15, 2015 * Donald Trump will meet Wednesday with fellow Republican presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz. Trump said Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Cruz called him to set up the meeting, but said he didn't know what the Texas Republican wanted to discuss. The meeting comes amid Trump's rise in the polls to second and first place in the latest national polls and as Cruz has played weeks of defense for Trump amid the billionaire's controversial comments likening some Mexican immigrants to "killers" and "rapists." "I do respect the fact that along with a couple of others he came out very strongly," Trump said of Cruz's backup on the illegal immigration saga. Cruz and Trump have both locked heads with the Republican establishment, with Cruz fighting the status quo in Congress with unorthodox tactics, while Trump has locked horns with party elites over whether his comments about illegal immigrants have hurt the party's outreach to Latino voters. Trump had met with many other GOP presidential hopefuls, including Cruz, in the months before he decided to launch his own bid. Trump also donated $5,000 to Cruz's political action committee last year. Cruz's campaign did not respond to requests for comment. *Cruz defends Trump’s ‘bold, brash voice’ ahead of private meeting <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-dodges-question-mysterious-trump-meeting> // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz again defended fellow White House hopeful Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on illegal immigration Wednesday, though offered no details about what the two will discuss in a private meeting later in the day. “I’m a big fan of Donald Trump’s,” Cruz told reporters in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, following a press conference on the Export-Import Bank of the United States. “I think Donald Trump is bringing a bold, brash voice to this presidential race.” Among the crowded GOP presidential pack, Cruz was virtually the only one to not condemn Trump’s remarks on immigration – specifically that “when Mexico sends its people,” they bring drugs and crime. Quite to the contrary, Cruz said on Fox and Friends last month that Trump “speaks the truth” and later “salute[d]” him on Meet the Press “for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration.” Trump said on msnbc’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning that Cruz had called him for a meeting, but that he didn’t know what it would be about. The Cruz campaign has not responded to msnbc’s request for comment or confirmation, but Trump’s spokesman told msnbc the sit-down in New York City would be private. Cruz is also scheduled to sit down Wednesday afternoon with CNBC’s John Harwood at the network’s Institutional Investor Delivering Alpha conference in New York City. Earlier in the day, Cruz appeared alongside fellow Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to praise Congress’ decision last month to allow the charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to expire. The 81-year-old institution, commonly known as Ex-Im, acted as the export credit agency for the U.S. government and has been criticized for disproportionately supporting big business. Cruz called Ex-Im a “classic example of corporate welfare” and vowed to use “any and all procedural tools” to ensure it stays dead. “When it comes to campaign season, every Republican is a conservative,” Cruz said. “Well now, when push comes to shove, we discover if people are merely ‘campaign conservatives,’ or if they actually are going to be practicing conservatives, consistent conservatives.” Asked about his meeting with Trump, Cruz demurred: “Let’s keep the questions on Export-Import bank.” Following the press conference, however, Cruz was more receptive to speaking about Trump, whom he suggested was being unfairly maligned by fellow White House hopefuls. “One of the reasons you’re seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their way to smack Donald Trump is they don’t like a politician that speaks directly about the challenges of illegal immigration. They don’t like a politician who speaks directly about sanctuary cities about the law enforcement and safety and security issues that are raised,” Cruz said. “Indeed, many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack Donald Trump have for years or even decades been advocates of vocal amnesty. I for one am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these issues.” *Cruz dodges question on mysterious Trump meeting <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-dodges-question-mysterious-trump-meeting> // MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has a busy day ahead of him on Wednesday, delivering public remarks on two separate occasions followed by a mysterious meeting with fellow White House hopeful Donald Trump. “Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest,” Trump said on msnbc’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday. “I do have respect for him,” he added. The Cruz campaign has not responded to msnbc’s request for comment or confirmation on the meeting, but Trump’s spokesman told msnbc the sit-down in New York City would be private. Among the crowded GOP presidential pack, Cruz was virtually the only one to not condemn Trump’s controversial remarks on immigration – specifically that “when Mexico sends its people,” they bring drugs and crime. Quite to the contrary, Cruz said on “Fox and Friends” last month that Trump “speaks the truth” and later “salute[d]” him on NBC’s “Meet the Press” “for focusing on the need to address illegal immigration.” In addition to his alleged meeting with Trump, Cruz is scheduled sit down Wednesday afternoon with CNBC’s John Harwood at the network’s Institutional Investor Delivering Alpha conference in New York City. Earlier in the day, Cruz appeared alongside fellow Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to praise Congress’ decision last month to allow the charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to expire. The 81-year-old institution, commonly known as Ex-Im, acted as the export credit agency for the U.S. government and has been criticized for disproportionately supporting big business. Cruz called Ex-Im a “classic example of corporate welfare” and vowed to use “any and all procedural tools” to ensure it stays dead. “When it comes to campaign season, every Republican is a conservative,” Cruz said. “Well now, when push comes to shove, we discover if people are merely ‘campaign conservatives,’ or if they actually are going to be practicing conservatives, consistent conservatives.” Asked about his meeting with Trump, Cruz demurred: “Let’s keep the questions on Export-Import bank.” *How much money have Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee raised for 2016? <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-money-have-bobby-jindal-and-mike-huckabee-raised-for-2016-bids/> // CBS // Reena Flores – July 15, 2015 * During his first week as a presidential candidate, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal hauled in nearly $579,000 in direct donations -- though outside groups backing the 2016 contender say they have another $8.6 million to add to that number. He only spent $65,044 in that first official week, leaving him with over half a million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter fundraising period. Jindal, who entered the White House race in the last week of the fundraising period, drew in $578,758 from just over 2,000 individual donors, according to a Washington Examiner report. About 87 percent of donations were under $100 each. But with the support of a super PAC, a 501(c)4 nonprofit, and a 527 committee, the Louisiana Republican's presidential treasure chest is effectively much larger. Jindal's super PAC, Believe Again, has raised $3,7 million since January, while the America Next nonprofit has raised nearly $4 million. That's in addition to Jindal's 527 group, the American Future Project, which has raised $1 million. Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will report raising $2 million in this past quarter, with related super PACs drawing in an additional $6 million. The $8 million dollars nearly matches Huckabee's fundraising numbers from his first White House bid in 2008. His last presidential campaign, which predated the arrival of the super PAC on the political scene, only had $9 million to spend. In the Republican presidential field, the fundraising totals of other candidates easily dwarf the money raised by Huckabee's and Jindal's operations. In the second fundraising quarter alone, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio announced that his campaign had raised $12 million, with a leadership PAC bringing in $1.2 million. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has just over $50 million from his presidential committee, with $37 million from outside PACs. At the top of the pack, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has raised a whopping $103 million since January, via his Right to Rise super PAC. *Republican Presidential Candidates To Disclose Bundlers For First Time Since 2008 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-campaign-bundlers_55a6d992e4b04740a3def166?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015 * For the first time since 2008, two Republican presidential candidates will publicly disclose the names of campaign bundlers raising money for them. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, according to The New York Times, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, according to The Associated Press, will disclose their bundlers in October. They join former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, in agreeing to disclose the big-money fundraisers who collect contributions for the campaigns. The decision by Bush and Walker to disclose their bundlers comes after no Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election volunteered to reveal the identities of their top fundraisers. In 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a proponent of campaign finance reform, released names of his bundlers. George W. Bush revealed bundler names in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Other Republican presidential candidates, however, are not on board with transparency. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), won't voluntarily disclose their bundlers, spokespeople told the Times. It isn’t yet clear how much information the candidates who will disclose their bundlers will reveal. In 2008 and 2012, President Barack Obama released bundler names in ranges, from a low of $50,001 to $100,000, to $500,001 and above. When Clinton disclosed her bundlers in the 2008 Democratic primary, she released only those raising $100,000 or more. *Ted Cruz Defends Donald Trump On Immigration Before Their Dinner Date <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-donald-trump_55a688b9e4b0896514cff587?utm_hp_ref=politics> // HuffPo // Michael McAuliff and Elise Foley – July 15, 2015 * Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday offered another passionate defense of Donald Trump, while also attacking a number of fellow Republican presidential hopefuls who have criticized the real estate mogul's views on immigration. "I'll say this: I think Donald Trump is bringing a bold, brash presence to this presidential race," Cruz told reporters on Capitol Hill. "It's one of the reasons you're seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their way to smack Donald Trump. They don't like a politician who speaks directly about the challenges of immigration. They don't like a politician who speaks directly about sanctuary cities, about the law enforcement and safety and security issues that are raised." Trump drew condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum when he suggested during his presidential campaign launch that undocumented Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists. Among the GOP presidential candidates who spoke out against Trump's remarks were Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. "Indeed, many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack Donald Trump, have for years or even decades been vocal advocates of amnesty," Cruz said on Tuesday, likely referring to Rubio's and Bush's criticisms. Rubio helped craft an immigration reform bill that offered a pathway to citizenship, and anti-immigration conservatives accuse Bush of favoring "amnesty." "I, for one, am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these issues," Cruz continued. The senator made similar remarks last month, saying he didn't think Trump "should apologize for speaking out against the problem that is illegal immigration." Cruz's defense of The Donald appears to have won him some love from the big-mouthed billionaire: The two candidates are expected to dine together later on Wednesday at Trump Tower in New York. The conservative Texas senator went on to blast the Obama administration's immigration policies and to suggest that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should answer for them. Cruz repeated claims -- which fact-checkers deem "half-true" -- that the administration inappropriately released some 36,000 criminals in 2013 who were undocumented immigrants. "One question anyone should ask President Obama, or especially Hillary Clinton: Does Hillary Clinton think it is appropriate for the federal government to release 116 murderers who are illegal aliens? I don't," Cruz said. "Does Hillary Clinton think it's appropriate that in 2013 the Obama administration released over 15,000 illegal aliens who had drunk driving convictions?" Cruz was citing figures from a 2014 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reducing immigration levels. The report said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 36,007 convicted criminals in fiscal year 2013, including about 16,000 people with convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. ICE officials have said their hands are tied with regards to releasing some undocumented immigrants. Some are released by court order, while others are set free because of a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the government can't hold people for deportation indefinitely when another country refuses to take them back. In fiscal year 2014, ICE carried out 177,960 deportations of convicted criminals. