H4A News Clips 6.13.14

podesta-emails 64,885 words email

P17 V11 D6 P22 P20

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *H4A News Clips* *June 13, 2015* *TODAY’S KEY STORIES..................................................................................... **4* *Roosevelt Island to Shine Under the Hillary Clinton Spotlight* // NYT // Joshua Jamerson – June 12, 2015 4 *While GOP fixates on foreign policy, Hillary Clinton goes domestic* // WaPo // Anne Gearan & Dan Balz – June 12, 2015........................................................................................................................................... 5 *Hillary Clinton portrayed as ‘a fighter’ in new campaign video* // WaPo // Jose DelReal – June 12, 2015 9 *Wonk Warrior* // Politico // Glenn Thrush – June 12, 2015............................................................. 9 *SOCIAL MEDIA................................................................................................ **16* *Adam Smith (6/12/15, 7:08 am)* – Jeb "plans to say that people inside DC can't fix DC" politico.com/playbook/0615/…, will raise money in DC a few days later blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/… 16 *Jennifer Jacobs (6/12/15, 10:19 am)* – JUST IN: The Iowa Straw Poll is dead................................. 16 By unanimous vote, the Iowa GOP board just voted to kill it........................................................ 16 *Alex Seitz-Wald (6/12/15, 1:33 pm)* - Sanders to @mitchellreports: "It is hard for me to understand how you can run for president of the U.S. and not take questions [from press]"................................................ 16 *Annie Karni (6/12/15, 3:29 pm)* - 07 story on Clinton reintroing herself through mom and Midwest roots does read like it cld be written today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201257_pf.html …................................................. 16 *CNBC (6/12/15, 5:34 pm)* - MORE: Dow Jones reports State Dept. unable to issue passports & visas due to tech issue; officials haven't ruled out hack as source of issue............................................................... 16 *John Roberts (6/12/15, 6:52 pm)* - Gov. Walker told me off camera that his presidential announcement would likely be around the 2nd week of July......................................................................................... 16 *HRC NATIONAL COVERAGE............................................................................ **16* *For Hillary Rodham Clinton, her mother will loom large in campaign* // WaPo // David Fahrenthold – June 12, 2015.......................................................................................................................................... 17 *Could a skywriter crash Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch?* // WaPo // Philip Bump – June 12, 2015 19 *Bill Clinton Is Attending Hillary Clinton’s Campaign-Policy Meetings* // WSJ // Erica Orden – June 12, 2015 20 *Bill Clinton on donor flap: 'No one has ever asked me for anything'* // Politico // Nick Gass – June 12, 2015 21 *Kickoff rally logistical risks* // Politico // Daniel Lippman – June 12, 2015.................................... 22 *Campaign manager Robby Mook contrasts Hillary Clinton, Obama on immigration* // Politico // Annie Karni – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................ 23 *Progressives lash out at Clinton on trade* // Politico // Jonathan Topaz and Ben Schreckinger – June 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 24 *How Would Hillary Clinton 'Reshuffle' Economic Inequality?* // NPR // Mara Liasson – June 12, 2015 27 *Hillary's star-studded bash replaced Rangel's party at the Plaza Hotel* // Crains New York // Eric Engquist – June 12, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 29 *Answering the 'Why' : Previewing Hillary Clinton's Launch Speech* // NBC // Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann – June 12, 2015...................................................................................................... 30 *Hillary Clinton is not on Snapchat, but we just found some compelling evidence that it’s coming soon* // Business Insider // Will Haskell – June 12, 2015....................................................................................... 31 *Bill Clinton opens up about his relationship with Hillary* // CNN // Dan Merica – June 12, 2015... 33 *One Tough Mother* // Slate // John Dickerson – June 12, 2015..................................................... 35 *What It Means for Hillary Clinton's Campaign to Get Real Tomorrow* // ABC News // Liz Kreutz – June 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 36 *Ragin Cajun: 'Put your pantsuit on and let's go!'* // The Washington Examiner // Paul Bedard – June 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 38 *No-Fly Zone Ordered For Hillary Clinton’s New York City Kickoff Rally* // ABC News // Josh Margolin, David Kerley and Matt Hosford – June 12, 2015.................................................................................... 39 *Clinton's Grassroots Army* // The Sun Sentinel // Anthony Man – June 12, 2015........................... 40 *Hillary Clinton headed to Charleston area for 2nd SC stop* // The State // Jamie Self – June 12, 2015 43 *Hillary Clinton: "The History Of Women Has Been A History Of Silence"* // Elle // Megan Friedman – June 12, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 44 *Hillary Clinton's 'talking points' for 'friends and allies' just leaked* // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 12, 2015.................................................................................................................................... 44 *Meet the political operative trying to make Hillary Clinton popular* // Fortune // Nina Easton – June 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 45 *New York Times fund keeps donors anonymous* // Politico // Dylan Byers – June 12, 2015........... 47 *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE................................................. **48* *O’MALLEY.................................................................................................. **48* *Martin O’Malley hires digital director* // MSNBC // Nisha Chittal – June 12, 2015........................ 48 *SANDERS.................................................................................................... **49* *The war on the middle class* // The Boston Globe // Bernie Sanders – June 12, 2015..................... 49 *OTHER........................................................................................................ **50* *Pelosi to oppose Obama on trade* // The Hill // Christina Marcos – June 12, 2015......................... 50 *GOP.................................................................................................................. **51* *BUSH........................................................................................................... **51* *Longtime Bush Adviser Focuses On Jeb’s Messaging* // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 12, 2015 51 *Jeb Bush’s Family Values* // NYT // Andrew Rosenthal – June 12, 2015....................................... 52 *Jeb Bush plans a ‘hopeful, optimistic’ speech to kick off campaign* // WaPo // Karen Tumulty & Ed O’Keefe – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................ 53 *Jeb Bush Faulted Over Use of Florida Tax Money* // WSJ // Beth Reinhard – June 12, 2015.......... 55 *Here’s Jeb Bush Talking In 1995 About Restoring Shame To Society* // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski & Megan Apper – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................... 57 *How a silent FEC lets Jeb Bush play by his own fundraising rules* // CNN // Karl Sandstorm – June 12, 2015 59 *Bush book from 1995 becomes 2016 issue* // USA Today // David Jackson – June 12, 2015............ 60 *Jeb Bush to women on welfare in 1994: 'Get a husband’* // CNN // Eric Bradner – June 12, 2015.... 61 *Jeb Bush's 2016 launch strategy: Be the tortoise, not the hare* // CNN // Dana Bash – June 12, 2015 63 *RUBIO......................................................................................................... **66* *Marco Rubio is now at the top of the Republican presidential field* // WaPo // Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................ 66 *Who's Laughing Now? Marco Rubio Mocks New York Times Article on His Finances* // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................ 69 *Everybody is flipping out over The New York Times' 'attacks' on Marco Rubio* // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 12, 2015.......................................................................................................... 70 *PAUL............................................................................................................ **71* *Rand Paul doesn’t run with the herd* // Politico // Kyle Cheney – June 12, 2015............................ 71 *Rand Paul returns to California's conservative corridors to court donors* // LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 12, 2015................................................................................................................................................ 74 *WALKER..................................................................................................... **75* *Scott Walker and the Fate of the Union* // NYT // Dan Kaufman – June 12, 2015.......................... 75 *Scott Walker hardens abortion stance ahead of his likely White House bid* // WaPo // Jenna Johnson – June 12, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 85 *Citing collective bargaining law, Scott Walker says Wisconsin's rank on ACT test has risen to second* // Politifact // Tom Kertscher – June 12, 2015............................................................................................... 89 *Scott Walker, Professors Clash Over Tenure in Wisconsin* // US News // Allie Bidwell – June 12, 2015 91 *The Koch Brothers Usually Have Scott Walker's Back. Not This Time.* // Mother Jones // Russ Choma – June 12, 2015......................................................................................................................................... 93 *CRUZ........................................................................................................... **95* *Ted Cruz Cherry-Picks Terrorism Comments* // HuffPo // D’Angelo Gore – June 12, 2015.............. 95 *Cruz, Paul push for ban on indefinite detention of US citizens* // The Hill // Jordain Carney – June 12, 2015 98 *CHRISTIE.................................................................................................... **99* *Chris Christie's Foreign Trips Cost Taxpayers $120,000* // AP // Jill Colvin – June 12, 2015........... 99 *Chris Christie takes a veiled swipe at Rand Paul over Patriot Act* // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – June 12, 2015.............................................................................................................................................. 100 *Chris Christie hits Ted Cruz for 'hypocrisy' on disaster aid* // CNN // Ashley Killough – June 12, 2015 102 *Christie attended NBA Finals on PAC's dime* // The Hill // Mark Hensch – June 12, 2015........... 103 *GRAHAM................................................................................................... **104* *Lindsey Graham Challenges Republican Rivals on Debt Ceiling* // TIME // Zeke Miller – June 12, 2015 104 *Presidential Candidate Lindsey Graham Introduces 20-Week 'Pain-Capable' Late-Term Abortion Ban in Senate; Promises Vote in 2015 // The Christian Post* // Sam Smith – June 12, 2015................................. 105 *SANTORUM............................................................................................... **107* *For Candidates Like Rick Santorum, the Line Can Be Long to Take Flight* // NYT // Ashley Parker – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 107 *Rick Santorum says he'd welcome an endorsement from Caitlyn Jenner* // NY Daily News // Aliza Chasan – June 12, 2015.................................................................................................................................. 108 *HUCKABEE............................................................................................... **108* *Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee making weekend campaign swing through South Carolina* // AP – June 12, 2015....................................................................................................................................... 108 *Anti-Huckabee super PAC formed* // Arkansas News // John Lyon – June 12, 2015..................... 109 *KASICH...................................................................................................... **110* *Kasich: Trade Is Critical to National Security* // Fox News // Matthew Kazin – June 12, 2015....... 110 *John Kasich Strives for Self-Control* // Bloomberg News // Ben Brody – June 12, 2015................ 110 *Kasich inches 'closer and closer' to 2016 decision* // The Hill // Rebecca Shabad – June 12, 2015. 112 *CARSON..................................................................................................... **112* *Ben Carson polling well among millennials* // Politico // Christina Animashaun – June 12, 2015. 112 *Ben Carson: “What You See In Communist Countries” Is “What We’ve Got Now” In America* // Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 12, 2015.......................................................................................... 114 *Ben Carson in Cleveland: Health care not a right, but a 'responsibility for a compassionate society'* // Cleveland News // Henry J. Gomez – June 12, 2015................................................................................... 115 *FIORINA.................................................................................................... **116* *Carly Fiorina Shows Us Just How Weird America’s Tax System Is* // NYT // Josh Barro – June 12, 2015 116 *Carly Fiorina Blames Unions, Dodd Frank And Democrats For Gender Inequality* // Think Progress // Alice Ollstein – June 12, 2015........................................................................................................... 118 *OTHER...................................................................................................... **120* *Two-year sentence for GOP operative convicted of illegal coordination* // WaPo // Matt Zapotosky & Matea Gold............................................................................................................................................... 120 *Christie, Walker, Rubio are unsparing in blunt pitches to 2016 donors at Romney retreat* // AP // Steve Peoples and Julie Bykowicz.................................................................................................................. 122 *Sisterhood Is Sour: How Republican Women Are Going After Hillary Clinton* // Bloomberg News // Emily Greenhouse – June 12, 2015..................................................................................................... 124 *Mitt Romney And Republican Presidential Hopefuls: All One And The Same!** // *Correct The Record – June 12, 2015........................................................................................................................................ 128 *TOP NEWS..................................................................................................... **128* *DOMESTIC................................................................................................ **128* *Chinese hack compromised security-clearance database* // WaPo // Ellen Nakashima – June 12, 2015 128 *House Deals Blow to Obama’s Bid for Trade Deal, Rejects Worker-Aid Program* // WSJ // Siobhan Hughes, Kristina Peterson & William Mauldin – June 12, 2015................................................................ 131 *White House trade push not getting help from DNC* // Politico // Edward-Isaac Dovere – June 12, 2015 134 *INTERNATIONAL...................................................................................... **137* *ISIS Is Winning the Social Media War, U.S. Concludes* // NYT // Mark Mazzetti & Michael Gordon – June 12, 2015............................................................................................................................................... 137 *U.S., Europe ready new sanctions to deter Putin on Ukraine* // CNN // Elise Labott – June 12, 2015 139 *MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY STAFF............................................................. **141* *Shut Up About the Clinton Foundation's Problems for a Minute to Look at Its Programs* // Inside Philanthropy // Kiersten Marek and David Callahan – June 12, 2015.................................................................. 141 *TODAY’S KEY STORIES* *Roosevelt Island to Shine Under the Hillary Clinton Spotlight <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/12/longtime-bush-adviser-focuses-on-jebs-messaging/> // NYT // Joshua Jamerson – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to use Roosevelt Island, the two-mile sliver of land mashed between Queens and Manhattan, as the backdrop Saturday for her first major stump speech sent a small but noticeable ripple through the island’s previously scheduled weekend plans. For example, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park, where Mrs. Clinton will speak, rescheduled a children’s event that had been set to take place there to accommodate the Clinton team. “We made the date available by moving one event,” said Sally Minard, president of the park, adding that the Clinton campaign did not request the rescheduling of the children’s event. “Obviously, you can’t do anything in New York City without making someone unhappy.” Mrs. Clinton’s speech also happens to land on the same weekend as Roosevelt Island Day, an annual block party-type event intended to celebrate the island and its residents. “They scheduled it when they scheduled it, it happens to be the same day as Roosevelt Island Day, we’ve done this for 18 years, and it is what it is,” said Sherie Helstien, vice president of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association. Ms. Helstien was recently quoted in The New York Post as saying the Clinton event would be “horrendous logistically” for the community, which has one subway stop, the famed Roosevelt Island Tramway, and one road for vehicular traffic for people to come onto and leave the island. She suggested a large number of vehicles could be cause for concern. “We’re going to do what we do and she’s going to do what she does, and we’ll see what happens,” Ms. Helstien said. Janet Falk, a member of the residents association, said she couldn’t predict if attendance would take a hit at the Roosevelt Island celebration because of the Clinton rally. “Residents of Roosevelt Island and of New York will vote with their feet,” she said. Still, several community leaders, including Ms. Helstien, say the events have about a mile of distance between them, and there should be enough room for both Roosevelt Island Day and the Clinton speech, which is expected to draw a fair share of news media. Jeffrey Escobar, the residents association president, said Mrs. Clinton’s event should be good for the island’s reputation to fellow New Yorkers and to tourists. “If you talk to some people around the city, they might only know Roosevelt Island for the Tramway,” Mr. Escobar said. “Any exposure for us is always good.” With regard to transportation, the F train will not see a change in service, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman said. But the Tramway, which usually runs every 15 minutes during off-peak hours, will run about every seven minutes on this particular Saturday. It can carry up to 110 people per ride. Samir Dagher, 41, moved to Roosevelt Island in September. Though he said the expected influx of people on the island probably won’t affect him, he said he did not understand why Mrs. Clinton’s campaign picked the small island to officially kick off her candidacy. “Certainly, it’d be nice to do it in a place that doesn’t have only one road in,” Mr. Dagher said, comparing the access with “a big farm in Iowa.” *While GOP fixates on foreign policy, Hillary Clinton goes domestic <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-gop-fixates-on-foreign-policy-hillary-clinton-goes-domestic/2015/06/12/f2f9c664-0ee8-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html> // WaPo // Anne Gearan & Dan Balz – June 12, 2015 * While Republican presidential hopefuls warn of Iranian duplicity and Russian aggression and accuse President Obama of allowing the rise of Islamic State militants, the most experienced foreign-policy hand in the 2016 race says almost nothing about events beyond U.S. shores. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who served four years as secretary of state and was known as a national security hawk in the Senate before that, is preparing for a campaign in which economic and kitchen-table issues are at the forefront. The disconnect says much about the nature of the crowded Republican primary contest, in which conservative-leaning voters hold sway, and the different landscape that Clinton is navigating as she makes her second run for the Democratic nomination. Republican primary voters tend to care about foreign policy at higher rates anyway, but this year overseas issues present opportunities for candidates to distinguish themselves from one another and paint Obama as weak. Obama is as much or more of a foil for Republicans at this stage of the race, and the improving economy may leave less room to attack the president on domestic issues. Clinton — who headed the State Department during Obama’s first term — is also a frequent target for Republican foreign-policy criticism, but she is confining her own critiques of GOP policies to domestic issues such as voting rights. [Will Hillary Clinton’s State Department experience be a liability?] In her calculation, foreign policy will not be a central question during a primary contest against far-lesser-known Democratic rivals, and far less important than in past elections when it comes to the general election. There is not a word about foreign policy in a memo that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook sent to key supporters this week. The memo is a primer for a speech Clinton will deliver Saturday to lay out a campaign agenda focused squarely on those in, or aspiring to, the American middle class. A preview video released by the campaign Friday made only a brief reference to her time as secretary of state, and foreign policy will probably get only a few lines in her speech. “She will outline her vision for America’s future and her roadmap to help everyday American families get ahead and stay ahead,” Mook wrote. Since entering the race on April 12, Clinton has addressed social and economic issues such as same-sex marriage, the crush of college debt and paid family leave. She has called for overhauls of the nation’s immigration, criminal justice and voting systems. Her only public remarks about foreign policy have come in response to news media questions about her tenure as secretary of state — she said she’s proud of it — and the changing nature of the conflict in Iraq. She also has brusquely said she will let voters decide what they think about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, while she was the country’s top diplomat. She said she wants the State Department to release her e-mail correspondence about the Libyan terrorist attacks as quickly as possible. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said he’s not positive Clinton will do an overseas swing ahead of the first primary contests early next year. “I’m not sure she needs to,” Podesta said in an interview. “She doesn’t need to go to England to prove she knows the difference between the queen and the prime minister.” Meanwhile former Florida governor Jeb Bush is in Europe this week on a tour intended to look presidential. He arrived in Germany mere hours after Obama had left the annual summit of the Group of Seven wealthy nations, and finishes the visit Friday in Estonia. Fellow Republican hopefuls Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin have taken similar trips of late, all seeking a measure of commander-in-chief gravitas and a means to attack the sitting Democratic president. Walker arrives in Canada for a six-day trip on Friday. The passport parade to Europe, Israel and other strategic places is sure to continue as Republicans vie for the 2016 nomination. At candidate forums in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina and in television interviews, the GOP prospects focus on foreign crises such as the advance of the Islamic State terrorist group as threats to American security and leadership. This is the first election cycle since 2000 in which foreign wars or the threat of terrorism have not been dominant issues for Democrats. Although the next president is likely to inherit problems including the ongoing Syrian civil war and the precarious future of the U.S.-backed government in Iraq, Clinton’s Democratic challengers aren’t saying much more about foreign policy than she is. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is running as an economic populist to Clinton’s left. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley is also trying to appeal to far-left ambivalence about Clinton, mostly on social and economic issues. “He has talked about how he voted against the first Gulf War back in ’91, and he led opposition to the Iraq war,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said. “But his basic concern is the 40-year decline of the American middle class.” Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee has been the toughest on Clinton over her 2003 Senate vote in favor of the Iraq war. Chafee said Clinton “didn’t do her homework” ahead of that vote, which would become one of the main reasons she lost the 2008 nomination to Obama. Former Virginia senator Jim Webb, a former Navy secretary, speaks frequently about American leadership and takes some indirect shots at Clinton. Webb has said he is considering a candidacy but has not made it official. At least one of the six planned Democratic debates is likely to focus on foreign policy, which could give long shots like Chafee a chance to show up Clinton. But Clinton does not appear concerned either about that risk or about a Republican focus on foreign policy that Democratic strategists contend is less about public opinion and more about opportunism. When former Texas governor Rick Perry announced his candidacy last week, he put it this way, using a common acronym for Islamic State: “The world has descended into a chaos of this president’s own making, while his White House loyalists construct an alternative universe where ISIS is contained.” On Saturday in Boone, Iowa, at a gathering hosted by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), one after another of the candidates talked about threats overseas. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he would be prepared to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to fight Islamic State forces and said the lack of leadership has been crippling to this country. “I’m weary of being walked over,” he said. “I’m weary of being disrespected as a nation. I’m weary of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. I’m weary of China taking advantage of us. I’m weary of terrorists growing in strength. . . . I’m tired of leading from behind. I want to lead from the front. I want America to come back.” Walker described Islamic State as a virus. “I, on behalf of your children and mine, would rather take the fight to them instead of waiting until they bring the fight to us,” he said. “We need to lead from the front again in America.” Businesswoman Carly Fiorina challenged the administration for trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to contain its nuclear ambitions. On her first day in office, she said, she would send a message to the supreme leader of Iran, warning that unless the Iranians opened up all their nuclear facilities, the United States would enact “the most punishing economic sanctions” yet. Clinton advisers are braced for constant attacks on Obama’s record as a way to get to Clinton but see the GOP candidates as hamstrung when it comes to alternative policies, particularly the issue of sending in ground troops to try to destroy Islamic State. They believe Clinton’s experience in foreign policy will outweigh the Republican criticisms and are confident that many voters see her as prepared to take strong action herself as president. They say they are content for Republicans to try to make the general election about foreign policy, arguing that she would be able to counter their criticisms with relative ease. They believe that those who care most about making the election about foreign policy are largely Republicans who vote in the primaries and caucuses. One Clinton adviser literally broke into laughter when asked whether the team anticipated that foreign policy would be the central issue of the campaign. “If it were a foreign policy election, we would feel great about our chances,” the adviser said. “But we don’t see it as a foreign policy election.” *Hillary Clinton portrayed as ‘a fighter’ in new campaign video <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/12/hillary-clinton-portrayed-as-a-fighter-in-new-campaign-video/> // WaPo // Jose DelReal – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign on Friday released a video touting the Democratic candidate's four decades in public service, part of an effort to emphasize her personal biography ahead of her much-anticipated campaign launch rally Saturday. "Everyone deserves a chance to live up to his or her god given potential," Clinton says in the video. "That's the dream we share. That's the fight we must wage." As the Clinton campaign readies for its formal launch on Roosevelt Island in New York City Saturday, she and her team are turning their attention to communicating a strong rationale for her candidacy. The video paints Clinton as a "fighter" -- the name of the video -- whose presidential ambitions are an extension of her lifelong commitment to public service. The theme is perhaps also an attempt to re-frame Clinton's divisive public persona into a strength, meant to evoke loyalty among her base. The five-minute video features pictures and clips from Clinton's days at a student to her tenure as secretary of state, underscoring her campaign's push to emphasize her biography in a more personal way than she did in the 2008 election. Key moments from Clinton's career are highlighted throughout the video, including her famous 1995 speech on women's rights in Beijing, her time in the Senate, and even her tumultuous -- and failed -- attempt to reform health care during former president Bill Clinton's administration. "It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food or drowned or suffocated simply because they are born girls," Clinton is shown saying in a video excerpt from her Beijing speech. "Human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all." *Wonk Warrior <http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-2016-wonk-warrior-118910.html#.VXrOyflViko> // Politico // Glenn Thrush – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton hasn’t always been a profile in political courage, but she’s had her moments. One of them came in late December 2006, a month before Clinton announced her first run for the presidency, as she huddled with her team to discuss policy proposals to differentiate her from two rivals flanking her on the left, Barack Obama and John Edwards. The conversation, which included former Clinton White House aides like Gene Sperling and Neera Tanden, who still have the candidate’s ear today, bogged down on the biggest, nastiest policy fight of her life, health care. Several of Clinton’s top advisers, the ’90s debacle fresh in everyone’s mind, counseled her to avoid proposing an individual mandate, the politically unpopular requirement that the uninsured buy insurance or face penalties. When it came to the widely unpopular individual mandate, however, she was adamant about plowing ahead, according to a former aide who related the story. “If I run for president, I’m going to run on universal health care,” Clinton told the group—and authorized attacks on her Democratic opponent Obama for opposing a mandate (he would eventually embrace it as president, much to Clinton’s amusement). “What’s the point of running if I’m not going to run on universal health care?” she asked her team. Eight years later, on the eve of Clinton’s formal campaign kickoff in New York this weekend, the “what’s the point of running?” question looms over the presumptive Democratic front-runner and her campaign. Over the past few months, even some of Clinton’s most fervent and loyal supporters have fretted to me, over and over, that she hasn’t yet articulated a compelling rationale for her second race for the White House beyond the sense that it’s finally her turn and her political view that she’s facing a relatively weak Republican field. Clinton is no Teddy Kennedy, who suffered the most infamous case of lockjaw in political history when asked why he wanted to be president during the 1980 campaign; Her problem is that she’s far more interested in the how than the why of the presidency, and views her greatest assets as a willingness to engage all participants in a debate and a workmanlike capacity to hammer out policy solutions. Clinton’s big speech will be a rare opportunity to change that narrative. It will be held at New York’s Roosevelt Island—a none-to-subtle signal that she’s aligning herself with FDR, the boldest of Democratic presidents and the one who established the deepest personal connection with voters—something Clinton has struggled to do throughout her three-decade career. And she’ll do so with a broad progressive agenda, her advisers told me, studded with policy proposals to be unveiled in greater depth in a series of speeches this summer, starting with an ambitious plan to cut student debt and lower tuition and a program to coax corporations into paying their workers more. Clinton’s staff believes this is where the campaign will be won or lost—it will signal to voters, and to ideologically driven Obama donors, that she’s every bit as committed to their cause as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders—or the Hillary Clinton of 1993 for that matter. This isn’t some pro forma exercise for Clinton, who started her professional career working on child welfare programs and sits, poolside, with briefing books when she’s on vacation. Policy is what Hillary Clinton lives for, and her team is committed to portray her as a wonk warrior, which has the added virtue of being true. In 2008, the candidate emphasized her inevitability and her toughness (she was obsessed with the idea that male voters would view a woman as a weak potential commander-in-chief), but for 2016, she’s building her strategy around a series of domestic policy rollouts. How she’s doing this is equally telling: Advisers told me it was an elaborate, even West Wing-style policy process, with concentric circles of advisers and pollsters who are cooking up a comprehensive economic policy, some of which will be for public consumption, some of which will be employed if she’s elected. Over the past year, Clinton has quietly met with a rotating—and sharp-elbowed—cast of Democratic economic experts, pollsters, staffers and advocates to craft a just-so economic program to attack wage stagnation and economic inequality. The very explicit goal has been political: to invent a program for Clinton that captures the popular imagination—and, to no small extent, redefines a candidate with a trustworthiness problem. “We’re talking about three- and four-hour meetings, briefing papers, weeks of back-and-forth,” says Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who says the candidate will unveil pieces of her agenda, one by one, in a series of events starting in July and stretching to the fall. “This is the foundational work of the election. She’s a wonk. This is stuff she loves to do.” What’s emerging—and her staff maintains she’s made no big decisions on the stickiest subjects, such as whether to propose tax increases and Wall Street regulation—are classic Clinton thread-the-needle proposals, albeit with a slightly sharper needle, pointing unmistakably to the left. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz had a one-on-one meeting with Clinton last December to discuss his aggressive progressive agenda, pushing for deep tax cuts against the wealthy and pay cuts for CEOs. She already knew the subject inside out, he told me, and probed him for details on how some of his proposals could be implemented. Like most of the economists and advocates she’s met with recently, Stiglitz left satisfied he’d gotten a fair hearing, but with no concrete commitment. “I would be surprised at this point that she would want to make it clear where she is going on the specifics, so I wouldn’t expect to hear that from her anytime soon,” said Stiglitz, who worked on Bill Clinton’s economic team—then went on to become one of the country’s most influential champions of economic equality. “My sense was that she was very responsive to the overall agenda. … It’s important for her to get elected, but we want to make sure that she understands that we have to deal with the failure of the system overall, and not just make small changes.” The goal, according to a dozen people close to the process who spoke to POLITICO, is to find the “sweet spot”—bold solutions that aren’t too bold. She has tasked her small in-house policy team led by former State Department aide Jake Sullivan with a pragmatic mission: Attack the biggest problems—higher education debt, a tax system that encourages short-term gain over long-tern investments, out-of-control CEO pay, crumbling infrastructure, the non-job-security “gig” economy, women’s pay equity—in a way that satisfies a restive left wing of the party. But do it without needlessly alienating general election voters, or potential donors. “She wants to do just enough,” is how one New York-based Clinton donor who speaks to both Clintons regularly put it. *** As important—and complex—as the health care debate was seven years ago when Clinton last ran for president, it’s dwarfed today by the sheer magnitude of the structural problems in the American economy, a sapping of dynamism and middle-income purchasing power that has given consumers (and voters) a permanent sense of the blahs, even as big banks and corporations book record profits. Two years ago, Tanden, now the head of the Clinton-friendly Center for American Progress—who is still in frequent contact with Clinton and CAP founder John Podesta who is the campaign’s chairman—embarked on an ambitious effort to create a comprehensive Democratic blueprint for tacking these problems. The effort didn’t have Clinton’s official sanction, but she was kept in the loop and its mission statement fits Clinton’s own private assessment of the problem. Middle-income wage stagnation and growth that benefits only the wealthiest “is an economic problem that threatens to become a problem for [the] political system—and for the idea of democracy itself,” the report found. The report, co-authored by Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary for Clinton’s husband who later emerged as a contentious leader of Obama’s initial economic team in the White House and whose mere presence in Clinton’s camp makes Warren and other liberals nervous, but he too was an enthusiastic backer of the campaign’s pragmatic progressive approach. Many of the positions that will form the core of Clinton’s platform are in it, I’m told—from phased-in minimum wage hikes pegged to local market conditions to the elimination of “carried interest” tax breaks for hedge funds to the extension of the Earned Income Tax Credit to encompass a greater number of working-class Americans. But progressives, and many in Clinton’s camp, don’t merely want a carefully wrought, rational program—they crave a crusade against inequality that will unify the party and rebrand a high-odometer candidate. And they wonder if she can ever really be the apostle the party faithful crave. Clinton can match Sanders on the finer points of policy (her college affordability plan is geared, in part, to outflank him on the left) but she’s too much of an establishment figure—and maybe too rich—to authentically approximate his blue tea party populist rage. “People are just profoundly disgusted with an economy in which the rich and the corporations are doing fundamentally well and they are struggling,” Sanders told me, when I asked what the crowds have been telling him at recent, well-attended campaign events. “People don't want this system to continue, period,” added Sanders who said he plans to unveil a comprehensive tax plan in the not-too-distant future. “They want the right to pay their fair share of taxes. People do want the Wall Street banks broken up… I don’t want to talk about any other candidates but I’ve been talking about this my entire career.” Every campaign puts out some kind of big economic plan—almost all of them are pieced together, Frankenstein-like compendiums of previous programs and poll-tested formulations geared at wooing a particular voter group, and most of course have little chance of passing. Some, like Steve Forbes’ “flat tax” plan in 1996, are designed to provoke a national argument, and only the rarest of them all—like Ronald Reagan’s 1980 tax-cut crusade—represent the core of a campaign’s actual thinking or the rebranding of a movement. A lot of Democrats think the party’s 2016 platform needs to fit into that last category if Clinton is to inspire her base and reach out to disaffected working-class whites. “I think there’s an effort to create post-Obama economic agenda,” says Felicia Wong, CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank—and one of the dozens of outside economic advisers Clinton and her small policy staff have consulted in recent weeks. “We are talking eight years after the financial crisis—we have had sluggish growth for the majority of Americans. These are structural problems, and I have to believe … Mrs. Clinton will recognize this.” Clinton, in a speech last month, channeled liberal economists like Thomas Picketty and Stiglitz—not to mention Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, who are waging long-shot campaigns against Clinton from the left. “Where is it all going?” asked Clinton, referring to the sputtering recovery from the Great Recession. “Economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to those at the very top, not just the top 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent, the 0.01 percent of the population, has risen sharply.” Still her first big progressive test so far in this campaign ended in an incomplete: She has flatly refused to take a side in the fight over the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement she touted as Obama’s secretary of state, and the raging intraparty debate over whether to fast track the agreement. The dodge confirmed longheld suspicions about Clinton on the left. Warren—who has opted for a gadfly role rather than challenging Clinton in the primary—recently told a TV interviewer, “It's up to others to say whether they stand there as well, or if they stand in some different place,” a clear allusion to Clinton. In an email to supporters in late April, O’Malley, once a Clinton ally and now her sharpest critic, tweaked Clinton for not making a “hard choice” on the pact—a play on Clinton’s recent memoir Hard Choices. Echoing Warren, he added that “American workers… deserve to know where their leaders stand.” Clinton’s aides are confident she can weather the storm, and quietly applauded President Obama’s recent declaration that Warren “was a politician like everybody else.” But Warren’s ascendance is clearly a sore point with the candidate herself. Nothing annoys Clinton quite so much as hearing someone giving the upstart Massachusetts senator credit for a policy stance Clinton herself espoused years earlier. Recently, when an adviser mentioned Warren was receiving plaudits for a mortgage relief proposal, an exasperated Clinton asked a staffer to “dig up my 2007 [housing] plan”—and distribute it to reporters. *** For the most part, however, Clinton has courted, not confronted, the left. Her policy shop has already laid out a series of proposals geared toward energizing the party’s base (and denying the progressive high ground to Sangers and O’Malley), mostly by doubling down on many of the measures already adopted by the Obama administration: Last week, for example, she unveiled a plan for automatic voting registration and blasted states, like Ohio, which have restricted ballot access. She also came out early in favor of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights—renouncing her husband’s Defense of Marriage Act, and vowed to expand Obama’s immigration reform executive order if she inherits a recalcitrant GOP Congress. She has also surrounded herself with leading progressive theorists and researchers. Arguably, the most influential thinker Clinton’s orbit these days is Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam, whose recent work on the lack of social mobility in underprivileged communities has captured her imagination and influenced her approach to policy prescriptions. Clinton—who devoured his most recent book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, met with Putnam for several hours in May and peppered him with questions about his research, which have centered on the structure of families and the role of a parents’ educational attainment in determining the economic mobility of their children. She has also rekindled a relationship with Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, who was the chief economist at her husband’s labor department and has also studied the link between economic opportunity and mobility. Another economist Clinton is close to: CAP’s Heather Boushey, who has studied the impact of economic inequality and families. But tougher issues lie just ahead—especially for a candidate who’s going to run on her wonk credentials. Stiglitz, with the support of Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, put out his own report on how to tackle inequality. It covered much of the same territory as the CAP report—but featured more radical solutions. Clinton’s team took it seriously, and have grilled Stiglitz and his team repeatedly on the proposals. One advocate told me they have been especially intrigued by his criticism of intellectual property rights protections in international trade agreements, which Stiglitz believes constrain innovation and investment. But the team is less enamored with provocative Stiglitz proposals like breaking up big banks, as Sanders proposed, or jacking up corporate tax rates on companies that pay their executives too much. The emphasis, people close to the process say, is on a slightly less nasty-sounding campaign for “corporate responsibility,” using leverage in the tax code to level the playing field to bend Wall Street toward economic justice. Clinton and her small team are gaming out dozens of ideas in a series of conference calls and memos, but a few a have emerged as favorites, including a proposal floated by Maryland Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen to strip tax deductions from companies who don’t provide reasonable raises for workers. Clinton’s team is also looking into various permutations of a tax on stock trades, as a way to incentivize longer-term capital investment over quick-turn profit taking in the market and buy-backs. It’s a complex undertaking, and Clinton’s policy chief Jake Sullivan has organized the effort to resemble a through-appropriate-channels paper trail that resembles the process Clinton used as first lady and in her Senate office. There has been the usual jockeying for position in Clinton’s circle, a practice campaign chairman John Podesta recently told a friend was equivalent to the “junior high school lunchroom stuff.” But so far, it’s been a pretty no-drama operation, especially compared with the relative free-for-all of the 2008 campaign. The policy process Clinton had developed is modeled on the way her husband and his White House staff ran the National Economic Council, which in turn, had been borrowed from the process used by the National Security Council. It’s no accident that Sullivan, the hyper-organized aide tasked with running the policy operation in Brooklyn, was often Clinton’s proxy at Situation Room meetings when he was at the State Department. Sullivan may be a fast study but he is relatively inexperienced in domestic policy, so he’s being assisted by two trusted outsiders who serve as standby advisers for the staff and Clinton herself—CAP’s Tanden and Gene Sperling, who recently left the Obama administration where he served as head of the NEC. An occasional adviser is Larry Summers, but his role has largely been confined to offering his expertise to staffers who requiring on-the-fly macro economics seminars, according to people familiar with the situation. Summers, whose bid to become Fed chairman was derailed by Warren, is anathema to the left who sees him as a protector of the Wall Street status quo—but Clinton has pointedly told critics that she won’t allow outside opinions to limit the people she talks to. Nonetheless, Summers, back at Harvard, is not considered particularly influential at the moment, even though both Clintons respect his counsel. “Larry is trying to elbow his way in,” is how one senior Democrat described the situation. If there’s a tug-of-war inside Clinton’s campaign, it’s over just how far she can afford to go. Clinton, as she did in 2008, is often the one who pumps the brakes; people close to her say she often asks aides to game out the backlash against any given proposal, and sends their memos back with a raft of questions and information requests. But many on Clinton’s team believe she has wide latitude for action, especially when it comes for taxing the super-rich in new and creative ways, citing public and private poll data; indeed, chief pollster Joel Benenson’s last presidential campaign, Obama’s victorious 2012 reelection, was rooted in a pledge to raise high-end taxes, and he’s told his new colleagues that the environment is even more favorable now. Yet there are obvious political reasons for Clinton not to rush out a detailed set of proposals that might stoke rather than settle intraparty tensions, at least on such lightning-rod subjects as inequality-busting tax policy or cracking down on over-the-top CEO pay. She also wants to quantify the threat posed by the left wing of the party—to see how much enthusiasm Sanders and O’Malley generate. As importantly, she needs to see how the Republican field shakes out—and which issues emerge from the GOP debates, which begin in late summer. Yet, by the same token, many liberal Democrats, including Warren and de Blasio—and potential big-money donors to Clinton-allied super PACs—are also adopting a wait-and-see approach about her. Earlier this week de Blasio praised Sanders and said he was impressed by Clinton’s initial campaigning—but told the city press corps he won’t attend her campaign kickoff on Roosevelt Island. When will de Blasio, campaign manager of Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign in New York, endorse her? When she offers a “larger vision for addressing income inequality,” he said. *SOCIAL MEDIA* *Adam Smith (6/12/15, 7:08 am)* <https://twitter.com/asmith83/status/609316443901964288?refsrc=email&s=11>* – Jeb "plans to say that people inside DC can't fix DC" politico.com/playbook/0615/ <http://politico.com/playbook/0615/>…, will raise money in DC a few days later blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/ <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/>…* *Jennifer Jacobs (6/12/15, 10:19 am)* <https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/609364417373962241>* – JUST IN: The Iowa Straw Poll is dead* *By unanimous vote, the Iowa GOP board just voted to kill it.