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson defended the agency's record on Tuesday. "It is a fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law," Johnson said. Cruz did not concern himself on Wednesday with the laws requiring releases. "People are fed up with this," he said, "and I think that frustration with politicians in both parties who say one thing and do another -- I think that's going to be front and center in the 2016 election." It's true that Democrats are likely to focus on Trump's comments during the election season -- though not for the reason Cruz predicted. The remarks are almost certain to come up time and again as Democrats make the case to voters that the Republican Party is hostile toward Latinos. This, Democrats believe, should encourage Latinos to get out and vote. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said on the House floor Tuesday that the 4.5 million Latinos who are eligible for citizenship but have not yet applied should fill out their paperwork so they can vote against Trump. "Let me fill you in on a little secret: With fee waivers for up to 20 percent of those applying, it is absolutely free," Gutierrez said. "Becoming a citizen for free so you can make it clear that you are offended by Donald Trump. It is poetic and patriotic." *C-SPAN to preempt first GOP debate <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247923-c-span-to-preempt-first-gop-debate> // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July 15, 2015 * C-SPAN is partnering with a handful of regional newspapers in early-voting states for a nationally televised forum with the Republican presidential candidates just days before Fox News Channel’s first scheduled debate. The network has invited all 17 of the GOP presidential hopefuls to the Aug. 3 Voters First Forum in New Hampshire. Publishers at the New Hampshire Union Leader, South Carolina Post and Courier, and Iowa Gazette say the forum was prompted in part by Fox News Channel’s controversial decision to cap the number of candidates in their Aug. 6 debate at 10. “Fox says only the ‘top’ 10 candidates, as judged solely by national polling, will be allowed on its stage,” the publishers said in a joint statement. “That may be understandable later, but the first votes are half a year away and there are a lot more than 10 viable candidates.” “The early primary process gives all candidates a chance to be heard,” they continued. “If networks and national polls are to decide this now, the early state process is in jeopardy and only big money and big names will compete.” The statement reflects the concerns of many Republicans, who say the national media and unreliable early polls shouldn’t play a role in determining the top tier of candidates in a year when the GOP has a deep and diverse field. So far, Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and former New York Gov. George Pataki have committed to the C-SPAN forum. Of those, only Carson is currently a lock to participate in the Fox News debate. The rest of the candidates will be scrapping to raise their poll numbers to qualify for the final spots on the debate stage. The C-SPAN forum will be hosted by WGIR radio’s Jack Heath, who hosts the “New Hampshire Today” show. The candidates will take turns answering questions in five minute segments. To accommodate for those who will be left off the stage, Fox News will hold a nationally televised forum earlier in the day for those who don’t qualify. The Republican National Committee has sanctioned nine debates and signed off on the formats, but it’s been a struggle for the national party to deal with the huge number of candidates running for the presidential nomination. The C-SPAN event is not a sanctioned RNC debate, but rather one of more than a dozen forums and cattle calls this cycle that have materialized as demand for access to the candidates has skyrocketed. *OTHER 2016 NEWS* *What Campaign Filings Don’t Show: Super PACs’ Growing Sway <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/politics/election-2016-fundraising-campaign-filings.html?ref=politics> // NYT // Eric Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 * Presidential contenders are set to provide a glimpse inside their campaign war chests on Wednesday, releasing financial statements that will give the first detailed accounting of how the candidates are raising and spending hundreds of millions of dollars in pursuit of elected office. But while the reports, to be filed with the Federal Election Commission, provide an early look at the campaigns’ financial operations, they promise to tell only part of the story because they do not include any of the money being raised by the “super PACs” and other outside groups supporting many of the candidates. In many cases, the money raised by those groups is likely to dwarf what the campaigns bring in. The Republican presidential candidates are almost uniformly relying on these groups, which can tap unlimited corporate and individual contributions, to amass the financial firepower they need to break through a crowded primary field, as long as they do not coordinate with candidates. This is a stark departure from past campaigns and has made most of the candidates deeply reliant on a small handful of ultra-wealthy donors. The new fund-raising model has already altered the landscape of a campaign that is still months away from the first votes. Without super PACs, four Republicans — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson — would have raised roughly the same amount of money, between $10 million and $12 million during the second quarter of 2016. A fifth, Rand Paul, would be close behind, while several others, including Rick Perry, would be trailing. Instead, the field has rapidly separated into three distinct financial tiers. Mr. Bush has raised about $114 million with the help of a super PAC. Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio and their super PACs occupy the next-highest tier, with each having raised more than $40 million. Lagging them is a third tier of candidates, including several who declared their bids near or after the end of the fund-raising quarter and others who have been slow to raise money. Mr. Perry, who began a second presidential bid in June, provides another illustration of the imbalance. A fund-raising powerhouse during his years as Texas governor, Mr. Perry has not yet lived down his aborted 2012 campaign, and many big Republican donors who supported him in the past have not yet flocked to get behind him for 2016. His campaign announced last week that in about a month of fund-raising, he brought in just over $1 million from regular donors, leaving him near the back of the Republican pack. Individual donations are capped at $2,700. But a constellation of super PACs backing Mr. Perry brought in many times that amount from megadonors — almost $12.8 million through the end of June, according to Austin Barbour, a senior adviser to the groups. Another $4 million check — four times what Mr. Perry’s campaign raised — came in a few days later, he said. More than half the group’s total came from just two donors: Kelcey Warren, an energy company executive who is also the finance chairman of Mr. Perry’s campaign, and Brint Ryan, a Dallas businessman. “Rick Perry’s had an impressive few months,” Mr. Barbour said. “Some of the hesitation I know has softened up a lot.” On the Democratic side, the picture is the reverse. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is far outpacing her rivals on the fund-raising front, has raised almost four times as much as the super PAC supporting her candidacy. Her campaign expects to report raising about $45 million so far in her White House bid. The 2016 campaign could prove to be the most expensive on record, with the candidates, political parties, super PACs and special-interest groups spending perhaps $10 billion under fund-raising rules made much looser by the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. That ruling paved the way for the emergence of super PACs. The early fund-raising hauls have already prompted complaints to the election commission and the Justice Department from citizen watchdog groups. One of them, the Campaign Legal Center, charges that Mr. Bush and other candidates skirted the law by raising large amounts of money before they officially declared their candidacies. Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the watchdog group, said he will be looking at the filings on Wednesday to determine whether the candidates complied with the law. “If not,” Mr. Ryan said, “the Campaign Legal Center will be filing complaints.” *Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are set to barnstorm New Hampshire. Here’s what to watch. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/16/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-are-set-to-barnstorm-new-hampshire-heres-what-to-watch/> // WaPo // Sean Sullivan – July 16, 2015* MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination and the Republican candidate who has become a headache for many in his own party as he surges in the polls will descend on this key early voting state on Thursday, giving voters here a glimpse of two contenders who have received widespread attention in recent weeks. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton (D) will make two campaign stops here as she looks to expand on ideas she offered in her Monday economic policy speech: an early afternoon town hall in Dover then an organizing event in Windham. The town hall meeting will be Clinton's first of the campaign. Not far away will be Donald Trump (R), the real estate mogul who has become a sharply polarizing figure in Republican circles. Trump will hold a campaign rally and field questions in Laconia. Two other candidates will also be in the state to campaign: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). Walker, who officially kicked off his campaign on Monday, is sweeping through the early voting states this week. But the presence of Clinton and Trump here presents each party with key early tests in the first-in-the-nation primary state. For Clinton, who has faced criticism for Republicans that she has not opened herself up to enough scrutiny, the town hall will serve as a chance to field questions from voters in an unscripted setting. It's also a chance for Clinton to speak in more detail about the corporate profit-sharing proposal she spoke about in general terms in her Monday speech. An impressive showing could blunt some of the momentum Clinton's Democratic rival from neighboring Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has picked up in recent weeks. But a rocky one could spur more interest from voters here in the liberal firebrand. Trump, who comes to New Hampshire as polls show he has climbed into the top tier of Republican hopefuls, will have a chance to to address criticism from those who say he is hurting his own party. His visit is a chance to convince skeptical Republicans in a crucial state that he is a serious candidate for president -- or to fall flat trying. Some Republicans have praised Trump's blunt style, but others have expressed concern that his brash rhetoric and controversial comments about illegal immigrants from Mexico -- he said they are "rapists" who are bringing "drugs" and "crime" into the country -- have harmed the Republican Party, which has struggled in recent elections to win Hispanic voters. Those looking to see Clinton and Trump in the same state will have another chance the next two days. Trump is the feature speaker at a Republican dinner on Friday in Arkansas. On Saturday, Clinton will speak at a Democratic dinner in the state, where she was first lady when husband Bill Clinton was governor. *Bush, Clinton dominate early 2016 presidential fundraising <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ca2fadb3109a40679f480e738b9f4146/presidential-election-already-fueled-377-million> // AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 * The two presidential candidates whose immediate families include former presidents loom large in early fundraising for 2016. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly $377 million that presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates say they've raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton's and Bush's, were required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission by midnight Wednesday. Those document financial activity between April 1 and June 30 and will list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution for the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also will show how candidates are spending their money — on consultants, office space, advertising, polling and more. Wednesday's reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are handing over. The candidates also benefit from super PACs created specifically to help them. Those groups, which accept contributions of any size and are subject to legal limits on how closely they can work with the campaigns, file their FEC reports at the end of the month. Ahead of the deadlines, many candidates and their super PAC boosters have publicized their fundraising totals. The AP tallied those numbers and found that donors have handed over a third of a billion dollars. That's more than the presidential candidates raised for the entire primary election of 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks election spending. Dominating the cash haul are Clinton and Bush. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has raised $45 million in checks of $2,700 or less for her campaign. Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that counts on seven-figure donors, raised an additional $15 million. Bush's money looks different. Before he officially declared his candidacy, the former Florida governor spent the first six months of the year raising huge sums of money for Right to Rise, a super PAC that's boosting his bid to win the Republican nomination. That group says it has raised a record $103 million. Bush's presidential campaign, which officially began on June 15, collected $11.5 million from contributors. Outside groups are furthering the ambitions of at least four other Republican presidential aspirants: Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In each case, the fundraising for the outside groups helping them is outpacing the fundraising for their own campaigns. Rubio's overall take from donors — $44.7 million to his campaign and two outside groups — includes $15.8 million for a nonprofit that won't file any public budget information until at least next year and keeps its donors secret. Meanwhile, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a conservative GOP candidate, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal candidate seeking the Democratic nomination, have harnessed grassroots enthusiasm to fill campaign coffers with small donations. Carson's campaign says it has raised more than $10.4 million, and Sanders has brought in $15 million. Because the money is coming directly to them, they have tighter control over how it is used. Wednesday's filings will shed more light on how the others are doing with small donors, defined as individuals who give $200 or less. On the other side of the spectrum, the end-of-July super PAC filings will provide a snapshot of who's doing the best with the biggest donors, those writing six-figure checks or more. By mid-day Wednesday, campaigns for just two of the major presidential candidates had filed their reports, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Democratic former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. Both are longshots who reported six-figure fundraising totals. Chafee is mostly funding his own bid. A few major Republican candidates will be missing from the initial campaign finance reports. Kasich, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made their campaigns official too recently to file second-quarter FEC reports, although a Christie-allied super PAC said on Tuesday that it has raised $11 million. The first look at their campaign numbers will come in mid-October. *Fundraising - and spending- shatter records <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/fundraising-and-spending-shatter-records-120211.html#ixzz3g31HZZXR> // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti – July 16, 2015* The crowded field of 2016 presidential candidates spent $48 million through the first half of the year –nearly twice as much as their counterparts had at this point in the 2012 cycle – reflecting the new realities of fast, expensive campaign launches. The dramatic spending spike – detailed in Wednesday’s reports to the Federal Election Commission covering the beginning of April through the end of June – was underwritten mostly by fewer donors each giving more money. But overall, fundraising increases did not keep up with spending inflation, leading to spending ratios that in past elections might have provoked worry among campaign finance operatives. Such early-campaign “burn rates” appear to be becoming more common in an age when races start earlier, pivotal digital and data tools cost more, consultants fetch huge salaries and campaigns rely on mega-donor-funded super PACs to fill many traditional functions. A handful of Republican presidential candidates who brought in at least $1 million-a-piece in the last three months each spent more than half of their haul – from the mid-50-percent burn rates of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee to the 74-percent rate of Donald Trump. All but Trump, who provided nearly his entire $1.9-million haul from his own pocket, are expecting big-money super PACs to come to their aid. Reports detailing the unlimited contributions and spending of super PACs aren’t due with the FEC until the end of July. But perhaps no candidate personified big early spending like Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Her campaign, which cast itself as a penny-pinching operation that relied heavily on small donors, revealed itself to be something quite different in its FEC report. While the campaign brought in $47.6 million – three times more than the next most prolific fundraiser and more than any other presidential campaign had posted in its first quarter – it also spent more than three times as much as the next biggest spender, $18.7 million, amounting to a burn-rate of 39 percent. In fact, Clinton’s juggernaut spent more on payroll for her massive staff – $6 million – than any other candidate spent in total. Her staff worked out of more than 20 offices for which the campaign paid $540,000 in rent – including about $106,000 for a Manhattan office space where Clinton herself often works, miles from her main campaign headquarters in hip Brooklyn. It also spent heavily on cutting-edge campaign tactics, including investing $276,000 in an envelope-pushing relationship with a supportive super PAC called Correct the Record, which plans to coordinate research activities with Clinton’s campaign. The campaign also spent nearly $500,000 on voter data and data services, and $1.4 million on online advertising through a firm Bully Pulpit Interactive that shaped the pioneering digital marketing effort behind Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Unlike Obama’s 2008 bid, which at first leaned heavily on low-dollar online contributions and boasted that it was ushering in a small-donor revolution in American politics, neither Clinton, nor the GOP’s top fundraising presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, raised significant portions of their cash from small donors. Only 17 percent of Clinton’s cash came from donors contributing $200 or less, while 65 percent of it came from donors who gave the primary maximum of $2,700 or more. Of the $11.4 million Bush raised since announcing his campaign in mid-June, 3.2 percent came from donors who gave $200 or less. An overwhelming 85 percent came from donors who gave $2,700 or more. Both leaned on networks of well-connected donors to collect, or bundle, collections of checks from other donors. Clinton’s campaign voluntarily released a list of more than 100 top bundlers. including Democratic mega-donors like billionaire media moguls Fred Eychaner and Haim Saban and a handful of current and former lawmakers such as Reps. Joaquin Castro, Grace Meng and Jim Himes. Bush’s bundlers included lobbyist power players like Al Cardenas, Dirk Van Dongen and former Rep. Tom Loeffler. Clinton and Bush also helped seed their own campaigns as they considered entering the race, reporting spending $279,000 and $389,000, respectively, from their own pockets on staffing and services. And both made use of private jets to hop-scotch the country. Clinton paid nearly $180,000 to a charter plane company and Bush paid $281,000 for private jet use, including $153,000 to “The Johnson Co.,” apparently for the use of mega-donor Woody Johnson’s jet for a European trip. Both Clinton and Bush – as well as Cruz, Marco Rubio and other candidates – have deep-pocketed super PACs that raised tens of millions to support their campaign. On the far other end of the finance spectrum is the campaign of Democratic insurgent Bernie Sanders, which is not supported by a super PAC and has not courted big donors, yet managed to raise the second-biggest haul of the second quarter: $15.2 million. An overwhelming 76 percent of Sanders’ money came from donors giving $200 or less, while only four percent came from max donors – perhaps unsurprising from a candidate whose campaign centers partly on reducing the influence of big-money in politics. Yet, more than populist zeal is powering Sanders’ impressive fundraising. His campaign paid $1.3 million for digital consulting and advertising services from Revolution Messaging, which has helped lead the senator’s digital fundraising and social media effort. Other candidates also seemed to view data as the key early-campaign investment. Cruz spent more than $1.4 million renting voter and email lists from a handful of digital consulting firms, including Campaign Solutions, Mustard Seed Media, Pinnacle List Co., Targeted Victory, Lukens Co. and Active Engagement. The Texas senator also reported owing $556,000 to Cambridge Analytica for “survey research” and “donor modeling.” The firm is owned by the family of New York hedge fund magnate Bob Mercer, POLITICO revealed last week. Mercer and his family are among the biggest donors to a network of super PACs supporting Cruz that combined to raise $37 million and at least one of the super PACs is in discussions with Cambridge Analytica about retaining the firm’s services. The firm, which is relatively new to the competitive world of U.S. political data, provides nontraditional “psychographic” analyses of voters to try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages. The Cruz campaign’s FEC report does not reveal any payments to the firm, just debt. The total owed would seem to indicate that Cruz is relying heavily on the firm for critical data work, but it also is an unusually large debt for a campaign to owe a single vendor early in the cycle. Other candidates carrying significant debts included Clinton (who owed $574,000, including more than $553,000 to pollster John Anzalone’s firm), Bush (who owed $401,000, including $148,000 to a Michigan firm for a list he purchased) Republican Rick Santorum (who owed $125,000 after raising only $608,000). Not including the debt, the