* *Alex Seitz-Wald (6/12/15, 1:33 pm)* <https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/609413301039169537>* - Sanders to @mitchellreports: "It is hard for me to understand how you can run for president of the U.S. and not take questions [from press]"* *Annie Karni (6/12/15, 3:29 pm)* <https://twitter.com/anniekarni/status/609449892583444480>* - 07 story on Clinton reintroing herself through mom and Midwest roots does read like it cld be written today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201257_pf.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/02/AR2007060201257_pf.html> …* *CNBC (6/12/15, 5:34 pm)* <https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/609473800296615936>* - MORE: Dow Jones reports State Dept. unable to issue passports & visas due to tech issue; officials haven't ruled out hack as source of issue* *John Roberts (6/12/15, 6:52 pm)* <https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/609493159521816576>* - Gov. Walker told me off camera that his presidential announcement would likely be around the 2nd week of July* *HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE* *For Hillary Rodham Clinton, her mother will loom large in campaign <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-rodham-clinton-her-mother-will-loom-large-in-campaign/2015/06/12/48e1daf0-110d-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?postshare=4301434137795538> // WaPo // David Fahrenthold – June 12, 2015 * She was given up by her father at age 8, sent across the country alone on a train with her 3-year-old sister. Later, living with strict grandparents in California, she was confined to her room for a year — leaving only for school — for the offense of trick-or-treating. Dorothy Rodham, the late mother of Hillary Rodham Clinton, will play a major role in her daughter’s formal campaign kickoff speech Saturday in New York City. Clinton will cast her mother as symbolic of the “everyday Americans” that she wants the power to help, aides say. But that is under-selling her story. Rodham — who died in 2011 at age 92 — lived an extraordinary life, which began with abandonment and loneliness, moved through the stifling comfort of mid-century suburbia, and ended with her daughter as the most prominent woman in American politics. Along the way, Rodham gave her daughter things that had been missing from her own childhood: a stable family, a college education. And one thing that Rodham’s own childhood had been full of: toughness. “We moved into this new house, new neighborhood, and she would come in crying and screaming about the fact that she’d been set upon by a group of children, mostly her age, and this one girl who was exactly her age, Suzy, across the street,” Rodham recounted on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show in 2004. This was an often-told story of Clinton’s childhood: Her mother told her to go back out and confront the bully. “She came in one day, and I said, ‘You know, this is just about enough, Hillary. You have to face things and show them you’re not afraid.’ ” Rodham was born Dorothy Howell in 1919 in Chicago, the daughter of a firefighter. But her parents fought violently, according to press reports, and then divorced. When her father could not care for them, Rodham and her sister were sent to live with his parents in Alhambra, Calif., near Los Angeles. But her grandparents were dour and strict, and Rodham moved out at age 14. In the grip of the Depression, she worked as a housekeeper while attending high school. After graduation, Rodham made a last attempt to reconnect with her parents. She went back to Chicago, where her mother and her mother’s new husband had promised to pay for her college education. But when she got there, they reneged. No college. They asked Rodham instead to work as their housekeeper. In her 2003 memoir, “Living History,” Clinton wrote: “Once I asked my mother why she went back to Chicago. ‘I’d hoped so hard that my mother would love me that I had to take the chance and find out,’ she told me. ‘When she didn’t, I had nowhere else to go.’ ” In 1937, Rodham met her future husband when she applied for a job as a secretary at the Columbia Lace Co. Hugh Rodham worked as a curtain salesman there. They married in 1942 and moved to suburban Park Ridge. Hugh Rodham ran a business, and his wife stayed at home and raised three children: Hillary, the oldest (Dorothy Rodham liked the name because it sounded exotic and unusual), and two younger brothers. Hugh was a conservative Republican and would often talk about how Americans ought to be self-reliant and the government shouldn’t give handouts. But his wife often debated him at dinner. “Now, wait a minute,” she would say, according to a 2007 profile in The Washington Post. “Sometimes things happen to people that they have no control over.” Their daughter listened and sometimes sought to play peacemaker — an early exposure to the two warring camps of American politics. “I think it was part of the balance I created in my own life, it became a balancing of all my different influences and values,” Clinton once told The Post. “A lot was worth admiring in the sense of rugged individualism. But it didn’t explain enough for me about the world, or the world as I would want it to be.” Rodham encouraged her daughter to go to college, and Clinton eventually chose Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Her daughter was going off into the world much better-armed than Rodham herself had been: older, better educated, headed to a college where she would achieve even more. “Aside from a few trips away with girlfriends,” she says, “Hillary hadn’t really been away from home. I loved having my kids around, and when she went to Wellesley, well, it was really, really hard to leave her. After we dropped her off, I just crawled in the back seat,” Rodham told The Post later, “and cried for 800 miles.” Hugh Rodham died in 1993, just after his daughter had moved into the White House as first lady. Dorothy Rodham later moved to New York, after her daughter became a senator from that state, and then to Washington. Rodham largely avoided the public spotlight. But when her daughter ran for president the first time, in 2008, Rodham appeared at some campaign events. She appeared again at the announcement that her daughter had fallen short of the presidency and was ending her run. “I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of,” Clinton said then. It is a theme she will pick up again on Saturday, as the next campaign formally begins. *Could a skywriter crash Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch? <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/could-a-skywriter-crash-hillary-clintons-campaign-launch/?wprss=rss_the-fix&tid=sm_tw_pp> // WaPo // Philip Bump – June 12, 2015 * On Saturday, from the southern tip of New York City's Roosevelt Island, Hillary Clinton will wholeheartedly launch her campaign to be president of the United States. Intentionally or not, Roosevelt Island has the distinct advantage of being small, with limited points of entry, meaning that the risk of disruption from Clinton's opponents should be minimal. The park will offer beautiful vistas of the city around Clinton, as she speaks. Imagine a raised platform down at the end of these rows of trees, an adoring crowd waving "Hillary 2016" signs over their heads as they cheer. And then imagine a plane flying by in the clear blue sky overhead, writing the word "BENGHAZI." New York City is a very good place for aerial advertising. A lot of people in not-a-lot of space. Airplane-based advertising is not uncommon at all. A Geico banner regularly patrols up and down the Hudson River behind a small prop plane. A few weeks ago a plane wrote out "NERO" over a luxurious party on a yacht. (It was supposed to write "ZERO." Oops.) So why wouldn't some of the more clever people at the RNC or on Rand Paul's team figure out that they should hire an airplane, too? What better way to get some headlines? There are different ways of doing both banners and skywriting, Ted de Reeder of National Sky Ads explained when I spoke with him by phone. His company does the sorts of banners that are composed of a series of tall red letters strung out behind the plane, and the skywriting that is five planes flying in formation. "They do it digitally, like the old dot-matrix printers," he explained, with planes turning the writing on and off, sort of like below. The white parts are when the planes create smoke, working from right to left. Of course, the planes aren't fighter jets. They're what de Reeder referred to as "two-sixes," with 650 horsepower. "It sounds like Hell's Angels," he said. (All of the pilots his company uses are American Airlines captains working on their day off.) The letters the planes write are the size of the Empire State Building and stretch for miles. Now, you may notice a problem above: The skywriting only works on clear days (which Saturday in New York is not expected to be). The planes burn a mix of biodegradable oil ("it's a lot like K-Y,' de Reeder said) and water. "It goes in the exhaust chamber and it comes out as smoke." Joel (who declined to offer a last name), who works for AirAds, said that using color in the smoke requires a different sort of plane. The plane "burns it off pretty hot, so any coloring burns off, too." The only group equipped to do it effectively, he said, was the French Air Team, which probably wouldn't rent itself out for the Ted Cruz campaign. Skywriting, he said, is visible for an "eight-to-10-mile radius" -- but the duration for which they can be read varies depending on wind. Wind dissipates the smoke. Joel's planes also fly printed banners, which they make in-house. Those can only be seen for a few blocks, which would certainly be enough for viewers (and cameras) on Roosevelt Island. But there's a catch: You can't fly a banner there. Since planes dragging banners fly lower (given that the banner needs to be small enough to get aloft but large enough to be able to be read), those planes aren't allowed to fly over the city. They are only allowed to go up the Hudson, over the George Washington Bridge ("Having traffic problems?") and back down the river to New York Harbor. Roosevelt Island, situated in the East River between Queens and Manhattan, isn't accessible. In other words, it would have required a lot of luck for skywriting to interfere with Clinton tomorrow, based largely on the weather. (It's supposed to bepartly cloudy, but de Reeder said that wasn't good enough.) For what it's worth, neither of the companies I spoke with indicated that they'd been hired to do so anyway -- though neither seemed to have many concerns about doing so. "I do a lot of controversial stuff," de Reeder told me. "I don't discriminate. 'Vote for Change,' and then the next one up is, 'Impeach Obama.' Whatever." An if you're thinking that this article might inspire someone to get a plane up tomorrow: Nope. It takes a few weeks to bring a project together. But there is more than enough time to contact Joel or de Reeder for all of your "Impeach Clinton" needs. *Bill Clinton Is Attending Hillary Clinton’s Campaign-Policy Meetings <http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/12/bill-clinton-is-attending-hillary-clintons-campaign-policy-meetings/> // WSJ // Erica Orden – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton‘s campaign on Friday gave some clues to how it would use one of its biggest potential assets: former President Bill Clinton. “We’re going to be leaning on him for fundraising. We’re going to be leaning on him for retail campaigning,” Mrs. Clinton’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said at a panel discussion in Manhattan. “We will lean on him all the time for strategic advice.” Mr. Clinton has already been attending some of Mrs. Clinton’s policy meetings, according to Ms. Palmieri, who said such meetings are regularly scheduled for between three and four hours. “He doesn’t come to every meeting that we have, but he does join his wife often in our discussions, and it’s always fascinating…. because it’s always something no one else said,” Ms. Palmieri said. Ms. Palmieri waved off the notion that Mr. Clinton has been kept out of the campaign limelight, saying, “I don’t think he’s in the background now. He’s not a background kind of guy.” Mr. Clinton has given a number of recent interviews, most of them focused on questions surrounding donations by foreign governments to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. But until now he hasn’t hit the campaign trail with his wife. On Saturday, however, at Mrs. Clinton’s rally on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, Mr. Clinton will make his first public campaign appearance, along with the couple’s daughter, Chelsea. They aren’t scheduled to have speaking roles, however. In the final moments of Friday’s panel, Mr. Clinton received another dose of attention, when Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, was asked to perform his impersonation of the former president. “I may lose my job over this,” Mr. Mook said, before complying with the request. “I’m so glad to be here today,” Mr. Mook said in a drawl, while displaying Mr. Clinton’s signature thumb-over-fist hand gesture. “Great program.” *Bill Clinton on donor flap: 'No one has ever asked me for anything' <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bill-clinton-responds-foundation-donors-special-treatmen-118918.html#ixzz3crCSKOju> // Politico // Nick Gass – June 12, 2015 * Bill Clinton rejected the idea that donors to his family’s foundation received special treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, suggesting that any allegations that have arisen over the last few months are purely political in nature. “Nobody even suggested it or thought about it or talked about it until the political season began, and somebody said, ‘Well, what about this?’,” Clinton said during an interview taped this week in Denver during a Clinton Global Initiative event. No one has ever asked him for anything, Clinton said, adding that he does not know if those companies were seeking favor from his wife’s position as secretary of state. Political partisans and investigative journalists have not found anything particularly odious, apart from what “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer deemed as a “smoking gun” in the pattern of behavior. “I don’t know. You never know what people’s motives are, but in this case, I’m pretty sure that everybody that gave to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake saw what they saw on television, were horrified and wanted to make a difference,” he said, adding that he did not “think Hillary would know either.” For example, Clinton said, the United States has always had to lobby for American-made airplanes, noting that Boeing had worked with the State Department while also donating to the foundation’s relief efforts following the 2010 Haiti earthquake. “She was pretty busy those years, and I don’t — I never saw her study a list of my contributors,” he went on to say. “No one has ever asked me for anything or any of that.” The interview is set to air in full this Sunday on CNN’s inaugural episode of “State of the Union with Jake Tapper.” *Kickoff rally logistical risks <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-nyc-rally-logistics-118943.html> // Politico // Daniel Lippman – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s long-awaited and once delayed kickoff rally on Saturday is being billed as poignant and celebratory re-introduction of the dynastic political figure, but it holds no shortage of potential logistical headaches and things that could just go plain wrong. The setting is a memorial park at the southern tip of Roosevelt Island, Four Freedoms Park, which channels the values Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined in his 1941 State of the Union address — freedom of speech, religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The park is full of symbolism, but it’s not all that convenient to get to. “We’ve got one skinny street running down the length of the island … [and] we have no idea how the Clinton campaign is coming here, either a caravan of Escalades or helicopter or what,” said Matthew Katz, the former president of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association. Since parking on the island is very limited, most people are expected to get to the island either on NYC’s Subway’s F Train or the tram from Manhattan’s 59th Street, which will be running tomorrow on weekday schedules. “How people will get on and off the island is a question that I’m not prepared to answer,” said Katz. “I don’t know how they’ll do that, especially given that the northern part of the island where we live will be rather congested with tons of people out on the street celebrating us.” Then there’s the weather. Clinton’s campaign kickoff rally has doors open at 9:30 am with Clinton expected to speak late morning. According to an email to attendees, “there will be airport style security” and prohibited items include umbrellas. There’s a forecast of scattered thunderstorms in the afternoon with a 40 percent chance of rain, according to Weather.com. As long as the event proceeds on time, never a sure bet in political rallies, Clinton’s rally could dodge the storms, although the forecast says it’ll be cloudy in the morning, not ideal for all the images coming out of the event. And Clinton has already caught some bad headlines for bumping a planned event for kids in the park called “Imagination Playground” to play with blue “oversized, architectural blocks.” While that event was postponed, residents are moving forward with the other activities associated with the 18th annual Roosevelt Island Day. Even though he’s a Hillary supporter and said he looked forward to knocking on doors for her in Pennsylvania, Katz said the campaign was “tone deaf” to have their rally on the same day as Roosevelt Island Day. “[It’s] the one day that we celebrate ourselves, [and] they are coming here and as far as we know, are going to be at the southern tip of the island and not mix with us,” he said. “We will be out in the street planting flowers, clearing up the debris from the winter, giving kids pony rides, hotdogs” and holding a blood drive. Still, residents say they’re excited and honored that Clinton chose their island to hold her inaugural rally in their often-forgotten part of New York and hope it gets their island, situated in the East River between Manhattan and Queens, a burst of positive publicity. Katz’s wife, Sherie Helstein, currently the vice president of the association, said “it’s a good thing for us. It’s putting us in the news. Roosevelt Island is being recognized as a place.” “A lot of people still don’t know where we are or that we exist,” she said, adding that residents often feel they don’t have much say in governing themselves given that the 147-acre island is formally governed by a public benefit corporation run by the state. Current Residents Association president Jeffrey Escobar said in a statement that “the coming of the Campaign to the South of the Island will be a great opportunity to introduce both Secretary Clinton and those visiting the heart of the Island to our great community.” *Campaign manager Robby Mook contrasts Hillary Clinton, Obama on immigration <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/campaign-manager-robby-mook-contrasts-hillary-clinton-obama-on-immigration-118958.html> // Politico // Annie Karni – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook for the first time on Friday positioned her stance on immigration directly in relation to President Barack Obama, saying she “is advocating for going even further than President Obama on immigration, to stop deporting the parents of these DREAMers who are contributing to our economy, and are valuable members of our society.” Clinton has advocated expanding Obama’s executive actions to allow millions or more undocumented immigrants to obtain legal protection and work permits. But campaign officials in the past have used the issue to draw a distinction with the Republican field, not the president. “Specifically in the policy that she was proposing, she wanted to make it easier for families to appeal some of these deportation decisions, parents of DREAMers who might be facing deportation,” Mook explained of the policy differences between Obama and the former Secretary of State. In a panel discussion hosted by POLITICO Playbook Friday night, Mook was joined by communications director Jennifer Palmieri at New York University in Manhattan, in advance of Clinton’s much-anticipated kickoff rally Saturday morning on Roosevelt Island. The speech is expected to be light on policy details, but beginning this summer, Palmieri said, Clinton will begin rolling out one policy proposal each week. The roll of former President Bill Clinton, they said, will be visible, even though he does not have a speaking roll at the kickoff event and so far has not appeared with Clinton on the trail. “We’re going to be leaning on him for fundraising,” Palmieri said, calling him a huge asset to the campaign. “We’re going to be leaning on him for retail campaigning.” The top campaign officials were diplomatic when asked about New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who served as Clinton’s campaign manager in her 2000 Senate race but who so far has refused to endorse her and has declined to attend her kickoff. While de Blasio’s connection to Clinton is well known, Mook revealed he also has a personal bond with the mayor. “Bill de Blasio is a very good friend,” Mook said. “I remember bringing up a whole caravan of cars to help volunteer on his Public Advocate race.” But he seemed to gently push back against de Blasio’s attempts to build for himself a national profile as a progressive leader by refusing to back Clinton. “He has got a lot going on running New York City,” Mook said. “He’s busy with that. He’s been a strong advocate on a lot of issues, that’s great. We all have the same goal here and that is to get this deck unstacked against the middle class.” Mook also downplayed the influence of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on moving Clinton to the left. “There have been a lot of folks out there weighing in,” he said. “She’s one of many voices.” Palmieri also said the campaign was open to an appearance by Clinton on “Saturday Night Live,” where she is mocked as maniacally power-hungry and unrelatable by comedian Kate McKinnon. Clinton resisted such a move in 2008. “The idea has merit,” Palmieri said, admitting the entire team found the Clinton impersonation hilarious. “SNL has been a great platform for her, it’s been a great platform for President Obama.” *Progressives lash out at Clinton on trade <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/hillary-clinton-trade-criticized-progressives-118945.html?hp=r2_4> // Politico // Jonathan Topaz and Ben Schreckinger – June 12, 2015 * Liberals have a message for Hillary Clinton in the wake of Friday’s House vote on trade: Refusing to take a stand is worse than standing against us. Anti-trade Democrats, including influential activists in early primary states, say that Clinton’s vague comments on the campaign trail about fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a measure put in grave danger on Friday by a revolt among House Democrats — signal her silent support for the ambitious free trade expansion. What’s worse, they say, is that her strategic silence renews suspicions about her authenticity. “If you really want to be a leader, you really ought to say where you are on an issue,” said Ken Sagar, president of the Iowa AFL -CIO. “It was a missed opportunity,” said New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, the progressive leader who has declined to endorse Clinton several times despite running her 2000 Senate campaign. Even as organized labor and progressives prevailed on Friday with House Democrats holding firm against pressure from the White House to approve a measure needed to seal the larger trade deal, condemnation of Clinton was still swift and sharp. “No one’s surprised. No one. No one. No one,” said New Hampshire liberal activist and radio host Arnie Arnesen. “The fact that she took no position is exactly what we expected … If you’re running only to be safe, then how can you lead? How can you lead? I don’t see leadership. I see fear.” No wonder, said Arneson, that “progressives don’t trust her.” Clinton has been in a tight position on the trade deal, a centerpiece of the administration’s pivot to Asia, which began during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. She risks being portrayed as a flip-flopper and alienating business interests if she comes out strongly against the negotiations for the 12-nation trade pact, while voicing support would alienate the progressive base she’s been eagerly courting. “In some ways, for her, this was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t,” said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic strategist with ties to organized labor, adding that Clinton has “a lot to prove” to unions on fighting for the middle class. Labor leaders in Iowa said they reached out to the Clinton campaign as late as Tuesday to urge the candidate to oppose the trade promotion authority for the TPP, which unions maintain will harm American workers. Though Clinton has said in the past that “the TPP needs to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation,” she has not weighed in on fast-track authority. The Clinton campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. “I think by her sitting it out, it says she’s supported the president on this … I’m taking her lack of an answer as an answer,” said Steve Abbott, president of the Communications Workers of America Iowa State Council, who spoke to Clinton campaign officials this week. Several progressives said Clinton’s silence was more alarming than vocal support of TPA and TPP would have been. “It’s almost worse to not take a stand either way,” said Christopher Schwartz, head of the Iowa chapter of the Americans for Democratic Action. “Even though we’re completely opposed to trade promotion authority and TPP, I’d much prefer to know where a candidate stands.” It’s another indication that Democratic primary voters have concerns about whether Clinton is being straight with voters. A quarter of Democrats in a recent CNN poll said they wouldn’t describe Clinton as honest or trustworthy. The contrast is particularly glaring in her contest against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who vocally opposed the North American Free Trade agreement signed by Clinton’s husband and has been very specific on policy on the stump. Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another rival for the Democratic nomination who also opposes fast-track authority, have both taken shots at Hillary for her mushy stance. “If she’s against this, we need her to speak out right now,” Sanders told reporters in Washington on Thursday. In a subsequent interview, Sanders agreed with the suggestion that her silence amounts to a “cop-out.” US President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi walk through a hallway after meeting with House Democrats at the US Capitol on June 12, 2015 in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama Friday went to Congress Friday for a frantic round of lobbying ahead of a crucial vote on his sweeping trans-Pacific trade agenda. The House of Representatives is expected to vote mid-day Friday on final passage of so-called Trade Promotion Authority, and while Republican leaders are confident they have the momentum to get it across the finish line, the vote remains a toss-up. Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite to win her party’s nomination, and miffed progressives say she still has time to weigh in. Larry Cohen, who served as president of the Communications Workers of America until this week and continues to spearhead anti-TPP efforts, called Clinton’s approach to the deal a “major disappointment,” but said, “It’s not too late. We expect and hope that Secretary Clinton will speak out.” Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, called it “disappointing” that Clinton hadn’t yet joined other Democratic presidential hopefuls on the issue, but said “she still has time to do so” with House Republicans looking at more votes next week. Economist Robert Reich, who served as Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, said he too was disappointed with Clinton’s silence, but that ample opportunity remains to embrace a progressive economic agenda — possibly even during her much-hyped kickoff rally on Saturday. “She is playing it very cautiously,” said Reich. “The issues she’s taken a position on — immigration, voting rights and criminal justice — are all commendable but they’re not especially risky. They appeal to important constituents whose turnout on Election Day is critical. On the other hand, she hasn’t yet taken on the structure of the economy. She may Saturday. I’m hoping she does.” *How Would Hillary Clinton 'Reshuffle' Economic Inequality? <http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/12/413964447/how-would-hillary-clinton-reshuffle-economic-inequality> // NPR // Mara Liasson – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's campaign for president is about to enter a new phase. At her first big rally this Saturday in New York City, she will make an unusually personal speech about how her upbringing forged her commitment to helping others. Soon after, Clinton will begin laying out her positions on a broad range of economic policy questions. In the past few months, we've learned her positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, voting rights, and gay marriage. But we don't know yet what she wants to do about the number one economic issue of the 2016 campaign — stagnating middle class incomes. Clinton does talk about the economy a lot on the campaign trail, but so far only in broad strokes. She says she wants everyone to have the same chances she had — and that, as she said visiting a brewery in May, "here in Washington we know that unfortunately the deck is still being stacked for those at the top." She says that her job is to take that deck and "reshuffle the cards" but what does that mean? "Paramount is how we're going to have an economy that grows for everyone, that's inclusive, in which middle class families and people struggling to get into the middle class can get ahead as the economy grows," said Neera Tanden, an informal advisor to Clinton and president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress. So would she address economic inequality the way Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders propose by breaking up the big banks,or increasing Social Security Benefits? Right now, said former Clinton White House aide Bill Galston, it's really not clear. "Clinton has very deliberately appropriated progressive populist phrases from the Warren wing of the Democratic party. That leaves entirely unanswered the question of what the full economic narrative would be when she spells it out," he said. She'll start spelling it all out Saturday in her big kick off speech. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said that's when Clinton will talk about the conditions of the country and "why people haven't seen their wages rise even as we've seen private sector job growth come back in this country." He says she'll also talk about "what she wants to do to make sure that people get ahead and stay ahead. She'll lay out a template for that, and then through the course of the Summer and into the Fall she'll get specific about what policies she thinks she' can achieve to help people succeed in life," he said. In those Summer and Fall speeches, Clinton will lay out her plans for college affordability, early childhood education, Wall Street reform and paid family leave. At some point she will say exactly how high she wants the minimum wage to be, and how she'd finance big investments in infrastructure. And, her aides say, she'll also eventually explain how she plans to solve one part of the income inequality puzzle — that even when profits and productivity go up, wages do not follow. "The hard work, the productivity that you contribute to the the profitability and the success of the businesses that you work for should be reflected in those paychecks so that people feel that the work ethic is really paying off for them," she said last month. Exactly how Clinton proposes to get productivity and wage growth back in sync will depend on why she thinks the middle class is struggling. Theres a big debate about this going on inside the Democratic Party. The Elizabeth Warren wing thinks the middle class is suffering because the top 1 percent grabbed more than their share. On the other side are Democrats who believes the deck is not just stacked, its been transformed — by the big forces of global competition and technology. Clinton doesn't believe those dueling narratives are mutually exclusive, according to Podesta, and he said she will make that very clear. "By the time people are going to the polls and voting, people will know exactly what she wants to do. And I think offer a vision that will be appealing to a broad section of Americans," he said. Many of her supporters say the sooner she lays out that vision the better. Her unfavorable ratings have been growing, and majorities of voters tell pollsters that she is not honest and trustworthy. Neera Tanden thinks the best way to address those political problems is with a robust policy agenda. And it has the added benefit of playing to Clinton's authentic political strengths. As Tanden points out, Clinton is first and foremost a workhorse and a policy wonk. "That's always been an asset for her," she said. "In a campaign in which you are continually discussing the way you want to solve people's problems is another way to communicate how you're on their side and care about their concerns." So the question the Clinton campaign would like to ask is not whether she is honest and trustworthy but whether voters can trust her to fight for them and their families. *Hillary's star-studded bash replaced Rangel's party at the Plaza Hotel <http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150612/BLOGS04/150619966/hillarys-star-studded-bash-replaced-rangels-party-at-the-plaza-hotel> // Crains New York // Eric Engquist – June 12, 2015 * It would be understandable if Rep. Charles Rangel feels a bit peeved that Hillary Clinton is throwing a star-studded fundraiser for her presidential campaign June 27 at the Plaza Hotel. It was supposed to be Mr. Rangel’s party. According to an insider, the longtime Harlem congressman had planned to throw his annual birthday fundraiser at the same venue, on the same night, with the same stars—Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, and, yes, Hillary Clinton. But somehow it became a Hillary for America event. Tickets start at $2,700. “They’re doing the Charlie Rangel birthday gala,” said the source, “without Charlie Rangel.” Two spokesmen for Ms. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an inquiry yesterday about the alleged turn of events. For Mr. Rangel, his displacement is not just a personal slight but a significant financial setback. The veteran Democrat is desperately trying to retire the campaign debt from his 2014 re-election bid, which now stands at about $140,000. At one time, Mr. Rangel’s birthday event alone would have raised that amount several times over. When he chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, his gala took in $500,000 or $600,000. In other years, $200,000 or more would pour in. But since then, Mr. Rangel, who was serenaded by colleagues on his 85th birthday yesterday in Washington, has been tarred by an ethics scandal, lost his committee chairmanship, been relegated to minority status in the House and announced that he will not seek re-election in 2016. Other than nostalgia, there is little reason for donors who transact in political currency to write Mr. Rangel a check anymore. Mr. Rangel’s fundraising prowess did recover as the toxicity he took on from his ethics problems abated. But anyone who has contributed the maximum allowed by law to his 2014 campaign can no longer give. Because donations are being used to pay expenses from that race, the contribution limits still apply. It could not be determined yesterday whether Ms. Clinton is distancing herself from Mr. Rangel to avoid any risk to her White House bid. The congressman became a lightning rod for criticism by the Republican establishment when details of his transgressions emerged from 2007 through 2009, notably his failure to report $75,000 in rental income from his Dominican Republic beach condo on his tax returns. It was also revealed that Mr. Rangel’s campaign was housed in a rent-stabilized apartment, separate from the two combined apartments in which he resides and a fourth rent-stabilized unit. Rent-regulated housing may only be used as a primary residence. Mr. Rangel was even derided for storing an old Mercedes in a congressional garage that was supposed to be used only for active vehicles. “There’s genuine affection for Charlie, especially in the New York delegation,” the insider said. “I think they know that the mistakes he made, the mistakes his staff made, were not raw corruption and greed. There were no bags of cash. They were mistakes and errors, and he admitted to all of them.” Even if Ms. Clinton decides to steer clear of Mr. Rangel, according to the source, his camp is hoping Ms. Clinton will make up for the fundraiser switch by dispatching her husband, Bill Clinton, to the rescheduled Rangel birthday bash, now slated for August. The former president is still as much of a draw as his wife, who is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016. In the meantime, City Councilwoman Inez Dickens is hosting a $1,000-a-head fundraiser for Mr. Rangel in her Manhattan home Thursday. Ms. Dickens is an influential council member and an expected candidate for the Assembly seat that Keith Wright would vacate if he wins the Democratic primary for Mr. Rangel’s House seat next year. *Answering the 'Why' : Previewing Hillary Clinton's Launch Speech <http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/answering-why-previewing-hillary-clintons-launch-speech-n374306> // NBC // Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann – June 12, 2015 * As Hillary Clinton is set to appear at her first big campaign-style event on Saturday, it's worth remembering that she never gave a why-I'm-running-for-president speech at the beginning of her campaign in 2007. Her launch was a video of her speaking to the camera that she wanted a conversation with American voters. "Let's talk, let's chat, let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine." But there was nothing about WHY she was the best person to lead the country over the next four to eight years, or even WHY she wanted the job. By contrast, Obama answered the WHY in his Feb. 10, 2007 kickoff, using Abraham Lincoln's Springfield, IL as the backdrop: By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail. But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible. He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction… That's why I'm in this race. Not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation." Obama's WHY: He was the only presidential candidate who could truly transform the country. Here was even Mitt Romney's WHY at his presidential announcement in June 2011: "All of these experiences -- starting and running businesses for 25 years, turning around the Olympics, governing a state -- have helped shape who I am and how I lead... Turning around a crisis takes experienced leadership and bold action." Translation: I'm the businessman and turnaround artist this country's economy needs! A sneak peak at part of the "why" Hillary will lay out on Saturday The Clinton campaign insists we'll hear the WHY from her on Saturday. And we're already getting some clues about what it will be. First is the location -- Roosevelt Island in New York City -- as a way to invoke both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. "Clinton chose a park honoring FDR in the state where she served as senator for eight years, a choice campaign officials say is meant to invoke Roosevelt's legacy," MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald reports. "'She could have chosen anywhere to make her announcement,' said Felicia Wong, the President of the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank dedicated to carrying on the legacy of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. 'By choosing this venue, she and her team have put themselves squarely in the legacy and the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt, who re-wrote the rules of the 20th century.'" Another clue is Hillary's expected focus on her mother. "As a child, Dorothy Rodham was abandoned by her parents and sent to live with strict relatives. Not able to bare it anymore, she ran away at 14 and worked as a housekeeper for a kind-hearted woman who took her in and showed her what parenting should look like. That trauma and resilience, Clinton has said, taught her and how to be tough and made her want to help people in difficult circumstances," Seitz-Wald adds. So, to put Saturday another way, it's fair to call it the first-EVER Hillary Clinton presidential announcement address Changes of conviction? Or changes of convenience? In her speech tomorrow, Hillary is also expected to embrace being a progressive -- more than she ever did at this point in 2007. Yet don't forget that she has made quite a few position changes to get her: supporting gay marriage, backing immigration-reform changes beyond President Obama's executive actions, favoring drivers' licenses for undocumented immigrants, supporting normalization with Cuba. It will be interesting to see if these changes tomorrow come across as changes of conviction or changes of convenience/ One other thing to keep in mind about tomorrow: Delivering big speeches at rallies has never been one of Hillary's strengths. *Hillary Clinton is not on Snapchat, but we just found some compelling evidence that it’s coming soon <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-snapchat-names-have-all-been-reserved-2015-6#ixzz3ctqnfmdI> // Business Insider // Will Haskell – June 12, 2015 * It looks like Hillary Clinton is going to start campaigning on Snapchat any day now. The presidential hopeful is already popular on Instagram after only two days on the service. So I tried to see if I could find Clinton on Snapchat — and it turns out, every name she could possibly use has already been reserved. This means that either someone's planning a fake account, or the Clinton campaign is stockpiling the names themselves. A Snapchat spokesperson wouldn't speak on the record about Clinton's possible involvement with Snapchat, and Clinton's press team has not responded to a request for comment. If Clinton is planning a Snapchat effort, she won't be the first. Presidential contenders Martin O'Malley, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio already use Snapchat to share information about their campaigns. I did some digging on Snapchat in an effort to figure out how and when Secretary Clinton will engage with the photo sharing platform. I found that the following usernames are currently taken: The "pending" message usually shows up when a user hasn't added you back yet because they've set their account to private. It also appeared when we tried to send a snapchat to Senator Rubio's account, which is already in action: Excitement about Clinton's Snapchat plans exploded on Twitter shortly after she posted her first Instagram. The photo and video sharing app is used by 50 million people, the median age of whom is 18, according to Forbes. Snapchat offers a valuable platform for candidates to engage young voters. “There is no harder riddle to solve in politics than reaching young Americans who are very interested in the future of their country but don’t engage with traditional news,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to President Obama, told the New York Times. “Snapchat may have just made it a whole lot easier to solve this riddle.” Snapchat has been staffing up in preparation for the 2016 election. In May, Dylan Byers at Politico reported that Snapchat was seeking "content analysts" to assist with 2016 election coverage. "We're looking for political junkies and news aficionados to join our team in NYC to help review Snaps that are submitted to Our Story events, and cover the 2016 presidential race and other news events for Snapchat," a job posting read. Many have predicted that Snapchat will shape the 2016 election in the same way that Facebook and Twitter shaped the election of Barack Obama in 2008. The former Secretary of State should have no difficulty attracting attention when she does begin to use Snapchat. She cannonballed into the world of Instagram this week and already made a big splash. In just two days, she's acquired 121,000 followers. That number blows Marco Rubio (with 13,000) Rand Paul (with 27,200) and Jeb Bush (with 11,900) out of the water. Candidates Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee have a combined number of 11,358 followers. Clinton outpaces each of these Democratic opponents by over 100,000 followers. Clinton's posts are also popular. This video, which rapidly summarizes Secretary Clinton's career in public service, received 10,400 likes. This #tbt that she posted yesterday received over 13,000 likes. That's more than twice the combined number of likes that Bush, Rubio and Paul received on their last Instagram. Clinton, who's spent much of the last two months traveling New Hampshire and Iowa to speak about her accomplishments as a champion and leader of the American people, follows no one. *Bill Clinton opens up about his relationship with Hillary <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-2016-relationship/> // CNN // Dan Merica – June 12, 2015 * Bill and Hillary Clinton rarely talk about their relationship with one another. But in an interview set to air Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," the former president opened up about the woman he said he trusts with his life. "Whenever I had trouble, she was a rock in our family," Clinton said during an emotional interview with CNN's Jake Tapper in Denver. "I trust her with my life, and have on more than one occasion," he said, describing his wife as someone who helped him through some of the most trying times of his life. Bill Clinton described how his wife helped him through years "plagued with self-doubt" in his late 20s and offered him someone to not only lean on, but to help guide him through perilous moments in his career. "I was the youngest former governor in American history in 1980 on election night. I got killed in the Reagan landslide," Clinton remembered. "People I had appointed to office would walk across the street, they were so afraid of the new regime in Arkansas, and would not shake hands with me. My career prospects were not particularly bright." "And she never blinked. She just said, 'Hey. It'll turn around. I believe in you. You've got this,'" he said. Close friends and aides of the Clintons regularly tell reporters about how close the couple, is despite operating on largely different schedules. "I talk to him on the phone a lot," Hillary Clinton said in May when a voter asked where her husband was. Bill and Hillary Clinton were married in 1975 after meeting at Yale University. Their relationship has been publicly tested a number of times, including during Bill Clinton's public impeachment trial and his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. "The most difficult decisions I have made in my life were to stay married to Bill and to run for the Senate from New York,'' Clinton wrote about the Lewinsky affair in "Living History," her first memoir. Though the two rarely speak about their relationship, they have opened up in the past. During Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential run, Bill Clinton told voters in Ames, Iowa, that early in their relationship he told Hillary Clinton to dump him so she could focus on her own political career. He said he thought she was "the most gifted person I'd ever