candidates who finished June with the most in the bank were Clinton ($29 million), Sanders ($12 million), Rubio ($10 million), Cruz ($8.5 million), Bush ($8.4 million), Carson ($4.7 million), Rand Paul ($4 million) and Lindsey Graham ($2.6 million). Burn rates: Donald Trump 74.30% Ben Carson 64.00% Rick Santorum 61.80% Mike Huckabee 55.80% Ted Cruz 54.20% Rick Perry 52.40% Carly Fiorina 41.90% Rand Paul 39.97% Hillary Clinton 39.32% O’Malley 34.50% Lindsey Graham 30.40% Jeb Bush 26.93% Marco Rubio 23.80% Bernie Sanders 20.20% Bobby Jindal 11.20% *Chart: The 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Time in Elected Office, Ranked <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/chart-the-2016-presidential-candidates-time-in-elected-office-ranked> // Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015 * In poll after poll, Americans say they want their presidents to have experience. But what, exactly, is experience, and does it extend to work history outside of elected office? Should, for instance, Donald Trump’s real estate and reality television success count? In a 2013 survey conducted by Des Moines Register pollster J. Ann Seltzer, voters said they prefer business experience to experience in any political office. However, Selzer says whether or not experience matters depends on the candidate and how effectively he or she is able to sell what experience they do have. “It is a piece of the puzzle,” Selzer said. "It is not the puzzle all by itself, and really depending on the candidate’s ability to make the case why he comes to run for the presidency with a unique history." Although voters say they value experience, the frontrunners in both parties have had some of the shortest terms in elected office. While some of the longest serving candidates have struggled to gain traction in the polls. *Candidates Show First Glimpse in Historic 2016 Money Race <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/candidates-show-first-glimpse-in-historic-2016-money-race> // Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015 * If money equals speech, then in the U.S. presidential race right now it's millionaires and billionaires who are doing most of the talking. The campaign fundraising efforts of the 22 major declared or all-but-declared contenders are coming into focus this week as campaigns and related groups disclose the amounts they've raised so far, and the numbers point to a historic shift. For the first time in decades, contributions of unlimited size from deep-pocketed donors—as much as $6 million from a single person—are eclipsing the amounts raised from thousands of smaller contributors. Today is the day when most candidates are required to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the fundraising totals for their official campaigns if they haven't already done so. Super-PACs don't have to report until the end of the month, although many of them have already allowed their numbers to trickle out, along with the names of some of the biggest contributors. The Republican primary, where 17 candidates are seeking the party's nomination, may end up being financed mostly by a handful of wealthy donors. Some $235 million has been raised by super-PACs and other unlimited-contribution groups backing particular GOP candidates, a still-incomplete tally shows, compared with only $58 million raised in smaller amounts by the campaigns themselves. “Outside money has been taken to a new level, beyond, I think, anybody's reasonable expectations,” said Kenneth Gross, a political-law partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom who has counseled campaigns for both parties. With the exception of Donald Trump, a billionaire who has said he plans to pay his own way, every major Republican contender has an allied outside group working on his or her behalf. By comparison, at this point in 2011, only one of the 12 Republican contenders had a super-PAC. That was Mitt Romney, whose super-PAC's $12 million haul was less than the $18 million raised by his official campaign at that point. Super-PACs never represented more than a small fraction of the total spending in the race. American elections are being transformed by a series of court rulings, including the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, which loosened decades-old limits on money in politics by declaring that political spending was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. For proponents of the changes, the current fundraising cycle is a sign of a reinvigorated democracy, and may help explain why so many candidates are throwing their hats in the ring. “More speech freedom means more candidates, and more choices for voters,” said the Center for Competitive Politics' David Keating, who helped bring about another key court decision, Speechnow V. FEC, that laid the groundwork for super-PACs in 2010. “We may end up with best informed primary electorate ever.” But Gross called the prominence of the outside groups “unhealthy” to the system. “Candidates who are not viable can be propped up by a handful of donors,” he said. Thanks to the court rulings, super-PACs can raise unlimited amounts from individuals and corporations, and can spend money directly on campaign advocacy, as long as they don't coordinate spending with a candidate. (Direct campaign contributions are still limited to $5,400 between the primary and general election.) Although some super-PACs were around in the 2012 race, they were newer and campaign lawyers were cautious about using them. This time around, they are not only starting earlier and with better funding, but in some cases they are taking over functions traditionally handled by campaigns, such as fielding press inquiries and organizing volunteers in early primary states. The head of the PACs so far is Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, who founded and raised millions for his super-PAC months before he officially declared his candidacy. The PAC's $103 million haul is about 9 times what his actual campaign has raised. Bush faces a field of GOP contenders with similarly deep-pocketed backers. Groups backing Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, and Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have all indicated they've got $25 million or more to spend. “In the era of super-PACs, as long as you have even just one or two donors who are willing to write large checks to support a candidate, that may be enough to keep a candidate in the race,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Maine. He said this year's Republican field is the largest for either party since at least the 1970s. The story is different on the Democratic side, where front-runner Hillary Clinton has focused her fundraising efforts on her official campaign. She's raised $45 million, compared with about $24 million gathered by allied outside groups. Bernie Sanders has discouraged super-PACs from backing his campaign and has raised about $15 million through traditional means. Former hedge-fund manager George Soros, the media mogul Haim Saban, and the DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg are among those mentioned in media reports as having written large checks to groups backing Clinton. The Florida car dealer Norman Braman, the pipeline billionaire Kelcy Warren, and the hedge-fund executive Robert Mercer are among those said to be already backing various Republicans. The only Republican candidate unlikely to be dependent on outside money is Trump, the real-estate mogul and television personality who pegs his own net worth at almost $9 billion. “I'm not using donors,” he said when he declared as a candidate last month. “I don't care. I'm really rich.” *Trump's Popularity Rises, Still 2-1 Negative, While Clinton Regains Positive Territory <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-popularity-rises-negative-clinton-regains-positive-territory/story?id=32450539&singlePage=true> //ABC // Gregory Holyk – July 15, 2015 * Positive views of Donald Trump have doubled since his controversial comments on immigration, although many more Americans still dislike rather than like him, now by nearly a 2-1 margin — and his negatives have soared among Hispanics, a sought-after group in national politics. Thirty-three percent of Americans see Trump favorably; that’s doubled from 16 percent in a pre-candidacy ABC News/Washington Post poll in late May. Sixty-one percent see him unfavorably, down from 71 percent but still leaving him deeply under water in popularity overall. Among Hispanics, negative views of Trump have jumped by 21 percentage points, from 60 percent in May to 81 percent today. That’s a potential challenge for the Republican Party, which has struggled to win support among racial and ethnic minorities, with Hispanics a prime target. Trump’s not alone with popularity challenges. While Republican fundraising leader Jeb Bush has gained some ground, just 38 percent of Americans see him favorably – a scant 5 points more than Trump’s rating — while 47 percent rate Bush unfavorably. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has improved to a majority after a sustained fall from her heights as secretary of state. The much less well-known Bernie Sanders, while drawing crowds on the campaign trail, gets a split decision, 27-28 percent. Trump’s positive ratings are up very sharply among Republicans and strong conservatives, by 34 and 30 points, to 57 and 55 percent, respectively. He’s also gained 26 points among seniors and 24 points among whites, to 38 and 42 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. That said, Republicans and strong conservatives are the only groups in which majorities see Trump favorably. He’s seen unfavorably, for example, by 53 percent of whites, rising to 74 percent of nonwhites; 58 percent of independents; and six in 10 political moderates. And far more people strongly dislike than like Trump, 45-14 percent. Fifty-two percent see Clinton favorably, up 7 points from late May, while 45 percent see her negatively – putting her popularity back above water, if not broadly so. The result reverses a 22-point drop in favorability from her peak in January 2013. Clinton’s improved the most since May among minorities, including Hispanics (up 17 points) and blacks (+12 points), as well as a mix of other groups, including Northeasterners (+16), “somewhat” conservatives (+14) and young adults (+12). Positive ratings of Bush are up 6 percentage points from late May, albeit just to 38 percent; the 9-point gap between his favorable and unfavorable ratings has narrowed from 19 points in late May. Still, Bush has been stuck in the 30s in favorable ratings all year. His improvement is broadly based, highlighted by 18- and 11-point advances in favorable scores among Midwesterners and Westerners and double-digit gains among Hispanics (+14 points), Democrats (+12), conservatives (+10) and men (+10). Sanders, for his part, remains little known: Forty-five percent of Americans have yet to form an opinion of him. As noted, he breaks even among others, 27-28 percent, favorable-unfavorable, with his best ratings among liberals (45 percent), high-income earners (42 percent), college graduates (41 percent) and Democrats (36 percent). Groups Clinton’s popularity in a comparatively uncluttered Democratic field reflects her better performance relative to Bush and Trump among her partisan and ideological base, as well as some key demographic groups. She’s viewed positively by 82 percent of Democrats, for example, while 63 and 57 percent of Republicans like Bush and Trump, respectively. Further, while Clinton’s seen favorably by 76 percent of liberals, there are greater ideological divisions on the GOP side. Bush is seen favorably by just 43 percent of strong conservatives (vs. 52 percent of somewhat conservatives). That flips for Trump – 55 percent favorability among strong conservatives vs. 40 percent among somewhat conservatives. Clinton essentially breaks even among independents, while Bush and Trump are under water by 13 and 23 points, respectively, in this group. Bush is much closer to Clinton among moderates, while Trump’s popularity is well behind. Clinton also gets at least as good a favorability rating as Bush or Trump among men, whites and seniors — more GOP- than Democratic-leaning groups — as well as scoring much better among women, nonwhites and young adults. Notably, two-thirds of Hispanics view Clinton positively, compared with 46 percent for Bush and, for Trump, 13 percent. *Bernie Sanders Won’t Accept Money From Billionaires. Donald Trump Donated $100,000 to Hillary Clinton. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-wont-accept-money-from-billionaires-donald-trump-donated-100000-to-hillary-clinton_b_7799576.html> // HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 15, 2015 * American politics today is a battle for the trust and loyalty of not only rank and file Democrats or Republicans, but also for the ever-elusive swing voter. In 2016, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Virginia will be what POLITICO refers to as "super-swingy states" and with their total of 75 electoral votes up for grabs, the next president will have to convey an image of trustworthiness before reaching the White House. Therefore, it's tough to say "Basta" when it comes to rhetoric, but not around $100,000 from a controversial billionaire. According to The Clinton Foundation, Donald Trump is listed as contributing somewhere between $100,000-$250,000, making it difficult to believe (if one correlates values to refusing money from people they oppose ideologically) the verbal sparring match between Clinton and Trump. In terms of honesty from a new perspective in American politics, POLITICO published a piece titled "Bernie Sanders Doesn't Follow the Money" and quotes Vermont's Senator as boldly stating, "I don't want money from the billionaires." Sanders wants to break up the banks, enact a modern-day Glass Steagall, thinks that we've entered an era that could lead to oligarchy, and believes the "Billionaire Class" has too great a control of our political system. The man is honest. He says things that simply aren't said in today's jaded political environment. Furthermore, not since the days of Theodore Roosevelt or William Howard Taft has a political figure spoken and acted in such a bold manner towards Wall Street and big business. Speaking of Roosevelt, the University of Virginia's Miller Center describes the Republican icon in the same manner people today speak of Bernie Sanders: At the turn of the 20th century, Americans had begun to look for ways to address some of these problems. As chief executive, Roosevelt felt empowered by the people to help ensure social justice and economic opportunity through government regulation. One of Roosevelt's central beliefs was that the government had the right to regulate big business to protect the welfare of society. Judging by America's wealth inequality, it seems that we have more in common with the Gilded Age than Clinton, Trump, or Bush would like to admit. Also, comparing Roosevelt to Sanders is not only apt, but also addresses the key issues that make Vermont's Senator so popular. It's also important to note that if Fox News were around during Roosevelt's time, the conservative news station would refer to TR as a "socialist." Sanders speaks his mind, and his actions back up both his value system and political philosophy. If it's too big to fail (even after the horrendous 2008 financial crisis), then it's too big to exist. For this reason, Bernie Sanders raises money primarily from his website and not investment banks like other candidates. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will not propose a new Glass-Steagall, her foundation is linked to ethical scandal, and Mother Jones estimates that Clinton has earned $5 million from speaking engagements to "corporate heavyweights." In terms of Donald Trump's latest xenophobic comments, it's admirable that Clinton has condemned the Donald's racist remarks, but donations from the billionaire raise questions as to the sincerity of their recent sparring match. According to a Daily Caller article titled Donald Trump Donated At Least $100K to Clinton Foundation, the same people claiming to vehemently disagree with one another seemed to have agreed in the past on campaign donations: Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and attention-seeking businessman Donald Trump has donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, despite his criticism of the foundation's dealings. ...What Trump neglected to mention was his own donations to the foundation. Trump is listed on the Clinton Foundation's donor page as having given somewhere between $100,001 and $250,000. Perhaps the donation shouldn't be so shocking considering Trump also donated to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, before selling himself as conservative firebrand. The Washington Post states that not only did Trump donate to Clinton, but "The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York." As for the history between both Trump and Clinton, POLITCO published a piece titled Donald Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems, and while they might be sparring politically at the moment, they've had a political association in the past: Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump's vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records. Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit. ...Trump defended his donations to New York Democrats in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that April, proclaiming that in the state, "everyone is Democratic" and implying that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money. In 2016, there's one question that all voters should ask: Why would Trump imply "that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money," and what utility did he derive from not "wasting" his money and donating to Clinton and other Democrats? On the other side of the political spectrum, Bernie Sanders doesn't need the money of billionaires, since most likely they'd be "wasting" money on donating to his campaign. After all, Sanders is quoted in The Washington Post as saying things that no other politician in America would dare utter during an election cycle: The American people do not want an economy dominated by a handful of gigantic Wall Street firms who live in their own world... These guys have engaged in a whole lot of illegal activity and highly complicated financial tools designed to enrich themselves. That has gotta be broken... Let me give you some interesting news. I announced yesterday. In 24 hours, 100,000 people have signed up to join the campaign. We have received 35,000 donations. You know what the average donation was? $43. We raised a million and a half dollars in 24 hours with an average donation of $43. That is where most of our money is going to come from...I will not be part of any Super PAC. Throughout my career I have not taken any corporate PAC money. That will remain for this race as well. Can I raise a billion dollars? Probably not. But the question is, can I raise enough money to run a grass roots campaign and utilize millions of people? I think we can raise that kind of money. In contrast to Clinton, Bush, Trump and America's political establishment, Bernie Sanders sounds more like the protagonist in an old Hollywood film than a jaded politician eager to cater to all sides of the political spectrum. Bernie Sanders can easily defeat any GOP nominee because he stands for the exact opposite of Jeb Bush or Donald Trump. For the Clinton campaign, donations from Trump and Wall Street could be a factor in why CNN published a piece titled Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states. While Clinton, Bush and others will have to be all things to all people, Bernie Sanders simply needs to be himself. For swing voters in swing states like Ohio or Florida, the trustworthiness of our future president will be partially linked to how they finance their campaigns. It's 480 days from Election Day, and Bernie Sanders has already stunned Washington's establishment and the country. It's likely that his refusal to accept money from people like Donald Trump will continue to help him, especially in swing states. It might also send an invaluable precedent and enable him to achieve a title once thought impossible for Vermont's Senator: Mr. President. *Bush Hails Uber, While Clinton Criticizes <http://time.com/3960082/uber-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton/> // TIME // Jay Newton-Small – July 15, 2015 * Uber hitched an unexpected ride on the 2016 campaign trail this week. During a rollout of her economic plan Monday, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton took companies like Uber to task for not giving drivers benefits. On Friday morning, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush plans on hailing an Uber in San Francisco to show his support for the ride-sharing company and others like it. For some Republicans, the contrast made Clinton an easy target. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, argued the former Secretary of State was out of touch with the younger generation. “If you look at millenials, we love those companies [like Uber], we love consumer choices,” she said. “It’s a big mistake, I think, that Secretary Clinton chose to go after those companies that are really disrupting those industries for the better.” But the politics of Uber aren’t so clear cut for either side. While Republicans love the idea of breaking taxi unions, GOP support for the sharing economy isn’t so clear-cut. Most of the sharing economy vanguard—companies like Uber, AirBnB and Lyft—were born in California, a big blue state, and their corporate blueprints assume the kind of large social safety net favored by Democrats. As Uber CEO Travis Kalanick told reporters in Washington in November, the Affordable Care Act was “huge” for his company because the “democratization of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make a living.” In other words, his company didn’t have to provide health insurance because drivers could buy it on their own through Obamacare. (That was eight months before a California court ruled that Uber drivers are, in fact, employees and thus were owed typical benefits, a decision the company is appealing.) Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who built a fortune in cell phone technology, calls it “the gig economy.” Part-time or temporary workers already account for 40.4% of the workforce, up from 35.3% in 2006. Many of these workers have several jobs doing things like driving for Uber, renting out their couch through Airbnb or doing freelance journalism, software coding or videography. These jobs provide workers with flexibility and give them an alternative to unemployment, but the drawback is that they don’t come with the standard package of benefits most full-time workers have long enjoyed. Despite Clinton’s harsh words for Uber, Jake Sullivan, one of her top policy advisors, told a group of Washington journalists at a breakfast Tuesday organized by the Christian Science Monitor that there’s no easy answer. “It’s a huge question and a very hard one,” he said. While Clinton faces the risk of looking uncool by criticizing Uber, Bush faces an even tougher question. After all, repealing Obamacare is at the top of every 2016 Republican candidates’ list. It’s one thing to ride in an Uber, but quite another to figure out how to fix its business model if the safety net shrinks. But if the 2016 candidates are just skirting around the edges of the issue, Congress has barely touched it. A self-described pro-business moderate, Warner is just about the only one on Capitol Hill thinking about these issues. He’s exploring legislation that would help freelancers, such as creating an Obamacare-type program for retirement benefits or building off the model that some trade unions have for contract workers to receive benefits. He also is looking to revamp the tax code to create a category for “dependent workers,” a hybrid between a contractor and a full-time employee that would end the debates, if not the legal challenges, on exactly what kind of an employee gig economy workers are. But Warner is months, if not years, away from legislation and little is likely to pass before the election, regardless. Which leaves the issue open for debate among the 2016 field. Where should workers in the gig economy get benefits: from their employers or the government? *OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS* *Jim Webb: A respectable alternative to Hillary Clinton <http://www.newsday.com/opinion/jim-webb-a-respectable-alternative-to-hillary-clinton-1.10645450> // Newsday // July 15, 2015 * Jim Webb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, likes to joke that he is probably the only person ever elected to statewide office in the Old Dominion who has "a union card, two Purple Hearts and three tattoos." Now, as the fifth candidate to vie for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Webb is aiming to become the first commander in chief with those possessions -- along with many other credentials. The highly decorated combat veteran, who led a Marine Corps platoon and company in