met" and that it "would be wrong for me to rob her of the chance to be what I thought she should be." Bill Clinton said she responded with a laugh and the now false response: "I'm not going to run for anything, I'm too hardheaded." The former president said in 2014 that their relationship was, in a way, a 52-year pact. "We were married a very long time when she was always, in effect, deferring to my political career," he said. "I told her when she got elected to the Senate from New York that she'd given me 26 years, and so I intended to give her 26 years. Whatever she wanted to do was fine with me. If she wanted to know my opinion, I would tell her, but she had carte blanche to make whatever decisions she wanted, and tell me what I was supposed to do about it." So far, Bill Clinton hasn't played any role in his wife's presidential campaign. Although the former commander-in-chief will be with Hillary Clinton when she holds the first rally of her campaign on Saturday, he has yet to travel or raise money for her, something the regularly did in 2008. Instead, Bill Clinton has been focused on his $2 billion philanthropic enterprise: The Clinton Foundation. His interview with CNN came during the annual meeting of Clinton Global Initiative America in Denver, where foundation supporters made nearly 80 pledges to address a wide array of domestic issues. Bill Clinton reflected on their 40 years of marriage in his interview with Tapper. "We built a life together based on the things we cared about, the things that we loved," he said. "We were blessed with a daughter who turned out pretty well I would say. We have been very blessed." The entire Bill Clinton interview will air on Sunday at 9 a.m. on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper. *One Tough Mother <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/hillary_clinton_s_first_big_campaign_speech_a_tough_mother_is_the_democratic.html> // Slate // John Dickerson – June 12, 2015 * Tough mother. That’s both the theme of Hillary Clinton’s big speech on Saturday and the emerging theme of her campaign. According to a preview of her remarks, Clinton will talk about her mother’s struggles and how they guide her and her campaign, which the candidate has fashioned around four tough fights. Since announcing her campaign in April, at every stop Clinton has said she will advocate for families, remove money from politics, increase wages for the middle class, and protect America. How is she going to do these things? She’s going to fight. The speech, like all campaign speeches, is an attempt to define the terms of the election in a way that highlights the candidate’s attributes. (My presidential campaign, for example, would be founded on the obvious truth that the American dream can only be restored through asides and rejoinders made by blond, middle-aged fathers.) If Clinton is a scrappy fighter, why not define the election that way? It’s not a stretch. This is what voters talk about when they describe what they want in a candidate. Does the candidate get my life and will she go to bat for me? Does she have my back? Political scientists will tell you that if voters forge that kind of connection with a candidate, they will then project all kinds of other favorable qualities on that person. Clinton’s strategy is one her husband often employed. No matter what personal or political troubles Bill Clinton found himself in, he always presented himself as a tireless fighter, someone who’d go into pitched battle for voters. The blunt political calculation is that even if voters don’t find Hillary Clinton trustworthy—and only 42 percent do in a recent CNN poll—they will support the person who they think will fight for their interests. As Ron Brownstein has argued, Hillary Clinton doesn’t need Americans to trust her. Fight, fight, fight. Clinton rarely misses an opportunity to raise her gloves, even when she is making a joke about something else. “I’m aware I may not be the youngest candidate in this race,” Clinton told Democrats in South Carolina in May. “But I have one big advantage: I’ve been coloring my hair for years. You’re not going to see me turn white in the White House. And you’re also not going to see me shrink from a fight.” Friday the campaign released a Web video titled “Fighter.” (If by now you haven’t gotten the message, the candidate may have to come over and beat you up.) There are other reasons the tough-mother pitch makes sense for Clinton. It establishes her genuine roots, which shows voters she is not distant from their concerns despite her newfound wealth. Bill Clinton did a version of this at the 1992 Democratic convention when the film The Man from Hope (a story also centered around a mother) helped upend the idea some voters had that he was a child of privilege. The message also allows Clinton to talk about her start in politics, which was founded around the kinds of fights she says she will wage now. She is not a newcomer to the fight for programs that help children and families. That display of continuity will help a candidate whose positions on aspects of immigration reform and same-sex marriage have changed since the last time she ran. Clinton’s framing speech comes after a week of conversation—kicked off by a New York Times analysis—about whether Clinton is going to run to the left at the expense of voters in the middle or run a more centrist campaign. The Clinton team argues it’s a false choice. She can appeal to Democrats by talking about immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and same-sex marriage while appealing to the majority of independent and swing voters who hold those views, too. “It is a uniquely Acela corridor analysis to assume issues like paid medical leave or addressing corporate excess are ‘base’ issues,” says David Axelrod, who is not associated with the Clinton campaign. “The economic pressures people feel are real and broad.” On an issue like immigration, for example, a recent Pew poll showed that 72 percent of the public favors some legal status for undocumented workers, a position that is closer to Clinton’s than the one held by the majority of GOP candidates. The Clinton team also argues that swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Iowa can’t be won simply by turning out the Democratic base. Clinton is pushing for criminal justice reform, and so are several Republican candidates. She talks about the economic tilt toward Wall Street, and so does Rick Perry. Americans supported more government action to address the country’s growing income gap by 57 percent to 39 percent in a recent CBS/New York Times poll. When she talks about portability of health care across state lines, she is consciously echoing a Republican position. If she were making a big pitch for the party’s liberal wing, she would be advocating for a single-payer health care system as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sander is. If anyone would like a preview of Clinton’s mother-based speech, watch this recording of her appearance before thousands of camp counselors in March. At roughly the 52-minute mark, she gives a long answer about her mother’s qualities. One story she tells is of her mother’s advice after Clinton came home crying after being bullied: “There’s no room for cowards in this house.” That’s one tough mother. *What It Means for Hillary Clinton's Campaign to Get Real Tomorrow <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/means-hillary-clintons-campaign-real-tomorrow/story?id=31720885> // ABC News // Liz Kreutz – June 12, 2015 * Saturday marks an unofficial, official turning point in Hillary Clinton's campaign. The "ramp up phase" -- a term used by Clinton's campaign to describe the first two months of Clinton's candidacy -- will come to an end and her "official" campaign will kick-off. This transition will be marked by Clinton's first big campaign rally at Roosevelt Island in New York City on Saturday, where Clinton will deliver a speech laying out her vision for her campaign, followed by a 5-day swing through all four early voting states: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. So, what’s really the difference between Part 1 and Part 2? Here’s how the new era of Clinton’s campaign might differ, if really much at all, from the first one. Growing Bigger Part 1: In the ramp-up phase, Clinton has kept it small. Most of her campaign events have been low-key, intimate round-tables at local businesses, such as bike shops, craft breweries and coffee houses. Part 2: Beginning Saturday, things are about to get bigger. In this next phase, Clinton will start hosting more large rallies and town halls. But, aides said, round-tables will still be part of the mix, too. Getting Personal Part 1: During campaign events so far, Clinton has spoken generally about policy and made mentions of her mother, father and granddaughter, Charlotte. Part 2: Clinton’s now about to get even more personal. Clinton's campaign released a video today about Clinton's life ahead of Saturday's rally. And on Saturday, Clinton is set to focus her remarks around the story of her late-mother, Dorothy Rodham, whose early life was full of trauma and abandonment. Clinton is expected to use her mother’s story, and the lessons of resilience she learned from her, as a running motif out on the trail. Expanding Access Part 1: As has been widely documented, Clinton has been criticized for keeping the media at arm’s length during her ramp-up period. Part 2: In this next era, Clinton is expected to have a much more open relationship with the press, or so we're told. Clinton's aides say she’ll host more press gaggles, answer more questions, and even begin making big television appearances, too. Getting Wonkier Part 1: Clinton has delivered a few policy-oriented speeches over the past two months, but overall her campaign has been relatively light on proposing policies so far. Part 2: We're now entering the wonky phase. Aides said Clinton is ready to roll out a number of specific policy proposals in a series of speeches over the coming months. Changing Travel Part 1: Clinton’s early part of the campaign has brought us scenes of an “everyday” Clinton road-tripping to Iowa in her Scooby van and flying around the country on commercial flights. Part 2: Clinton will likely continue to fly on commercial planes as much as possible, but as her travel schedule gets busier, it could prove to be a logistical challenge. Don’t be surprised if Clinton also begins opting for private plane travel instead. Increasing Family Part 1: Clinton has traveled solo to all of her campaign events so far. Although she talks about her family on the trail –- namely her mother, father and new granddaughter –- Bill and Chelsea Clinton have been notably absent from the road. Part 2: Bill and Chelsea Clinton will both make their first official campaign appearance at Hillary Clinton’s rally on Saturday. But while their role on the trail will continue to pick-up throughout the next part of her campaign, neither are expected to do much campaigning any time soon. Raising Money Part 1: In this initial part of the campaign, Clinton has spent almost an equal amount of time campaigning as she has spent raising money for her campaign. Part 2: Don’t expect much difference here. So long as Clinton’s campaign needs money, Clinton will keep up –- and probably ramp up -– her fundraising efforts. *Ragin Cajun: 'Put your pantsuit on and let's go!' <http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-gangs-back-carville-leads-hillarys-charge-in-virginia-put-your-pantsuit-on/article/2566136> // The Washington Examiner // Paul Bedard – June 12, 2015 * The old Clinton team is saddling up for their last roundup, this time for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, set to re-announce her bid Saturday in New York City. Longtime Clinton advisor James Carville is heading up her effort to win Virginia, which the GOP has declared a must win if they are to beat the former first lady and secretary of state. Presumably in association of former Clinton aide and current Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Carville and Team Hillary plan to mount an aggressive fight to keep Virginia blue and in her column. Carville, the Louisiana native known as the "Ragin Cajun," on Friday sent supporters an invitation to "let your hair down" and "put your pantsuit on" at a Clinton rally at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., June 26. He called her the "right person" to be president and he tied the expected popularity of the event to the GOP, writing, "Tickets are selling faster than Republicans deciding they're running for president." Carville has been part of the Clinton family for years and is credited with helping Bill Clinton win his first election. His full note is below: You are invited to let your hair down (I would but I don't have any!) and join us for what is bound to be one fantastic evening. On June 26th, Democrats from across the commonwealth are coming together to hear Hillary Clinton speak in Fairfax. And, you can join us too. I have been a longtime friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt in my mind that she is the right person to serve as president of the United States. Hillary has bold ideas, but you won't hear what she has to say if you don't grab a ticket soon. These tickets are selling faster than Republicans deciding they're running for president. Trust me, you won't want to miss this event. So, put your pantsuit on and let's go! I hope you can join us to watch my friend Hillary on June 26. Thanks, James Carville *No-Fly Zone Ordered For Hillary Clinton’s New York City Kickoff Rally <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fly-zone-ordered-hillary-clintons-york-city-kickoff/story?id=31733120> // ABC News // Josh Margolin, David Kerley and Matt Hosford – June 12, 2015 * Federal officials today took the rare step of creating a "no-fly zone" around the site of Hillary Clinton’s campaign kickoff rally in New York City on Saturday. The Federal Aviation Administration established the protective zone in the form of a so-called "Notice to Airmen" announcing that a section along Manhattan’s East Side will be temporarily transformed into "national defense airspace." The FAA website lists the reason as "Temporary flight restrictions for VIP Movement" and cites the federal law that the FAA employs to ban flights over events attended by the president, vice president or other key dignitaries. "The United States government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat," according to the notice. Clinton’s rally -- planned as the largest event of her presidential campaign so far -- will take place on Roosevelt Island, a narrow sliver of land in the East River located between Manhattan and Queens. As the wife of former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton is still guarded by a Secret Service detail. The former president is expected to attend tomorrow’s event. "This is highly unusual," a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, told ABC News. The "no fly zones," also known as "Temporary Flight Restrictions" are issued about 1,000 times a year, according to the association. But they usually are not issued for candidates for president. In a statement to ABC News, the United State Secret Service said it "establishes temporary flight restrictions in advance of protective visits" but did not elaborate. The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment nor did a spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. City officials objected to the restriction because of the effect it is expected to have on popular sightseeing helicopters. The no-fly zone will not have any impact on commercial jets landing and taking off from nearby LaGuardia Airport. When Clinton was first lady, such a no-fly zone was not established for appearances she made. And even now, the FAA typically does not put such restrictions in place for the current first lady, Michelle Obama, for events she attends unless her husband, the president, is there as well. *Clinton's Grassroots Army <http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-hillary-clinton-mobilize-20150611-story.html#page=1> // The Sun Sentinel // Anthony Man – June 12, 2015 * As she prepares to launch the second phase of her presidential candidacy Saturday, her campaign has been pursuing a less-noticed, but intense effort aimed at recruiting the army of grass-roots volunteers that could secure a victory in the 2016 election. Her campaign has sponsored a series of gatherings throughout Florida to sign up supporters who will spend the coming months spreading the word at festivals, parades and other community events; invite people into their homes for house parties; and attempt to recruit friends, family and neighbors into the Clinton fold. Much of the focus in the two months between the April 12 video in which Clinton announced her candidacy and Saturday's "official campaign launch" has been on Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, the four states whose early primaries and caucuses give them outsized roles in deciding the presidential nominee. Clinton's only Florida visit since entering the race was a May 28-29 fundraising tour that took her to Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, Parkland and Heathrow in the Orlando area. The grass-roots organizing activity in Florida underscores lessons learned from Barack Obama's successful 2008 campaign, when early mobilizing helped produce legions of loyal activists who proved critical to his defeating Clinton for the Democratic nomination and winning the presidency. The Clinton campaign "really did get out-organized by Obama," said Kevin Hill, a political scientist at Florida International University. "We learned from the Obama campaign," said Terrie Rizzo, who is officially neutral as chairwoman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party. "Early organizing pays dividends." Sandy Ducane, the Clinton campaign's Florida grass roots organizer — the only paid staffer in the state right now — told an early June gathering of volunteers in Pompano Beach why they're important. "It's volunteer groups, it is the grass roots organizing that really is the engine that allows the candidate to move forward," Ducane said. "Debates and advertising and yard signs only take you so far in an election. And we all know that it's those sporadic voters, the occasional voters, [and] getting them out to vote is really what pushes a candidate over the finish line." Even though it's nine months before the Florida presidential primary and 17 months until the general election, state Rep. Lori Berman, D-Lantana, a Clinton supporter, said it's not too early to start mobilizing. "When the time comes, you have your whole system in place and you're able to activate it and get everybody out there doing what they need to be doing," she said. "I hate to be trite and use cliches, but the early bird gets the worm." Cynthia Busch, also neutral because she's vice chairwoman of the Broward Democratic Party, said starting now allows a campaign to make sure key volunteers are well trained, teams work well together, and existing volunteers can bring in new faces. "The sooner the better," she said. Republicans said it's a good strategy. "I would say that's very smart for them," said Daniel Ruoss of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, chairman of the Florida Federation of Young Republicans. "You can never start too early, certainly in Florida." The Clinton campaign said efforts are under way in all 46 states that aren't part of the early four. But there's no place it's more important than Florida. Having won the Sunshine State's primary in 2008, Clinton can't afford the kind of embarrassment that would stem from anything less than a stellar performance in the state's March 16, 2016, primary. And the Florida is critical to each party's hopes of winning the White House, given the Sunshine State's status as the largest swing state in the country — awarding more than 10 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. The benefits of organized, well trained and loyal supporters could prove critically important in Florida if one of the state's Republican favorite sons, former Gov. Jeb Bush or U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is the Republican nominee. Hill said parts of Florida — "Broward and Palm Beach [counties] especially" — are Clinton territory. But that doesn't mean sufficient votes will come automatically in either the primary or the general election; Clinton needs to make sure her supporters are energized and turn out to vote. And that's where people like Veronica Block come in. Block, 44, who lives west of Boca Raton, said she's a regular voter, but has never been involved in any kind of political activity — until she she attended the organizing meeting in Pompano Beach. Afterward, the recently widowed stay-at-home mother and part-time photographer did exactly what strategists want from all their volunteers: took to social media, telling friends why she likes Clinton and asking them to join her helping the campaign. Block also signed up to join a volunteer team that plans to work the crowd on Clinton's behalf at the Kikin' It Country Music Festival on June 27. Block said she's ready to do "anything that I can do to help." "I have never been as excited about anything like this," she said. Most of the people, based on a show of hands, are veteran campaign volunteers. Carol Osno, a Democratic activist from Pompano Beach who has been involved in many campaigns, showed up wearing a Clinton button from 2008. But there were other newcomers, like Block. Kathy Sklare of Deerfield Beach said the prospect of a Clinton presidency has her so excited that she's going to volunteer on behalf of the campaign. "I've never liked politics. [But] I said to myself a while back, if Hillary runs again, I'm going to help her win," she said. "It's in my heart and my soul. I need to do it, and accomplish this. It's my goal. And Hillary, I love her and want to see her win." The campaign has held 51 organizing meetings and house parties in Florida as part of the "Ramp Up Grassroots Organizing Program." Other elements: •Volunteers are hosting events in their homes Saturday, bringing together people to watch when Clinton delivers her launch speech from the Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City before heading to Iowa. Florida supporters have 19 watch parties planned throughout the state. •The campaign is holding small-scale fundraisers, such as a June 18 event headlined by former Florida Senate Democratic Leader Nan Rich of Weston. It costs $25, far less than the $2,700 required to attend one of the May fundraisers that featured Clinton in person. Lisa Lickstein, a Democratic donor and activist in Palm Beach County, said small fundraisers do more than bring in money. "We know that people who give a small amount at the beginning of campaigns can be counted on to talk to their friends about why." All the events are aimed at an exponential growth in numbers of people and excitement. One thing missing from the events is Clinton herself. Unlike larger donors and voters in early states who get to see and hear the candidate in person, people who come to the organizing events have to make due with a life-sized, cardboard, cutout photograph of the former secretary of state, former U.S. senator and former first lady. Cutouts are popular with Clinton supporters, with many taking pictures with their phones — and, like Block, sharing them on Facebook and Instagram. When Lickstein organized a group that rented a booth at the SunFest music festival in West Palm Beach, she campaign got sign-up information from about 590 people willing to volunteer. With an estimated attendance of 175,000 attending SunFest from April 29 to May 3, Lickstein said there was a constant stream of people who stopped to take selfies with "cardboard Hillary." "There was just tremendous enthusiasm, really a great deal of emotion," she said. "People really wanted to connect with her." Anita Mitchell, former chairwoman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, said the South Florida reaction doesn't mean Clinton will prevail in Florida. The region, Mitchell said, is "progressive. It's liberal. It's her backyard. Low fruit for her." *Hillary Clinton headed to Charleston area for 2nd SC stop <http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article23877601.html#storylink=cpy> // The State // Jamie Self – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton is heading to the Lowcountry on Wednesday for her second visit to South Carolina since announcing her White House bid. The 2016 Democratic frontrunner will hold a forum in the Charleston area focused on youth job training and apprenticeship programs, a campaign aide said, adding that more details about the stop will be released later. The campaign has set up more than two dozen watch parties and launch-day house parties in the Palmetto State timed with Clinton’s official campaign launch event Saturday in New York City. The former first lady and secretary of state announced her campaign on April 12 and has been campaigning in early primary states in small, controlled events and roundtable discussions with students, educators and small-business owners. Clinton made a one-day stop in Columbia last month, meeting with minority women business owners and speaking to a group of Democratic women gathered for a conference at the State House. *Hillary Clinton: "The History Of Women Has Been A History Of Silence" <http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a28846/hillary-clinton-campaign-ad-fighter/> // Elle // Megan Friedman – June 12, 2015 * A day before her official campaign kickoff, Hillary Clinton released a new ad on YouTube that highlights her 40 years in public service. The clip, called "Fighter," shows photos and footage from her entire career, from law student to Secretary of State. She talks about her work with children, and doesn't shy away from her failed attempt at healthcare reform while serving as First Lady. "You have to get up off the floor and you keep fighting," she says, a theme that she echoes throughout the ad. The campaign video also talks about her historic speech in Beijing, where she declared, "human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights," and her time as Senator from New York during the September 11 attacks. Whether or not you support her for president, nobody can deny she's had an incredible career. *Hillary Clinton's 'talking points' for 'friends and allies' just leaked <http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-talking-points-for-friends-and-allies-just-leaked-2015-6> // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – June 12, 2015 * Hillary Clinton's campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod sent out a memo containing "talking points" for "friends and allies" on Friday afternoon. Business Insider obtained a copy of the memo, which includes a preview of Clinton's speech Saturday and details of the campaign's early efforts in primary states. There has been much speculation about the role Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, will play in his wife's campaign. The memo notes Clinton is "expected" to attend the speech, but will not be speaking. "President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton are expected to attend, but the speaking program will feature Hillary Clinton exclusively," the memo said. The memo, which was designed to help Clinton's supporters and campaign surrogates stay on message, also credits Clinton with taking "bold progressive stands on key issues" including "criminal justice reform," "immigration reform," and "voting rights," and "equal pay." The preview of Clinton's Saturday speech echoes what a Clinton campaign official told Business Insider about the remarks on Thursday. Clinton announced her presidential campaign in April. So far, she has been in what her team has described as a "ramp up" phase with relatively small-scale events in early primary states. Saturday's speech will be the kickoff of a new phase of Clinton's campaign. The "talking points" memo sent out by Elrod included a segment on what "comes next" for Clinton's campaign including her plan to detail more specific policies "in the coming weeks and months." "Hillary Clinton will lay out her vision on a range of economic issues that are key to helping everyday Americans get ahead and stay ahead," the memo said. The memo also details Clinton's plans for the days immediately after the launch including events in Iowa and New Hampshire. "The campaign has said we expect a competitive primary, and we’ve taken nothing for granted since the start of the campaign. This trip is the latest example that our focus is on the early four primary states and winning the nomination," the memo said. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider about the memo. Read the full memo below (linked to) *Meet the political operative trying to make Hillary Clinton popular <https://fortune.com/2015/06/12/kristina-schake-hillary-clinton/> // Fortune // Nina Easton – June 12, 2015 * Michelle Obama is a hugely popular First Lady. But it wasn’t always that way. As a candidate’s wife in 2008, she stirred widespread indignation for suggesting that her husband’s political rise was “the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country.” Aides jumped to her rescue and started softening her image, granting interviews to women’s magazines and steering clear of hot-button issues. But when Kristina Schake, 45, arrived in 2010 as the First Lady’s communications director, she amped those efforts into overdrive. Remember the self-parodying “mom dance” with Jimmy Fallon? Schake’s fingerprints were all over that one. Potato sack races across the East Room with the Late Night host (captured, of course, on Pinterest)? Schake. The supposed “undercover” shopping trip to Target? Schake again. A master of political optics, Schake’s job deputy communications director is to accomplish the same for former First Lady Hillary Clinton as the candidate tries to layer a warmer image on top of her leadership experience. Schake is also known as a stern enforcer of her boss’ image, often to the consternation of many around her, including the press. But even her critics are in awe of her handiwork. On Obama’s staff, Kristina was also credited with having helped recruit corporate partners to leverage thinly-resourced initiatives (think Disney DIS -0.61% and Walmart WMT -0.70% signing on to Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign to fight childhood obesity.) When Schake first approaches a mission, she does so with consideration and caution. “We both like lots of preparation, lots of reading, lots of wading around waist-deep in water before making a decision,” says her big sister Kori Schake. In the case of Michelle Obama, she adds, “Kris watched her carefully, [studying] how to draw out what already exists—that warmth and caring. My sister found ways for her to express those traits in ways that would be comfortable for her in a public space.” Kristina Schake, the daughter of a Pan Am pilot, grew up traveling the world. Her sister Kori was eight years older, so Kristina and Kori were often wandering through cities by themselves. And invariably, they would land in art galleries and museums, roaming through some of the world’s great collections of paintings and sculptures. “Her fascination with art is the key to why she is so great at her work,” Kori Schake tells me. “She is incredibly good at seeing patterns on big canvases. She has a love for looking at art and understanding how it reflects underlying culture.” Kori—a scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution—is a Republican who served with George W. Bush’s National Security Council and later as foreign policy and defense adviser to GOP presidential candidate John McCain. But that hasn’t stopped her from being her sister’s biggest fan—offering up what she considers to be the highest compliment available in national politics: “She is a ruthless political operative, and she’d be insulted if I didn’t say anything else.” When the Schake girls and their brother were growing up in Sonoma, California (with two high school years in Berlin for Kristina), the politics they saw mostly consisted of their mother carrying a placard in favor of a school bond initiative. Kristina was a cheerleader and student council president before heading east to attend Johns Hopkins University. Back in California after college, her career centered on helping the causes of liberal celebrities, such as actor/director Rob Reiner’s push for a 50-cent cigarette tax to fund early childhood education. Schake also helped Maria Shriver, then California’s first lady, to expand her star-studded women’s conference. She worked with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts. And with her public affairs partner, Chad Griffin, now president of the Human Rights Campaign, Kristina Schake fought Proposition 8, the California initiative to ban same-sex marriage. In what was to become a trademark Schake touch, she was able to humanize the gay plaintiffs in a court challenge to Prop. 8 that also brought together the legal dream team of conservative Ted Olson and liberal David Bois. In addition to her passion for gay rights, Schake was involved in a 2004 campaign supporting stem-cell research. She took on a high-glam corporate job with L’Oreal in 2013, and later took leave in Germany, where she and her uber-patient boyfriend arrived and had to turn around within days when the Clinton camp came calling. Watch for those Schake fingerprints all over the humanize-Hillary crusade. Clinton launched her campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire traveling in a “Scooby Doo” van named for the 1960s cartoon. Aides insisted it was Clinton’s idea because the van reminded her of the characters’ Mystery Machine. But I suspect another source. Schake. *New York Times fund keeps donors anonymous <http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/new-york-times-fund-keeps-donors-anonymous-208654.html> // Politico // Dylan Byers – June 12, 2015* The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity run by members of the Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives, received more than $29 million in charitable contributions over the last five years from mostly anonymous donors, tax records obtained by the On Media blog show. The Neediest Cases Fund's 990s show a total of $29,310,945 in donations between 2010 and 2014, but the Times does not provide a list of the donors. Eileen Murphy, the Times' Vice President of Corporate Communications, said "donations from trusts and estates of amounts more than $100,000 are generally invested in an endowment and are acknowledged or disclosed publicly," while "other donations (many thousands of them) are applied to the current year's campaign and are sent directly to seven social services agencies who work with the City's neediest." "Our policy not to publicly acknowledge donors to the Neediest Cases Fund is in keeping with the common practice of the vast majority of charities and respectful of each individual donor's expectation of privacy," Murphy said. (Other newspaper funds, including those of The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, do provide a list of donors, though those donors are asked to decide whether or not they would like to have their names listed.) The Times' policy meant that the company did not disclose a $100,000 donation in 2008 from Bill and Hillary's Clinton Family Foundation, recently reported by the Washington Free Beacon. The Times has said that the CFF originally sent a $100,000 check to the fund in 2007, months before the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, then sent a replacement check in 2008 after the original went missing. Murphy has said that "this donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another.” In recent months, the Times has been a leading critic of the secrecy surrounding donations to the Clinton Foundation, the global philanthropic initiative that has been at the center of controversy following reports that donations to the foundation may have influenced Hillary Clinton's actions as Secretary of State. (The Clinton Foundation is separate from the CFF.) In April, the Times editorial board called on Clinton to provide a "full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation" in order to lay such suspicions to rest. "It’s an axiom in politics that money always creates important friendships, influence and special consideration," the editorial board wrote. "Wise politicians recognize this danger and work to keep it at bay." The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund received $5,952,238 in donations in 2010, $5,543,976 in 2011, $5,906,280 in 2012, $6,535,759 in 2013 and $5,372,692 2014, for a total of $29,310,945 over the five-year period. These donations are administered by the New York Times Company and go directly to seven social services agencies in New York, including Brooklyn Community Services, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, and the Children's Aid Society. *OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE* *O’MALLEY* *Martin O’Malley hires digital director <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-hires-digital-director> // MSNBC // Nisha Chittal – June 12, 2015 * Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s presidential campaign has made two key new hires, bringing on two veteran digital strategists into high-level roles in the campaign, a spokeswoman confirmed exclusively to msnbc. Madeleine Perry is joining the O’Malley campaign as digital director. Perry was formerly the digital director for Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, where she managed the senator’s digital and social media strategy. She is a veteran in the digital political space, and her résumé includes work for the Democratic National Committee and Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown’s 2012 re-election campaign. Additionally, the O’Malley campaign has also hired Ian Ferguson to serve as director of data and analytics. Ferguson served as national regional data director for the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and also has worked on data and analytics for a number of private firms. O’Malley’s digital team has a battle ahead of them to generate more buzz about their candidate on social media than his Democratic opponents, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. According to data provided by Facebook, 84,000 people on Facebook generated 120,000 interactions related to O’Malley on the day of his announcement. Compare that to Clinton, who had 4.7 million people generating over 10.1 million interactions related to her on the day of her April 13 announcement — and even Bernie Sanders, who had 592,000 people generating over 1.2 million interactions related to him on the day of his April 30 announcement. But the campaign has already been finding ways to set themselves apart in the digital space — O’Malley is one of the few 2016 candidates actively using Snapchat, the messaging platform popular with millennials and teenagers. The campaign used the app to tease O’Malley’s May 30 campaign announcement in Baltimore and has continued to use it to share behind-the-scenes moments on the campaign trail with Snapchat users. It’s an early indicator that the O’Malley campaign seems willing to experiment with new platforms, and Perry’s hiring will likely help shape a stronger digital strategy going forward. *SANDERS* *The war on the middle class <http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/06/12/bernie-sanders-the-war-middle-class/hAJUTAjWgupBLx4zAMh7nN/story.html?hootPostID=932abaf0e7def55e4bea95b77a4d4763> // The Boston Globe // Bernie Sanders – June 12, 2015 * HERE IS THE reality of the American economy. Despite an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity, the middle class continues its 40-year decline. Today, millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages and median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well. Today, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent, while the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. In the last two years, the wealthiest 14 people in this country increased their wealth by $157 billion. That increase is more than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans – combined. Over the last 40 years, the largest corporations in this country have closed thousands of factories in the United States and outsourced millions of American jobs to low-wage countries overseas. That is why we need a new trade policy and why I am opposed to the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership now before Congress. Large corporations and their lobbyists have created loopholes enabling corporations to avoid an estimated $100 billion a year in taxes by shifting profits to the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens. That is why we need real tax reform which demands that the very wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Corporate America has mounted vigorous anti-union campaigns, making it harder for workers to collectively bargain for decent wages and benefits. That is why we must make certain that workers are given a fair chance to join a union. Meanwhile, US companies are buying back billions of dollars of their own stock in a way that manipulates stock prices, hurts the economy and, by the way, used to be against the law. Instead of putting resources into innovative ways to build their businesses or hire new employees, corporations are pumping their record-breaking profits into buying back their own stock and increasing dividends to benefit their executives and wealthy shareholders at the expense of their workers. It is a major reason why CEOs are now making nearly 300 times what the typical worker makes. We must demand an end too stock buybacks. We also must do a lot more to rebuild the middle class, check corporate greed, and make our economy work again for working families. We need to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over the next several years. With 70 percent of the economy dependent on consumers buying goods and services, the best way to expand the economy is to raise wages and create good jobs to increase the purchasing power of the American people. We need to pass pay equity for women workers. It is not acceptable that women receive 78 cents on the dollar compared to male workers doing the same job. We need to make certain that every worker in this country receives guaranteed paid sick leave and vacation time. We need to encourage business models that provide employees the tools to purchase their own businesses through Employee Stock Ownership Plans and worker-owned cooperatives. Workers at employer-owned companies are more motivated, productive, and satisfied with their jobs. It is time to say loudly and clearly that corporate greed and the war against the American middle class must end. Enough is enough! *OTHER* *Pelosi to oppose Obama on trade* <http://thehill.com/policy/finance/244833-pelosi-to-oppose-obama-on-trade>* // The Hill // Christina Marcos – June 12, 2015* House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a meandering but dramatic floor speech on Friday announced her vote against a measure providing assistance to workers displaced by trade. “If TAA slows down the fast-track, I’m prepared to vote against TAA," Pelosi said. Pelosi announced her opposition to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program just before it went down in the House, with 302 lawmakers voting against it. The failure of TAA could sink a broader trade package that includes President Obama's request for fast-track trade authority. Pelosi's move is a rare split with Obama, who visited Capitol Hill on Friday morning and pleaded with Democrats to back the measure. The California Democrat had been under pressure from liberal groups to oppose the trade package. While many had expected Pelosi to vote against fast-track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), her opposition to TAA took many by surprise. Pelosi argued that opposing TAA now would give Democrats leverage for a trade package they view as more favorable. “We want a better deal for American workers,” Pelosi said. A group of liberal House Democrats opposed to the trade package, including Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) and Brad Sherman (Calif.), applauded when Pelosi announced her opposition to TAA. Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO who has been aggressively lobbying Democrats to vote against the fast-track deal, praised Pelosi in a statement just minutes after the TAA bill failed on the House floor. "Nancy Pelosi has always fought for working families and today her leadership on the trade package vote was instrumental in the House voting against another bad trade deal," he said. "She stood up against corporate interests and as always put first the people who are too often left out of trade agreement discussions. I applaud Rep. Pelosi’s bravery and leadership on this and look forward to working with her on good trade bills." Trumka had previously threatened that Democratic senators who backed fast-track during a May vote will be held accountable, and warned that labor could sit out the 2016 elections over trade. *GOP* *BUSH* *Longtime Bush Adviser Focuses On Jeb’s Messaging <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/12/longtime-bush-adviser-focuses-on-jebs-messaging/> // NYT // Maggie Haberman – June 12, 2015 * In the last week, there have been numerous news accounts about reassignments and changes in the political team being put together by Jeb Bush. But when the former Florida governor’s advisers rolled out a list of staff appointments and titles this week, one name that was not on it was Chris Mottola. A veteran political advertising strategist who worked on George W. Bush’s 2004 presidential re-election campaign, Mr. Mottola is said to be an old friend of Jeb Bush’s longtime adviser, Mike Murphy. Mr. Mottola’s eventual role in the campaign once it begins next week is unclear, and a spokesman for Mr. Bush, Tim Miller, declined to comment. But two people familiar with Mr. Mottola’s current role said that he had been advising the team on messaging and strategy related to Monday’s planned campaign kickoff. If Mr. Mottola does take an official role with the campaign, among the open questions is whether he would contribute on television ads. That role is currently expected to go to Jon Downs, of FP1 Strategies. Mr. Downs’s colleague, Danny Diaz, was named campaign manager this week. Mr. Mottola did not respond to an email for comment. Mr. Bush is not expected to actually begin airing television commercials until later in the Republican contest, but his aides confirm that he will spend money on a digital ad purchase pegged to his announcement tour next week. The purchase is aimed at building his list of both grass-roots supporters and small-dollar donors. “We want to collect as much data and information as possible,” Mr. Miller said. *Jeb Bush’s Family Values <http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/jeb-bushs-family-values/> // NYT // Andrew Rosenthal – June 12, 2015 * In many campaigns, one candidate or another is asked to answer for comments he or she made in the past. The answer is usually gibberish – that was a long time ago, or I was trying to say something else. This week’s entry is – not shockingly given how many times he has tripped over his own tongue lately – Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor made some achingly stupid comments about welfare in the early ’90s, when he was running (unsuccessfully) for that post for the first time, and in a subsequent book. The general strain of these comments is that women on welfare should quit whining and find a man. “If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period,” he said in 1994 while running for governor. “They should be able to get their life together and find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three.” Mr. Bush also said: “How you get on welfare is by not having a husband in the house – let’s be honest here.” He added: “Men are not on welfare. That’s the point.” The reason that more women were on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program that has changed its name since and its benefits, is relatively plain. The fathers of their children abandoned them. The program was designed for that purpose. There are not a lot of men on the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program either, Mr. Bush. On Tuesday, there was some attention in the press to Mr. Bush’s 1995 book “Profiles in Character” (as opposed, of course, to Courage). Here are some particularly insightful quotes: “One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame.” “There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out-of-wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.” So what does Mr. Bush think now? Don’t ask him, because you won’t get a real answer. On Thursday, traveling in Europe to pretend he has foreign policy experience, Mr. Bush said he was trying to focus on missing fathers and to say that single parents face a “huge challenge.” “From the perspective of children it’s a huge challenge for single moms and it hurts the prospects, it limits the ability of children to live lives with purpose and meaning,” Bush said. Talk about profiles in character. *Jeb Bush plans a ‘hopeful, optimistic’ speech to kick off campaign <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/06/12/jeb-bush-plans-a-hopeful-optimistic-speech-to-kick-off-campaign/?wprss=rss_politics> // WaPo // Karen Tumulty & Ed O’Keefe – June 12, 2015 * For six months, former Florida governor Jeb Bush has been running for president while demurring that he is not an official candidate. With the fan-dance phase of the campaign about to end, he offered a peek Friday at the "hopeful, optimistic" themes he plans to sound when he makes his formal announcement Monday. Bush is spending the final days of his pseudo-candidacy on a swing through Germany, Poland and Estonia, part of an effort to burnish his credentials as a potential commander-in-chief. “I’ve been thinking about what I’m going to say, for sure, and prior to this trip," he told reporters. "I hope that the message will be a hopeful, optimistic one. It won't dwell too much on the past. I will talk about why it is important to change directions. I will talk a little bit about, hopefully, the leadership skills that are necessary to solve problems." He also indicated, however, that he will offer his two terms of governor of Florida as evidence of how he would run the country. "I had the opportunity as governor of a state where a lot of things happened. Some people liked them. Some people didn’t. But there’s no question, you ask friend and foe alike, that Florida was changed by my leadership, and I think it changed for the better," Bush said. "And so I’ll talk about that. And there will be some lines of good humor as well, I hope." When Bush first announced his interest last year, surprising many Republicans, he had seem poised to move to the head of the field as the favorite of the GOP establishment. But despite the advantages of his pedigree, his family's political network and fundraising capabilities, he has yet to break out in the early polls. One obstacle is the perception that he is too moderate for a party that has swung to the right. Two days before Bush officially joins the crowded field of candidates running to be the 2016 standard-bearer, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton will hold a major rally in New York City. Asked about her candidacy, Bush demurred for now, saying that domestic political battles should not be waged by candidates when they are overseas. "Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state for four years under President Obama. She has a record. It is a record she will have to defend, and I believe that this is not an appropriate place to be talking about American politics," he said. "There will be ample chances to show the differences between myself and Hillary." One challenge for Bush on that score will be navigating around his own last name, and the memories it invokes of the foreign policies of the last two Republican presidents, who happened to be his brother and father. As he traveled through Europe this week, Bush often invoked the deft, widely admired manner in which the 41st president, George H.W. Bush, operated as the Cold War ended. He has not mentioned the more unpopular, unilateralist approach of his brother, George W. Bush, who was the 43rd president. His itinerary reinforced those themes. On Friday, he was briefed by officials at the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence here, which functions as a sort of think tank for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and is run by some of the member nations of that Western alliance. He also met with Estonian Foreign Minister Keit Pentus- Rosimannus, and was scheduled to dine with Estonian President Toomas Ilves at the presidential palace. "If you think about it in terms of history, my dad’s managing of the cooperation with great leaders of his time, managing the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been talked about at every stop that we’ve made," Bush said. He said that when he was in Poland on Wednesday and Thursday, he was often reminded of the 1987 speech that his father gave in Krakow, which the elder Bush insisted be carried uncensored on national television there. "It was a spark," Jeb Bush said. "It was something that was so breathtaking for Poles who could never believe anything that they saw on television. Think about how much change has taken place in these years. It’s a good reminder that we're a lot freer now than we were, and we need to protect that freedom. And that’s why the United States needs to be engaged." With Bush in Europe, aides at his campaign headquarters in Miami have spent the past few days putting the finishing touches on what's promised to be a dramatic and social media-driven launch. Bush will launch his bid Monday afternoon at Miami Dade College with an announcement speech expected to last about 15 minutes. His remarks will touch on three general themes, according to aides familiar with the plans. First, Bush will embrace the atmospherics of the campus, part of a public university system with more than 10 locations across South Florida that boasts the nation's largest Hispanic student body. Bush has spoken at the college several times, and his brother, George W. Bush, delivered a commencement address there in 2007. Aides said Bush considers the venue an ideal place to launch a campaign expected to make aggressive overtures to the country's expanding Latino voting population and other groups less prone to support GOP candidates. Bush also plans to cast himself as a proven "fix it" agent, who revamped Florida's economy and government over eight years while enacting a conservative governing agenda. The defense of his record will serve as a direct contrast with the four presidential candidates serving in Congress: Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Over the course of his early travels, Bush has often used the phrase "Right to Rise" — a moniker that is also the name of his leadership PAC and a super PAC poised to support his candidacy. Bush and his campaign are expected to provide a fuller definition of the phrase in the coming days, starting with testimonials from people who say they were helped by his work as governor or as an education reform advocate in the years since. Once Bush launches his campaign, he's planning a whirlwind, three-day tour of New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, with several public events and private meetings scheduled. Aides said that Bush is likely to continue the format of the public appearances he's held during his exploratory phase, which generally include a brief opening speech followed by roughly 45 minutes of questions from attendees. On Friday, he also got an early boost of support from several senior Florida Republicans — a blow to Rubio, another popular statewide elected official. Among those pledging to back Bush are Pamela Bondi, the state attorney general; Jeff Atwater, the state's chief financial officer; and Adam Putnam, the state agriculture commissioner. Eleven of Florida's 17 Republican congressmen are also backing him, including Miami's three Cuban American lawmakers: Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo. Several others, including Reps. Dennis Ross and Gus Bilirakis, have long ties to Bush, dating back to before he won the governor's office in 1998. *Jeb Bush Faulted Over Use of Florida Tax Money <http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-faulted-over-use-of-florida-tax-money-1434150351> // WSJ // Beth Reinhard – June 12, 2015 * The Republican governors who are weighing presidential campaigns often talk about the jobs they have created in their states, drawing a contrast to potential rivals who serve in a gridlocked Congress. But one facet of the economic plans adopted by many GOP governors is coming under criticism from conservatives within the party—their use of taxpayer money to encourage businesses to expand or relocate across state lines. Tax incentives and financial awards to businesses are increasingly out of favor in a party that sees corporate subsidies and the Export-Import Bank, which helps support U.S. exports, as examples of "crony capitalism.’’ The latest example of the rising opposition comes from the Club for Growth, a free-market advocacy group, which is criticizing former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush for overseeing state spending increases that included $310 million to lure a biomedical research institute to Florida. The Club’s appraisal of Mr. Bush’s economic record, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal ahead of its release, says the effort to spur the biotech industry didn’t generate as many jobs as promised. “We want to frame what we think the right agenda should be for the Republican nominee, and when we see a candidate whose record shows they have used tax dollars to pick winner and losers, we are going to point it out as bad policy,” said David McIntosh, the Club for Growth president and a former Indiana congressman. “What was a standard approach for Republican governors for a while, we’re now seeing a growing movement against,” he said. A spokesman for Mr. Bush, Tim Miller, said the state’s investment in research institutes “diversified the economy, created high-wage jobs and contributed to significant scientific research advances.” At least three other active or likely candidates—Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry—are expected to face similar criticism from the Club for using tax dollars to promote economic development. In 2012, the libertarian Cato Institute criticized Mr. Walker for tax breaks intended to draw business to the state, which the group said "clutter the tax code.’’ In Texas, the Legislature has moved to curtail incentive programs touted by Mr. Perry. The Club for Growth’s report on Mr. Bush praises the former two-term governor as an aggressive tax cutter who vetoed $2 billion in spending and pioneered a Medicaid privatization program. But it criticizes Mr. Bush for a $310 million package to persuade California-based Scripps Research Institute to build a research center in Palm Beach County. One state economic analysis said the deal could lead to 50,000 new jobs, but the Club’s analysis says “the expansion of the biotech industry never materialized.” Mr. Miller, the Bush spokesman, said the Scripps money came from a temporary increase in the federal matching funds for Medicaid. “Rather than increasing entitlement spending, Gov. Bush made a strategic one-time investment in a sector that is integral to economic growth,” Mr. Miller said. He said 1.3 million jobs were created while Mr. Bush was governor. Mr. Walker has defended state incentives to the Kohl’s department store chain and is currently lobbying state and local lawmakers for a plan to spend $250 million in public money for an arena for Milwaukee’s pro basketball team. Mr. Christie awarded more than $5 billion in tax incentives since he took office in 2010, at a rate outpacing his Democratic predecessors. Critics have said that too many of the awards have gone to existing New Jersey companies moving within the state, rather than attracting new businesses. Mr. Christie’s administration has said the incentives are essential to keeping companies in the high-cost state. The Club, which is known for running attack ads against centrist Republicans, isn’t planning to endorse a candidate in the GOP presidential primary. However, Mr. McIntosh said the group may run negative ads against Republican candidates who have raised taxes, and it already aired one such spot about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Along with corporate subsidies by state governments, the Export-Import Bank has become a top target of the Club for Growth. It is running ads against Ex-Im supporters in Congress noting that several GOP presidential candidates oppose the federal agency. *Here’s Jeb Bush Talking In 1995 About Restoring Shame To Society <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/heres-jeb-bush-talking-about-restoring-shame-to-society?utm_term=.jdBYKGQVa#.xiV7EZ8e2> // Buzzfeed // Andrew Kaczynski <http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski> & Megan Apper – June 12, 2015* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s push to restore shame to society appears to have been a part of his regular stump speech as head of the Foundation for Florida’s Future, an organization he founded to stay publicly active during the time between his first, failed run for governor and his second successful run. In a chapter “The Restoration of Shame” of his 1995 book, Profiles in Character Bush bemoaned the loss of the stigmatization of having children outside marriage and the need to restore shame to society for having kids out of wedlock, taking public assistance, and in schools. He fondly cited the use of corporal punishment in one school district to institute shame noting the school district had never had a school shooting. In an October 1995 speech on public policy in Georgia, Bush made similar remarks on the need to restore shame to society. Bush singled out public assistance and the lack of the “shotgun wedding” as key areas where there was less shame than the 1960s. “First, we need to restore shame,” Bush said. “There is no shameful behavior anymore in America. You can do just about anything you want to do, and no one minds. In fact, we are so numbed by what’s happened around us that we’ve turned it off. Bush described a conversation about a young student killing a each shrugged off by a bystander as an ordinary event. “As I’ve described, my disgust and sadness for a teacher getting killed by a 10 year old, how troubling that is — I was in an elevator and the person next to me kind of shrugged it off and said, ‘Well, it happens all the time.’ And I can understand how people respond to this, because, if you don’t, you can go crazy. If you saw the things that are going on it would be very difficult to do it. So the natural response is to say, ‘Well, that’s just the way it is.’ I don’t think so.” Bush said the “sense of shame” needs to be restored to society so certain attitudes become perverse in your family, neighborhood, and community. “I believe that we need to restore a sense of shame, so that certain behavior makes you blush. Certain behavior becomes such that you don’t accept it. And little by little perhaps that type of attitude becomes perverse not just in your family, but in your neighborhood, and perhaps in your community. And over time begin to restore a sense of shame for behavior that is outrageous.” Bush said such shame existed in the 1960s saying in that decade many people declined public assistance and adoption was a more accepted option for newly born children than abortion. “It is the type of shame that existed for example in the 1960s, when half of the people who were qualified to accept public assistance didn’t take it because they thought it was shameful. It’s the type of activity that made adoption a much better option than bringing a child to term without the ability to take care of that child or abortion. It’s sense of shame that created the shotgun wedding. Does anybody hear about the shotgun wedding anymore? It’s the sense that used to exist about people who were very talented or intelligent cheating in school. It’s the sense we don’t have that makes our culture so debased and so appreciated over time.” On Thursday, Bush spoke about the book with reporters during his European trip. “As it relates to the book, the book was written in 1995,” he said. “My views have evolved over time, but my views about the importance of dads being involved in the lives of their children hasn’t changed at all. In fact, since 1995, if you look at the — I spoke in the book about cultural indicators — the country has moved in the wrong direction, the 40-plus percent out-of-wedlock birth rate and you think about this from the perspective of children, it puts a huge, it’s a huge challenge for single moms to raise children in the world that we’re in today. And it hurts the prospects, it limits the possibilities of young people being able to lives of purpose and meaning.” *How a silent FEC lets Jeb Bush play by his own fundraising rules <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/opinions/sandstrom-fec/> // CNN // Karl Sandstorm – June 12, 2015 * No one would dispute that competitors, regardless of their sport, are entitled to know what the rules are. Basic notions of fair play require that the rules be known and enforced even-handedly. Yet when it comes to elections, there appears to be no rule book, and the umpires seem reluctant to make any politically tough calls. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's long-standing claim of non-candidacy -- expected to finally end in coming days -- has highlighted the complete inattention to basic fairness in campaign financing by the very regulatory agency responsible for its oversight. For months now, Bush has avoided actually saying he is a candidate, while fully acting as if he is one. Bush's campaign claims he is not breaking any rules by raising unlimited funds -- tens of millions of dollars -- from individuals, corporations and trade groups that would be illegal and subject to possible criminal prosecution if he indeed were a candidate. Federal law prohibits corporations, trade groups and labor unions from contributing directly to candidates, and limits an individual's donations to $2,700 per candidate in an election. Is the Bush "non-campaign" evidence that the law can be easily evaded? Whether the answer is yes or no, someone needs to make the call. The key decision maker in this case is the Federal Election Commission, a six-member panel (three Republicans and three Democrats) that has -- on this issue and on a host of others -- failed in its most basic responsibility to tell the public what the law is. Just a few recent examples demonstrate the agency's failure to make timely critical decisions. For one, federal law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions and expenditures in any election. Does this broad prohibition cover money spent to influence the outcome of a ballot measure? Or can a foreign government spend unlimited sums seeking to influence a state or local referendum? Commission regulations simply do not provide an answer. There was however, a complaint on which the Commission deadlocked in April. The staff's legal analysis in that case suggests that foreign nationals and governments may spend unlimited funds to influence state and local ballot measures. If the Commission indeed believes that this spending is lawful, it should act and propose a rule allowing foreign governments and corporations to influence ballot measures rather than not making a call at all, which is what it chose to do. The public and Congress would then have the opportunity to weigh in on the proposal as well. Another example is the provision of federal election law that prohibits government contractors from making contributions in federal elections. Can that law be easily circumvented by having the parent company of a government contractor make the contribution? Or, if the parent is the government contractor, could a wholly-owned subsidiary company make the contribution? Despite recent enforcement matters that have raised these questions, the Commission has failed to produce a regulation that provides an answer. This leaves open the possibility that major federal contractors may find an easy -- and profitable -- avenue around the prohibition. A last example of a major question of federal election law that the Commission is leaving unanswered is whether the dozens of organizations that are spending tens of millions of dollars to influence our federal elections must disclose their donors to the public. The Commission has provided little useful guidance. As a consequence, the public is being left in the dark not only about hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent in the coming year to influence who will be our next President, but also about whether the law allows these vast sums of money to go unreported. Again, whatever the answer may be, it should not be a matter of private thinking among the Commissioners. The public is entitled to know the rules and expect that they will be enforced. It should come then as no surprise that a "non-candidate" such as former Gov. Bush believes the continuing silence of the umpires is license to play ball by his own rules. As the players take the field for next year's elections, they should all have the same rule book and have confidence that the Commission will ignore the booing and make the tough calls. If you get paid to be an umpire, you need to do your job. *Bush book from 1995 becomes 2016 issue <http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/06/12/bush-book-from-1995-becomes-2016-issue/> // USA Today // David Jackson – June 12, 2015 * A book on character co-written by Jeb Bush in 1995 had been all but forgotten — until he decided to explore a White House bid in 2016. Now Democrats are spotlighting passages of the book Profiles in Character in which Bush called for “the restoration of shame” to help combat out-of-wedlock births, youth crime and destructive behavior in general. “It seems that any life decision that diverges from Jeb Bush’s carefully curated life is deserving of shame,” says a Medium post by Lauren Dillon, research director for the Democratic National Committee. “Anyone who is struggling to make the best of a difficult situation should be ridiculed.” Asked about the book during this week’s trip to Europe, Bush said many of his views have “evolved” since its publication in 1995, “but my views about the importance of dads being involved in the lives of children hasn’t changed at all.” Most of the criticism surrounds the comments about single motherhood and parenting. The Bush book says that “one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out-of-wedlock” is that “there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior.” Bush told reporters that his ire is not directed at women, but at men who abandon their responsibilities as fathers. The nation continues to move in “the wrong direction” on the out-of-wedlock birth rate, Bush said, and “it’s a huge challenge for single moms to raise children in the world that we’re in today … It hurts the prospects, it limits the possibilities of young people being able to live lives of purpose and meaning.” Bush and aides said he tried to combat these challenges as governor of Florida by stepping up enforcement of child support payments and increasing punishments for domestic violence. With the women’s vote a crucial part of the 2016, look for Democrats and perhaps other critics to cite passages from Bush’s 1995 book on character. Wrote Dillon of the DNC: “So now that we’ve had a lesson in Jeb Bush’s “character,” let’s not forget how he really feels about you, your family, and your friends when he launches his campaign to be our next President.” *Jeb Bush to women on welfare in 1994: 'Get a husband’ <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/jeb-bush-to-women-on-welfare-in-1994-get-a-husband/index.html> // CNN // Eric Bradner – June 12, 2015 * Jeb Bush insisted during his unsuccessful first run for the Florida governor's office that an alternative to welfare for women is to "find a husband." The Republican 2016 presidential contender's comments came in the heat of a 1994 campaign that has come back to haunt him -- particularly as he seeks to run an inclusive campaign aimed at broadening the GOP's appeal. That year, Bush, with a more strident style and in a different era in the debate over welfare reform, saw a controversial remark he made in July seized on by reporters and by his opponent. Bush said that marriage is one of three options for women to get off welfare assistance. "If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together and find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three," Bush said. Bush's comments were well-publicized at the time, and have occasionally popped up in coverage of his presidential campaign since then. But they've taken on new importance in the wake of reports this week of similarly controversial social commentary in a 1995 book. Bush sought to explain his book's commentary that single parents face less public shaming during a press conference in Europe on Thursday, saying he meant to focus on missing fathers and that children born to single parents face "huge challenges." "From the perspective of children it's a huge challenge for single moms and it hurts the prospects, it limits the ability of children to live lives with purpose and meaning," Bush said. In 1994, when Republican primary opponent Jim Smith hit Bush for those comments in a television commercial, Bush didn't back away in a September news conference. "How you get on welfare is by not having a husband in the house -- let's be honest here," he said. "Men are not on welfare, that's the point," Bush said. "That's the point -- men are not on AFDC." It was a reference to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a federal welfare program that was ended in 1996 and replaced by the more restrictive program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Bush's refusal at the time to back away from his comments were interpreted by Florida media as a signal he expected his stance to assist him in the GOP primary. Bush's comment that men don't receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits wasn't quite right, a state Health and Rehabilitative Services Department official told The Palm Beach Post at the time. A "small percentage" of the program's support goes to men, the official said, and about 5,000 of the families that received benefits were headed by a male and a female, compared to 250,000 families total collecting benefits. Bush's social commentary on marriage from the 1990s has caused his campaign headaches in recent days. An excerpt from his 1995 book "Profiles in Character" was published in news reports Tuesday. In it, Bush asserted that out-of-wedlock births were caused by single parents no longer being shamed and ridiculed. "One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame," he wrote. "Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out-of-wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful." In another section, Bush wrote that a lack of a father is a good indication of who will ultimately contribute to "social ills" and have children out of wedlock in the future. "For young girls, there is a correlate effect of fatherlessness that can be measured by sexual activity and the rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing. Studies have shown that girls who grow up without fathers run a greater risk not only of adolescent childbearing but of divorce as well," he wrote. *Jeb Bush's 2016 launch strategy: Be the tortoise, not the hare <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/jeb-bush-2016-election-announcement-strategy/> // CNN // Dana Bash – June 12, 2015 * If the 2016 presidential campaign was boiled down to a fable, Jeb Bush's would be the one about the tortoise and the hare, and he would be the tortoise -- slow, steady and ultimately, the winner. In conversations with multiple Bush advisers and confidantes in the run up to his official White House launch Monday, a singular theme emerges from inside his close-knit world: Patience. Team Bush seems to say it as much to remind themselves, as they do the pundit and donor classes. They know patience is not an easy watch-word when today's politics moves at warp speed. "It doesn't happen in a day," said Al Cardenas, Bush's long time friend who will serve as a senior adviser on his presidential campaign. Perhaps pleading for patience is a sign that Bush is too old school to succeed in this insta-world of immediate gratification and results. Or, as his advisers insist, it's proof that he's the adult in the room who can see beyond the here and the now -- not just for his own fate, but for the country. "We all cover this kind of in the here and now, and who's winning and who's losing is important, and I respect that," Bush told reporters in Germany this week. "But if you have a strategy, and you think about it over the long haul, is the better approach at least for me," he said. Regardless, being the tortoise not the hare reveals a reality inside Bush world as he prepares to make his candidacy official: he's not going to run away with a quick and easy path to the Republican presidential nomination. Not even close. His failure to pull ahead in the polls, much less scare any of his more than dozen potential competitors away from running makes that fact painfully obvious. And then, there's the calendar. Bush aides are not playing the typical lowering expectations game when warning they might not win in early contest states. It's not being coy -- it's a real challenge. The first caucus state of Iowa is more obvious fertile ground for a Midwestern governor, like Scott Walker, or another candidate running as a social conservative who can also appeal to the desire for an outsider. Advisers say they see their best first shot at winning in New Hampshire, but the Bush family -- both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush - had mixed results in that primary over the years. They feel their best bet is on the long game, gobbling up delegates during big multi-state contest days later in 2016. The only way to test that premise is to be prepared to settle in for the long haul with money and manpower -- which Bush advisers say they have done. "Since Eisenhower, every single nominee that the party has come up with is the nominee who has had the best resources and the best organization and so far that's Jeb Bush," Cardenas said. "I consider Jeb Bush the favorite to win this thing just because we hit every mark that every other successful nominee has hit, and in a more significant way than any other candidate," he added. To bolster that -- especially the fundraising part of the equation -- not only will the Bush team release record money totals for his Super Pac and pac in the coming weeks -- they are also working to raise big dollars for his actual presidential campaign as soon as it starts Monday-- which is much harder to do because of limits. Bush's finance director has already asked bundlers -- donors who help coordinate and raise money from other donors -- to raise $27,000 between Monday and the end of the month. Bush advisers say to expect an announcement speech Monday that reflects the only kind of campaign he said he would run when launching his exploratory phase in December, and that is an optimistic one. Those close to the former Florida Governor say he has made clear internally that he will play hardball politics when necessary, but he won't set a scare tactic tone from the stump, even though he admits it may make it easier to get some GOP votes. "I kind of know what my job is, it's to develop a message that's hopeful and optimistic about the future of the country, to develop ideas that will give people a sense that they can lift up, and to tell them about my leadership skills to make it so," Bush told reporters here in Europe. Bush aides privately admit that, after being out of politics and public office for 9 years, it has taken some time for him to shake off the rust. Several days of stumbles last month on what should have been a well-rehearsed answer on the Iraq war his brother started, was the starkest example. But getting polished again politically has been a work in progress in less extreme ways as well -- like finding his own patience with voters in town hall settings asking him off the wall questions - the kind candidates who slog through Iowa and New Hampshire either become so used to it helps them succeed, or disdain so much it comes through and makes it hard to connect. Still, Bush confidantes insist many of those "what are they talking about" moments on the trail are actually an intellectual rush for Bush, a self-described policy wonk who likes a good chance to spar about ideas. On this five-day trip to Europe, Bush -- who is known for flashes of impatience and being stubborn, has shown he is getting more practiced at the happy warrior thing. Through three countries in five days, meetings with world leaders and interactions with the American press traveling with him, he has been staying on message -- seeming to enjoy not only private discussions, but also playing tourist (something his brother, George W. Bush, famously had little patience for and did not do much when traveling as president). Inside his Florida headquarters, they know one of the biggest challenges Jeb Bush still faces is his last name. Sources admit one of his biggest hurdles will be making voters see him as Jeb, not just another Bush. "It's going to take a while for voters to get beyond the Bush identity to a Jeb identity," admits Cardenas, not just a close friend of Jeb's, but the entire Bush clan. In fact, Bush advisers say he hasn't been able to pull ahead of the pack because of his name, not despite of it. They insist comparisons to George W. Bush in 2000, when he was able to clear the field by building a big war chest and locking up talented staff early, are unfair -- because the Bush name was a plus back then. At that time there was a bit of GOP nostalgia for his father, George H. W. Bush, who was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992. Now, in the 2016 election cycle, the Bush name for many Republicans means big spending and government bailouts. Nevermind that it is the ultimate establishment dynasty -- at a time when even unaffiliated GOP strategists say there is a clear yearning for an outsider. What staff shakeup? Bush confidantes both inside and outside the campaign insist the buzz about internal turmoil and squabbling -- prompted largely by his sudden decision to replace his campaign manager and move him into a senior adviser role -- is way overblown. They argue that what Bush said publicly isn't spin, it's actually true -- now that as he got to know these men and what their strengths are, he realized they would be better off moved around. But that does speak to another Bush challenge unique among most other top tier candidates. Despite being an established political presence, he has been out of the game for nearly a decade and is forming a campaign team from scratch. Unlike most of his competitors who are currently in office and have political operatives and policy aides around they know and feel comfortable with, Bush only has a small but fiercely loyal kitchen cabinet led by long time aide Sally Bradshaw, and includes GOP consultant Mike Murphy, who will run Bush's Super Pac, which means, by law, as of Monday the two will not be able to talk political strategy. A challenge for Bush going forward is expanding his circle and extending trust and confidence in new people. Al Cardenas is in that small circle of old friends. He says he has wanted Bush to run president for years, and that Monday will be emotional for him, and for Jeb Bush himself. "He's spent a lot of time thinking about this -- a good chunk of 2014. -- He's been traveling the country and making sure if he did this he could do it in a positive way and that he could find a structure where his message can get across, and I believe he's confident he has done that and can do that," Cardenas said. *RUBIO* *Marco Rubio is now at the top of the Republican presidential field <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/12/marco-rubio-is-at-the-top-of-the-republican-presidential-field/> // WaPo // Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake – June 12, 2015 * Look at any national poll on the 2016 Republican presidential race and you will see somewhere between three and five candidates clumped at the "top" of the field — all winning somewhere between 9 and 14 percent. It's fair, given that clumping, to conclude that the race lacks a front-runner. But there's a difference between a race without a clear front-runner and a race in which there's no discernible momentum among the top tier of candidates. And what we currently have is the latter, not the former. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is the candidate trending upward in that top pack. It's a trajectory he's been on since he announced his candidacy almost two months ago. Rubio's charisma, personal story and youth have combined to make him the "it" candidate for the GOP at the moment. Rubio has also been helped by the slippage of his two main rivals for the nomination: Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. Bush weathered a very difficult last week — shaking up a campaign that he hasn't even announced yet amid faltering poll numbers and whispers that his fundraising might fall short of its goals for the first six months of the year. Walker has largely stayed out of the glare of the national media over the past six weeks or so, but his brief foray on the big stage earlier this year — think "I don't know" if President Obama is a Christian — weren't exactly confidence-inspiring for Republicans looking to see if he is ready to take the helm. Beyond that top three, most unaligned Republican strategists we talk to — and there aren't many since roughly 200 people are running for the GOP nomination — see a significant drop-off in the likelihood of any of the remaining candidates winning the nomination. The most common name we hear as an alternative to the Big Three is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. And it's possible, but he remains in the very early stages of a candidacy (he's not announced yet) so we'll play a bit of wait-and-see for him. Add it all up and you get Rubio, the youngest member of this massive GOP field, as a first among equals. For now. Below are the 10 candidates seen as having the best chance of winding up as the nominee. The rankings are determined by polling, conversations with various Republican strategists and a pinch of our own sense of things. To the line! 10. Bobby Jindal: The governor of Louisiana is running: That we (almost) know for sure. The formal announcement is set for June 24 in downtown New Orleans. But Jindal's standing is his home state is dismal, and there's very little excitement about him in national GOP circles. His best hope is to hang around the race long enough that voters tire of a lot of their other options. (Previous ranking: 9) 9. Rick Perry: The former Texas governor seems genuinely excited about his second run for president. He even ran onstage at an event in Iowa last weekend. It's somewhat surprising for a guy who once didn't really seem that interested in running for president and then, when he did run in 2012, ran a disastrous campaign. But Perry is the longtime governor of a huge state. And American politics loves a reclamation project, right? (Previous ranking: 10) 8. Chris Christie: Christie and his team insist they are taking the long view on 2016. No, he isn't where they want him to be today, but regular people still aren't paying any attention and won't be for some time. Christie got some good news this week when the New Jersey state Supreme Court affirmed the legality of his cuts to the state's public employee pension fund. He's also staffing up. (Previous ranking: 8) 7. Mike Huckabee: The former Arkansas governor and 2008 Iowa caucus winner keeps litigating the culture wars — something the larger GOP probably doesn't want but still speaks to a key audience in the party, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina. Huckabee is the top claimant to the social conservative mantle in the field, and he's broadly popular in the larger GOP, but we're still waiting for him to show he's running the caliber of campaign that can actually win the nomination — in large part the fundraising aspect. (Previous ranking: 4) 6. Rand Paul: The conventional wisdom among the GOP smart set about the Kentucky senator has changed completely since the start of 2015. At that time, there was a sense that Paul had a real chance at being the nominee based on his strong base among libertarian-leaning Republicans and his appeal to other, less-vocal GOP constituencies. But the heightened concern within the Republican rank and file about national security and terrorism badly complicates Paul's noninterventionist views. Even if Paul wins every libertarian vote in the primary, if he can't expand beyond that bloc, it won't be nearly enough. (Previous ranking: 5) 5. John Kasich: Nobody benefits from Bush's stumbles as much as the Ohio governor. Both are pretty clearly running for GOP establishment support, and Kasich recently suggested his window is larger if Bush doesn't run strong. That's totally accurate. But we also have yet to see Kasich really debut on the national scene. And his 2000 presidential campaign was hardly a tour de force, ending shortly after it began. He moves up because it looks like he's going to run and Bush looks weakened. (Previous ranking: 7) 4. Ted Cruz: Here's what the Texas senator has going for him: (1) unquestioned dominance in the tea party lane of the primary, (2) deeply committed supporters and (3) a group of well-funded super PACs backing him. In a very crowded field, that likely means Cruz will be able to stick around for a very long time. But if he ever makes it into a one-on-one fight with any of the people rated higher than him here (Nos. 1-3), it's still very hard to see him winning that battle. (Previous ranking: 6) 3. Scott Walker: Walker, as we mentioned above, has kept a low profile these last few months. What Walker does have is momentum in Iowa where he and his team are — smartly — lavishing time and money. Iowa is a state that Walker probably has to win given that neither New Hampshire nor South Carolina seems like a place where he is a natural fit. At the moment, he's probably the favorite to do just that. (Previous ranking: 3) 2. Jeb Bush: Bush's struggles mask the fact that he's still very likely to be the best-funded candidate in the field, and he's broadly liked within the GOP establishment. Put plainly: Republican power brokers aren't going to desert him until it's clear that his goose is cooked (or close to it). And there is so, so much time left in the primary. At this time in 2008, after all, we were talking about whether John McCain was done for. (Previous ranking: 1) 1. Marco Rubio: See above. (Previous ranking: 2) *Who's Laughing Now? Marco Rubio Mocks New York Times Article on His Finances <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-12/who-s-laughing-now-marco-rubio-mocks-new-york-times-article-on-his-finances> // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – June 12, 2015 * Florida Senator Marco Rubio joked with Republican bigwigs Friday about a recent New York Times article about his past financial struggles, which mentioned that he once spent $80,000 dollars on a "luxury speedboat." Rubio has disputed that description and he turned it into a joke into before a Utah gathering hosted by Mitt Romney. "My wife and I have been blessed," Rubio deadpanned. "We've even been able to buy a luxury speedboat, cleverly disguised as a family fishing boat." The wisecrack won applause and laughter from the crowd. "The latest attack by the New York Times and others," Rubio contended, "is that I'm not rich enough to be president." That story—along with another article the Times ran several days earlier about traffic tickets accrued by Rubio and his wife—has been a boon to the senator's presidential bid, people close to him say. His campaign has been fundraising off the news pieces, and he even gained some sympathy from comedian Jon Stewart. In Utah, the Floridian took a swipe at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton over her own finances: "I do not have a family foundation that has raised $2 billion, some of it from foreign entities." In a half-hour speech speech followed by a question-and-answer session, Rubio spoke of everything from the economy and domestic politics to foreign policy. He called Vladimir Putin "evil." And in a signature line, the 44-year-old lawmaker lamented that the United States remains "plagued by leaders who are trapped in the past." The son of Cuban immigrants also reiterated his position to reform immigration sequentially, starting with tougher enforcement and bringing illegal immigration "under control." More broadly, he said his party cannot be seen as antagonistic toward Hispanics when asked about immigration and the Latino vote. "When you think someone doesn't care about people like you it's hard to listen to anything else they're saying," he said. "So we have to confront that." Rubio said Republicans should have a plan for the millions of Americans—including in his home state of Florida—who might lose health insurance subsidies if the Supreme Court invalidates that portion of President Barack Obama's signature health care law later this month. "I'm not sure we've arrived at a consensus yet," he said, stopping short of endorsing specific proposals for those affected. Republican leaders insist they're prepared to act. A Senate colleague and presidential rival, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, talking to reporters at the Utah event, made a similar point. "We have an obligation as a party to not just complain but to work with the president if he'll work with us," Graham said. "What do you do with people with subsidies? "I want to make sure there's a meaningful transition here so they're not left out in the cold," he added. *Everybody is flipping out over The New York Times' 'attacks' on Marco Rubio <http://www.businessinsider.com/everybody-is-flipping-out-over-nyts-attacks-on-marco-rubio-2015-6#ixzz3cu4UGgDM> // Business Insider // Colin Campbell – June 12, 2015 * The New York Times' scrutiny of Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Florida) past is stirring up controversy on the presidential campaign trail. Fox News and the conservative-leaning media have been covering the paper's stories on Rubio relentlessly. Other GOP presidential candidates have been pressed to weigh in. And Rubio himself appears to be milking the issue for all its worth. Many of these conservatives criticized The Times for allegedly being too aggressive in two recent stories examining Rubio's record. One report last week revealed the traffic violations he and his wife received. Earlier this week, the other report documented his risky personal-finance decisions, including the purchase of three homes and an $80,000 boat while reportedly not having enough cash to balance the liabilities. Fox's Sean Hannity devoted two segments of his Thursday night show to skewering the articles — with the full participation of Rubio's presidential campaign. "We take these attacks very seriously — as we need to. Clearly, The New York Times has an agenda here," Rubio's communications director, Alex Conant, declared on the show. Conant also fired off a press release on Tuesday slamming the "elitist" newspaper and arguing that the senator's finances are actually quite sound. Hannity's other segment on the topic featured Robin Leach, the former host of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous," doing a dramatic reading of the second Times article in order to mock the idea that Rubio lives a luxurious life. Of course, Republicans slamming The Times is nothing new. Its left-leaning editorial board and headquarters in heavily Democratic New York City have long made it a favorite target for GOP presidential candidates, some of whom have questionably claimed they don't even read the prominent paper. However, the backlash over the Rubio articles has been notably intense. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), a rival presidential candidate, called the stories "petty." Storms of critics have blasted the newspaper on social media and right-leaning news outlets have run story after story questioning the reporting. Even "The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart, who leans left, torched the reports this week. As many observers have noted, all the attention benefits Rubio's White House ambitions by rallying conservatives around his cause and advertising his relatively relatable background. Rubio's campaign clearly agrees. His team has released multiple fundraising messages about The Times' stories and claimed earlier this week that they raised $100,000 in five days because of the reports. Two of the fundraising emails featured "#RubioCrimeSpree" in their subject lines in order to make fun of Rubio's four traffic violations since 1997. Rubio himself signed an email Friday morning continuing to raise money off The Times. "Like millions of Americans, I had to take out student loans to pay for college and law school, and only paid them off recently. But the biggest debt I have is to America," he wrote. "Look, I know these attacks are part of running for president, but the fact remains that we can’t rely on the media to tell our campaign’s story. And that’s why I need your help." For its part, The Times' Washington bureau chief, Carolyn Ryan, previously defended the paper's scrutiny of Rubio as part of how it approaches all presidential candidates. "The vote for president is the most personal vote that Americans cast," she told The Washington Post after the traffic-ticket story. "Voters want to know about these candidates — not just as policy-makers, but as people. It is not at all unusual or unexpected for us to scrutinize candidates' backgrounds and their lives through public records." Robin Leach's segment on Hannity's show can be viewed below: *PAUL* *Rand Paul doesn’t run with the herd <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-doesnt-run-with-the-herd-118951.html> // Politico // Kyle Cheney – June 12, 2015 * It’s practically a campaign-trail cliché: An Iowa interest group or deep-pocketed donor demands an audience of presidential contenders, and the candidates dutifully answer the call, flocking to assorted pig roasts or single-issue summits to test their messages and shake hands with potential supporters. But not Rand Paul. The Kentucky Republican was noticeably absent from last week’s so-called Roast and Ride, a rollicking get-together hosted by Paul’s colleague, Sen. Joni Ernst, in Iowa. He turned down an invitation to former Gov. Mitt Romney’s gathering of presidential candidates in Utah this weekend in favor of a swing through Southern California. He skipped last month’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City (and his PATRIOT Act filibuster kept several other senators from attending as well). Earlier this year, he also took a pass on a prominent Iowa agriculture summit and a gathering of White House wannabes hosted by Iowa Rep. Steve King. While Paul’s rivals for the Republican nomination have ricocheted from one high-profile Iowa gathering to the next, Paul’s been mounting a quieter series of solo events, skipping the impersonal cattle calls to burnish his image as a man untethered from conventional campaigning. To his critics, it’s a risky strategy that could turn off activists he’ll need in January. “Sen. Paul needs to do something his dad never could, and that’s grow his base of support,” said Tim Albrecht, a Republican strategist and former aide to Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, referencing former Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s three presidential bids. “Ignoring traditional Republicans is not a particularly effective tactic in Iowa, and if he hopes to be successful here, he’s got to engage the grass roots beyond his father’s loyal sycophants.” But Paul’s campaign is emphatic: Paul’s not against cattle calls — he attended New Hampshire’s First in the Nation Summit in April and is still considering attending the Family Leader’s July 18 summit in Iowa — but the less he shares a stage with his rivals, the more it bolsters his image as an atypical Republican who’s ready to engage segments of the GOP electorate that have long been overlooked. “While some candidates are limited to group-style events, Sen. Paul is able to engage communities outside of traditional Republican comfort zones,” said campaign spokesman Sergio Gor. “He’s in early states on a weekly basis, but he’s also working on expanding the GOP by showing up in places like UC Berkeley, Detroit and Silicon Valley.” To some operatives, Paul’s decision to skip big gatherings suggests he’s posturing like a front-runner. “Candidates that consider themselves as front-runners often do that because they don’t want to share the stage with candidates of a lesser stature,” said one veteran New Hampshire operative. “In a state like Iowa — Iowa has a lot of cattle calls. In a state like New Hampshire, we don’t have many … It’s always good to make your own news but at the same time, you need to pay respect to the activists.” In fact, during Ernst’s event, Paul was traveling in New Hampshire, a three-day swing that followed his efforts in the Senate to block the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. But much of his travel has taken him to states that play a minimal role in selecting the Republican nominee. While his opponents have congregated at large events, Paul has opted to parachute into often-ignored communities like Irvine, California, and Windsor Mill, Maryland, where Republican audiences are unaccustomed to the presidential campaign treatment. Paul hinted at his calculus on Tuesday, when he addressed the Baltimore County Republican Party — a group that readily admitted being overlooked by other Republican candidates. “You showed me you can win in Maryland,” Paul said, referencing last year’s election of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. “I think we can win across the country when we become a bigger, more diverse, more inclusive party.” His gesture was clearly reciprocated by an enthusiastic crowd. “He’s showing up in places where the Republican Party, let’s be honest, we haven’t done a very good job,” said Dan Bongino, who introduced Paul at the event. It’s not that Paul isn’t deeply aware of the importance of the early states — in fact he may need strong finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire to justify a continued campaign. But appealing to Republicans in blue states and forgotten corners is about a larger strategy of proving his electability in the general election, supporters say, a trait that could influence Iowans. Steve Sukup, a prominent Iowa supporter of Paul, guessed that a third of Iowa voters will pick a candidate based on electability. “For the third of the Republicans that want somebody who can win in November ’16, showing that you’re willing to get the independent votes and a portion of the swing Democrats — he could do well,” Sukup said. Sukup said the senator has made up for skipping the big Republican cattle calls with a frenetic schedule of solo events, like an appearance in Davenport with Sen. Chuck Grassley earlier this month. ”The philosophy is to target your audiences, and ones that want to come hear you, those are the ones who you want to solidify for the caucus,” he said. “I think he has a very specific message, and I think it’s going to resonate with enough Iowans that he can bring them to his events instead of doing the mix and match.” Even Paul’s critics aren’t sure his unorthodox campaign hurts him among Iowans. “Sen. Paul is one of the most interesting creatures in the world,” said Joni Scotter, a Republican activist who said she won’t be with Paul in the primary but would support him in a general election. “Iowa’s so used to him doing that. But his supporters are the ones that count. They go along with that 100 percent. I think they find it quite intriguing.” Scotter said she suspected Paul skipped the Ernst event because it would’ve been awkward to come face to face with her so soon after he riled his Senate colleagues by blocking their version of a PATRIOT Act reauthorization. For now, Paul’s unusual schedule doesn’t appear to be costing him. He still clocks in near the top of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s got a built-in base of libertarian-tinged support loyal to his father and has spent much of his time trying to reach young minority voters who he’s argued have largely been poorly served by Democrats and overlooked by Republicans. But the early-state power brokers are watching. Branstad, through a spokesman, hinted that candidates who eschew prominent gatherings in his state do so at their own peril. “When meeting with candidates, the governor and [lieutenant] governor encourage them to attend as many of the major Iowa gatherings as possible,” said Branstad spokesman Jimmy Centers. “We’ve seen from events like the Republican Party of Iowa’s Lincoln Dinner or U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst’s Roast and Ride that these gatherings afford candidates the opportunity to meet with hundreds of Iowans in one place.” *Rand Paul returns to California's conservative corridors to court donors <http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-southern-california-20150612-story.html> // LA Times // Kurtis Lee – June 12, 2015 * Often, presidential candidates venture to California for a single purpose: to raise campaign cash. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is no exception. He traveled immediately in the days after his April campaign kickoff to a state that serves primarily as the ATM for national political campaigns, and he returned Friday both for fundraisers and to deliver the keynote address at an annual gathering of Orange County Republicans in Irvine. He then travels to San Diego on Saturday to speak at a Lincoln Day Dinner. "He’s the kind of person whose message resonates with the entire state," Eric Beach, Paul's campaign finance chairman, told The Times in April. Both stops this weekend are set before friendly audiences in some of the most conservative parts of the state and will give Paul opportunities to try to attract more donors. Erik Weigand, executive director of the Orange County Republican Party, said Friday's event will be attended by state and federal GOP lawmakers, such as Reps. Darrell Issa of Vista and Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel. "We reached out several months ago to all of the likely presidential candidates and Sen. Paul got back to us right away," Weigand said. "I think it shows his interest in Orange County and Republicans across the state." Paul, who has tapped himself as a "different kind of Republican," has also forged into California's Democratic strongholds more than any of the nearly dozen GOP presidential hopefuls. In the past year, he's delivered a speech at UC Berkeley and held discussions in Silicon Valley with executives from Facebook and eBay. Last month he opened an office in San Francisco in an effort to tap into the tech field and court donors who might find appeal in his libertarian leanings. In a California centric op-ed essay Paul wrote in the Washington Times two years ago, he argued that for his party to have success it must "broaden and sharpen" its message so that it "can compete everywhere, every time, for every vote — coast to coast." "Republicans reaching out to new audiences doesn’t mean being less conservative, but applying libertarian and constitutional principles where they are sorely needed on multiple issues," wrote Paul. Paul has himself looked to appeal to a wider base of voters. He's visited inner cities and college campuses, talking about issues such as reducing penalties for drug use and policing practices as he courts young and minority voters. *WALKER* *Scott Walker and the Fate of the Union <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/magazine/scott-walker-and-the-fate-of-the-union.html?partner=rss&emc=rss> // NYT // Dan Kaufman – June 12, 2015 * On his first day of work in three months, Randy Bryce asked his foreman for the next day off. He wanted to go to the Capitol in Madison, Wis., and testify against a proposed law. Bryce, a member of Milwaukee Ironworkers Local 8, was unloading truckloads of steel beams to build a warehouse near Kenosha, and he needed the job. He has an 8-year-old son, his debts were piling up and a 10-hour shift paid more than $300. But the legislation, which Republicans were rushing through the State Senate, angered him enough to sacrifice the hours. Supporters called it a “right to work” bill, because it prohibited unions from requiring employees to pay dues. But to Bryce, that appealing name hid the true purpose of the bill, which was to destroy unions. The next morning, Bryce, who is 50 and has close-­cropped black hair and a horseshoe mustache, woke up at 5:30, got dressed in his usual jeans, hoodie and Local 8 varsity jacket with an I-beam and an American flag stitched on the back and drove 90 miles to Madison in his gray Mustang. Despite the February chill, crowds had begun to gather in the square outside the Capitol. The scene was reminiscent of a similar one that played out four years earlier, in 2011, when thousands of people occupied the Capitol’s rotunda for more than two weeks to protest Act 10, a law that demolished collective-­bargaining rights for nearly all public employees. The protests in Madison were the first significant resistance to the ascendant Tea Party and helped set the stage for Occupy Wall Street. For Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, it was the moment that started his conservative ascent. “The Republican Party has a demonstrated, genuine hero and potential star in its ranks, and he is the governor of Wisconsin,” Rush Limbaugh said last year. The unions, Democrats and other perceived enemies, he continued, had “thrown everything they’ve got at Scott Walker, and he has beat them back without one syllable of complaint, without one ounce of whining. All he has done is win.” Walker is expected to announce in the next few weeks that he is entering the 2016 presidential race. Sign up to get the best of the Magazine delivered to your inbox every week, including exclusive feature stories, photography, columns and more. It is particularly bitter for Walker’s opponents that his rise has taken place in Wisconsin, a blue state with a long history of labor activism; it was the first state in the nation to grant collective-­bargaining rights to public employees, in 1959. Walker, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has won three races for governor, one a recall effort, and each time he took more than a third of the votes from union households. He was able to do this by making “labor” seem like someone else — even to union members — and pitting one faction against another. Four years ago, in a private exchange captured by a documentary filmmaker, he revealed his successful strategy to a billionaire supporter who asked him if Wisconsin would ever become a right-to-work state. Walker responded enthusiastically, explaining that Act 10 was just the beginning of a larger effort. “The first step is, we’re going to deal with collective bargaining for all public-­employee unions,” he said, “because you use divide-­and-­conquer.” At the Capitol, dozens of state troopers (who kept their bargaining rights) and Capitol police officers (who lost theirs) were now patrolling the rotunda to prevent it from being occupied again. The Senate hearing room was already packed, so Bryce watched the hearing on monitors outside while he waited for his turn to speak. First came the expert witnesses. James Sherk, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that unions operate as cartels: “They try to control the supply of labor in an industry so as to drive up its price, namely wages. But like all cartels, these gains come at the cost of greater losses to the rest of society.” Greg Mourad, a spokesman for a lobbying organization called the National Right to Work Committee, which has received significant funding from the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, compared the experience of being made to pay union dues to being kidnapped and extorted. Gordon Lafer, a political scientist at the University of Oregon, noted on the other hand that while right-to-work laws in other states had generated no identifiable economic gains, they did drive down wages for union and nonunion workers alike. Ordinary citizens got their chance to speak in the afternoon. Nearly all of them opposed the bill. A crane operator cited statistics showing that workers in right-to-work states are killed on the job more frequently. “Are you prepared to be accountable for the deaths that being a right-to-work state can create?” he asked. Anthony Anastasi, the president of Ironworkers Local 383, broke down in tears as he pleaded to the legislators, “Please think about the families that will be impacted by this.” At 6 p.m., Bryce’s name finally appeared on the list of coming speakers. He paced the hallway outside the hearing room in anticipation. But 20 minutes later, Stephen Nass, the Republican senator who is the chairman of the Labor and Government Reform Committee, announced that there was a “credible threat of disruption” and that the hearing would be adjourned so the committee could vote to move the bill forward (it passed). A labor organizer, it turned out, had told The Milwaukee Journal ­Sentinel that some people planned to stand up in protest at 7 p.m., when testimony was to be cut off. (“I went through Act 10 — it was ugly,” Nass said earlier in the hearing, referring to the difficulty some senators experienced reaching various parts of the Capitol after the rotunda was occupied. “We had to go through a tunnel like rats. We don’t want to go through that again.”) About a hundred people were still in line to testify. A chant of “Let us speak” erupted. But Nass quickly took the committee members’ votes and was then escorted out, with his two Republican colleagues, by a phalanx of state troopers. Bryce still wanted to speak. He had lost a day’s wages, and the committee’s two Democratic senators had remained to hear more testimony. State troopers were now blocking the door to the hearing room, though, so he decided to address a group of protesters in the hallway outside instead. “My name is Randy Bryce,” he began in a loud voice. “I’ve been a member of Ironworkers Local 8 since 1997. I’ve had the privilege in that time to work on many of Wisconsin’s landmarks, private businesses and numerous other parts of our infrastructure.” As he spoke, the protesters began to quiet. Bryce described how he had wandered from job to job after he left the Army, how Local 8’s apprenticeship program had given him direction, a real career. Finally, he presented the case against what he called “a blatant political attack” on his union. “All of our representatives are elected,” he said. “All of the decisions that we make are voted on. The general membership is given monthly reports on how every dime is spent. Every dime spent is voted on. Unlike what is taking place this week, Ironworkers Local 8 is pure democracy. I am disappointed beyond words at not just what this bill contains, but how it is being passed.” Two days later, just after the full Senate approved the bill that would make Wisconsin the 25th right-to-work state, Scott Walker was in Maryland, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual showcase for conservative activists and Republican presidential hopefuls. At a question-­and-­answer session, one attendee asked Walker how he, as president, would confront the threat from radical Islamist groups like ISIS. Walker’s answer was simple, and may in the end define his candidacy. “If I can take on 100,000 protesters,” he said, “I can do the same across the world.” At the foot of a hill in Bay View, a quiet Milwaukee neighborhood near Lake Michigan, stand seven pear trees. In front of them is a small wooden plaque that recounts the events of May 5, 1886, when some 1,500 workers, most of them Polish immigrants, marched on the Rolling Mills iron plant. The Milwaukee Iron Company built the plant and the neighborhood where its employees lived, and it demanded in return that they work as many as 16 hours a day, six days a week. A citywide strike for an eight-hour day and better working conditions had shut down every large factory in Milwaukee except Rolling Mills, and as the marchers began climbing the hill toward this last holdout, members of the Wisconsin National Guard fired down on them. They killed seven people, including a 13-year-old boy. Jeremiah Rusk, the governor of Wisconsin, had given the order. “I seen my duty, and I done it,” he later said. At the time he thought he might become president, but in the end he never ran. Until 1986, when the Wisconsin Labor History Society began holding an annual commemoration, the Bay View Massacre was largely forgotten. In 1996, the society planted the pear trees, one for each person killed. Many of the great labor battles that followed the Bay View Massacre — Pittsburgh’s Homestead Strike of 1892; Colorado’s Ludlow Massacre of 1914 — also ended in violent defeat for the workers. Yet the defeats, in their very brutality, also forged a sense of solidarity that eventually produced great labor victories, including the eight-hour workday, enshrined into federal law during the Depression, and the passage of the 1935 Wagner Act, which guaranteed the right to strike and remains labor’s greatest means of leverage. That same year, the American Federation of Labor fully chartered A. Philip Randolph’s Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, a black union. From 1935 to 1947, union membership in the United States quadrupled, from 3.5 million workers to nearly 15 million workers, fueled by the pro-­union policies of the New Deal and a labor shortage during World War II. By the mid-’50s, more than a third of American workers belonged to a union. In 1941, when the movement was still ascending, William Ruggles, a 40-year-old editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, coined the slogan “right to work.” Ruggles was alarmed by the growing strength of the labor movement, which in his view was intent on forcing all workers into unions. He proposed a constitutional amendment that would prohibit workers from having to pay dues to a union in order to hold a job in a “union shop.” “If the country does not want it, let us say so,” he wrote. “If we do want it, adopt it and maintain forever the right to work of every American.” The day after the editorial was printed, a Houston political activist named Vance Muse called Ruggles to ask permission for his organization, the Christian American Association, to pursue the proposal. Ruggles agreed and suggested to Muse that he call it a “Right to Work Amendment.” Muse, an avowed racist — he told a United States Senate committee in 1936, “I am a Southerner and for white supremacy” — held a special animus toward unions, which he believed fostered race-­mixing. In “Southern Exposure,” a 1946 book about racism in the South, the muckraking journalist Stetson Kennedy quoted Muse’s pitch on the need for right-to-work, in which he said: “White women and white men will be forced into organizations with black African apes, whom they will have to call ‘brother’ or lose their jobs.” But Muse was also an effective fund-­raiser — he received support from General Motors and the du Pont family, among others — and lobbyist. In 1944, the Christian American Association sponsored the amendment that made Arkansas one of the country’s first right-to-work states. By 1947, 10 more states, most of them in the South, had become right-to-work, embodying the growing national backlash against labor brought on by the Red Scare. That same year, over President Harry Truman’s veto, Congress passed the Taft-­Hartley Act, which undercut the Wagner Act by placing numerous restrictions on unions, among them a clause granting states the power to become right-to-work. Muse died in 1950, but his campaign had already been taken over by more mainstream proponents. In 1955, Fred Hartley, the former congressman from New Jersey who helped draft Taft-­Hartley, founded the National Right to Work Committee. Three years later, Kansas legislators, with the enthusiastic support of the oil magnate Fred Koch, David and Charles Koch’s father, adopted a right-to-work amendment. By 1963, 19 states were right-to-work. Since then, six more have adopted the measure, including, in the past three years, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. As state legislatures chipped away at unions, other forces were also at work. Some union bosses turned corrupt. Manufacturers began pursuing cheaper labor overseas. Automated systems replaced skilled workers in industry after industry. And some politicians saw a chance to show that they were not beholden to “special interests.” In the fall of 1980, Ronald Reagan, then a Republican presidential candidate, sent a letter to Robert Poli, the president of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, seeking the endorsement of the union, many of whose members were military veterans and socially conservative. “You can rest assured,” Reagan wrote, “that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and workdays so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety.” The union gave Reagan its endorsement. Eight months later, after contract negotiations with the Federal Aviation Administration failed, the members of the union voted to strike, violating an oath signed by federal employees. Reagan was unsympathetic. After 48 hours, he invoked a provision of Taft-­Hartley and not only fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers, but also had them permanently replaced. The union’s strike fund was frozen, many of its local leaders were imprisoned and, until 1993, the former strikers were banned from the Civil Service. Since Reagan broke that union, the number of large-scale strikes begun in a given year in the United States has fallen to 11 (last year) from 145 (in 1981). In 2014, only 11 percent of all American workers and 7 percent of private-­sector workers belonged to a union. The night before Walker announced his plans for Act 10 to the public, he gathered his cabinet in the governor’s mansion for a private dinner and a pep talk. During the dinner, Walker stood up and held aloft a picture of Reagan. He singled out the firing of the air traffic controllers as “one of the most defining moments” of Reagan’s political career — a moment, he said, that “was the first crack in the Berlin Wall.” Randy Bryce wasn’t always a labor activist. He grew up in Milwaukee’s “policeman’s ghetto,” a working-­class neighborhood on the city’s southwestern edge. His father was a beat cop, his mother a doctor’s secretary. In 1983, Bryce enlisted in the Army so he could pay for college and was stationed for a year at Soto Cano air base in Honduras, then a launching point for American covert operations in Nicaragua and El Salvador. “My dad was conservative,” Bryce said. “When I was in the Army, I was, too. I was into Reagan, but it was more America first, U.S.A., U.S.A.” After his discharge, Bryce briefly attended the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, but was found to have testicular cancer and dropped out to receive treatment. He lucked into an experimental trial at a medical college that cured him and eventually landed a job assisting homeless veterans. “I remember talking to a vet,” he said. “He was an atomic warrior in the Cold War, and he showed me his back. It looked like someone poured acid on it.” The government wouldn’t help the man, Bryce said, because he was unable to prove that the injury was caused by exposure to an atomic test. “It couldn’t have been made more clear to me that vets were disposable resources,” he said. Bryce heard about Local 8’s apprenticeship program from a patient in his mother’s office. After completing his four-year ironworker’s apprenticeship, he became more involved in the union. Since Act 10 passed in 2011, he has run unsuccessfully for State Senate and State Assembly and now serves as Local 8’s political coordinator. After protesting the passage of right-to-work laws in Indiana and Michigan, Bryce began a grass-roots organizing campaign against the bill in Wisconsin. In southeastern Wisconsin, union ironworkers earn $55 an hour and receive $33 of that in pretax income. (The difference goes to funding their pensions, health care and training.) The pretax pay for a unionized ironworker in Iowa, a right-to-work state since 1947, tops out at $26 an hour. In Texas, also a right-to-work state since 1947, the sole ironworkers’ local offers pretax wages of $18 an hour. Nonunion workers in the state doing the same job make about $8 an hour. “A mile of U.S. highway in Texas costs close to the same as it does in Wisconsin, certainly not less than half,” Colin Millard, an organizer for the Iron Workers International Union, told me. “So it is only a question of who makes the money — the workers or the owners.” Ironwork is a dangerous job. It has the sixth-highest fatality rate in the country, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. A 2011 University of Michigan study concluded that the fatality rate in construction trades was 40 percent higher in right-to-work states. Local 8 offers a four-year training program that requires more than 7,000 hours of combined classroom and on-the-job study. Even many right-to-work proponents single out the building trades’ training programs, like Local 8’s, as exemplary. That is one reason many Wisconsin business owners, who might be expected to cheer the demise of unions and welcome cheaper labor costs, have not done so. Contractors rely on the unions to certify and drug-test workers and keep their workers current on new technologies and job skills. Collectively, Wisconsin’s trade unions contributed more than $30 million last year to training programs. Bill Kennedy, the president of Rock Road Companies, a family-­owned asphalt-­paving operation with headquarters in Janesville, Wis., flew back early from a Florida business trip to testify against the right-to-work bill at the same Senate hearing where Bryce tried to speak. Kennedy also helps run the Wisconsin Contractors Coalition, an organization of business owners whose positions on labor issues counter those of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the most powerful statewide business lobby, which has pushed hard for right-to-work. Within a few months of its founding in 2014, Kennedy’s coalition attracted nearly 450 like-minded businesses that collectively employ some 120,000 people. Like many of the group’s members, Kennedy voted for Walker and contributed to each of his campaigns. “There’s this misguided myth that unions and management don’t get along,” Kennedy told me the day after the hearing. Rock Road was founded in 1913 by Kennedy’s grandfather. It was a hauling business until the Depression, when it began bidding on government-­funded projects like railroad beds and town roads. At its summertime peak, Kennedy’s company employs about 150 workers. His opposition to right-to-work is rooted in pragmatism. “It’s a business bottom-­line issue,” he said. “Right-to-work is going to compromise my quality, my competitiveness. The unions are my partner. They’re almost like a screening agency.” Kennedy’s greatest fear is that right-to-work will undermine the unions’ contribution, and eventually the quality and skills of his employees. “This is a working system,” he said. “I have never understood this right-to-work agenda.” Even when he was attacking public unions for robbing the taxpayers of Wisconsin, Walker consistently praised private-­sector unions, particularly those in the construction trades, calling them “my partners in economic development.” During his first term, many of those unions, including Local 8, backed Walker’s effort to rewrite the state’s environmental law so that an enormous iron-­ore mine could be built in a pristine section of northern Wisconsin, a few miles from a Chippewa Indian reservation. The mine, which was never built, was fiercely opposed by Native American tribes and conservationists, but the mining company promised to deliver hundreds of union jobs, creating a split in Walker’s broad-­based opposition. In 2010, Terry McGowan, the president of Local 139, a statewide union of 9,000 heavy-­machinery operators, endorsed Walker, because he had promised to increase highway funding and build more roads. McGowan supported him again last year, but since then, he has come to reconsider. Testifying at a right-to-work State Assembly hearing in February, McGowan’s voice cracked as he described the death, three days earlier, of Ryan Calkins, a 33-year-old union operating engineer who got caught in a drilling rig while working on a highway interchange in Milwaukee. “Remember that name — Ryan Calkins — because he will just be a little blurb in the newspaper,” McGowan told the legislators. Five hours after Calkins was killed, McGowan said, he received a call from a lawyer for Calkins’s employer; it needed someone who knew how to operate the specialized drill to help remove the mutilated body. McGowan sent one of his union members, who had trained at Local 139’s facility in central Wisconsin. “Now we’re talking about possibly taking training and safety away from our industry?” McGowan asked in disbelief. A few days after McGowan testified, I went to see him at Local 139’s impressive new glass-and-steel union hall in wealthy suburban Waukesha County, a stronghold of support for Walker. McGowan greeted me warmly, but I could see he was still shaken by Calkins’s death. “I gained a lot of respect for the guy that I called, because he made it very obvious he didn’t want to do it,” McGowan said. “But he said he was not going to allow a fellow operating engineer to sit wrapped around that drill bit in that weather and freeze solid. You could hear his family in the background. I’m sure he was looking at his wife and kids while I was talking to him.” In his testimony, McGowan described his members as “beer-­drinking, gun-­toting, pickup-­driving rednecks” and reminded legislators that many of his workers are politically conservative and usually vote Republican. Local 139’s special relationship to Republican politicians was made clear when Scott Fitzgerald, the State Senate majority leader and the sponsor of the right-to-work bill, floated the idea of exempting McGowan’s union, along with a few others. “One side of the aisle likes the work we do, but not our organization, while the other side likes our organization, but not what we do,” McGowan told me. He had lobbied heavily on behalf of the iron-ore mine. “I was surprised that the United Steelworkers fought the mine so hard, when the mine would have used their equipment. The mine became political, and a lot of the unions that opposed it; they did it so that Walker couldn’t get a victory out of it. My thinking was: jobs.” Fidgeting behind his desk, McGowan rubbed his bald scalp and half-­smiled. “I sort of trusted the guy,” he said, recalling his 2010 endorsement of Walker. “I took some bullets at the time from the other unions.” When Walker’s “divide and conquer” video was released in 2012, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked McGowan about the governor’s remarks. McGowan told the paper that the phrase “divide and conquer” troubled him. “It means turning worker against worker,” he said. Last fall, McGowan met with Walker, who was seeking a contribution and another endorsement for governor, at a small campaign office in Wauwatosa, outside Milwaukee. “I looked across the table at him, and I said, ‘We are both God-­fearing men,’ ” McGowan told me. “ ‘If you can tell me that right-to-work will not come on your desk, then I will take you for your word.’ He looked me in the eyes, and he said, ‘It will not make it to my desk.’ He was looking for a contribution, and I was looking for a commitment. We both got what we came for. He kept his, and I lost mine.” In 1956, the Republican Party platform declared: “The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower administration.” President Richard Nixon enthusiastically courted the white “hard-hat vote,” winning a majority of union households in the 1972 election. During a news conference announcing the replacement of the air traffic controllers, Reagan boasted of his union bona fides as a lifelong member of the A.F.L.-­C.I.O. who led the Screen Actors Guild in its first-­ever strike. Walker’s own consistent praise for private unions appears, with the passage of right-to-work, to have come to an end, and with it any sense that his party must even pretend to support labor. Many union leaders worry that if Walker is elected president, Congress could pass a national right-to-work bill. In January, Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, introduced such a bill in the House; it now has 98 co-­sponsors. In February, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, sponsored a similar bill, which now has co-­sponsors in Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and 15 other Republicans. In this sense, passing Act 10 was a kind of audition for Walker. “If we can do it in Wisconsin, we can do it anywhere — even in our nation’s capital,” he wrote in his 2013 book, “Unintimidated.” The origins of Wisconsin’s right-to-work bill, meanwhile, showed whom he might have been trying to impress. As revealed by the Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog organization based in Madison, Wisconsin’s law was a virtual copy of a 1995 model bill promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization based in Arlington, Va., that disseminates model legislation for a consortium of corporations and conservative private backers, including the Koch brothers. A law with language that closely tracks that model bill was enacted in Michigan in 2012. Similarly worded proposals were introduced this year in Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and West Virginia, but they failed to advance. Missouri’s right-to-work bill, which was also more or less identical to the model bill, passed both houses this year, only to be vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, early this month. A few weeks after signing the right-to-work bill, Walker gave a private talk in New York to a group of powerful Republican donors that included David Koch. Koch later told reporters that he believes that Walker will be the eventual Republican presidential nominee. “I thought he had a great message,” Koch said after the meeting to a reporter for The New York Observer. “Scott Walker is a tremendous candidate.” But if Wisconsin is a model for what Walker might achieve nationally, it is worth examining his results so far. Walker credits Act 10 in part for the decline in Wisconsin’s unemployment rate since he took office in 2011 and has said he considers right-to-work “one more arrow in that quiver” for the creation of jobs. But since 2011, the state has fallen to 40th out of the 50 states in job growth and 42nd in wage growth, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics dataconducted by The Capital Times of Wisconsin. Act 10, officially called the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill, was supposed to fix persistent budget shortfalls by lowering labor costs and eliminating union rules. But Wisconsin’s two-year projected budget deficit has actually increased; in May, the Legislature approved a $250 million cut to the state’s prized university system to help close the gap. Wisconsin is now among the top 10 states people move out of. Right-to-work bills like Walker’s have also had negative consequences. When Michigan implemented a similar law in 2013, 16.3 percent of its workers belonged to a union; within a year, the percentage dropped to 14.5. That may not seem like a precipitous decline, but the loss erodes the collective-­bargaining power of the unions and will almost certainly be reflected in lower wages across the board, as it has been in other states that have passed similar laws. In a New York Times Op-Ed article, Lawrence Mishel, the president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, called the decline of union bargaining power in the United States “the single largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-­wage workers over the last few decades.” And a recent study by two economists for the International Monetary Fund connected the decline in union membership in advanced economies to the overall rise of income inequality. It is not just pushing down the wages of the working class, they wrote; it is also increasing the incomes of the wealthiest 10 percent. Wisconsin legislators are now considering repealing the state’s prevailing-wage law, a Depression-­era law requiring public construction projects to pay the going wage in a given area as determined by a survey of local employers. In places with high union membership, the union wage becomes the standard, which then raises the scale for nonunion workers. Like right-to-work, the prevailing-­wage bill is being promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council in states across the country; measures rolling it back recently passed in West Virginia and Nevada. Walker has said that repealing the prevailing-­wage law is not “a priority” — a phrase he also used about the right-to-work bill — but in May, he promised to sign such a bill if it reached his desk. In early March, I visited Dave Poklinkoski, the president of Local 2304, an electricians’ union, at his office in Madison, where he was drawing up a right-to-work-­compliant union contract. “Divide and conquer, it works,” Poklinkoski said. “It works real well.” He dug out his iPad from under a pile of papers and pulled up an editorial cartoon by Mike Konopacki that showed a bloodied Terry McGowan, the Local 139 president, with a sword in his back, the hilt and handle in the shape of Walker’s head, labeled “R-T-W.” It didn’t matter if everyone knew that Walker had broken a promise to a union leader, because now it was clear, at least in Wisconsin, that Walker no longer needed labor. “Wisconsin has become a kind of laboratory for oligarchs to implement their political and economic agenda,” Poklinkoski said. “We’re small enough that they can carry it out. Can they carry it out on the national level? We’ll find out.” Two weeks after Walker signed the right-to-work bill, Local 8 held a monthly meeting in its union hall just outside Milwaukee. On the way there, I drove past Miller Park, the Milwaukee Brewers’ stadium, which Bryce worked on in 2000, during the final phase of its construction. It was the project he was most proud of. From the Interstate, I could see the elaborate arched ironwork crowning the stadium’s top. It reminded me of a photograph I had glimpsed on the wall of Bryce’s home showing him and two other ironworkers decking the top of the stadium. They looked tiny in the far distance, but you could tell how strong the wind was from the way a tarp was blowing. Bryce’s grandfather, Eugene, had taken the photo. He used to drive by the stadium several times a week, because he loved watching Bryce work. It was difficult to see Bryce and his co-­workers, 350 feet in the air and bracing against the wind, as members of a cartel, as the Heritage Foundation economist had described unions in his Senate testimony. Miller Park had claimed the lives of three Local 8 ironworkers, who fell 300 feet to their deaths when a giant crane collapsed into the stadium on a fiercely windy day. Bryce arrived at the Local 8 meeting straight from work, wearing mud-­caked overalls. He walked into the office to pay his $53 in monthly dues and then chatted with a few other ironworkers before wandering into the meeting hall. After the men recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the recording secretary read the minutes from the previous month’s meeting, the executive board began a series of briefings: the prospects for building a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the restructuring of the local’s dental plans, what happened at the annual conference of the international union in Las Vegas. Last on the agenda was Bryce’s political report. He stood up and started talking. He told the union workers about being locked out of the Senate hearing. He told them about the next day, when he went back to protest and was thrown out of the Senate debate for shouting, “This bill is turning Wisconsin into a banana republic.” He talked about his organizing trips in anticipation of right-to-work and the dispiritingly small crowds at the rallies. He implored Local 8’s members to become more active and not to think of themselves as elite tradesmen whose concerns were distinct from those of other workers and other movements. “Unions are not separate from the community,” he said. “We build the community. Yet you’re seen as the enemy, the reason people are broke. We have to stop this union-­versus-­nonunion mentality.” After the meeting, Bryce headed out to the parking lot. There had been some defeats, he acknowledged, but he still saw the attacks on unions as an opportunity to build solidarity. “At last month’s meeting, I talked about how the only way to fight back is to stage a massive general strike,” he said. “It doesn’t need to be that, but we do need to build ourselves up to a strength where theyfear that. Now they’re not afraid of anything, because we haven’t done anything to fight back.” Bryce blamed the timidity of both union leaders and the rank-­and-­file, as much as the Republicans, for allowing Act 10 and right-to-work to become law. “People think that unions are useless today, that we’re dinosaurs,” he said. “Well, how did that happen? We let it happen. The labor movement has become lazy, because it’s something that’s been handed to us.” He leaned against his Mustang and stared out into the industrial landscape surrounding the parking lot. “A lot of guys in our local didn’t see Act 10 as being important for ironworkers,” Bryce said, because it targeted public employees. “I would ask them, how can you say there are good unions and bad unions? It’s an idea that they’re trying to kill — it’s not the union itself. This is the strategy they’re using to do it. They’re splitting everything up. They’re going after them first, then it’s going to be somebody else. Then they’re going to get to us too.” *Scott Walker hardens abortion stance ahead of his likely White House bid <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ahead-of-2016-bid-scott-walker-pushes-abortion-restrictions/2015/06/11/098c6512-0f84-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html> // WaPo // Jenna Johnson – June 12, 2015 * It came out of nowhere: an open letter from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker declaring his support for a ban on abortions once pregnancies reach 20 weeks. The missive delighted antiabortion activists in the state — and set off a scramble in the State Capitol here because no such legislation had actually been introduced. The restrictions, approved this week by the state Senate and likely to be passed by the Republican-dominated state Assembly, underscore the extent to which Walker — who has not yet announced his candidacy — is positioning himself to be the most fervent antiabortion candidate in the Republican field of presidential hopefuls. The stance could help Walker win votes in conservative early-voting states, especially those with large numbers of evangelical Christian voters. But others are competing for those voters as well, including his main rivals of the moment, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Walker is opposed to abortion in all cases — including when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest — and he has received near-perfect ratings from antiabortion activist groups. As governor, Walker forced five health-care centers to close after stripping Planned Parenthood of funding, and he signed a law that required ultrasounds for women before they have an abortion. Proponents of abortion rights have declared Walker’s record on the issue one of the most “dangerous” and “extreme” they have seen. But Walker has an unexpected problem: Despite his record, he seemed to soften his rhetoric on abortion during his run for reelection last year, raising suspicions among some antiabortion activists that he wasn’t necessarily with them. “I take him at his word, but it’s even more compelling to take him at his word when it’s coupled with action in his state,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a national group opposed to abortion. Dannenfelser said that for the past year she has pressured potential 2016 contenders to publicly support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, and shetracks their positions on her group’s Web site. Former Texas governor Rick Perry (R) signed a 20-week abortion ban into law in 2013, while Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) introduced federal legislation that attracted statements of support from Bush, Rubio and five other Republicans who are declared or likely 2016 candidates. Earlier this year, Dannenfelser criticized Walker for not joining in. In early March, Walker issued the “open letter on life” posted on the Susan B. Anthony List’s Web site; the declaration came two days after he struggled to answer questions about his abortion positions clearly on “Fox News Sunday.” “I will sign that bill when it gets to my desk and support similar legislation on the federal level,” Walker wrote in the letter. “I was raised to believe in the sanctity of life and I will always fight to protect it.” As written, the Wisconsin legislation would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless a “medical emergency” occurred. Doctors who performed abortions after that point could be charged with a felony, facing up to $10,000 in fines or 3 1/2 years in prison. The parents, including the father, could also sue for damages. There are no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Walker told local reporters last week that he would sign the legislation into law with or without that exception. “I think for most people who are concerned about that, it’s in the initial months where they’re most concerned about it,” Walker said of pregnancies related to rape and incest. That comment quickly prompted criticism. “Really?” said state Sen. Lena C. Taylor, a Democrat from Milwaukee. “How does he know what goes on in the minds of pregnant women who have been raped or who have experienced incest, who are survivors? How does he know?” Democrats have also criticized Walker for defending his state’s mandated ultrasounds by gushing about seeing his son’s first ultrasounds years ago. “It’s just a cool thing out there,” he said of such photos. As a young lawmaker in the Wisconsin Assembly in the 1990s, Walker helped write and pass legislation that requires women seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours and that bans a seldom-used procedure known by opponents as “partial-birth abortion.” Walker unsuccessfully tried three times to pass legislation that would protect doctors, pharmacists and other health-care workers who refuse to engage in procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs, including performing an abortion, using stem cells or dispensing some birth-control drugs. He also tried unsuccessfully to require minors to obtain parental consent before having an abortion. In campaign-style appearances in Iowa and South Carolina, Walker has bragged about stripping Planned Parenthood of state funding while governor. Planned Parenthood officials say the funding went to non-abortion services such as cancer screenings and providing birth control and that the cut forced them to close five health centers in rural areas that do not perform abortions. When Walker ran for reelection last year, Democratic opponent Mary Burke slammed his record on women’s health issues. Walker avoided discussing abortion and declined to complete a Pro-Life Wisconsin survey, forfeiting the group’s endorsement. As he lagged in the polls, his campaign released an ad that defended the ultrasound law but also gave some the impression that he supported leaving abortion decisions to women and their doctors. “He sees the polling that we see, and he knows that it’s not popular to say you want to ban abortion in Wisconsin,” said Nicole Safar, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin’s policy director. Now that Walker might compete for the Republican nomination, he is touting his record. A clear majority of Republicans are opposed to abortion in most cases and express support for a variety of restrictions, including bans after 20 weeks into a pregnancy. Evangelical Christians are among the most opposed, and they made up 57 percent of GOP caucus-goers in Iowa in 2012 and half of all GOP primary voters in states where exit polls are available. Walker steps into less popular territory in espousing absolute opposition to abortion. For example, a large majority of Americans say a woman should be able to get an abortion if the pregnancy is a result of rape. When asked last weekend why he opposes abortion in all cases, Walker simply stated that he’s pro-life — and then went after Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for favoring fewer restrictions on abortion. “Which I think,” he said, “puts her squarely out of touch of where most Americans are at.” Scott Walker: 'I Ran Against a Woman' and Won - Bloomberg Politics // Bloomberg // Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on Friday offered up a not-so-subtle suggestion that he has what it takes to beat Hillary Clinton, recalling the time he "ran against a woman." Speaking to donors at Mitt Romney's E2 Summit in Utah, Walker pointed to his re-election victory in November 2014 against Democrat Mary Burke, and suggested that it's "quite offensive" for Democrats to suggest that women only care about abortion. "The women I talk to care about a whole bunch of things," he said. "I don't think the answer is to run away from your positions." "They care about making sure our schools are living up to the expectations of our children and our grandchildren. They care about making sure our sons and daughters who go to college can graduate with a degree and actually find a job," he said. "They care about being able to make decisions about their health care, instead of having the government do it through Obamacare." The governor has drawn extra attention from Democrats and abortion-rights groups this month, after saying that he'll sign legislation calling for a 20-week abortion ban in his state, even if it doesn't include an exemption for rape or incest. Walker, who is expected to join the race for the GOP nomination for president, said Republicans shouldn't shy away from their views, but that tone matters. "I don't think the answer is to run away from your positions," he said. "Just make it clear to the American people that this is where you stand." In 2016, Walker said his party should "transfer that same strategy" in trying to confront Democrats, "whether it's me or somebody else." Recently, Republican women, including presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, have also been asserting loudly that their party holds the best ideas for women and that Democrats shouldn't hold a near-monopoly on their vote because of social issues. Walker, who has in recent months taken a tougher stance on immigration, also celebrated the U.S. as a land of opportunity for immigrants, as he criticized a government that he said fosters "dependency" instead of providing opportunity. "The reason they came here was because it was one of the few places left in the world where it didn’t matter what class you were born in, it didn’t matter what your parents did for a living," he said. "In America, you can do and be anything you want." Several Republican candidates have struggled to present themselves as acceptable both to the party's primary voters, who often support deportations of immigrants, and donors, who often favor a path to legal status. Walker faced accusations of flip-flopping on immigration in March, after he dropped his support of "amnesty" for the millions of immigrants living in the country without authorization. *Citing collective bargaining law, Scott Walker says Wisconsin's rank on ACT test has risen to second <http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/jun/12/scott-walker/citing-collective-bargaining-law-scott-walker-says/> // Politifact // Tom Kertscher – June 12, 2015 * Gov. Scott Walker is a contender for president largely because of the collective bargaining reforms -- affecting teachers and most other public employees -- that he signed into law following massive protests in Madison. On June 2, 2015, at a Florida gathering of announced and likely Republican candidates for the White House, Walker credited the March 2011 law for what he said was Wisconsin's improved ranking on the ACT college preparation test. "A lot of protesters at the time claimed that public education was going to fail," Walker said, then went on to list changes made by what is known as Act 10. "I’m proud to tell you that today, we no longer have seniority or tenure. That means we can hire and fire based on merit, we can pay based on performance. That means we can put the best and the brightest in our classrooms and we can pay them to be there. "I said the proof is in the pudding; the facts don’t lie. Four years later, graduation rates are up, third-grade reading scores are up, ACT scores are now second-best in the country for states where more than half the kids take the exam." Saying Wisconsin's ACT scores are now second-best suggests Wisconsin's ranking on the test has improved since Act 10 and that the law played a role. Let's see. Where we've been Two previous fact checks help set the table for evaluating Walker's claim. 