Vietnam, went on to serve as assistant defense secretary and secretary of the Navy. His other medals include the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two Bronze Stars. He has also written 10 books (including six novels), taught literature at his alma mater (the United States Naval Academy), won an Emmy Award in 1984 for reporting he did on U.S. Marines in Beirut in as a journalist for PBS, and earned a law degree at Georgetown University. He's the real deal. Yet, when I was asked recently by a television producer what I thought Webb brought to the presidential race, the last thing on my mind was his resume. Rather, what occurred to me were the various constituencies -- including Democrats and independents -- that Webb might appeal to that are being ignored, feel they have no voice or haven't found a candidate they can support. The media don't get it. The narrative I've seen is that Webb speaks for "Southern whites" -- the kind of folks who, the rest of the country assumes, want to roll back affirmative action and save the Confederate battle flag. It's much more complicated than that. There are at least five different constituencies that might embrace someone like Webb: -- Blue-collar workers. If you're in a union and you worry about being pushed out of your job by a trade deal that undermines American workers or you fear having to compete with newly legalized immigrants who take jobs and lower wages, then you're going to be leery of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment. You want someone who fights for you. Webb could step into that role. -- Those who want a "Plan B." Even if you support Clinton, you might still worry that she can't go the distance. Polls show that many Americans don't trust her, which is a likely response to multiple scandals involving everything from deleted emails to questions surrounding the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. If you feel like the revelation that torpedoes the Clinton campaign is just around the corner, you might consider Webb a safer bet. -- Conservative Democrats. While our politics are polarized, we used to have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Webb is the latter. Among Democrats, Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont are racing to the far left. Conservative Democrats might feel as if they have no good choices. Webb gives them an option to stay in the party. Opinion -- The ABH ("Anyone But Hillary") crowd. There are Democrats who are not anxious to usher in another Clinton era. They want fresh blood, and so they're now supporting other candidates. For Democrats who are tired of dynasties and think the way to beat someone like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is to nominate a candidate who believes the presidency should be merited not inherited, Webb could be appealing. -- Finally, the strategists. In 2012, Democrats defined Mitt Romney as rich, privileged and detached from reality. Now, if Clinton wins the nomination, it will be the Democratic candidate who -- with her husband -- is estimated to be worth between $100 million and $200 million. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is the son of a bartender and hotel maid. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the son of a pastor and part-time secretary. And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina had parents who ran a restaurant and pool hall. Democrats need a candidate who can counter the populist appeal that this crop of Republicans could generate. That's not Clinton. It could be Webb, who grew up in a military family. For the media to ignore all this, and boil down Webb's candidacy to crass racial politics and an attempt to give voice to Southern whites is an insult -- not just to Webb but to the remarkable country that he has spent much of his life serving and defending. *Democratic poll shows Nevada Senate race a dead heat, Hillary up in the state <http://origin.ralstonreports.com/blog/democratic-poll-shows-nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-hillary-state> // Ralston Reports // Jon Ralston – July 15, 2015 * The U.S. Senate race in Nevada is a dead heat while every Republican candidate would lose today to Hillary Clinton in Nevada, according to a poll conducted by a Democratic-leaning pollster for a Democratic SuperPAC. The numbers for the Senate Majority PAC actually make sense despite what some will criticize as the source, especially because the partisan breakdown is reasonable (the pollster used the actual 39-34, D-R split, although performance usually favors the GOP to cut into that edge) and past crosstabs have shown the pollster, Public Policy Polling, knows the state. PPP, though, has had mixed results in Nevada, botching last cycle's LG race but besting other pollsters at times, including during the 2010 U.S. Senate race that most others had Sharron Angle winning. Here's what the numbers show from this month, with a margin of effor of just under 5 percent: ►Catherine Cortez Masto, 42 percent; Joe Heck, 41 percent ►Clinton is up 48/43 on Marco Rubio, 48/42 on Donald Trump, 48/41 on Scott Walker, and 49/37 on Jeb Bush. Six points on Trump! My God. Those presidential numbers are not that surprising, considering the voter registration edge (55,000-plus) the Democrats have and the performance in 2008 and 2012 here. The survey also shows the federal minimum wage could be an effective wedge issue for the Democratic contender, as you will see from the memo below. By the way, the PPP poll is much more credible than the U.S. Chamber survey that showed Heck winning in a landslide and had questionable demographics. (The chamber, which started running ads for Heck this week, also refused to release any more information when I asked.) Also, let's be clear: Any poll taken in July of 2015 does not mean all that much, and its release is designed to help fundraising and little more. Also, this race has always been destined to be close unless something unforeseen occurs, and the presidential contest in Nevada is a mystery wrapped in a conundrum surrounded by an enigma until we see who the nominee is. And did I mention the election is 481 days away? Here's the polling memo: From: Tom Jensen, Director of Public Policy Polling To: Interested Parties Subject: Nevada Senate Race Tight; Clinton Well Positioned in State Date: July 15, 2015 A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that the open race for the Senate in Nevada is a toss up, with Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto leading Republican Joe Heck by a single point. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is well positioned in the Presidential race, leading the top Republicans by 5-12 points in the state. Key findings from the survey include: -For now the Senate race is about as close as it can be, with Cortez Masto leading Heck 42/41. There are indications within the numbers of Cortez Masto having more room for growth though- the undecideds voted for Barack Obama by 24 points in 2012 and they support Hillary Clinton over the trio of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker by an average of 11 points. Those folks are likely to end up voting Democratic for the Senate too in the end. -Hillary Clinton is the clear favorite for President in Nevada, and her coattails are likely to benefit Cortez Masto in the Senate race as well. Clinton’s up 48/43 on Marco Rubio, 48/42 on Donald Trump, 48/41 on Scott Walker, and 49/37 on Jeb Bush. If Clinton’s winning the state by those kinds of margins, she’s likely to bring Cortez Masto along with her. One issue that gives Cortez Masto a decided advantage over Heck is increasing the federal minimum wage. 59% of voters support doing that to only 34% who are opposed. Heck’s conservative stance on that issue may prove untenable in a state that’s becoming increasingly Democratic in Presidential elections. The Nevada Senate race starts out about as tight as it can be. But Hillary Clinton’s strength in the state and the continued growth of voters in Democratic friendly demographic groups leave Catherine Cortez Masto pretty well positioned for next year. Public Policy Polling surveyed 677 Nevada voters on July 13th and 14th on behalf of Senator Majority PAC. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.8%. 39% of those surveyed were Democrats, 34% were Republicans, and 27% were independents or members of other parties. *TOP NEWS* *DOMESTIC* *Senate clears way for final vote on No Child rewrite <http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c87b4b9dac334274866e37fb46d4b9b5/senate-clears-way-final-vote-no-child-rewrite> // AP // Jennifer C. Kerr – July 14, 2015 * The Senate has cleared the way for a vote by Thursday on a bipartisan bill to rewrite the George W. Bush-era No Child Left Behind education law. Lawmakers have been considering the bill since last week. They voted Wednesday to limit additional debate on further changes to the legislation and move forward to a vote on final passage. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., would narrow the federal role in public schools by giving states and school districts more control over assessing the performance of schools, teachers and students. It would keep No Child Left Behind's requirement for annual math and reading tests but prohibit the federal government from requiring or encouraging specific sets of academic standards, such as Common Core. Common Core was drafted by the states with the support of the Obama administration, but the standards become a rallying point for those who want a smaller federal role in education Senators intended to spend the next day discussing dozens of amendments before a final vote. Any bill that emerges from the Senate would then have to be reconciled with a more conservative version that the House passed last week. The House bill, sponsored by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., also lessens the federal role in education policy by turning more power over to the states to assess school performance and by preventing the administration from pushing Common Core on the states. This bill also allows federal money to follow low-income children to public schools of their choice, an issue known as portability. Democrats do not support it. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said the White House would veto the House measure. Duncan has been more supportive of the Senate bill, but has urged changes that would require states to identify their lowest-performing schools and require those schools to have plans for improvement. No Child Left Behind, which had bipartisan support and was signed into law by Bush in 2002, mandated annual testing in reading and math for students in grades three through eight and again in high school. Schools had to show student growth or face consequences. But critics complained there was too much testing and the law was too punitive on schools deemed failing. The law has been up for reauthorization since 2007. *Obamacare Fines Paid by 6.6 Million Taxpayers, More Than Planned <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/obamacare-fines-paid-by-6-6-million-taxpayers-more-than-planned> // Bloomberg // Anna Edney – July 15, 2015 * About 6.6 million U.S. taxpayers paid a penalty imposed for the first time this year for not having health insurance, about 10 percent more than the Obama administration had estimated -- though a portion didn’t need to. The penalty of as much as 1 percent of income was implemented under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and was meant to encourage people to sign up for health insurance. The Treasury Department had said in January that as many as 6 million taxpayers would pay the fine. The average penalty was $190, the Internal Revenue Service said Wednesday in a report. About 300,000 taxpayers overpaid the penalty by a total of $35 million. Most should have been exempt for their low income, according to the agency. The average overpayment was a little more than $110. The IRS hasn’t decided yet whether to issue a refund for the overpayments. “Since the majority of taxpayers use paid tax-return preparers, most would probably spend more than the roughly $110 average overpayment amount in preparer fees if amended returns are required,” the agency said. About 10.7 million taxpayers filed for an exemption from the penalty. For those who did gain health-care coverage under new marketplaces created by Obamacare, 2.6 million filed for premium tax credits to help them afford insurance, adding up to $7.7 billion in subsidies. The average tax credit was $3,000, the IRS said. About 8 million people purchased health coverage through