1. In February 2011, with the protests being carried out daily, the Wisconsin Democratic Party claimed that the five states that outlaw collective bargaining for teachers all ranked below 44th in the nation in test scores, while Wisconsin ranked second. PolitiFact National rated the claim False, partly because the data cited for both major college preparation tests -- the ACT and the SAT -- was a decade old. More importantly, in terms of evaluating Walker's claim, our colleagues concluded after talking with experts that "it’s impossible to know whether collective bargaining has any role in causing test scores to rise. That’s because countless other demographic, economic and cultural factors play a role in shaping a state’s test scores." 2. In June 2014, we rated Mostly True a Walker claim that graduation rates and third-grade reading scores in Wisconsin were higher than when he took office in January 2011. Both numbers were up compared with the year before Walker took office. But we found that some credit may be owed to prior elected officials, because the trend lines hadn’t really changed much going back deeper into the pre-Walker era. We also noted in that item that Wisconsin students’ longstanding high-achievement scores on the ACT are well known. But let's flesh them out. Here are Wisconsin’s average composite scores on the ACT, and where Wisconsin ranked among the states where more than half the students take the exam. Those are the ones Walker specifically cited in making the claim. We took a look at the three years before and the three years after 2011, when Act 10 was adopted. So, Wisconsin's rank moved from third to second in 2012, the year after Act 10 was adopted, and has remained there. But that's not because Wisconsin's long-stable composite score has improved. Indeed, the score is virtually unchanged since Act 10. Moreover, as we noted previously, there is no evidence to show how any one factor affects ACT scores -- particularly an indirect factor such as a personnel policy like Act 10. Matthew Di Carlo, senior research fellow at the Albert Shanker Institute, which studies education policy, reiterated that it would be "enormously complicated" to determine how any one factor such as socioeconomic status affects ACT scores. That's all the more true for changes in collective bargaining -- a policy that affects personnel rather than one, such as tutoring, that directly affects student learning, he said. And while Act 10 could have some indirect effects on ACT scores -- such as through the retention of teachers -- those effects couldn't be gauged for some period of years, Di Carlo said. *Our rating* Walker said that four years after his collective bargaining law took effect, ACT scores in Wisconsin "are now second-best in the country for states where more than half the kids take the exam." There is an element of truth in Walker’s statement, in that Wisconsin's rank moved from third to second in 2012, the year after the Act 10 collective bargaining reforms were adopted. But the rank didn’t improve because of an improvement in Wisconsin’s score. And there is no evidence that Act 10 affected the ranking. For a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate the claim Mostly False. *Scott Walker, Professors Clash Over Tenure in Wisconsin <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/scott-walker-gop-lawmakers-pitted-against-wisconsin-academics-in-tenure-battle> // US News // Allie Bidwell – June 12, 2015 * Tensions over tenure are running high in Wisconsin as part of a battle between government and higher education that's providing a possible preview of one White House hopeful's education platform. Wisconsin is the only state in the country where academic tenure is protected by law, but a budget plan approved by the GOP-controlled legislature's Joint Finance Committee would remove that safeguard for professors in the state university system and cut its budget by $250 million. The plan is backed by Gov. Scott Walker – who's expected to announce in the coming weeks that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination – and would shift control of the tenure policies to the university system's board of regents. Republican lawmakers have said the change is simply a shift in power, and Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said the change was part of a larger plan to give the university system more power over creating its own policies. But the proposal would also greatly expand provisions for how and when tenured faculty can be laid off or fired. Those provisions include budgetary constraints and program changes, and the proposal has been met with fierce opposition from professors in the state university system. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the faculty senate called an emergency meeting this week and passed a resolution condemning the plan. The budget proposal also changes state law regarding shared governance, which gives faculty members deciding power on issues like curriculum, instruction and personnel matters. It instead would give faculty an advisory responsibility on those issues. Such language, the faculty members said in their resolution, "will lead to the demoralization and/or departure of substantial numbers of faculty, will have negative repercussions for recruiting outstanding new faculty, and will seriously damage UW‐Madison's national competitiveness and the faculty's ability to grow the economic future of the state and to serve its students and its citizens." "If we allow ourselves to be led down this path laid out before us, other great universities will follow. Then there will be nobody left to 'follow the indications of truth wherever they may lead,'" associate professor David Vanness said during the Tuesday meeting, referring to a plaque outside the campus' main administration building that commemorates the academic pursuit of truth. "We will sift where it is safe to sift. We will winnow where we are told to winnow. Our pace of discovery will slow and our reputation will falter." National organizations, too, have chimed in on the issue. In a letter to the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents and University of Wisconsin System President Ray Cross, the American Association of University Professors said the changes in tenure and due process, combined with the proposed budget cut, "amount to a direct attack on higher education as a public good." "Tenure and due process do not only protect individual faculty members in their teaching, research, and publication efforts, as well as their right to speak on matters of public concern," wrote Rudy Fichtenbaum, the association's president. "They also protect the collective right of the faculty to participate in the formulation of academic policy and budget priorities and to use their professional expertise to recommend hiring and retaining faculty and administrators so that the university system can best serve the public interest and the citizens of the state." Walker and the Republican-controlled state legislature have repeatedly been at odds with the state's higher education community. The 2015-17 budget originally proposed a $300 million cut to the university system, which has since dropped to $250 million but is still opposed by faculty. In an op-ed this week for the Quad-City Times, Walker touted his record on education, saying "quality training and a solid education are vital components of wage growth and economic mobility." "And the affordability of that education is an important consideration, especially for families whose children are heading to college," Walker wrote. "That's why our last budget committed the highest level of need-based financial aid in state history, and froze tuition at the University of Wisconsin for two years. Our current budget continues the tuition freeze for another two years." When he first took office in 2011, Walker also passed a law – Act 10 – that limited the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions, including teachers unions. He has credited the changes with increasing student test scores and graduation rates, and has since referred to the combined higher education budget cuts and push to grant more flexibility to the university system as "the Act 10 of higher education." His moves involving unions and higher education, considered traditional bastions of liberalism in conservative circles, have made Walker a GOP hero and raised his national profile ahead of his likely 2016 run. But such aggressiveness may not necessarily distinguish him from the rest of the crowded Republican presidential field. Barmak Nassirian, director of federal policy relations and policy analysis for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, says that based on his track record, Walker would take a "very instrumental view" of higher education should he win the White House. "That is not in itself, frankly, atypical for lots of policymakers, Republican and Democrat, who view higher education in almost sort of strictly competitiveness, jobs, economic development terms," Nassirian says. "You take more of a rigid-like productivity perspective on how higher education ought to be run and how it ought to be managed and funded. So you look around on a fairly short horizon and attempt to identify those programs that tend to be good vocational preparation venues and take a kinder approach to them than you might to those things that might not be able to demonstrate in concrete terms why they're worth funding." In this Jan. 13, 2015, file photo, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker acknowledges people in the gallery during Governor's State of the State address to a joint session of the Legislature in the Assembly chambers at the state Capitol in Madison, Wis. Walker has transformed Wisconsin politics, winning three elections in four years and signing laws that weaken unions, crippling a key component of the Democratic Party. But the likely Republican presidential contender has had less success changing Wisconsin’s economy and budget. The state lags in job growth and its budget faces a shortfall. It’s a record that complicates Walker’s path in early primary states as he sells himself as a reformer. Ann Marcus, a professor of higher education at New York University-Steinhardt, also says Walker "could do less damage" as president than as a governor. "The federal government doesn't have such a large role in higher education. The key area for federal involvement is financial aid, including loans," Marcus says. "However, the federal government does not have a role in faculty issues, nor in curriculum. Nor does it have a role in direct funding of colleges and universities. States are the key player, and in the U.S., there is great variation among the states in terms of priorities, funding [and] controls." She adds: "Walker may be experiencing a short-term benefit with his attacks on higher education, but I believe … that he will experience some significant pushback once the people of Wisconsin have had a chance to see the consequences." Walker's Our American Revival political committee did not respond to reque*sts for comment from U.S. News.* The governor – who is among the top contenders for the GOP nomination, according to recent polling – has said he won't make an announcement on entering the presidential race until after the state's budget business is concluded at the end of June. *The Koch Brothers Usually Have Scott Walker's Back. Not This Time. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/scott-walker-stadium-bucks-afp-koch> // Mother Jones // Russ Choma – June 12, 2015 * The Koch brothers and their political machine have long been key allies of Wisconsin governor and presumptive 2016 hopeful Scott Walker. With the GOP presidential field getting more crowded by the day and political observers wondering who will win the Koch Primary—and the financial backing of these billionaires and their donor network—Walker has sparked a controversy in his home state in which and he and Team Koch are on opposite sides. When Walker announced a plan last week to spend $250 million in taxpayer money for a proposed $500 million basketball arena in downtown Milwaukee, the local chapter of the Koch-founded advocacy group Americans for Prosperity joined the chorus of detractors who condemned the project. The National Basketball Association is demanding the new venue and is threatening that the Milwaukee Bucks franchise may have to move if the arena isn't built by 2017. This has put Walker in a tough spot. The failure to retain the team would be an ugly black eye for Walker, but the plan to spend taxpayer funds propping up a highly lucrative private business is irritating Wisconsin Republicans and Democrats alike. While Walker's forays into union-busting had strong conservative backing, the political dynamics involved in the public financing of sports arenas and stadiums are much different. Across the nation in recent years, conservatives and progressive groups and activists have questioned the notion that financing arenas for sports franchises with taxpayer funds will spur the local economy. And Walker is feeling the backlash. Wisconsin Democrats predictably oppose Walker's plan, but few of his fellow Republicans are rushing to join him in standing with the NBA. At the moment, 12 of 19 GOP state senators are against the idea. In the state's lower chamber, Walker's not faring much better. State representative David Murphy (R), who recently called Walker's plan to slash $300 million from the state university system "a bold vision for the future," declared, "I'm not a believer in government supporting sports arenas for millionaire players and billionaire owners." Perhaps most mortifying for Walker is that the plan is being publicly panned by the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity. It was AFP that came to Walker's aid when his anti-union legislation sparked massive rallies and protests in 2011 and again when Walker came close to being ousted from office in a recall effort. But Wisconsin's AFP chapter is vociferously dumping on the stadium deal. "The current deal is based on fuzzy math, complicated accounting and millions of taxpayer dollars," AFP state director David Fladeboe said last week. "This proposal needs to be rejected and the people of Wisconsin need to be protected." "This proposal needs to be rejected and the people of Wisconsin need to be protected," said AFP's state director last week. The fuzzy math Fladeboe is referring to comes from Walker's sales pitch for the arena proposal, which has the less-than-catchy tagline: "Cheaper to Keep Them." Walker contends that if the Bucks leave, the state will miss out on millions in tax revenue, not the least of which will come from the wealthy athletes who play at the new arena. And, Walker has argued, if the arena isn't built, the lot it's slated to be constructed on will never generate as much economic activity as a basketball arena would bring. Critics of the proposal say that Walker's numbers, specifically the $250 million price tag, seem understated. One estimate is that the real price, when the long-term interest costs are factored in, will be at least $320 million. Another estimate pegs the cost at $400 million. Either way, the cost is greater than the savings of $300 million that are supposed to come from Walker's proposed cuts in the University of Wisconsin system for the next two years. Walker's plan may be a very public air ball if he doesn't find a way to devote serious time and political capital to selling the project. That may be difficult, since Walker's focus increasingly seems to be on his possible presidential bid. He is already spending a significant amount of time out-of-state in places such as Iowa—trips that are irritating some allies—and his attention will only grow more divided if he launches a presidential campaign. If the state Senate does not approve the inclusion of Walker's arena project in the state's annual budget by the end of June, the debate will drag on until the fall—prime campaigning time for Iowa's bellwether caucus. At that point, in order to avoid the loss of one of the state's three professional sports teams, Walker may have to shift his focus away from the campaign trail to manage a contentious budget fight that his staunchest allies have abandoned him on. *CRUZ* *Ted Cruz Cherry-Picks Terrorism Comments <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/ted-cruz-terrorism_n_7572440.html> // HuffPo // D’Angelo Gore – June 12, 2015 * The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org. Sen. Ted Cruz has criticized President Obama and the White House for not mentioning how religious discrimination fueled terrorist attacks in Paris and Libya this year. But to make his point, Cruz focuses on certain remarks and ignores others. Discussing the killing of four people at a Jewish supermarket in Paris, Cruz claimed Obama “described that attack as a, quote, ‘random act of violence.’ ” Obama never said those words. He denounced “vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli,” and the White House said Obama meant the victims were random, not the attack. Obama previously had described it as an act of anti-Semitism. Cruz also claimed that “when ISIS beheaded 22 Coptic Christians, the White House put out a statement saying they were killed because of their Egyptian citizenship.” The White House statement referred to those killed as “Egyptian citizens,” not Egyptian Christians. But it didn’t say they were killed because of their nationality. Cruz, a GOP presidential candidate, made his statements at a May 30 town hall in New Hampshire hosted by radio host Jeff Kuhner. He had made the same claims at a Family Research Council retreat for pastors in Washington, D.C., on May 21. Fellow Republican candidates Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee have made similar statements in the past. Let’s review what Obama and the White House said about those terrorist acts. Not a Random Act On Jan. 9, Amedy Coulibaly shot and killed four people, and held more than a dozen others hostage, inside Hyper Cacher, a kosher grocery store in Paris. Prior to the attack, Coulibaly, according to a Reuters report, had called BFM-TV, a French TV station, “to claim allegiance to [the] Islamic State, saying he wanted to defend Palestinians and target Jews.” Cruz, during the town hall meeting, claimed that Obama, at the time, suggested that Coulibaly’s actions were “random” and unrelated to religion. Cruz, May 30: A few months ago, when we saw the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, President Obama described that attack as a, quote, “random act of violence.” When radical Islamists with butcher knives go into a kosher deli to murder Jews because of their Jewish faith, there ain’t nothing random about that at all. Cruz is not the only Republican presidential contender to have criticized Obama’s comments. A Feb. 11, statement from former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that he was “appalled that President Obama has chosen to deny the vicious anti-Semitic motivation of the attack on a kosher Jewish grocery in Paris on January 9th.” And former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a Feb. 11, Facebook post, wrote that “Obama said it’s entirely legitimate ‘to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.’ ” Huckabee went on to write, “But it wasn’t ‘random.’ It was a Jewish deli. One of the radical Islamic ‘zealots’ even told French TV that they were singling out Jews.” Here is Obama’s complete statement from the Vox interview, published Feb. 9, with Executive Editor Matthew Yglesias: Obama, Feb. 9: Look, the point is this: my first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive. But we also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. The following day, in a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest attempted to clarify Obama’s statement. “I believe the point that the president was trying to make is that these individuals were not specifically targeted. These were individuals who happened to randomly be in this deli and were shot while they were there,” Earnest told reporters. “So if you want to question the president’s placement of the adverb in the sentence, the adverb in this case being ‘randomly,’ you can. But that’s the point the president was trying to make.” When Jonathan Karl of ABC News asked if Obama had “any doubt that that deli was attacked because it was a kosher deli,” Earnest said, “no.” And Obama didn’t “deny the vicious anti-Semitic motivation of the attack,” as Perry had claimed. Even before the Vox interview and Earnest’s clarification, the president had said that the terrorist attack was motivated by anti-Semitism. In a Jan. 22, statement for a United Nations meeting on the rise of anti-Semitism, Obama said: “Anti-Semitic attacks like the recent terrorist attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris pose a threat that extends beyond the Jewish community. They also threaten the values we hold dear — pluralism, diversity, and the freedoms of religion and expression.” And on Jan. 27, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, another statement from Obama said that “the recent terrorist attacks in Paris serve as a painful reminder of our obligation to condemn and combat rising anti-Semitism in all its forms.” Egyptian Christians Cruz also claimed that “when ISIS beheaded 22 Coptic Christians, the White House put out a statement saying they were killed because of their Egyptian citizenship.” He added, “That is not why they were killed.” But that is not what the White House statement said. On Feb. 15, an Islamic State faction in Libya released video of its mass execution of 21, not 22, Coptic Christians from Egypt. According to a BBC News report, “A caption made it clear the men were targeted because of their faith.” It’s true that a statement from Earnest, the White House press secretary, referred to those killed as “Egyptian citizens” without mentioning that they were also Christians. But the statement also made no mention of a motive for the killings, as Cruz claimed it had. Earnest, Feb. 15: The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists. We offer our condolences to the families of the victims and our support to the Egyptian government and people as they grieve for their fellow citizens. ISIL’s barbarity knows no bounds. It is unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity. This wanton killing of innocents is just the most recent of the many vicious acts perpetrated by ISIL-affiliated terrorists against the people of the region, including the murders of dozens of Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai, which only further galvanizes the international community to unite against ISIL. This heinous act once again underscores the urgent need for a political resolution to the conflict in Libya, the continuation of which only benefits terrorist groups, including ISIL. We call on all Libyans to strongly reject this and all acts of terrorism and to unite in the face of this shared and growing threat. We continue to strongly support the efforts of the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon to facilitate formation of a national unity government and help foster a political solution in Libya. The administration did mention that the victims were Christians after that. This is what Secretary of State John Kerry said on Feb. 18 at a White House summit on violent extremism: Kerry, Feb. 18: Earlier this week, with the release of a video showing the medieval murder of 21 Coptic Christians from Egypt on a beach in Libya, the world has once again been reminded of the absolutely unspeakable and undeniable evil of ISIL, which many of us prefer to call Daesh. Twenty-one innocent people were violently executed en masse in the most grotesque way simply because of their faith, and though Daesh has proven that it doesn’t need any rationale to kill people. And on Feb. 19, President Obama, during a speech at the same summit, said that “ISIL-linked terrorists murdered Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula, and their slaughter of Egyptian Christians in Libya has shocked the world.” *Cruz, Paul push for ban on indefinite detention of US citizens <http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/244847-cruz-paul-push-for-indefinite-detention-ban> // The Hill // Jordain Carney – June 12, 2015 * Two 2016 presidential competitors have joined forces to get a ban on the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens included in an annual defense policy bill. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), both of whom are running for president, have joined up with other senators to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), currently before the Senate, that would ban indefinite detention of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, without being charged or given a trial, unless authorized by Congress. Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) also put their names on the provision. "The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial,” Cruz said in a statement. “While we must vigorously protect national security by pursuing violent terrorists and preventing acts of terror, we must also ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.” The senators added that they hoped the amendment would clarify "ongoing legal ambiguities," including that idea that Americans can be indefinitely detained under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, which authorized military operations against al Qaeda. The senators note that the 2001 authorization "cannot be construed as acts of Congress that permit indefinite detention." Paul added, "We can and will vigorously investigate and prosecute all who seek to do us harm, and we can do so while respecting the constitutional liberties of American citizens.” Paul and Cruz have argued that previous NDAAs have given the administration the ability to indefinitely detain Americans. The senators got a similar amendment included in the Senate's NDAA in 2012, but it wasn't in the final bill signed by President Obama. *CHRISTIE* *Chris Christie's Foreign Trips Cost Taxpayers $120,000 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/12/chris-christie-trips-taxpayers_n_7573828.html> // AP // Jill Colvin – June 12, 2015 * New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's recent foreign trips to the United Kingdom, Mexico and Canada cost New Jersey taxpayers nearly $124,000, his office says. The numbers, released by his office Friday evening, cover security and security-related transportation expenses for each trip, as well as the expenses incurred by Christie's official photographer. While the trips have been billed as official trade missions to encourage investment in the state, they also provided Christie, a governor with little foreign policy experience, a chance to build his foreign policy resume as he considers a run for the Republican nomination for president. The trips included meetings and photo ops with world leaders as well as speeches. Christie's three-day trip to the United Kingdom in February was the most expensive of the three, costing taxpayers $62,653.19, according to the numbers provided by his office. A trip to Canada in early December 2014 cost taxpayers $29,800, while a trip to Mexico that September cost $21,822.06. In all, taxpayer dollars will cover $114,275 in security and transportation costs, which includes state troopers' airfare and hotel costs, but not their salaries. In addition, taxpayers will cover $9,617.79 in expenses logged by Tim Larsen, Christie's chief of photography and visual communications. That brings the total bill incurred by taxpayers for the three trips to $123,893.04. Christie and his traveling delegations' other travel expenses were paid for by Choose New Jersey, a non-profit state economic development group funded by corporate donations, which aims to promote investment and job creation in the state. The governor's office declined to provide those costs and the group has not responded to numerous requests for comment in recent months. Media outlets have been requesting the totals since Christie returned from Mexico. A spokesman for the governor's office, Kevin Roberts, declined to comment further. Christie's trips included several foreign policy speeches, numerous closed-door meetings with local officials and plenty of photo ops with world leaders. In Mexico last September, Christie delivered a speech criticizing President Barack Obama for failing to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and called for stronger relations with Mexico and Canada. He also traveled to the city of Puebla with President Enrique Peña Nieto, where he received an enthusiastic welcome from students in an outdoor arena. In the United Kingdom in February, Christie met behind closed doors with British Prime Minister David Cameron and enjoyed a soccer match. He also drew controversy when he said parents should have some measure of choice when it comes to vaccinating their children. He later walked those comments back. The security costs from the three recent trips are similar to the nearly $40,000 taxpayers paid for Christie's first trade mission to Israel and Jordan in April 2012. Christie told an audience in Washington recently that he's eying additional travel — potentially to Latin America — later this year. Christie says he'll make a decision about whether he's running for the Republication presidential nomination later this month. *Chris Christie takes a veiled swipe at Rand Paul over Patriot Act <http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/christie-takes-veiled-swipe-paul-over-patriot-act> // MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – June 12, 2015 * In an apparent swipe at Sen. Rand Paul, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday blasted politicians who have tried to raise money off of their opposition to the Patriot Act – going as far as calling such actions a “disgrace.” During his opening remarks at a town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Christie told the crowd that the president’s No. 1 priority is to protect Americans. “And yet, you’ve got folks—some of them running for president—who stood on the floor of the United States Senate and weakened our country and then sent out videos of it to try and raise money.” “They bragged about how much money they raised … To me, that’s a disgrace,” added the governor, who is expected to announce whether he will officially run for president in the next few weeks. Christie has argued for the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, arguing it’s an important tool to combat terrorism. It’s an issue that has divided Republicans, and Christie’s latest criticism seems aimed at differentiating himself from the rest of the emerging GOP field. Paul, who has announced that he’ll seek the 2016 GOP nomination, held an 11-hour filibuster-like speech in May to argue against the government’s surveillance of Americans’ phone records, insisting it tramples of civil liberties and allows the government to spy on innocent people. Afterward, he sent out emails to supporters asking for cash with subject lines like “Last night I put NSA spying on life support.” On May 31, some provisions of the Patriot Act – including a program allowing the government to collect phone records of millions of Americans – expired after the Senate was unable to pass legislation to extend them. Most of those provisions were eventually restored through the USA Freedom Act earlier this month. However, the law was changed to stop the NSA from continuing its mass phone data collection, with phone companies retaining the data. The NSA can get information about specific individuals if it is approved by a federal court. Similar to Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has said he is against a clean extension of the Patriot Act. After a recent federal appeals court ruling that the government’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records is illegal, Cruz said the ruling confirmed what many Americans already know—that the NSA “went too far in collecting phone records.” Like Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have argued in favor of the Patriot Act. Christie has frequently butted heads with Paul over the issue of surveillance. In May, the governor accused Paul of “siding with” NSA leaker Edward Snowden (who the governor called a “criminal”) by opposing efforts to extend the Patriot Act. At the town hall on Friday, Christie painted himself as the only potential or declared candidate who has real world experience fighting terrorism. He pointed to his nomination by then-president George W. Bush to be U.S. Attorney in New Jersey right before the 9/11 attacks and how he used tools, including the Patriot Act, to go after terrorists. The governor’s trip to the first-in-the-nation caucus state is his first visit there in three months. By contrast, he has taken nine trips to the early voting state of New Hampshire this year alone. Christie told the crowd on Friday that there was a common misconception that his bold and sometimes brash style would not go over well in Iowa. “I haven’t met one person in Iowa who wasn’t direct,” said the governor. Such critics, he insisted, “misunderstand me, and they misunderstand you.” Surveys indicate Christie would have an uphill battle in the Hawkeye State. According to an average of polling data compiled by RealClearPolitics surrounding the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus, Christie garners just 4.2% support and is eighth place behind Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (18.2%), Rubio (11%), Paul (8.6%), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (9.4%), Bush (9.2%), Cruz (7.6%) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (8.4%). *Chris Christie hits Ted Cruz for 'hypocrisy' on disaster aid <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/christie-ted-cruz/> // CNN // Ashley Killough – June 12, 2015 * Chris Christie accused likely presidential rival Ted Cruz of "hypocrisy" for supporting federal emergency aid after last month's devastating floods in Texas but voting against government relief funding two years and a half years ago after Superstorm Sandy wrecked the East Coast. The New Jersey governor, who was holding a town hall Friday during the final leg of his two-day trip to Iowa, was making the argument that the next president needs to be someone who understands what it's like to sustain a natural disaster -- unlike "some of our friends in Congress, right?" "We have Senator Cruz -- who voted against Sandy relief -- now he says he's got floods in Texas. He says 'Hey, we need some help down here in Texas.' It's great, right?" asked Christie, who is expected to announce his presidential decision in the coming weeks. He also referred to Colorado lawmakers who made similar protests to the Sandy bill but supported federal relief when floods hit their state in 2013. Cruz expressed support for federal funds for his state in late May despite voting against a massive package in early 2013 dedicated to post-Sandy recovery efforts. Standing on what he said was a matter of principle, he and other conservatives argued that the bill contained too much extra money for items unrelated to the storm. At the time, Christie ripped into Congressional Republicans for delaying a vote on the package. Congress ultimately passed a scaled-back version worth $9.7 billion in early January 2013. Later that month, it approved a much larger package worth $50 billion. "People get religion real quick," Christie said Friday, before taking on a tone of voice in an imitation of Cruz. "'All of the sudden the principled vote that I'm making here on the floor of the United States Senate is I'm not going to spend this kind of money on this kind of thing unless it happens in my state. And then if it does, then it's an absolutely appropriate expenditure of money.' I mean, come on. Come on." Christie said Texas should still get the funds "because what's more important is not his hypocrisy; it's the people of his state who are suffering and there are communities that need to be rebuilt." In a statement to CNN, Cruz said Christie is a "good man" and noted that he has defended Christie amid the Bridgegate scandal. But he argued that his view hasn't changed, saying he supports federal aid as long as it is limited to recovery and relief efforts. "I like and respect Chris Christie; indeed, I've been vocal defending him from unfair charges that have been leveled his direction. Whatever insults are launched, I'm not going to respond in kind. He's a good man. On the merits, my view is exactly the same as it was before: of course, the federal government should assist with disaster aid, whether for Hurricane Sandy or for flooding in Texas. But politicians in Washington shouldn't load up disaster relief with billions in unrelated pork-barrel spending." *Christie attended NBA Finals on PAC's dime <http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244830-christie-attended-nba-finals-on-pacs-dime> // The Hill // Mark Hensch – June 12, 2015 * Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) attended Game 3 of the NBA Finals earlier this week with a ticket paid for by his political action committee, a report says. Christie’s Leadership Matters for America PAC funded his travel to Cleveland on Tuesday for the hotly anticipated basketball game, according to the National Journal. It also bought Christie’s near-courtside seat to the game between the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Golden State Warriors. Christie’s state spokesman told the National Journal on Thursday afternoon that the governor’s appearance at the contest was “through the PAC,” it said. His spokesman added that Christie, a possible 2016 GOP presidential candidate, was in Ohio attending private and fundraising meetings the day of tipoff. He declined to discuss any link those activities may have had with Tuesday night’s NBA game. The National Journal said on Thursday that Christie’s PAC had not filed any receipts or disbursements with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over his attendance at Tuesday night’s game. The Columbus Dispatch posted Twitter photos on Wednesday showing Christie sitting next to Urban Meyer, the head football coach for Ohio State University, during Tuesday night’s game. Christie has previously faced questions over his spending habits at other sporting events. An analysis released last month found that Christie had spent about $300,000 in taxpayer funds on food and drinks during his five years in office. New Jersey Watchdog reported on May 11 that Christie had doled out more than $82,000 at MetLife Stadium, home of the New York Giants and New York Jets franchises in the National Football League (NFL). The New Jersey Republican State Commission (NJRSC) later reimbursed the state for the full $300,000, thus ensuring no cost to taxpayers. Christie has additionally stopped using his office's expense account while at sporting venues. The New Jersey governor has said he is close to deciding whether he will seek the White House next year. Should he run, he would enter one of the most crowded GOP presidential fields in history. Republicans currently have nine official candidates on their ballots, with more possible in the coming months. *GRAHAM* *Lindsey Graham Challenges Republican Rivals on Debt Ceiling <http://time.com/3919067/lindsey-graham-debt-ceiling/> // TIME // Zeke Miller – June 12, 2015 * South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is seeking to differentiate himself from his GOP presidential rivals any way he can. On Friday he opens up a new front—challenging his opponents to take a stance on raising the federal debt limit. Bitter internal divisions within the GOP aired in 2011 and 2013, bringing the U.S. to the brink of defaulting on its obligations. A similar fight is brewing for this fall, when the nation will once again hit its borrowing cap, this time in the shadow of a presidential primary and for the first time with Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. “At the end of the day, something has to be done. We can’t default,” Graham told reporters at the E2 Summit, organized by former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “There will be a bunch of people in our party and in theirs saying no, no, no. Somebody’s got to find a way to say yes.” “When you look at the number of Republicans who say we will never raise the debt ceiling if you put a gun to their head, you’re going to have to get Democrats to do this,” he added. “It’s going to be a challenge for our party and I think people running to be president should speak about what would you do as president, what would you do as a person wanting to be president when it came time to lift the debt ceiling. Because it is about leadership.” In laying down the gauntlet, the South Carolina defense hawk is further positioning himself as a contrarian on party orthodoxy, with his support for immigration reform and efforts to combat climate change. Graham is also attempting to force his Republican opponents, who are navigating between the wishes of the business community to avoid more uncertainty and the frustration among the conservative base with the growth of the federal government, into a tougher spot. *Presidential Candidate Lindsey Graham Introduces 20-Week 'Pain-Capable' Late-Term Abortion Ban in Senate; Promises Vote in 2015 // The Christian Post <http://www.christianpost.com/news/presidential-candidate-lindsey-graham-introduces-20-week-pain-capable-late-term-abortion-ban-in-senate-promises-vote-in-2015-140299/> // Sam Smith – June 12, 2015 * Presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reintroduced legislation in the Senate Thursday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape and incest, a measure that passed the House of Representatives by a 242-184 vote last month. At a Capitol Hill news conference, Graham promised that the bill, titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would be debated and voted on this year. "This legislation is groundbreaking yet simple at the same time. What I love most about this piece of legislation is how simple it is," Graham said. "Do you believe that at 20 weeks in the pregnancy, five months, when medical encyclopedias are encouraging young parents to sing to their child because they can begin to recognize the voice, that this is a stage in development where you should be very excited because your child is well on their way? Does the government have a legitimate and compelling interest to protect that baby? The answer, I believe, is yes." Graham reasoned that since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, medical sciences have advanced enough to acknowledge that unborn children at 20 weeks of pregnancy are capable of feeling excruciating pain and that there is a reasonable governmental interest in protecting those unborn children. "Roe v. Wade was about medical viability. Roe v. Wade acknowledges that there is a compelling state interest in protecting the unborn child," Graham argued. "The standard of medical practice in America is that if you operate on an unborn child at 20 weeks, which happens fairly often …, you have to provide anesthesia to the baby because they are capable of feeling extreme pain. "Here is the choice for America — if a doctor is required to provide anesthesia to the child to help save its life because they feel pain in the process of being operated on, is it OK for society to say, 'Well, at that stage in the pregnancy we don't want the operation to be an abortion?'" Graham continued. "I believe that most Americans will say yes." The United States is one of just seven countries in the world that doesn't ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, putting the U.S. in the same "club" as systemic human rights violators such as China and North Korea. "This bill would put us out of a league of nations who have refrained from protecting children after that point. We are one of only seven nations that have refrained from protecting children after 20 weeks," Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser said at the press conference. "We are in the company of China, North Korea, Vietnam and others. That is not the human rights club that we would like to be in and we need to be out." Graham said that there are some exceptions in the legislation for pregnancies that occur as a result of rape or incest and said that women would need to report the claim of incest or rape to a counselor or medical doctor at least 48 hours prior to the abortion. When asked whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would push this bill for debate, Graham explained that McConnell is one of the co-sponsors of the bill and promised a vote by year's end. "He is very favorable to this bill and I think he is a co-sponsor and we will find time on the calendar," Graham asserted. "I can promise you a debate in 2015 and a vote." Graham's bill could force some of his Republican colleagues, who are representing historically Democratic states, to take a position on this legislation, which some pundits claim could hurt their reelection chances. But the legislation could also force a few Democratic senators who represent historically conservative states to do the same. "Don't get into politics if you don't want to talk about things like this. This is why you want to get elected, I think. Whether you are for or against it, this is something worth talking about," Graham said. "I think if you are in the House or the Senate, voting on this issue is required because it is an important issue. What we are looking for is a debate with those who oppose this. Tell me the upside of this. … What are we achieving here? How are we a better nation? What is your theory of the case? Why do we want to let this happen this late in the pregnancy? "I am dying for that debate and I am going to insist that we have that debate because we are a member of seven nations that I don't think represent who we are as Americans," Graham added. Should the measure pass in the Senate, it could be vetoed by President Barack Obama, although he stated earlier this week that every child ought to have the opportunity to reach their "God-given potential." "And we agree with President Obama on what he said earlier this week, here in Washington, D.C., when he spoke before the Catholic Health Association. He said this: 'A shared belief that every human being made in the image of God deserves to live in dignity. All children, no matter who they are or where they come from or how much money they were born into, ought to have the opportunity to achieve