the government-run marketplaces in 2014. *INTERNATIONAL* *Clearing Hurdles to Iran Nuclear Deal With Standoffs, Shouts and Compromise <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/clearing-hurdles-to-iran-nuclear-deal-with-standoffs-shouts-and-compromise.html?ref=world> // NYT // David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon – July 15, 2015 * One by one, the roadblocks to a nuclear accord between Iran and the United States had been painstakingly cleared. But as the negotiations went into their third week in the neoclassical Coburg Palace hotel this month, a major dispute lingered: whether a ban on Iran’s ability to purchase conventional weapons and missile technology would remain in place. The American delegation, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, insisted on extending the ban. But Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister and his country’s chief negotiator, was opposed. Backing him were the Russians and Chinese, equal parties in the talks, who saw a lucrative market in selling arms to Tehran. A compromise was struck that fully satisfied neither side: a five-year ban on the sale of conventional weapons and an eight-year ban on ballistic missiles. As Mr. Obama made clear again Wednesday, the alternative he saw to the deal was a steady slide toward another war — perhaps, aides thought, in just a year or two as Iran’s nuclear abilities accelerated. Throughout the talks, he had one goal: to diminish the prospect that Iran could develop an atomic bomb — or could race for one before the United States and its allies could react. For the president, everything else — Iran’s support for terrorism, its imprisonment of dissidents and even some Americans, its meddling in Iraq and Syria, its arms trade — was secondary. For the Iranians, this was a negotiation first and foremost to get rid of what Mr. Zarif often called the “unjust sanctions” while trying to keep their nuclear options open. But while they treasured their nuclear program, they treasured the symbolism of not backing down to American demands even more. But Mr. Zarif was walking his own high-wire act at home. While he had an important ally in Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, hard-liners did not want to reach any deal at all; many were making a fortune from the sanctions because they controlled Iran’s black markets. And conservatives around the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were looking for any signs that their Americanized chief negotiator, who studied at the University of Denver, was ready to give away too much nuclear infrastructure without getting Iran the sanctions lifted in return, as the ayatollah had decreed. There was no single event, no heart-to-heart conversation between adversaries or game-changing insight that made the Iran deal happen. Instead, over a period of years, each side came to gradually understand what mattered most to the other. For the Americans, that meant designing offers that kept the shell of Iran’s nuclear program in place while gutting its interior. For the Iranians, it meant ridding themselves of sanctions in ways they could describe to their own people as forcing the United States to deal with Iran as an equal, respected sovereign power. And it happened because a brief constellation of personalities and events came into alignment: A sultan in Oman who convinced the White House that he could establish a back channel to the Iranians. The election of Mr. Rouhani, who Mr. Obama thought would be more receptive to his overtures than Iran’s aging supreme leader. A series of insights from the Energy Department’s nuclear laboratories that allowed the physics of enrichment to create new space for compromise among the political leaders. And the presence of two top diplomats, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif, driven by the conviction that they could break an ugly 35-year history. At one point last week the simmering tension between the two negotiators boiled over when Mr. Zarif felt his American counterpart was pressing too hard. “Never threaten an Iranian!” he shouted. At the other end of the table Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who has had his share of disputes with Mr. Kerry, tried to break the tension. “Or a Russian!” he said, as the room broke out in nervous laughter. But during a break on one particularly discouraging March day in Lausanne, Switzerland, where negotiations were held before adjourning to Vienna, Mr. Zarif struck a different tone as he invoked the names of the key figures on two sides, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the top energy officials of the United States and Iran, Ernest J. Moniz and Ali Akbar Salehi. “We are not going to have another time in history when there is an Obama and a Biden and a Kerry and a Moniz again,” he said, according to notes of the conversation. “And there may be no Rouhani, Zarif and Salehi.” Barack Obama came to office hoping for a dialogue with Tehran but focused on the problem of nuclear proliferation. After Ayatollah Khamenei responded to Mr. Obama’s private letters with long diatribes about America’s efforts, the president turned to squeezing the country economically. “Obama seemed very comfortable with the shift to sanctions after the Iranians failed to reciprocate to his overtures,” Gary Samore, then a senior White House aide. He pressed the Russians to delay selling the S-300, a sophisticated air defense system, to Iran, and sent a delegation to persuade Beijing to reduce China’s purchases of oil. But when an offer to help get secret talks started with the Iranians came from Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman, the president was intrigued. Eventually the White House turned to a trusted ally to tease out the possibilities: Mr. Kerry, then a senator from Massachusetts. Meeting in Oman on Dec. 7, 2011, the sultan said an accord could be reached. There was a high likelihood, the sultan said, that a deal could be reached if the Obama administration showed its seriousness about a diplomatic solution. But making a point that would recur time and again — down to the last days of the Vienna talks — he said that a way would need to be found to allow the Iranians to “keep their honor.” It took seven months — until July 2012 — before secret envoys sent by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the Iranians, and that meeting went poorly. Then, in June 2013, came the election of Mr. Rouhani, whom the supreme leader had allowed to run, largely on a platform of ridding Iran of the sanctions that were squeezing the elite and middle class. “The president said we had to work up a letter to him right away,” one of Mr. Obama’s senior aides said. “He sensed it was a moment we had to seize.” As Mr. Obama’s aides sketched out how the negotiations might play out, they faced a threshold decision: Would they abandon the Bush administration’s mantra that “not one centrifuge spins,” a position they knew the Iranians would never accept? Or were they willing to allow a token Iranian program — a face-saving one — if the trade-off was two decades or so of restrictions? A consensus quickly emerged that a contained program was far better than a smoldering confrontation that seemed headed toward a military strike. “The idea was that if we accepted enrichment it would be at a very small level,” said Dennis B. Ross, who served on the National Security Council during Mr. Obama’s first term. “By being very limited, it would be a manifestation that they really had a peaceful nuclear program.” But it became clear that Iran envisioned something different: a sizable nuclear infrastructure that would take a pause of a few years, the price of ending sanctions, but then resume its march to “industrial scale” uranium enrichment. The gap between the American numbers of acceptable centrifuges and the Iranian numbers seem unbridgeable. Looking for a way to break the deadlock without forcing the Iranians into a corner, the nuclear experts at the Energy Department began to present other, more complex options. The focus, they suggested, should not be simply on the number and type of centrifuges, but the “breakout time,” the amount of time it would take for Iran, under a “best reasonable” estimate, to produce a single weapon’s worth of material. Put simply, Iran could have centrifuges running if it agreed to a far smaller stockpile of fuel. “There were many intense meetings on this,” recalled Antony J. Blinken, Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser at the time, and now the deputy secretary of state. “We had to present a lot of permutations to the president to meet his bottom lines.” The military said it could live with a “breakout time” of a year; that was plenty of time to launch a strike to destroy Iran’s production facilities. But the optics of allowing thousands of centrifuges to remain was not good. “Throughout this process,” Mr. Blinken said, “we’ve been faced with a choice between what is politically feasible and what is practically necessary.” It would be the first of many such choices. Progress Is Halting A series of secret negotiations with the Rouhani team, led by Mrs. Clinton’s top aide, Jake Sullivan, and one of America’s most experienced diplomats, William J. Burns, explored the possibilities. “I have about six months to get this through,” Mr. Zarif said in New York in September 2013, on his first trip to the United Nations as foreign minister after many years of academic exile. After that, he feared, the opponents of dealing with the United States would rise again. He was wrong: It turned out the process went on for another 22 months. A first agreement, just to get Iran to freeze its current nuclear activity and blend down some stockpiles of fuel that the West feared was approaching weapons-grade, took months to negotiate. Then came halting progress, as the Americans began to realize that at every stage the Iranians were fighting to preserve every major nuclear facility. “It was all about perception,” one negotiator said. “They fought to keep the buildings and tangible equipment. It was easier for them to give up fuel or parts of the equipment people didn’t see.” That preserved a narrative that nothing had been surrendered. Last summer, Iran’s supreme leader made the problem even harder, pronouncing in a speech (which took Mr. Zarif by surprise) that Iran should eventually have an industrial-scale enrichment program — with 190,000 centrifuges — to provide fuel for power reactors. The logjam was not broken until several extensions of the talks, and a marathon set of meetings in Lausanne, where a critical treaty had been negotiated at the end of World War I. By this time, Mr. Moniz and Mr. Salehi, a former foreign minister and now head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, joined the talks to work out the nuclear details — in a less political, more scientific environment. The officials working under Mr. Salehi “were mostly hard-liners, and they would give on nothing,” one American official said. But when Mr. Salehi, who got his nuclear training at M.I.T. before the Iranian revolution, showed up and developed a rapport with Mr. Moniz, the secretary of energy and a former chairman of the M.I.T. physics department, the Iranian bureaucrats were often sidelined, or overruled. (Mr. Moniz played the connection to the hilt, showing up one day with M.I.T.