their God-given potential,'" Family Research Council President Tony Perkins explained at the press conference. "Well, that potential, that opportunity, it begins with life," Perkins continued. "So I call upon President Obama and his party to withdraw their opposition to this bill; and I call upon President Obama to pledge his support for this measure that would help bring his administration's policies in line with his political rhetoric." Currently, 13 states have laws banning abortions after 20 weeks. *SANTORUM* *For Candidates Like Rick Santorum, the Line Can Be Long to Take Flight <http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/12/for-candidates-like-rick-santorum-the-line-can-be-long-to-take-flight/> // NYT // Ashley Parker – June 12, 2015 * The 2016 presidential season may have started early — but expect it to go long. At least that was the message from Spencer Zwick, who was the finance chairman for former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, at the 2012 Republican presidential nominee’s annual donor retreat in Park City. Speaking to reporters Thursday night, Mr. Zwick said he did not see the Republican nominee race “as an early knockout.” The reason? “If you’re at 1 percent in the polls, why would you get out?” he said. “There is no downside to staying in the race. In the worst case, you might get a TV show after it all.” Look no farther, Mr. Zwick said, than Rick Santorum —a Republican presidential candidate again in 2016 who, despite little campaign infrastructure and money in 2012, forced Mr. Romney into a prolonged primary fight. Mr. Zwick recalled a moment during the 2012 campaign, when he was waiting to catch a JetBlue red-eye back to Boston after a presidential debate in Las Vegas. The Romney team, he said, was “in full swing” — with a private charter plane and full campaign apparatus. “And I was waiting in line at the JetBlue red-eye, and about 30 people behind me was Rick Santorum, waiting to get on a middle seat to fly to Boston to be able to go New Hampshire,” Mr. Zwick recalled, shaking his head in mix of awe and admiration. “It dawned on me right there, wow, there is no barrier to entry. As long as you can have enough money to buy a commercial airline ticket to get to the next state, you’ve got a ticket, you can go. It was like this surreal moment I had on the campaign. Here were we, building this massive infrastructure and this political machine, and you know, Senator Santorum is standing there with his carry-on bag, getting in line.” And, Mr. Zwick added, Mr. Santorum “wasn’t even Group 1. I was at least in the even more space section.” “This guy was on national TV, debating,” he added, and yet “there was no campaign infrastructure.” So, Mr. Zwick concluded, expect the JetBlue primary — where just about any candidate, especially one with a wealthy donor and a “super PAC,” can stay in the race — to go on, and on, and on. *Rick Santorum says he'd welcome an endorsement from Caitlyn Jenner <http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rick-santorum-caitlyn-jenner-endorsement-article-1.2256536> // NY Daily News // Aliza Chasan – June 12, 2015 * Rick Santorum would welcome an endorsement from former Olympic gold medalist Caitlyn Jenner if she offered one. “You accept their vote, but do you accept her?” CNN’s Erin Burnett asked him in an interview Thursday night. “My job as a human being is to treat everybody with dignity and respect, period, stop, full stop. No qualification to that,” the Republican presidential contender said. In the past Santorum has said he would refuse to attend same-sex weddings. He’s also compared homosexuality to both incest and bestiality. "Do I have to agree with their positions on issues or how they see America? Of course not,” Santorum said Thursday. But a vote is a vote to Santorum. “Because people vote for you for all sorts of reasons, and that’s fine. And I accept whatever reason anybody wants to vote for me, whoever they are,” he said. He may have to fight Lindsey Graham for a Jenner backing though. “If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be a Republican, she is welcome in my party,” Graham told CNN on Sunday. *HUCKABEE* *Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee making weekend campaign swing through South Carolina <http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/ddb3429ab5194a88866e6ef9c321e5bf/SC--Huckabee-South-Carolina> // AP – June 12, 2015 * Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is returning to South Carolina. The Republican presidential hopeful begins his trip on Friday with a meet and greet at The Beacon Drive-In Restaurant in Spartanburg. From there, he's holding a reception with the Spartanburg County GOP before taking part in the Bridging the Gap Quarterly Leadership Series. Huckabee is ending the day with an event with Benjamin House Ministry in Moore. On Saturday, Huckabee is making stops in Gaffney and Indian Land before taking a tour of Keer America Manufacturing. In the afternoon, he's attending a barbecue hosted by the York County Republican Party in Rock Hill. *Anti-Huckabee super PAC formed <http://arkansasnews.com/news/arkansas/anti-huckabee-super-pac-formed#sthash.JkZnPq5g.dpuf> // Arkansas News // John Lyon – June 12, 2015 * A former Republican presidential candidate has created a super PAC to oppose Mike Huckabee’s second presidential bid, saying he wants to educate voters about Huckabee’s “horrific record as governor of Arkansas.” Truth Squad 2016 is the creation of Fred Karger of Los Angeles, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Karger is a political consultant, gay rights activist and former Hollywood actor who appeared in “Airport 1975” and “Rich Man, Poor Man.” The super PAC said in a news release Friday it is “the first super PAC formed specifically to oppose a Republican candidate for president in 2016” and pledged to “help those whose lives were forever changed by Governor Huckabee’s actions tell their stories.” The release includes excerpts from a Seattle Times interview with Kim Renninger, widow of Sgt. Mark Renninger, one of four police officers killed in Parkland, Wash., in 2009 by Maurice Clemmons, who had been paroled in Arkansas. Clemmons had been sentenced to 108 years in prison in Arkansas, but in 2000 Huckabee shortened his sentence, making him eligible for parole. Renninger told the newspaper she wants to hold Huckabee accountable by telling her story because, although he was not the only person involved in Clemmons’ release — the state Parole Board had unanimously recommended that Huckabee grant executive clemency, and it ultimately voted to release Clemmons on parole — “the person who got this ball rolling was Huckabee.” Huckabee spokeswoman Alice Stewart responded in a statement, “SuperPACs are typically funded by powerful Washington and Wall Street elites, and no one is a bigger threat to them than Gov. Huckabee, an outsider fighting for Main Street Americans. It’s heartbreaking that these widows are being exploited for the political benefit of these secret-agenda-driven SuperPAC donors. This is Washington-DC-style, gutter politics at its worst.” Stewart said Huckabee’s heart grieves for the four slain police officers. She also pointed out that the Parole Board members who voted to release Clemmons were all appointed by former Democratic governors Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker. Huckabee served as governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007. In 2008, he finished second to Arizona Sen. John McCain in the Republican presidential primary race. A super PAC in support of Huckabee’s campaign, Pursuing America’s Greatness, was created earlier this year. *KASICH* *Kasich: Trade Is Critical to National Security <http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/06/12/kasich-trade-is-critical-to-national-security/> // Fox News // Matthew Kazin – June 12, 2015 * Prior to the House vote Friday on President Obama’s trade deal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich told FBN’s Neil Cavuto that the legislation stands to impact more than just the U.S. economy. “It’s not just economic; it’s also a national security issue as well, where we can have access and involvement in parts of the world where it’s vital,” Kasich said. The Republican governor added: “I believe that trade is a very important part of national security, and to turn this deal down, I think, would be bad.” However, Kasich said the trade deal has pros and cons. “It is best for our economy, and there are going to be workers who will be hurt,” he said. “We have to make sure that they’re going to be retrained and there’ll be opportunities for them.” In addition to trade deal talk, Kasich also discussed the possibility of a 2016 bid for the White House. “We’re getting closer and closer to making a decision,” he said. “I don’t want to do this just for the sake of it. I need to know that I could win.” *John Kasich Strives for Self-Control <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-12/john-kasich-strives-for-self-control> // Bloomberg News // Ben Brody – June 12, 2015 * John Kasich seems to know the rap against him: He's cranky, unfocused, and impulsive. But ahead of the scrutiny of a possible presidential run, the Republican governor of Ohio is testing out a new disciplined persona. "Everything you say now is under a microscope so I've got to think more like a scientist," he said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin from Mitt Romney's E2 Summit in Utah. That meant parrying when asked if he felt that he was competing with other candidates and hopefuls at the event, including Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who has cast himself as a proven conservative election-winner. “How's this discipline going?” "The minute I say something about him, then it’s like I’m going after him," Kasich said. Later, he asked: "How am I doing on this discipline?" "I’ve got a lot of energy and I need to know how to dose it out," he added, saying he'd learned that after a brief presidential run in 2000. He likewise held back on policy prescriptions, saying a military commander would have to say how many troops the U.S. should send to combat ISIS as part of a coalition, not him. During his address at the summit, he concentrated on his biography, touting his meeting with Richard Nixon as a college freshman, his adherence to Reagan's philosophy since before his 1982 election to the House, and his work on balancing budgets. He joked about his time as a Fox News host, saying he was a "giant television star." He only returned to concrete policies only when outlining his fiscally conservative policies as governor and his willingness to leave a pathway to legal status for immigrants who are in the country illegally. On taxes, too, he was firmer with Bloomberg. "The most important thing to do" for growth, he said, is not reform of the income tax code for individuals but "to give these companies incentive to invest instead of buying back stock and keeping their profits in Europe." Despite making moves toward a run, Kasich also nearly shrugged off the ambition. "If I... get in, try my best, and I don’t win, you know, I would have tried my best," he said. And he couldn't resist making a comparison to state hero LeBron James, the Cleveland Cavaliers superstar who led his team to the NBA finals. Both Buckeye Staters "want to take it to the hole and make sure you score," Kasich said. "Very competitive. Have fun too." *Kasich inches 'closer and closer' to 2016 decision <http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/244841-gov-kasich-inches-closer-and-closer-to-2016-decision> // The Hill // Rebecca Shabad – June 12, 2015 * Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) said Friday he’s getting “closer and closer” to making a decision about whether to run for president. “I wouldn’t be out here if I wasn’t interested, and we’re getting closer and closer to making a decision. It’s a discipline process because I don’t want to do this just for the sake of it. I need to know that I could win and look at what I bring is a record that’s unique,” Kasich said in an interview on Fox Business Network. Kasich expressed confidence he has the necessary qualifications to lead the White House by touting his records in Congress and as governor of Ohio on both defense and fiscal issues. “I served on the Defense Committee. I was Chairman of the Budget Committee in Washington when we balanced the budget, and Ohio has had a massive turnaround, and I was in the private sector for 10 years. No one has all of that," he said. Kasich predicted during the interview that critical votes on trade would pass in the House on Friday. The lower chamber, however, later rejected a vote on a bill that would provide aid to workers who would be displaced by a future trade deal. A subsequent vote on fast-track authority that allows Congress to take an up or down vote on a trade deal, but not amend it, passed. It won’t go to the president’s desk because of a procedural rule. The Ohio governor is hinting further at a 2016 run with a June 24 trip to the early-voting state of Iowa. Kasich served in the House from 1983 until early 2001. *CARSON* *Ben Carson polling well among millennials <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ben-carson-polling-well-among-millennials-118940.html#ixzz3cuCPKG6L> // Politico // Christina Animashaun – June 12, 2015 * The Republican Party’s most unlikely presidential candidate continues to defy the odds on the road to the GOP primary. But Ben Carson’s campaign hopes may not survive if he tries to appeal to grass roots conservatives and tea partiers alone. Carson’s presidential ambitions may compel him to ease the growing tension with children in Baltimore, who grew up knowing him as the one of world's greatest surgeons — or depending on the children, knowing very little about him at all. We’re talking about the millennials. Last month, Carson topped the Harvard University’s Institute of Politics millennial poll, a nationwide survey focused 18- to 29-year-olds. Though the poll did not present a clear GOP front-runner among that age set, the results showed Carson narrowly ahead of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Millennials make up nearly a quarter of the U.S. population and currently outnumber the baby boomers, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And with their voting participation on the rise, this group could become a crucial element in the 2016 election season. Doug Watts, the communications director for Carson’s 2016 presidential campaign, credits name recognition as the foundation of any candidate trying to win votes. “The two sets of groups that seem to know Ben Carson really well [are] people 45 and older and people 18- to 24-year-olds,” Watts said. “The younger voters know [a] lot more about Ben Carson than the general public. They were assigned [to] reading his books. They were aware of [his] story.” The retired neurosurgeon’s first political splash came during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast two years ago, where he doggedly embraced not being politically correct and criticized the Affordable Care Act as President Barack Obama sat only one seat from him. But for Wake Tech political student Markeece Young, Carson’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast served as another first. “That was the first time I learned who Ben Carson was,” he said. Known in the blogosphere as the Young Black Republican, Young is a political junkie. Scrolling through his Twitter stream reveals an unapologetic support for the GOP and pictures of him alongside Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Young watched Carson stumble on the campaign with political gaffes on gay rights issues. The 19-year-old activist attributes those blunders to Carson’s political inexperience, but the candidate’s bold statements have rubbed him and other millennial voters the wrong way by making light of issues most important to them, Young says. “When he says he thinks selfies are stupid,” Young said, ”That is not how you start your youth outreach by downing something that is wildly popular in our culture.” Surprised that Carson is polling well among the millennial base, Young argued that voters his age tend to support flashier and more inexperienced candidates, such as Obama. Young, however, is not voting for Carson in the Republican primary because he doesn’t believe Carson can resonate with youth as well as Paul or Cruz can. “He hasn’t been in any political or leadership positions already,” Young said. “I think he needs more seasoning.” Carson is known for pulling himself up from the bootstraps in the face of heavy adversity growing up in Detroit. Last month, the retired neurosurgeon visited with faith and community leaders in the wake of Freddie Gray’s death in Baltimore, a city that is a marker of the Carson’s historical success. Ibrahim Auguste, a 21-year-old science major at the Community College of Baltimore County, had seen Carson several times in Auguste’s years growing up in Baltimore. He stood in the crowded conference room of the Bilingual Christian Church, a 15-minute drive west of Johns Hopkins Hospital, where Carson served as director until 2013. He thought Carson’s uplifting messages for city residents glided over the hard realities. “People, in general, have been victims of racial prejudice and police brutality.” Auguste said. Harvard’s IOP poll shows that a large proportion of millennial voters are focused on the U.S. justice system and the #BlackLivesMatter movement. For Auguste, the GOP hopeful needs to identify systemic issues affecting his adopted hometown. “Ah, man,” Auguste said, recalling his thoughts when he listened to Carson speak. “You’re really disconnected right now.” Kory Boone, chairman of the Maryland Young Republicans, knew of the neurosurgeon in the context of black history and his accomplishments in education. However, with a crowded field of GOP candidates, Boone believes Carson will have to step up even more if he hopes to improve his reach among younger voters. “We need to stop being on the defensive when it comes to these issues, especially with millennials,” Said Boone who said Republican candidates should campaign more on college campuses. “We need to articulate our message better. I believe that’s what we need to do as a party.” *Ben Carson: “What You See In Communist Countries” Is “What We’ve Got Now” In America <http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/ben-carson-what-you-see-in-communist-countries-is-what-weve#.uw13jMwla> // Buzzfeed // Christopher Massie – June 12, 2015 * Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Wednesday that regulations in the United States are akin to those in communist countries. The retired neurosurgeon made the comments while answering a question by Iowa conservative radio show host Jan Mickelson on “Section 8 housing regulations” that allegedly stipulate that Eastern Iowans “have to recruit from Chicago their poverty-afflicted individuals to bring them to Iowa in order to qualify for Section 8 Housing.” Carson said the regulations were indicative of “what you see in communist countries.” “This is just an example of what happens when we allow the government to infiltrate every part of our lives,” Carson said. “This is what you see in communist countries where they have so many regulations encircling every aspect of your life that if you don’t agree with them, all they have to do is pull the noose. And this is what we’ve got now.” Carson argued that these “dozens of regulations” were part of a process that proves “exactly what Thomas Jefferson predicted.” “Every month dozens of regulations—business, industry, academia, every aspect of our lives—so that they can control you,” Carson said. “And this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson predicted. He said the people would become lackadaisical, they would not be vigilant, the government would grow, it will infiltrate every part of their lives, and it will take over.” Carson finished his recounting of Jefferson’s predictions by saying that “just before we become another type of government, the people would wake up.” “But just before—just before we become another type of government, the people would wake up,” he said. “I’m hoping that this is the time when they wake up.” *Ben Carson in Cleveland: Health care not a right, but a 'responsibility for a compassionate society' <http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/06/ben_carson_in_cleveland_health.html> // Cleveland News // Henry J. Gomez – June 12, 2015* Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate, used a medical conference here Friday to deliver his latest critique of President Barack Obama's signature health care program. "The thing I really detested about the Affordable Care Act was you had government saying, 'We don't care what you, the people think. This is what you're going to do. End of story.' And that completely turns it on its head," Carson told more than 100 attendees at Cleveland Clinic Children's Pediatric Innovation Summit. Carson, whose political identity soared after blasting Obamacare while the president sat nearby at the 2013 National Prayer Breakfast, added that he "very much wants people to have good health care." He also asserted that the U.S. spends "almost twice as much as the next closest nation on health care" -- a claim that the independent fact-checkers at PolitiFact found flaws with earlier this year. "Is health care a right in this country? I don't believe so," Carson said at the close of his nearly 45-minute keynote speech, delivered at downtown's Global Center for Health Innovation. "But I believe it is a responsibility for a compassionate society. And we are a compassionate society. Physicians need to get involved. Five physicians signed the Declaration of Independence. ... We need to be the ones who drive this if we're going to be successful as a society." Carson's speech had been relatively light on the politics until that point. For most of his time on stage he leaned comfortably on a lectern and delivered a conversational version of his life story. He grew up in poverty but went on to become a famed pediatric neurosurgeon at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was known for leading the first successful operation to separate twins joined at the head. At times he sprinkled in pointed commentary. "My mother worked extraordinarily hard, two three jobs at a time, getting up and leaving at 5 in the morning and getting back after midnight," Carson said. "The key thing for her is she never became a victim. She just didn't want to be dependent. She occasionally accepted some aid, but for the most part she stayed off of government aid. She didn't want us to feel like we were victims, either. "I find it amusing that some people like to criticize me," he continued. "They say, 'Well, Carson grew up very poor, and he must have accepted government aid, so why does he want to withdraw it from people now?' Which is just total lies. I have no desire to withdraw aid from people who actually need it." The speech was Carson's second public appearance in Cleveland in three months. He headlined the Cuyahoga County Republican Party's Lincoln Day dinner in April. Carson is likely to return here Aug. 6, for the first GOP presidential debate, which Fox News will broadcast live from The Q. The cable network only will invite candidates who have averaged in the top 10 of recent national polls. It's a threshold Carson should have little trouble meeting, based on his recent standings in the top third of a crowded field. But he has expressed concern about rules that could exclude Carly Fiorina, the only woman in the race, and others polling in the low single digits. This week, Fox News announced it will televise an afternoon forum for the candidates who don't qualify for the prime time debate. "I'm happier with it than what they were doing before," Carson told the Northeast Ohio Media Group in an interview after his Friday speech. "I actually do think Carly will get there. I've known Carly for a long time. She's a smart cookie." Cleveland also will host the 2016 Republican National Convention. *FIORINA* *Carly Fiorina Shows Us Just How Weird America’s Tax System Is <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/upshot/carly-fiorina-shows-us-just-how-weird-americas-tax-system-is.html?abt=0002&abg=1> // NYT // Josh Barro – June 12, 2015 * Last week, Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign made an offer to reporters that was tantalizing to me, but probably to few other people on the planet: If we came in person to her campaign headquarters in Virginia, we could review her state income tax returns. Ms. Fiorina had already put her and her husband’s federal income taxes for 2012 and 2013 online, along with a disclosure of financial assets that is much more detailed than required by law. (Ms. Fiorina, a former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, and her husband have a net worth of precisely $58,954,494.88, according to her disclosure forms.) But I was mostly interested in the Fiorinas’ state income tax returns because they demonstrate a distinct — and distinctly annoying — feature of American taxes: the way states clamber over one another, trying to tax the same income, often generating a lot of paperwork but not much revenue. Mr. and Ms. Fiorina had to file taxes in no fewer than 17 states in 2013, many of them with only the most tenuous connection to the Fiorinas or their financial interests. In 11 of those states, their tax bill was less than $250. Carly Fiorina at a campaign event in Iowa this month. Credit Dave Kaup/Reuters Of course, the Fiorinas make more money than most people, about $2.5 million in 2013, which is a major reason they were taxed in so many states. But the tax rules that cause the Fiorinas to have around a 1,000-page stack of state income tax returns also hit many Americans with more moderate incomes, requiring them to file multiple state income tax returns. In the Fiorinas’ case, consider Michigan. The Fiorinas do not live or work in Michigan. They do not own a business or income-producing real estate there. Ms. Fiorina did not collect speaking fees from Michigan in 2013. But the Fiorinas do invest in a variety of funds, which generate income in a variety of places, including $946 in 2013 that was attributable to Michigan. So, the Fiorinas had to file a tax return there, which was 58 pages long, and reflects a liability of $40, which they paid. And then they got the money back. The Fiorinas’ home state of Virginia gave them a tax credit of $40, fully offsetting the Michigan tax bill, because Virginia had already taxed the same income Michigan taxed. That’s how the American system of state income taxes generally works: Your home state taxes you on all your income; states where you don’t live tax you on the income you earned in those states; then, because some of your income has been taxed twice, your home state credits you back — but only up to the amount of tax you paid on that income in your home state. You don’t have to pity the Fiorinas, who presumably did not sweat the cost of getting 17 state income tax returns prepared. But you don’t have to be an ex-C.E.O. to get hit with an interstate tax burden. For example, you could be me. I filed 2014 taxes in two states: New York, where I live and work; and California, where I once appeared on a television show (Fun fact: with Carly Fiorina). I owed $67 to California, and New York gave me back $55 as a credit. So nonresident income taxation cost me $12 in actual taxes, far less than the $40 I paid TurboTax to generate an additional state’s return. The more common reason to end up in this situation is cross-border commuting: If you live in one state and work in another, it’s likely you’re stuck with the obligation to file tax returns in multiple states, with little impact on your actual total tax payment. There is not much justification for this complex structure, which is why other advanced countries generally do not emulate it. Many other rich countries do not have subnational income taxes at all. Those that do generally have a much simpler rule: You pay income tax where you live. If Carly Fiorina were running for prime minister of Canada, there would have been no similar stack of provincial tax returns for me to page through. In Canada, you pay tax on all your personal income to whatever province you were a resident of on the last day of the year. Business income is only a little more complicated: You pay tax on business income in places where your business has a permanent establishment, not wherever you give a speech or have a consulting client. Switzerland is a country that prizes local government autonomy much as America does, but it also uses the Canadian pay-where-you-live model. Some American states have figured that our system is convoluted and have established bilateral tax agreements to make it less so. Residents of Virginia who earn income in Maryland pay tax just to Virginia, and vice versa. But agreements like these don’t exist everywhere. Sometimes that’s because there aren’t enough taxpayers to justify negotiating the agreement: The Fiorinas’ situation of living in Virginia and earning in Michigan is probably not very common. Sometimes it’s because the fiscal benefits flow mostly in one direction: A lot more people live in New Jersey and earn income in New York than vice versa, so New York would lose revenue on a deal to simplify taxes for commuters. Because of those parochial interests, tax harmonization tends to happen when it’s enforced from above: Canada’s last-day-of-the-year residency rule is imposed by its federal government. Do not hold your breath for a similar assertion of federal power here. *Carly Fiorina Blames Unions, Dodd Frank And Democrats For Gender Inequality <http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/06/12/3668767/carly-fiorina-blames-unions-dodd-frank-democrats-gender-inequality/> // Think Progress // Alice Ollstein – June 12, 2015 * On Thursday, former HP CEO and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told the DC-based libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute her views on the “state of women in America.” She spoke candidly about the sexism she has faced in her own career — including being called a “bimbo” multiple times, being forced to attend a corporate meeting held at a strip club, and being asked patronizing questions on the campaign trail. But Fiorina also insisted that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world for women. “Women here have achieved more than anywhere else in the world,” she told reporters on a conference call before the speech. She later told the audience, “My story — from secretary to CEO to candidate for President — is only possible in this country.” The line won enthusiastic applause, but ignores the substantial list of countries where women have already risen from middle class backgrounds to running the country. Fiorina need only to look to Latin America to find, right now, former guerrilla fighter Dilma Rousseff as President of Brazil, former attorney Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as President of Argentina, and former political prisoner Michelle Bachelet as President of Chile. Decades ago, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi were elected to lead England, Pakistan and India, respectively. In more recent history, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf led Liberia and Han Myeong-sook led South Korea. Looking beyond just the presidency, 97 other countries in the world have a higher percentage of women their national legislatures than the U.S. — which sits just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and only slightly ahead of the United Arab Emirates. At the pace the U.S. is going, researchers at the organization FairVote estimate the nation won’t achieve gender equality in elected office for another 500 years. Still, Fiorina insisted in her speech, “Women have more opportunities [here] than anywhere else on earth.” Again, the data does not support this claim. Other countries, mainly in Northern Europe and just over the border in Canada, have much more equal representation in corporate boardrooms, largely because of diversity quotas written into law. In overall workforce participation, the U.S.’ international ranking has been on a downward slide since 1999, mostly because they have not adopted the family leave and work/life balance policies favored by most of the world. In fact, out of 185 countries, the U.S. is one of just three that doesn’t guarantee paid maternity leave. Last year, France passed a sweeping gender equality law that not only set pay equality and provided both maternity and paternity leave, it fulls covers the cost of first-trimester abortions. Fiorina, though she defined feminism on the press call as believing “every woman has the opportunity to choose their own life,” is an outspoken opponent of abortion rights. She told reporters Thursday that if elected president she would support a ban on all abortions after 20 weeks, a bill pushed by Republicans in Congress many times, most recently this week. While Fiorina did acknowledge the worsening gender pay gap in her speech, she told reporters she does not support current proposals, like the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would make it easier for women to discover and challenge pay discrimination. “A woman is protected today by law from gender discrimination in her paycheck,” Fiorina said. “She should use the law to its fullest extent. I think leading by example is far more important than imposing it on others, so I would reform the civil service so it becomes a meritocracy.” She also declined to support calls for better family leave policies, saying, “We need to be very careful not to overreach. When well-meaning legislation to help juggle work and family goes too far, it hurts women.” Instead, Fiorina faulted unions, Dodd Frank Wall Street reform, and economic policies from “the Left” for the current state of gender equality, vowing as President to go after all three. Yet the wage gap for unionized women is 40 percent smaller than that of non-unionized women. And while the wage gap has been shrinking among unionized workers, while the overall gap hasn’t budged in a decade. Fiorina’s speech ended with a plea for the GOP to “reclaim” feminism, saying progressives have turned it “a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections.” Yet she reminded the crowd: “If we as a party want to win, we have to win with women.” The RNC agrees, and after women helped propel President Obama to victory in two elections, they wrote about the need to “improve our brand with women throughout the country.” Neither the RNC nor Fiorina has called for backing policies that women overwhelmingly support, from raising the minimum wage to making all private employers cover birth control in their health insurance to legislating equal pay for equal work. *OTHER* *Two-year sentence for GOP operative convicted of illegal coordination <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/feds-want-nearly-4-year-sentence-for-republican-operative-convicted-of-illegal-coordination/2015/06/11/7ecbdc72-0ed0-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?postshare=4161434121772434> // WaPo // Matt Zapotosky & Matea Gold * A former Republican political operative convicted in a first-ever federal criminal case of illegal coordination between a campaign and a purportedly independent ally was sentenced Friday to two years in prison — a lighter punishment than prosecutors sought but one that still served as a sharp warning. Under questioning from U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady, 34-year-old Tyler Harber said: “I’m guilty of this. I knew it was wrong when I did it.” But Harber said he was not motivated by greed or a lust for power: he simply wanted to win an election and believed what he was doing was a common — if illegal — practice. “I got caught up in what politics has become,” Harber said. Harber — who managed the unsuccessful 2012 congressional campaign of Virginia Republican Chris Perkins — admitted in February that he helped create a super PAC and arranged for it to buy $325,000 in ads to help Perkins’s campaign, then lied to the FBI about his misdeeds. Federal prosecutors hailed Harber’s guilty plea and sentence as “an important step forward in the criminal enforcement of federal campaign finance laws,” and they indicated that they are ramping up scrutiny of the close ties between political campaigns and their ostensibly independent supporters. The watershed prosecution comes as super PACs are playing increasingly prominent roles in national politics. Nearly all the 2016 White House contenders are being helped by outside groups run by their friends or former strategists — in many cases, operating in close proximity. But complaints about potentially illegal coordination have stalled before the Federal Election Commission, which is mired in partisan gridlock. Top federal officials issued strong statements Friday warning that candidates and consultants should tread carefully as the 2016 race heats up. Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell said political operatives should “think twice about circumventing laws that promote transparency in federal elections” and encouraged party and campaign insiders to act as whistleblowers. In court, federal prosecutor Richard Pilger asked O’Grady to send Harber to prison for three years and 10 months, saying such a term would send a message to the campaign world that “how you win matters.” Harber’s defense attorneys argued that a sentence of a year and eight months was more appropriate. They asserted that Harber, a married father of two, was already financially ruined and was unlikely to ever again work in the field where he was once a rising star. “The whole thing is foolish, given the consequences to himself,” defense attorney Shannon Quill said. Though O’Grady’s sentence was closer to defense attorneys’ request than prosecutors’, top election law attorneys said the aggressive stance by the Department of Justice should put donors and political consultants on guard. “I think the department is trying to deliver a very clear message that it affirmatively wants to bring criminal coordination cases, and it is simply looking for the right opportunities to do so,” said Robert Kelner, who heads the political law practice at Covington & Burling. Kenneth Gross, a former associate general counsel at the FEC, called the department’s posture “a shot across the bow.” “This shows they are willing to venture into areas of criminal enforcement in the 2016 election, beyond what they had done previously,” Gross said. In court, O’Grady peppered all those involved with critical inquiries. He asked Pilger detailed questions about the money involved in the scheme. He told Harber he did not understand what could have possibly motivated his crime, and wondered aloud why the operative did not simply have someone else take over the super PAC. For his part, Harber repeatedly took responsibility for his actions, though he asserted he was motivated in-part by watching other people do the same things and get away with them. He said he started the super PAC — which he did not name, though federal records indicate was likely the National Republican Victory Fund — as a legitimate operation, then began using it nefariously to help Perkins campaign. “It wasn’t for greed; it wasn’t for power,” Harber said. “It was money in an attempt to win a race.” Perkins ultimately lost by a sizeable margin to Democratic incumbent Gerald E. Connolly to represent Virginia’s 11th District in 2012. In addition to admitting illegal coordination, Harber conceded that his super PAC — which was donor-funded — paid $138,000 to his mother’s company for work that was never performed and used $118,000 of that cash for personal expenses. Harber’s sentencing comes as watchdog groups are appealing to the Justice Department to investigate such cases. Last month, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center called on the department to look into the ties between former Florida governor Jeb Bush and his associated super PAC. But campaign finance lawyers noted that the facts in Harber’s case were unusually clear-cut, involving a scheme to enrich himself and then lying to the FBI. “It’s an extreme case,” said Anthony Herman, a former FEC general counsel. “I think it’s quite possible that this may be unique, or one of a few we will see.” Still, Cleta Mitchell, a top Republican election law attorney, said that Harber’s prosecution challenges the notion that there is no enforcement of campaign finance rules. “It may take a while, and I wish the FEC could figure out a way to move things faster,” she said. “But the law is still there and anybody who thinks it isn’t proceeds at their own peril.” All those involved in Harber’s case seemed keenly aware of the political climate. Prosecutors argued a significant punishment was necessary in-part because of the surge in spending by outside groups since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently on political activity. Quill referenced news reports about candidates delaying the announcement of their campaigns “so they don’t fall under these rules.” O’Grady commented that he hoped conduct like Harber’s was “not as rampant” as the former operative seemed to believe. After the hearing, Harber declined to comment. He left the courtroom with his family and will report to prison at a later date. *Christie, Walker, Rubio are unsparing in blunt pitches to 2016 donors at Romney retreat <http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/06/12/scott-walker-gop-senators-have-yet-to-accomplish-anything> // AP // Steve Peoples and Julie Bykowicz* Govs. Scott Walker and Chris Christie said presidential rivals in the Senate don't do anything. Sen. Marco Rubio denounced "old ways" in an indirect slap at older contenders. Sen. Lindsey Graham said his party may be going down a "death spiral" if it doesn't embrace minority and younger voters. In elbowing for attention Friday at a luxury mountainside donor retreat convened by 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, several 2016 contenders let loose some elbows at each other. Most did not name names, but Christie did. "If you want to know how little they know," he said of senators, "watch what Rand Paul has done the last two weeks." The existing and prospective presidential candidates employed some unusually blunt rhetoric in drawing contrasts with each other as they addressed the donors and activists. Asked why senators seem to be popular as presidential candidates, Christie said, "Because they don't have to do anything." "If you don't have to do anything you can be as popular as you like because you can say anything," the New Jersey governor went on. He then took his swing at Paul, the Kentucky senator who did not attend, for his tactics in the Senate that delayed and helped to reshape government surveillance programs. Both Graham and another potential candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, said the eventual nominee must get on board with an immigration overhaul or risk losing the presidency. "Nobody is going to vote for a party that's going to break their family apart," Graham said. The South Carolina senator said the party's lost ground with minorities and younger voters means a "demographic death spiral." Kasich also urged Republicans to accommodate many of the immigrants who are living in the country illegally. "They've been God-fearing, hard-working people in many cases," he said. They were among the 2016 contenders pitching for the support of about 300 top political donors and strategists connected to Romney. Former technology executive Carly Fiorina is on Saturday's schedule — after a morning skeet-shooting session led by Graham. Even while calling for a civilized Republican debate, Walker charged that GOP senators seeking the White House haven't accomplished anything in Washington. He said his party's 2016 presidential class should be divided into two groups. "There are fighters and there are winners," the Wisconsin governor said, describing the fighters as the senators in the race. "They have yet to win anything and accomplish anything." Rubio did not engage Walker but drew a sharp contrast between the older and younger crop of candidates. "Yesterday is over," the 44-year-old Florida senator declared, repeating a common theme designed to distinguish himself from leading Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush. "The old ways of doing things aren't working anymore." "Some have said I should have waited my turn," Rubio said. "I didn't know there was a line." Bush was invited to Romney's gathering, but was in Europe on Friday. Romney's invitation-only event gave the Republican contenders an opportunity to connect with 250 leading donors and political operatives. Some attendees started their day hiking with Romney and his wife at 6 a.m. Others played flag football with Rubio. Among other activities: a hot air balloon ride, outdoor yoga and horseback riding with Ann Romney. *Sisterhood Is Sour: How Republican Women Are Going After Hillary Clinton <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-12/sisterhood-is-sour-how-republican-women-are-taking-on-hillary-clinton> // Bloomberg News // Emily Greenhouse – June 12, 2015 * On Thursday night in Washington, Carly Fiorina, the only woman running for the Republican nomination, delivered the keynote address at a red-meat-themed event: the “Bourbon and BBQ Bash” held by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit that celebrates limited government and free markets. The tagline for the dinner read “Liberty served smooth and smokin’.” Fiorina spoke about the years she spent as CEO at Hewlett-Packard, but her focus was not on business and the bottom line. It was on women: “a conversation,” in her words, “about the state of women in America.” Fiorina has never before held elected office, and she may not yet make it into the prime time presidential debate.1 But by stressing her gender in her presidential campaign, Fiorina communicates to voters that there's an option beyond Hillary Clinton. “Fiorina has been trying to send a signal that Clinton is not your only choice if you want to see a woman break the highest, hardest glass ceiling,” observes Jennifer Lawless, the Director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University’s School of Public Affairs. “Who else can take her on as a woman?” Debbie Walsh, Center for American Women and Politics This has become Fiorina's chief calling card at Republican candidate cattle calls. By speaking as a woman about a woman—and by defining herself against that woman—Fiorina finds, to the delight of her party, that she can criticize Clinton like nobody else. In February, at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, Fiorina socked Clinton—who famously declared that “women's rights are human rights” at a United Nations conference 20 years ago—on her record on so-called women’s issues. “She tweets about women’s rights in this country and takes money from governments that deny women the most basic human rights,” Fiorina said of the former secretary of state, referring to donations the Clinton Family Foundation took from foreign donors. “She tweets about equal pay for women but won’t answer basic questions about her own offices’ pay standards.” She went on to challenge Clinton's history and her impressive résumé, booming on the CPAC stage, “Mrs. Clinton, name an accomplishment!” In Fiorina's stump speech, she speaks movingly of surviving breast cancer, of losing her job, and of losing her stepdaughter—displays of vulnerability that show strength, which some might call a historically female strategy. (They certainly ring of a TED Talk by a woman who has read Brené Brown.) But a remarkable amount of her discourse centers on gender. Fiorina's labor to find her place within the GOP tent also means finding space for feminism within the GOP. This is savvy as well as palatable. She uses her platform to criticize the woman who has come closest to the American presidency, opposing Clinton in ways and in terms that a man wouldn't dare. Subtly and not-so-subtly, Fiorina is making the case that she's the politician best positioned to confront the Democrat most likely to win her party's nomination. “Who else can take her on as a woman?” asked Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. In Fiorina's speech Thursday, a personal reflection about being a woman in America, Clinton's name went unuttered. But a day earlier, the super-PAC Carly For America released a biting ad attacking Clinton. The title employed one of Fiorina's favorite refrains: “Titles are not accomplishments.” Campaign trailing Fiorina challenges Clinton inch by inch and step by step. Clinton officially entered the presidential race, and all of a sudden came Fiorina's antagonistic video in response. Fiorina goes after Clinton on everything, as Bloomberg’s Melinda Henneberger has written, “from conflicts of interest to wearing her sunglasses inside that Chipotle.” Fiorina even launched a campaign website at Ready to Beat Hillary.com—a push to undermine the 'Ready for Hillary' movement. In late May, Fiorina held a news conference outside a Clinton event in South Carolina. She listed scandal after scandal, then asked, “How can we trust Clinton?” It looked almost like stalking, then pouncing; that ugly word 'catfight' enters the mind. Could this be anything but a transparent attempt to grab the attention of the massive press entourage that accompanies Clinton wherever she goes? Fiorina was absolute in her response. She told reporters, “I planned this trip many, many weeks ago, so perhaps she’s following me. I have never been following Mrs. Clinton.” And yet it's not only in South Carolina that Fiorina's proximity with Clinton has been noticeable, as Nia-Malika Henderson has pointed out in the Washington Post. Just take a look at the women's book covers: This is the new playbook for women in the GOP, and Fiorina's not the only one to read it. Last weekend at the inaugural “Roast and Ride,” Iowa Senator Joni Ernst played host to a slate of Republican presidential candidates, and shepherded a parade of 300 motorcycles, in honor of patriots and veterans. Revved up, roaring, and real down-home: here was a new kind of political carnival. Then Dana Bash of CNN asked her about Hillary. “It's not enough to be a woman,” she said. If those words sounded familiar, there was a reason. Last fall, before the midterm elections, Clinton, not yet a presidential candidate, went to Cedar Rapids to campaign on behalf of Ernst's Democratic opponent, Bruce Braley. She took up women’s issues, which were getting an unusual amount of play in the campaign. “It’s not enough to be a woman,” Clinton said, behind the podium at a union hall. She spoke of birth control, mammograms, health and reproductive justice. “You have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women.” This weekend, Ernst mockingly echoed Clinton. “You have to care about women's issues,” Ernst said. “Women's issues here in Iowa are that we have a strong economy; we have jobs that our sons and daughters can go off to someday; we have a great educational system. And women want strong national defense. We want to know that our families are going to be safe.” Diminished fraternity among the sorority It wasn’t always this way. Walsh of the Center for American Women and Politics recalls a period where “the women in the Senate had a kind of agreement among themselves that they would not go in and campaign against each other.” Barbara Mikulski, the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate who wasn’t taking her father or husband’s seat, has long worked to build relationships among women in the Senate, hosting dinners and “power workshops” for female senators on both sides of the aisle. Mikulski and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Republican, have worked together to improve breast cancer research, mammogram standards, and the space program. After the death of Geraldine Ferraro, the Democrat who in 1984 became first woman to be placed on a major party’s national ticket, Hutchinson spoke in universal terms, saying, “We’ve all faced the same obstacles. We’ve all been turned down or trivialized.” More recently, when Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House in 2007, under President George W. Bush, there was bipartisan praise from female politicians. When the Obama presidential campaign asked Hillary Clinton to go after Sarah Palin in 2008, after the former governor of Alaska was tapped to be Senator John McCain’s running mate, Clinton refused. “The day she was nominated, the Obama campaign did contact me and asked me if I would attack her," Clinton said last year on NBC. “I said, ‘Attack her for what—for being a woman? Attack her for being on a ticket that's trying to draw attention? There'll be plenty of time to do what I think you should do in politics, which is draw distinctions.’” It’s hard to imagine such a display of female solidarity now. Even Fiorina herself has evinced a change in tone. In 2010, she told Amy Chozick, then reporting for the Wall Street Journal, “Women are still held to a different standard and scrutinized more than men are.” She said that it happened to Sarah Palin. She said, “It happened to Hillary.” A kind of empathy, or even sympathy. And then this April, Fiorina said, “Hillary Clinton must not be president of the United States—but not because she’s a woman.” Some of this has to do with the success Democrats had using the 'war on women' as a rallying cry against Republicans in 2012. In the run-up to the 2016 election, the GOP has caught on. Republicans are working to claim the trope as its own, with the bellicose Fiorina in the front lines. Ann Selzer, an Iowa pollster—who was assigned to a fellowship in Mikulski’s congressional office in the early 1980s, before Mikulski began her many terms in the Senate—speculates that Fiorina might have looked at poll numbers for 2008, when Clinton opposed then-senator Barack Obama in the primary, and saw that Clinton had captured the excitement of women who wanted to have a female president. “The Republicans have a woman problem,” Selzer put it. “So as a Republican, Fiorina says, maybe there’s some people I can bring in. Because if Republicans deal with the woman problem—even a bit—they win.” Party before gender Jennifer Lawless of American University's Women & Politics Institute chalks it up to polarization. “I think that what we’ve seen, especially in the last ten or fifteen years is that, with this increase in party politicization, whether you have a D or R before your name is far more important than whether you have an X or Y chromosome,” she said. In the 1980s and 1990s, not only were there fewer women in Congress, but there were significant number of moderate Republican women. After redistricting, Lawless explained, moderate Republicans were replaced by Democrats. “There used to be room for solidarity and working together on what was traditionally seen as women’s issues – pay equity or reproductive rights. But now, the Republican women in congress are indistinguishable from men who are in Congress. There’s very little opportunity to work across the aisle just because you’re a woman.” There’s the added bonus, for Fiorina and Ernst, that criticism “is seen as less gendered because it’s a woman saying it about another woman. If men were saying it, it could be seen as gendered/sexist,” said Walsh. (Recall that Clinton’s team worked to portray her 2000 Senate rival Rick Lazio as a sexist bully—with positive results for her.) Walsh observed the play of gender among Republican women, the boasting of behavior that's often seen as masculine—Ernst rides a motorcycle alongside (and in front of) the guys, Fiorina trumpets her time riding on a John Deere tractor (and questions whether Clinton's ever done the same). Walsh wondered whether, in this climate of women-attacking-women, they would still defend each other from blatant sexism. “So sad to see women simply attack Clinton for running when we need more women in the proverbial pipeline,” Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist, lamented. “If they could just stop their attacks and start recruiting more women to run for office, we could finally end up with more women serving in office.” A year ago this week, Palin tweeted a picture of an excerpt from Clinton’s memoir, in which Clinton wrote, “I was not going to attack Palin just for being a woman appealing for support from other women. I didn't think that made political sense.” Now that a woman is the frontrunner, maybe it does. *Mitt Romney And Republican Presidential Hopefuls: All One And The Same! <http://correctrecord.org/mitt-romney-and-republican-presidential-hopefuls-all-one-and-the-same/> // Correct The Record – June 12, 2015 * Today, Mitt Romney will welcome six Republican hopefuls including Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Lindsey Graham to his conclave in Utah to audition for his support. One may ask – why are these potential Republican candidates elbowing each other to win the backing of a failed presidential candidate who purposefully sought to exclude 47% of America? The truth is that this cycle’s Republican hopefuls are nearly indistinguishable from Mitt Romney when it comes to their policies on issues affecting women, LGBT rights, and how to grow the economy. Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Lindsey Graham have the same botched, cookie cutter, last-century policy visions benefitting only the wealthiest of Americans. These extremist positions haven’t worked for Americans in the past and won’t work in the future. If Mitt Romney and the Republican party failed in 2012, why is the GOP chasing after Romney’s endorsement in 2016? Instead of adapting to advocate for the interests of all Americans, Republicans are proud to show that they’re still all one and the same. *TOP NEWS* *DOMESTIC* *Chinese hack compromised security-clearance database <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hack-of-government-network-compromises-security-clearance-files/2015/06/12/9f91f146-1135-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html> // WaPo // Ellen Nakashima – June 12, 2015 * The Chinese breach of the Office of Personnel Management network was wider than first acknowledged, and officials said Friday that a database holding sensitive security clearance information on millions of federal employees and contractors also was compromised. In an announcement, the OPM said that investigators concluded this week with “a high degree of confidence” that the agency’s systems containing information related to the background investigations of “current, former and prospective” federal employees, and others for whom a background check was conducted, were breached. The OPM is assessing how many people were affected, spokesman Samuel Schumach said. “Once we have conclusive information about the breach, we will announce a notification plan for individuals whose information is determined to have been compromised,” he said. The announcement of the hack of the security-clearance database comes a week after the OPM disclosed that another personnel system had been compromised. The discovery of the first breach led investigators to find the second — all part of one campaign by the Chinese, U.S. officials say, evidently to obtain information valuable to counter­espionage. “This is potentially devastating from a counter­intelligence point of view,” said Joel Brenner, a former top counter­intelligence official for the U.S. government, speaking about the latest revelation. “These forums contain decades of personal information about people with clearances . . . which makes them easier to recruit for foreign espionage on behalf of a foreign country.” Last week, the OPM announced that a database containing the personal information of about 4 million current and former federal employees was hacked. Privately, U.S. officials said the Chinese government was behind the breach. The administration has not publicly pointed a finger at Beijing. The breach of that data system affected 4.1 million individuals — all 2.1 million current federal civilian employees and 2 million retired or former employees. Information on officials as senior as Cabinet secretaries may have been breached. The president’s and vice president’s data were not, officials said. China has dismissed the hacking allegations, with a Foreign Ministry spokesman last week calling them “irresponsible and unscientific.” The separate background-check database contains sensitive information — called SF-86 data — that includes applicants’ financial histories and investment records, children’s and relatives’ names, foreign trips taken and contacts with foreign nationals, past residences, and names of neighbors and close friends. That database was also breached last year by the Chinese in a separate incident, and the new intrusion underscores how persistent and determined Beijing is in going after data valuable to counter­espionage. “The adversary is obviously very interested in that data,” said a U.S. official, who, like several others who were interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The discovery of the second compromise was not exactly a surprise. “It’s like cancer,” a second U.S. official said. “Once you start operating on the cancer, you find it has spread to other areas of the body.” Employees of intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, generally do not have the records of their clearance checks held by the OPM, although some do, officials said. “That’s the open question — whether it’s going to hit CIA folks,” the second official said. “It would be a huge deal. They could start unmasking identities.” Matthew Olsen, a former National Security Agency general counsel and former head of the National Counter­terrorism Center, said the breach is “truly significant.” The data can be used in many different ways to target people, “whether it’s blackmail, to recruit, to punish individuals in China who are connected to people in the United States.” In the past year or two, the Chinese government has begun building massive databases of Americans’ personal information obtained through cyber­espionage. Besides the series of OPM intrusions, a federal government contractor that conducted background investigations for the OPM and the Department of Homeland Security was hacked last year by the Chinese. And Beijing has been linked to penetrations of several health insurance companies that hold personal data on tens of millions of Americans. “Who can be surprised?” Brenner said. “They’re making a concerted effort to gather vast quantities of information about Americans. This is perfectly clear. That they have all this clearance information is a disaster.” President Obama, as with previous high-profile breaches, has been briefed on the investigation. What steps, if any, the administration can or should take in response is a difficult discussion, current and former officials said. “There are a whole array of things we need to do across the board, from raising our defenses to making sure that this stuff isn’t actually on the criminal underground to understanding the full scope” of the breach, the first official said. “We haven’t gotten there yet.” What complicates this case is that unlike many other Chinese breaches­ of U.S. networks, the OPM hacks do not involve theft of commercial secrets. Last year, the United States indicted five Chinese military officials on charges of commercial cyber­espionage. With traditional espionage, the options are fewer. “You’re not going to start a shooting war over this,” a former intelligence official said. “We need to improve our ­defenses. We also want to go on the offense.” Offensive actions might include directing a U.S. agency to locate the servers holding the stolen data and deleting or altering the data, the former official said. The administration timed its announcement last week of the initial OPM breach to comply with its own policy, as reflected in proposed legislation, to notify individuals of a breach within 30 days of concluding that there is a “reasonable basis to believe” that personal information has been compromised, the first U.S. official said. Although the breach was discovered in April, it was not until early May that investigators determined that employees’ personal data probably was taken. That led to the announcement last week even though, the official said, the investigation was not complete. During a briefing for congressional staff last week, Ann Barron-DiCamillo, a senior DHS official, tried to explain the delay in alerting employees to the breach. “It takes time to do the forensics and to understand what’s happened, and even to understand what data, if any, has been exposed,” she said, according to notes taken by a congressional aide. The breach, she said, took place in December. “It took awhile to pinpoint what actually went out the door because it happened six months ago,” she said. *House Deals Blow to Obama’s Bid for Trade Deal, Rejects Worker-Aid Program <http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-deals-blow-to-obamas-bid-for-trade-deal-rejects-worker-aid-program-1434131589> // WSJ // Siobhan Hughes, Kristina Peterson & William Mauldin – June 12, 2015 * House Democrats dealt President Barack Obama a major setback in his bid for expanded trade-negotiating powers, roundly rejecting on Friday a workers-aid program that was a key component of the bill and leaving the White House’s trade agenda in limbo. While stinging, the vote was not the last word in the trade fight, as House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said there would be a re-vote by Tuesday on extending the aid program, which is designed to help workers hurt by international trade. But Friday’s defeat showed the degree to which Mr. Obama’s trade agenda is on shaky ground in Congress. The House voted against the workers-aid program by 126-302. To improve those numbers, House Republican leaders, the White House and pro-trade businesses will need to find ways to win over a combination of Democrats who are skeptical of the overall trade push and Republicans leery of supporting the aid package. It also underscored the waning influence of a second-term president, particularly on an issue many Democrats see as toxic to their re-election prospects, given concerns in their districts that U.S. jobs are being sent overseas. Mr. Obama, who traveled to Capitol Hill on Friday morning, and to a charity congressional baseball game the night before, made impassioned pleas to members of his party to support “fast track,” which gives the president the ability to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amending it. Mr. Boehner said after the vote that the onus was on Democrats to devise a way forward. “Republicans did our part, and we remain committed to free trade because it is critical to creating jobs and growing our economy. I’m pleased that a bipartisan House majority supported trade promotion authority,” Mr. Boehner said, referring to a separate vote on fast track on Friday. Democrats’ ability to take down the trade bill was made possible by House Republican leaders’ decision to hold two separate votes on the legislation that was passed by the Senate last month. The calculus was that Democratic votes on the first part, the workers-aid program, would compensate for opposition from Republicans. GOP votes for fast track, meanwhile, would offset Democratic opposition there. Instead, Democrats abandoned the first part in droves, raising questions about whether they would be any more supportive next week. While most of them support the workers-aid measure, they knew its rejection would take down the fast-track bill. “Its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we would be able to slow down the fast track,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who ended months of neutrality to side with liberals who voted against the worker-aid program as a way to sink Mr. Obama’s trade agenda. Derailing fast track, even temporarily, further strains the negotiations that the U.S. is trying to wrap up with 11 countries around the Pacific, including Australia, Japan and Vietnam. Discernible progress on the remaining difficult issues in the deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, has all but halted recently as officials from U.S. trading partners wait for Congress to act on fast-track legislation, which is also known as trade promotion authority. “Unless this is promptly remedied with an affirmative vote cast soon, it is doubtful that TPP partners will be willing to seriously re-engage,” said Daniel Price, former economic adviser to President George W. Bush and managing director at Rock Creek Global Advisers, a consultancy. The coming days are expected to include a new frenzy of lobbying by both sides, as Mr. Obama and his allies on trade get a second chance. There were signs on Friday of potential horse trades. Mrs. Pelosi said prospects for passage of a fast-track bill would “greatly increase” if bolstered by another Democratic priority, such as a “robust highway bill.” Congress has for years been unable to pass a multiyear highway bill, and a current short-term bill expires at the end of July. The White House and Democrats have long pushed for a multiyear bill, which many see as essential to completing long-term infrastructure projects that will also boost jobs. Pro-trade House lawmakers also have another key piece of ammunition as they enter weekend negotiations: The House voted 219-211 on the second part of the bill, granting Mr. Obama fast-track authority. It drew the support of 28 Democrats, more than expected. Pro-trade House lawmakers also secured passage of a separate customs and enforcement measure that includes new tools to combat unfair trade practices. After the vote, Mr. Obama urged the House to act quickly. “These kinds of agreements make sure that the global economy’s rules aren’t written by countries like China; they’re written by the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “And to stand in their way is to do nothing but preserve the long-term status quo for American workers, and make it even harder for them to succeed.” White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed the defeat of the worker-aid program as a “procedural snafu,” the same words he had used to describe an earlier, temporary defeat in the Senate on the fast-track bill. But the House has long been more suspicious of trade deals, and the stall in the House represented a more personal blow because Mr. Obama had courted Mrs. Pelosi assiduously, showing up at the congressional baseball game and meeting with her personally on Friday morning before making a rare, last-minute visit to the Capitol to urge Democrats to “play it straight” and vote for the piece of the bill that would extend the workers-aid program. Mr. Obama has promised that he would support Democrats in the face of expected attacks from labor unions opposed to fast-track legislation. Some Democrats said that was not enough. “I don’t know if it’s a matter of just hearing from the president,” said Rep. Danny Davis (D., Ill). “I would need to hear from the people in the Seventh Congressional District in Illinois.” Mr. Obama’s call to “play it straight” was a bitter pill for House liberals, who thought House leaders had already been devious by establishing the two-step procedure. As it became clear that House Republican leaders and Mr. Obama had lined up enough support to win passage of the portion of the bill granting fast-track negotiating power, liberals saw only one choice: to vote against the worker-aid portion of the bill even though it helped many of their own constituents, workers who lose jobs as a result of international trade. “It was not the opponents who came up with this crazy procedure. If they had played it straight, we could play it straight,” said Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.). “What’s the good of having a little bit of trade-adjustment assistance if we lose millions of jobs because we put them on a fast track to Asia?” *White House trade push not getting help from DNC <http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/dnc-white-house-trade-push-118931.html> // Politico // Edward-Isaac Dovere – June 12, 2015 * Texas Democratic Party chair Gilberto Hinojosa had just put out a statement opposing President Barack Obama’s trade platform when his cell phone starting flashing with a blocked number. He assumed White House political director David Simas was calling to ask him to stop. Hinojosa didn’t pick up. “What was he going to do? We’re pretty firm on our opposition to this,” Hinojosa recalled in an interview. “This is an issue very important to labor and environmentalists, and the Texas Democratic Party has a very strong connection to labor, as does the Democratic National Committee.” As Obama and his aides make the final push for votes during a trade showdown in the House, they are getting little help from the Democratic party apparatus — the Democratic National Committee, state parties or even smaller Democratic groups. President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif. leave meeting with House Democrats on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, June 12, 2015. The president made an 11th-hour appeal to dubious Democrats on Friday in a tense run-up to a House showdown on legislation to strengthen his hand in global trade talks. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) It’s not just that Democratic officials are sitting on their hands: 19 state parties are actively opposing the president’s trade package, passing resolutions against fast-track authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement the president wants to finish negotiating once that’s in place. White House officials argue that this is a case of Democratic institutions — including Democratic lawmakers facing a make-or-break vote on the trade agenda on Friday — being out of sync with actual Democratic voters. “There’s a profound disconnect between where Democratic voters are today versus where they were even five, six years ago—the most pro-trade voters in the country are Democratic voters,” Simas said. Within the Democratic coalition, he added, “there are large majorities that are now in favor of trade.” Recent polls back him up. A May poll by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found that 58 percent of Democrats said free trade agreements are good for the country, while just 33 percent described them as bad. Support for trade deals has rebounded among Democrats since the 2008 recession, when only 34 percent of Democrats described them as “a good thing” and 50 percent said they were bad. But the White House hasn’t had much luck getting backing from party organizations. Obama aides started out trying to make the progressive argument for trade, then retrenched to trying to get Democratic groups to at least stay neutral. That didn’t always work. The DNC, which would normally provide support for a Democratic president, hasn’t backed him up in any public way, choosing to stay out of the fight. (DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) has yet to take a position ahead of Friday’s vote.) “We understand and the White House understands that there is and has been a diversity of views within the party on this issue for a long time, which we respect, and that is unlikely to change,” said DNC press secretary Holly Shulman. “Our role has simply been to give the White House opportunities to give information and answer questions from our members and state parties.” Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally with local residents, Saturday, May 30, 2015, in Ames, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) That included a May call with state party chairs in which Simas presented the pro-trade argument and answered questions. When word got out about that call, labor representatives got the DNC to put together a separate call with the same group to rebut the White House. The White House argues that it wasn’t trying to get people to any set position on trade, or under the impression that putting the information out would directly influence votes on the Hill. “There’s zero bank-shot,” Simas said. “This was about, and was executed as, giving information to folks at the DNC and others who didn’t have the information, or our perspective as to why the president was doing what he’s doing, and why it’s so important.” Being on the other side of the president, Hinojosa said, is painful. But nothing Obama has said was enough to convince Democrats in Texas to trust him on this. “It’s not so much that we don’t trust him. We trust him with our lives. What we don’t trust is some of the multinational corporations,” he explained. Party officials said that a major factor in their decision to not to support the president on trade is organized labor, which has spent a lot of time and money cultivating state-level Democratic officials. “As goes organized labor in America, so does the Democratic Party — especially state parties,” said Jason Perkey, the executive director of the South Carolina Democrats and president of the Association of State Democratic Party Executive Directors. “They are our strongest allies and most steadfast supporters, year in and year out.” In late April, the South Carolina Democratic Party nearly passed a resolution strongly opposing the president’s trade agenda, before it was stopped by a procedural maneuver initiated by former DNC chair Don Fowler, who ran the national party during Bill Clinton’s first term. Fowler made two arguments: the people pushing the resolution didn’t have all the information, and the Democratic president deserved the support of the state Democratic Party. The “stand-with-the-president” argument hasn’t worked in other states. In Maine, state Democratic chair Phil Bartlett said he made the case to the executive committee himself, along with some of the arguments that he’d heard from the White House. But they passed a resolution against fast-track trade authority in mid-May anyway. Bartlett said he knows that the White House would have preferred they hadn’t. “I understand their position wanting us to sort of keep quiet. From our perspective, once you have so many Democratic leaders from across the country speaking out, including our elected leaders, it becomes much more an issue of whether it’s appropriate for us to weigh in,” he said. “We didn’t view it as being an effort to insult and push back against the president.” While mayors across the country have formed perhaps the strongest bloc of support for Obama on fast track, a number of local Democratic organizations and majority-Democratic city councils have passed their own anti-trade resolutions, including in Seattle and San Francisco (where Democratic Mayor Ed Lee supports fast-track). Meanwhile, the president’s also getting limited support from what’s left of his own Organizing for Action group, despite an impassioned speech to their conference in Washington at the end of April, asking them and others to trust him when he said the new trade deals would fit completely with his record of watching out for working people. A news release from OFA showed three women in a lobby holding signs, waiting to see their local representatives and the lead volunteer in Washington State at her computer, writing a letter to the editor. “Trade policy is a hot topic on OFA’s digital organizing platform Connect,” the release noted. Some state officials insist that the polls don’t reflect Democratic opinion in their states. “It’s easy to characterize this as simply a labor issue, but this is deeper for our state than one group of stakeholders,” said David Pepper, the chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, which was the first to pass an anti-TPA resolution. Contrary to the numbers the White House cites, Pepper said he’d had conversations with people all over the state still complaining about NAFTA and worried about the secrecy surrounding the Pacific trade pact. In his experience, there’s no disconnect between the Democratic organizations opposed to TPA and the voters. “In Ohio, you go town to town, and you will find deep concerns about the negative consequences of past trade deals, lessons not learned, and real concern about this as well,” Pepper said. “I have little doubt that in Ohio at least, those speaking out against it are representing their districts well.” *INTERNATIONAL* *ISIS Is Winning the Social Media War, U.S. Concludes <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/middleeast/isis-is-winning-message-war-us-concludes.html> // NYT // Mark Mazzetti & Michael Gordon – June 12, 2015 * An internal State Department assessment paints a dismal picture of the efforts by the Obama administration and its foreign allies to combat the Islamic State’s message machine, portraying a fractured coalition that cannot get its own message straight. The assessment comes months after the State Department signaled that it was planning to energize its social media campaign against the militant group. It concludes, however, that the Islamic State’s violent narrative — promulgated through thousands of messages each day — has effectively “trumped” the efforts of some of the world’s richest and most technologically advanced nations. It also casts an unflattering light on internal discussions between American officials and some of their closest allies in the military campaign against the militants. A “messaging working group” of officials from the United States, Britain and the United Arab Emirates, the memo says, “has not really come together.” Document: State Department Memo on the Islamic State Group The blunt assessment comes amid broader criticism that the military campaign against the Islamic State is flagging. The group’s fighters recently took over the city of Ramadi in western Iraq and have occupied Falluja and Mosul for more than a year. State Department officials have repeatedly said that “countermessaging” the Islamic State is one of the pillars of the strategy to defeat the group. But Obama administration officials have acknowledged in the past that the group is far more nimble in spreading its message than the United States is in blunting it. The internal document — composed by Richard A. Stengel, the State Department’s under secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs and a former managing editor of Time magazine — was written for Secretary of State John Kerry after a conference of Western and Arab officials in Paris this month on countering the Islamic State. A communiqué issued at the meeting took note of the Islamic State’s gains and expressed the coalition’s determination to remove the group from the territory it held in Iraq and Syria. The document was issued in the name of Mr. Kerry, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq. Mr. Kerry was in Boston recuperating from a broken leg, but he spoke to the meeting by phone. Mr. Stengel noted that the message from the conference — that a disparate coalition of nations was resolute in destroying the Islamic State — fell flat, with news media reports highlighting how little of substance seemed to emerge from the meeting. “From the outside, it mostly seemed exactly like business as usual,” he wrote. The memo, labeled “sensitive but unclassified,” was given to The New York Times by an Obama administration official. Mr. Stengel did not respond to a request for comment. John Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said that the memo “acknowledges what we’ve made clear in the past: We must do a better job at discrediting ISIL in the information space.” Mr. Kirby was using an acronym for an alternate name for the group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. “The memo is an assessment not of the larger counter-ISIL messaging effort, but how the small group of coalition members communicates internally and externally,” Mr. Kirby said, adding that Mr. Kerry would “take into consideration” Mr. Stengel’s ideas and recommendations. Spokesmen for the British and Emirati Embassies in Washington declined to comment. This year, administration officials said they planned to expand the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, a tiny office created in 2011 to combat terrorist messages on the Internet in real time. The center employs specialists fluent in Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi and Somali to counter terrorist propaganda and misinformation, offering a competing narrative that seeks to strike an emotional chord. The analysts also post messages on English-language websites that jihadists use to recruit, raise money and promote their cause. Mr. Stengel has also sought to work with other coalition members, particularly Arab ones, to discredit the Islamic State in the hope of stemming the flow of foreign fighters to the group. Mr. Kerry has said that the effort to “start drying up this pool” of potential volunteers may be even more important than military efforts. When Mr. Kerry traveled to the Middle East in September to start building a coalition against the Islamic State, Mr. Stengel went with him to meet with Arab officials and establish what he called “a communications coalition, a messaging coalition, to complement what’s going on the ground.” A crucial part of the public diplomacy has involved encouraging Arab religious leaders, Muslim scholars and Arab news media organizations to denounce the Islamic State as a distortion of Islam. State Department officials have praised the United Arab Emirates for establishing its own center to counter the Islamic State’s prodigious propaganda. But Mr. Stengel’s assessment makes clear that American officials believe that much more needs to be done. In the memo, he proposes to Mr. Kerry that a “communications hub” be created somewhere in the Middle East — staffed by representatives from the various coalition members — that would perform “daily and weekly messaging around coalition activities” to fight the Islamic State, and that would have a spokesman in Baghdad. But even this, he said, would face hurdles. “This seems like an obvious and simple solution — but I am sure it is not as easy as it sounds for a hundred different reasons,” he wrote. Still, Mr. Stengel did have one piece of good news for Mr. Kerry from the Paris conference. An event at the Louvre intended to focus on the Islamic State’s destruction of antiquities in Syria and Iraq, Mr. Stengel said, was a success and could be followed up with an entire conference on the issue. The conference, he wrote, could bring together “dealers, auction houses, collectors, scholars” and others to highlight that trafficking in antiquities is a “war crime” and a “tool of terrorism,” and is financing the Islamic State’s “dark game.” *U.S., Europe ready new sanctions to deter Putin on Ukraine <http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/ukraine-russia-sanctions-us-eu/index.html> // CNN // Elise Labott – June 12, 2015 * he United States and the European Union are finalizing further sanctions against Russia that could be imposed if Moscow takes additional military action in Ukraine, senior U.S. administration officials and European diplomats said Thursday. The sources stressed that no decisions have been made yet to put additional measures in place. This week's renewed fighting triggered a discussion of additional sanctions, they said, but the fighting ended before a decision to act was made. The sources said the potential new measures to be presented to Western leaders range from adding names and companies to the current sanctions to imposing broader penalties on Russia's financial, energy and defense sectors. The point at which Russian military moves would prompt new sanctions is a case of "you know it when you see it," a senior administration official said. "It could be any major assault anywhere across the line of contact. We all know what we are talking about, and we want to be prepared and have stuff ready to go in case we need it." "There is a whole range of different options leaders will have available to respond to any renewed Russian aggression, to which we could respond pretty quickly and vigorously. We are not talking about weeks," the official said. Discussion of additional sanctions comes as the EU is widely expected to renew trade and personal sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine when they expire toward the end of the month. Both the U.S. and EU have linked the lifting of sanctions to implementation of a peace accord hammered out in February by Russia with the leaders of Ukraine, France and Germany in the capital of Belarus. The so-called Minsk Agreement has been repeatedly violated. The U.S. and EU claim that most of those violations were by Russia and the separatists it supports. Some of the fiercest fighting since the agreement came this week, with heavy artillery fire reported near Donetsk. The European parliament passed a resolution calling on EU governments to keep the measures in place after Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to Italy Wednesday in what many in the West saw as a bid to break European solidarity on the sanctions. "Europe has acted with more unity than most people expected, including Putin himself," one of the senior administration officials said. A European diplomat briefing reporters Thursday noted that this week's violence strengthened European resolve to maintain the current measures. "The concerns that we all began to feel about additional violations and suggestions there were troops and equipment coming across the border from Russia ... all that in fact was quite useful in getting European nations collectively to grasp that now is not the time to start softening the position we are taking on sanctions," the European diplomat said. President Barack Obama said in Austria on Monday that he'd convinced European leaders to maintain the economic sanctions. The extension of sanctions was one of his chief goals at this week's G7 meeting in the Bavarian Alps. Obama said Europe and the United States stand ready to impose new sanctions if violence increases. The sources said that while they prefer not to impose the new sanctions, they hope the knowledge that they are being prepared will deter Putin from taking further action. "It is both preparation and also a degree of credible messaging," the European diplomat briefing reporters said. "One is to make very clear that if there are further acts of aggression that we can move quickly. The other is to let it be known we are serious about being ready to do that as a deterrent." The diplomat stressed, "We would rather not to have to do that, but it needs to be clear that if that is the direction Putin's Russia goes in, that we will react." U.S. officials and European diplomats insist the sanctions are taking a toll on the Russian economy, where the ruble has plummeted in value. But they admit the sanctions have done little to prevent Putin from continuing the campaign in Ukraine or curb aggression by separatists in Eastern Ukraine. In total, more than 6,000 people have died in the fighting in Eastern Ukraine since the conflict began last year, according to the United Nations. *MISCELLANEOUS ADDED BY STAFF* *Shut Up About the Clinton Foundation's Problems for a Minute to Look at Its Programs <http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/6/12/shut-up-about-the-clinton-foundations-problems-for-a-minute.html> // Inside Philanthropy // Kiersten Marek and David Callahan – June 12, 2015* With all the hype in the media about the Clinton Foundation, we wonder how many Americans actually know what the foundation does—or how many members of the media, for that matter. Listening to news reports, you'd think the sole purpose of this outfit is to help the Clintons get rich and do favors for their shady friends. And while, to be sure, some of the reports about specific donors have been troubling—and suggest questionable judgment by the Clintons—what's missing is a broader, more balanced look at how the foundation mobilizes money for good causes and who, in reality, puts up most of that money. (Hint: It's not dictators looking for favors from the State Department.) While people shouldn't stop asking hard questions about the foundation, they should pay more attention to its approach and programs. In fact, the Clinton Foundation stands as one of the more successful efforts of recent years to mobilize new resources for philanthropy. Since its founding in 2001, it has raised nearly $2 billion, according an independent review by the Washington Post. Yes, chunks of that money have come from the Clintons' network of political donors and corporate friends, which is how fundraising often works: You hit up the rich people you know for your causes. And, sure, some of them may not have the purest motives for ponying up, especially if you're someone who can return favors later, but that's the nature of the game. Philanthropic fundraising is more like political fundraising than many may imagine. You think every hedge fund guy who gives big at the Robin Hood's annual gala is solely focused on poor kids in East New York? Or that every tech leader who recently listened to Marc Benioff's pleas and chipped in to fight poverty in the Bay Area has a heart of gold? Or that everyone sitting on MoMA's board is only there because they love art? Come on. If you look too closely at how the sausage is made for any large fundraising operation, you probably won't like what you see. And that's all the more true if America's messiest power couple is making the sausage. The other missing context here is this: Intermediaries like the Clinton Foundation and donor networks play a growing role in philanthropy, which is generally a good thing. In fact, some think that peer-driven and collaborative efforts to mobilize money is one of the most exciting trends in philanthropy. This approach is particularly popular among women donors, who've built some of the stronger philanthropy networks of recent years. Meanwhile, another exciting trend in philanthropy—also embodied by the Clinton Foundation—is how funders are creating deeper partnerships with government and business in order to leverage money and have bigger impact. But a downside of these schmooze-and-fund models, which can have many moving parts—both in terms of where money comes from and where it goes—is that there's more room for conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such, than with a traditional private foundation. Overall, you can bash the Clintons for their well-known flaws; but you also have to give them a lot credit for harnessing one of the top power networks in U.S. society to a range of good causes and advancing the state of philanthropy. Bill Clinton may be no saint like Jimmy Carter; but it's a good thing that he didn't decide to focus on oil painting after leaving the White House. As for what the Clinton Foundation's causes are, you'd think we would all know that by now, given the deluge of media attention around the foundation. But most of us probably know more about Sidney Blumenthal's consulting gig than, say, the foundation's work in Africa. Speaking of which, it's not just places like Africa where the foundation works, it's also in different parts of America. The latest Clinton Global Initiatives (CGI) America conference, which was just held in Denver, offers a good snapshot of this part of the foundation's mission. It and involved a long list of sponsors including the Kresge Foundation and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, as well as a number of corporate sponsors including Toyota Motors North America, CH2M, Cheniere Energy, the Coca-Cola Company, Freeport-McMoRan Inc., Noble Energy, APCO Worldwide, and Diageo. The conference convened more than 1000 leaders from business, foundation, NGO, and government sectors to advance solutions that encourage economic growth, support long-term competitiveness, and increase social mobility in the United States. As part of this conference, CGI America attendees made 79 new "Commitments to Action"—specific and measurable plans for addressing significant challenges. These 79 new actions cover a wide array of policy areas including access to education and job training, financing for small businesses, clean energy solutions, and more. So what do some of these new commitments look like? Here's just a taste. A more extensive list of the commitments is available here. Economic Development/Financial Inclusion Campaign for Every Kid’s Future Commitment By: Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) Partners: National League of Cities, Senator Chris Coons, Utah Education Savings Plan, I Have A Dream Foundation, Kansas University, Washington University in St. Louis, the Harold Alfond Scholarship Fund, Office of Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, Colorado Department of Human Services, City of St. Louis, City of San Francisco In 2015, CFED and its partners are launching the Campaign for Every Kid’s Future, which will ensure that 1.4 million children have savings set aside for college by the year 2020. CFED will assist local and state agencies in advocating, designing, and raising matching dollars for CSA programs through an online platform. Unleashing the Power of One in Three Commitment By: Association for Enterprise Opportunity; Daria Shehaan Partners: American Dream Fund; Citi Foundation; Count Me In for Women's Economic Independence; Grameen Foundation; Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, Inc.; Mercy Corps; On Deck Capital; Oregon Microenterprise Network (OMEN); Sam's Club; Wal-Mart Corporate Affairs This partnership will continue building on a successful program started in 2011 that gives more loans to microbusiness owners and entrepreneurs. The new goal is to deploy $10 million in microloans by the end of 2016 with the help of the Sam’s Club Giving Program. Environmental and Disaster Relief Urban Watershed Protection & Restoration in Development Commitment By: Vulcan Inc. Partners: Salmon-Safe This project aligns real estate development in the Puget Sound region with water quality and ecosystem protection. Over the next three years, they are committing to the goal of making all development projects in the Seattle region have net zero impact on the Puget Sound watershed. Improving Disaster Resilience & Recovery in the US Commitment By: Toyota; St. Bernard Project (SBP) Partners: Corporation for Community and National Service (CNCS) Toyota and its partners are committing to train 140 Americorps members each year in the "Toyota Production System philosophy." The project will also provide post-disaster rebuilding training at no cost to grantees engaged in disaster recovery work. The resulting commitment: 30 communities will be trained to understand and mitigate risk, and a total of 420 AmeriCorps members will receive training from Toyota over the course of this commitment. Education Wash Time is Talk Time: Early Literacy Promotion in Laundromats Commitment By: Coin Laundry Association (CLA); Too Small to Fail Partners: Laundry Project; Jumpstart; University of Arkansas; First 5 Alameda County (F5AC); Encore.org In 2015, this partnership is committing to help nearly 800 parents engage in talk time with their children, at 5,000 laundromats in underserved communities across the country. This project will create bilingual English and Spanish toolkits and booklets with resources to help parents, laundromat owners, and community volunteers use their time to teach children through talkking, reading, and singing. Play Time is Talk Time: Early Literacy in Playgrounds Commitment By: Shane’s Inspiration Partners: Landscape Structures, Inc. (LSI); Too Small to Fail (TSTF) Similar to the laundromat idea, this program aims to reach families with playgrounds that are enriched with talking, reading, and singing educational signs and panels that incorporate visuals and messages designed to boost a child’s early brain development by prompting fun, vocabulary-rich conversations, stories, and songs while adults and children play together. Expanding the Reach of STEM and Creative Writing Commitment By: YMCA Partners: Time Warner Cable; 826 National The goal here is to take 826 National's STEM and Creative Writing curriculum and disseminate it to about 200,000 young people nationwide, for the purpose of helping students become more aware of STEM careers and what the field is really about. These new commitments to action are great to see from many of the main players in the philanthropic efforts for the U.S. To learn more about the Clinton Foundation's work, check out its five main areas for grantmaking: 1. Climate Change 2. Economic Development 3. Global Health 4. Health and Wellness 5. Women and Girls