-logo baby gifts for Mr. Salehi’s first grandchild.) Over intense days, in which proposals were sketched out on rolling white boards so that nothing was on paper, where it might have to go back to Tehran for approval, they worked out a framework. The two scientists found ways to achieve the one-year breakout time, at least for the first 10 years, by reducing low enriched uranium stocks to a mere 660 pounds, down from about nine tons that Iran has now produced. In return, Iran would be allowed over 6,000 centrifuges, and an agreement to keep 1,000 of them in Fordo, the deep underground enrichment site that worried Israeli officials because it was impermeable to Israeli bombing. But no fissile material — the stuff of enriched uranium — would be allowed at Fordo, and last week the Iranians agreed to pull most of the piping out of the facility, making it even harder to restart operations. Still, Mr. Obama had talked about the need to close the facility when he revealed its existence in 2009. There were other compromises. One Western diplomat said an initial hope among some of the nations involved in the talks was that the central provisions of an agreement would last 20 years. They got 10, with restrictions on how much of a stockpile Iran could maintain that last for 15 years. “By the time we left Lausanne, most of the nuclear issues were solved, we just had to work out the specific wording,” one of the negotiators said. But tellingly, in the ensuing two and a half months, the two sides described their agreements in very different terms. Mr. Kerry described an Iranian capability that had been neutralized; the Iranians a capability that had been preserved. That set up a collision course for the last negotiations, in Vienna. Political Requirements Differ Mr. Kerry arrived in Vienna on June 28, hobbling on crutches after breaking his femur in a bicycle accident in France. His chief negotiator, Wendy Sherman, a tenacious, detail-oriented diplomat who had broken two or three bones of her own during the negotiations, had already been in Vienna for a week. The Iranians, she reported, were intent on getting bigger, faster relief from sanctions, claiming Mr. Rouhani’s political survival depended on it. The United States also had its requirements. On the nuclear side, it needed to cut off all three of Iran’s pathways to a bomb: obtaining uranium, producing plutonium and the covert manufacture or purchase of a weapon. Each of those carried enormous complexities. Politically, it needed to show that Iran met all its major obligations before sanctions were lifted, and that there was a mechanism to reimpose them quickly if Tehran stopped cooperating. Mr. Obama had already given ammunition to critics of a deal when he said in an April interview that after year 13 of the accord Iran’s breakout time could be down to nearly zero. That seemed to acknowledge the main critique of the emerging agreement — that it constituted the medium-term management of the Iranian program, not its elimination. American negotiators believed the deal was better than that, but to constrain Iran’s ability to emerge from the accord as a nuclear threshold state they had to pin the Iranians down on some of the technical details, including the development of more efficient centrifuges. The problem was that the principal Iranian interlocutor for settling precisely that issue, Mr. Salehi, was missing: He had undergone three abdominal operations in the previous two months, and on a conference call a few weeks before Mr. Moniz thought he sounded weak. “We didn’t know if Salehi was reluctant to come, or too weak,” said one senior American official. But without him, “we were getting nowhere.” Two days after Mr. Kerry arrived, Mr. Zarif took a quick trip to Tehran, ostensibly for consultations. Most important, he returned with Mr. Salehi on his plane. The atmosphere at the Coburg Palace was tense. But on July 4, the Iranians broke the ice by inviting the Americans for lunch, at which Mr. Zarif complained about ads in Tehran that were inveighing against the deal. Mr. Kerry talked about complaints he was getting from critics at home, who he said were attacking an agreement without even bothering to learn the details. But the talks dragged on. The Iranians appeared to think they could exploit a deadline for submitting a finished accord to Congress for a 30-day review. The deadline was July 9. “It was working against us,” one diplomat said. “The Iranians saw that deadline and they were convinced we would give in on key details to avoid the longer review.” At the White House, Mr. Obama, monitoring the talks every few hours, was getting concerned about a narrative that he and Mr. Kerry wanted a deal too much — three mornings in a row Mr. Obama reminded his aides, “I don’t need this.” They were not certain what he meant, but they had a theory: After big victories in the Supreme Court on health care and the gay rights, he could afford to be patient. The days ticked by, with halting progress. Mr. Moniz finished the nuclear details, often in meetings in the impressive stone basement of the Coburg, built from the ramparts of old Vienna. The Iranians called it Fordo — because, if you ignored the 60,000 wine bottles, it looked like their underground enrichment center. The last stretch was taken up largely with the wording of a United Nations Security Council resolution that would lay out the terms of the arms embargo. Finally, on Tuesday, the agreement was announced. When the photo ops were over, the seven foreign ministers who had negotiated it met for the last time. Each spoke briefly about the importance of the moment. Mr. Kerry spoke last, but then added a personal coda. Choking up, he recalled going off to Vietnam as a 22-year-old naval officer and said he never wanted to go through that again. He emerged committed, he said, to using diplomacy to avoid the horrors of war. *Greece, Its Back to the Wall, Adopts Austerity Steps <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/imf-greece-debt-relief.html?ref=world> // NYT // Suzanne Daley and James Kanter – July 15, 2015 * Under threat from the nation’s creditors to move quickly or lose any chance of obtaining a desperately needed new bailout package, Greece’s Parliament approved painful new austerity measures early Thursday, virtually guaranteeing that life would get harder for millions of Greeks. With banks closed and the economy on the verge of collapse, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras had urged the adoption of the measures, saying that while it was a difficult deal the creditors were offering, it was the only one available and would avert a humanitarian and fiscal disaster. The measures passed easily, with a vote of 229 to 64, with six abstentions. Yet much of the support came from opposition parties. Thirty-two members of Mr. Tsipras’s own Syriza party voted no, including three of his ministers, throwing the stability of his left-wing coalition government into question. The vote came a day after the International Monetary Fund signaled that it might not back the new bailout unless the pact substantially reduced the debt burden on Athens. That stance aligned it with Mr. Tsipras on the question of debt reduction and provided him with new ammunition to argue that the bailout plan did not do enough to get the Greek economy back on its feet. But with the country teetering on the edge of insolvency, Athens moved ahead with the vote. It needed to begin unlocking the aid necessary to meet a debt payment on Monday, put its banks on sounder footing and negotiate a three-year package that would provide it with as much as 86 billion euros, or about $94 billion, in assistance. Mr. Tsipras was given only two days to begin to pass the creditors’ proposals. And as the vote neared, many in his party expressed profound dismay that they were being asked to approve measures that would reduce pensions and raise a wide array of taxes. One minister resigned before the vote. In his address to the deputies, the prime minister made no secret of his unhappiness with the offer, which had forced him to backtrack on virtually every campaign promise he made and which many leading economists have condemned as unworkable. But Mr. Tsipras said the alternative — exile from the eurozone — was the greater evil. “We took on powerful opponents, we clashed with international financial system,” he said. “And in that sense it was an uneven battle. But I’m proud of our fight.” But some members of his party had argued earlier that more austerity betrayed all that the party stood for and could not be accepted, especially after 60 percent of Greek voters had already rejected less harsh terms in a referendum just 10 days before. “The people spoke,” said one Syriza member, Zoi Konstanpopoulou, the speaker of Parliament. “We have a duty to defend their decision because our power is sourced from them.” Whether Mr. Tsipras will have to fashion a new coalition is unclear. Some party members suggested that with no one calling for a vote of confidence or a new election, he might be able to hang on. Other analysts said that he would no doubt eventually have to form a new unity government with other parties. While Mr. Tsipras signed an agreement with his creditors on Monday, there are still many potential pitfalls, including the fact that the accord must win parliamentary approval in each of the other eurozone countries. France has already given its approval, and German legislators could take up the issue by Friday. On Thursday, finance ministers are to discuss bridge financing for Greece until the terms of a longer agreement can be worked out. Members of Syriza welcomed the I.M.F. report. Dimitrios Papadimoulis, a member of the European Parliament who is close to the prime minister, said that the fund’s position could be helpful in the long run but that did not make Wednesday’s parliamentary vote any less urgent. He said the fund’s position had provided an “additional argument” for reducing his country’s debt payments, but that right now Greece needed to “stay alive” and approve the measures demanded by its European creditors. The I.M.F.’s signal on Tuesday that it supported steps like forgiving some of the debt or putting a three-decade moratorium on debt payments put it in conflict with Greece’s European creditors. Under the terms of the agreement, reached after a weekend of contentious negotiations, the creditors would not forgive any debt and offered only a general assurance of further discussions about reducing annual debt payments by stretching out payment periods or reducing interest rates. The bailout would be the third for Greece in five years and would involve new loans from the other countries that use the euro, the European Central Bank and the monetary fund. The fund’s decision to go public with its position suggested that the draft agreement would be only the starting point for further negotiations about the sustainability of the debt and the willingness of lenders to recognize that they might not get all their money back. In Athens, tensions flared as Parliament prepared to vote. When the controversial former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, took the floor to compare the deal reached over the weekend in Brussels to the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed harsh conditions on a defeated Germany after World War I, one member of the center Right Democracy Party interrupted him to shout, “You ruined the country.” Mr. Varoufakis, who along with Mr. Tsipras had taken a confrontational stance with the creditors, said he would not vote for the legislation. Opposition party members took turns blaming Mr. Tsipras for the current state of affairs, but vowed to vote for the measures anyway. Harry Theoharris, of the centrist To Potami party, said that 10 years from now students would be studying the events of today and “how we shot ourselves and then started whining for a disability benefit.” If nothing else, Greeks took some solace from the idea that the I.M.F. report would help keep attention focused on the issue of the debt, which Greece had long maintained was so heavy a burden that it choked off hope of any economic recovery and forced unjustifiably deep cuts in government spending. “Certainly this issue is also going to be part of the discussions, negotiations when we’ll be discussing the memorandum of understanding, when we will be really preparing the third Greek program,” Valdis Dombrovskis, a vice president of the European Commission responsible for the euro, told the news media in Brussels. The I.M.F.’s position highlighted a rift between European countries. Some, including Germany, are adamantly against writing off any of Greece’s debt of more than €300 billion, or about $330 billion. Others, including France, have stressed the need to reduce Greece’s debt payments to a more realistic and sustainable level, if not by forgiving any of the debt then by extending the payment schedule or cutting interest rates. The French government, which has played a central role in efforts to keep Greece in the eurozone, said it welcomed the fund’s comments. “The I.M.F. is saying the same thing that we are,” Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, told BFM television on Wednesday. “That we have to help Greece, but that we can’t do it if we maintain the same repayment burden on the Greek economy.” Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, has been one of the most hard-line opponents of debt relief for Greece. He indicated on Tuesday that there was continued resistance in the German government to the deal forged last weekend and a willingness to consider whether it might be better for Greece to leave the eurozone. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has ruled out writing off any of the Greek debt, but has left the door open to renegotiating the terms for paying it back, suggesting that there remain grounds for a compromise.