This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the March 17 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
At Plunderbund of Ohio, Abe writes—Ohio On the Road Again:
I see, with no small amount of alarm, that Ohio will be invaded this week by Donald Trump’s first team of minor Amerigarchs with a series of gold-plated fundraisers in Fostoria, Sidney, Troy and West Chester. Seems only fair that the rich donors who got such an uplifting tax break can show their appreciation with hefty contributions in at least four figures in small-town Ohio, right?
The guests of honor, courtesy of Ohio GOP chairwoman and Trump favorite Jane Timken, as the invitation reads, “fiery” Corey Lewandowski, and “consummate political pro” David Bossie. These two are authors of the book “Let Trump Be Trump,” a title that’s a knockoff of “Let Trump Be Caligula.”
Lewandowski was “amicably” fired as Trump’s campaign chairman after allegedly groping a woman and rumored to be part of a triangle involving Hope Hicks and Rob Porter. Meantime, Essie built his reputation with a long-term effort to demean Hillary Clinton. (Hope I haven’t given away the book’s ending!)
Jon Tester just can’t seem to win on bank reform. While those who identify as the real progressives complain from the left that his vote to repeal some of the most onerous restrictions on community banks that were part of the Dodd-Frank was a sellout, conservatives in Montana are screaming that the reform doesn’t go far enough, that we should repeal all of those pesky restrictions put in place after American banks crashed the global economy a decade ago.
Tester is getting hit from the left by voices like Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, who while certainly progressive on many economic issues, are also positioning themselves to win elections in 2018. It’s tempting from the outside, especially if their positions coincide with our own, to assume that Brown and Warren are fighting the noble fight against the banks and for the workers, but it would be awfully naïve not to see that each of them has political reasons to make hay over reform of Dodd-Frank. And he’s being hit from the right, where Republicans, including the MT GOP and those who would replace Senator Tester, want to lift all the provisions of Dodd-Frank on all banks, including the very mega-institutions we had to bail out after the crash.
Unlike a lot of people online, I don’t pretend to be an expert on banking reform, but I do know a few things [...]
At Blue Oregon, Kari Chisholm writes—Tell Republicans: Reject the NRA:
Did you see all those students -- including thousands right here in Oregon -- walk out of class to protest inaction on gun violence? I’m so proud of these kids. Our future is bright.
Time and time again, we’ve seen American lives lost to senseless weapons of war in the hands of civilians. Time and a time again, we’ve seen Republican allies of the NRA refuse to take action to pass common sense gun reform.
Enough!
It’s time to tell Congressional Republicans “DO YOUR JOB!”
As long as we allow Republican members of Congress to be bought by blood money, not a single one of them will vote for common sense gun law.
No more selling our children’s lives to the NRA.
At LiberalOC of California, Daniel Chmielewski writes—Correa Votes No on Omnibus Funding Bill:
[Democratic] Congressman Lou Correa [of California’s 46th District] released the following statement regarding the Omnibus bill:
“As a Member of Congress, I came to Washington to represent my constituents and ensure everyone has a shot at the middle class. Unfortunately, this budget does not move us closer to that goal.
This budget does not enact bipartisan measures to stabilize our health care system or fix our broken pension system.
This budget will explode our deficit and leave our children to pay the bill without anything to show for it.
This budget spends billions on an unnecessary border wall rather than investing in our crumbling infrastructure.
And this budget again fails to protect DREAMers despite more than 80 percent of Americans supporting them. The President has repeatedly promised a DREAMer fix in exchange for Border Wall funding, yet once again, DREAMers got nothing, while the President got his wall. DREAMers continue to be used as political pawns.
If we are going to spend money that we do not have, we should be investing in projects and programs that help all Americans achieve the American dream. This budget does not do that. And that is why I voted No.”
At Blogging Blue of Wisconsin, Ed Heinzelman writes—Who Is Protecting the 2018 Election?
Really? The 2016 election is history. I can wait until the Mueller investigation is over to learn the facts on any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I can wait until all of the sordid facts come out about the illegal business dealings of the Trump and Kushner families. Right now patience will be a virtue.
But the fact remains that Russia for whatever reason influenced the 2016 elections where ever they could and our intelligence agencies all say that they are still at it for 2018. So where is the outrage in Congress? Where are the bills to prevent it? Where’s the money to fund counterintelligence efforts to stop it?
If you want an impeachable offense…failing to defend the nation is it…the biggest responsibility for both the president and Congress. It may already be too late to defend 2018.
At Blue Delaware, Delaware Dem writes—HB57(S) – Preventing Nefarious LLC Formation:
State Representative John Kowalko has introduced a bill that attempts to regulate the wild and unrestrained use of the LLC entity under Delaware law for all sorts of types of nefarious purposes (i.e. silencing porn stars who have affairs with the President) by infamous criminals.
HB57(S) says that the Secretary of State shall not certify for formation or domestication nor register a limited liability company (LLC) for any person, group, organization, or government placed on the lists of the Active Sanctions Program of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the United States Department of the Treasury (DOT) whether requested by a registered agent or the sanctioned person, group, organization or government directly.
DelFurther, registered agents under contract with the Department of State, Division of Corporations, shall use the OFAC sanctions lists to screen potential clients in order to avoid filing certificates for formation, domestication, or registration of a limited liability company for persons, groups, organizations, or governments whose names appear on said lists. The Secretary of State shall provide to all registered agents a link to the OFAC website and its Resource Center.
The bill says other registered agents who file applications for clients shall also use the OFAC sanctions lists to screen out potential clients who appear on any of the sanctions lists. Registered agents identifying a match of an applicant with a name on one of the sanctions lists shall not be required by this law to report the match to any government authority. The registered agent’s obligation will be to simply reject the applicant as a client.
My question: if the registered agent does not meet his obligation to reject the applicant, what is the sanction or punishment? Nothing?
I say disbarment, as most registered agents are attorneys in Delaware.
At ColoradoPols, a staffer writes—Ken Buck: Leave Donald Trump Alone!
As the Greeley Tribune’s Tyler Silvy reports, Rep. Ken Buck, the former District Attorney for Weld County before being elected to Congress, is tired of all this investigating of our Dear Leader already:
Rep. Ken Buck said Wednesday he’s concerned the special counsel investigation has gone beyond its original scope, saying the law allowing the special prosecutor undermines the integrity of U.S. elections.
The Greeley Tribune reached out to Buck and Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., in the wake of the firing of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, statements from President Donald Trump’s attorney regarding the special counsel investigation and tweets from the president on the same topic…
Buck, a former federal prosecutor, didn’t directly answer whether he ever found things he wasn’t looking for during the course of his investigations. Instead, he said he was never given unlimited resources or unlimited time to investigate someone.
“No federal prosecutor has ever worked on a case like this,” Buck said. “This law is fundamentally flawed. It undermines the integrity of our elections if we’re going to investigate anything a president could have done wrong.” [Pols emphasis]
Rep. Buck seems to forget the expansive prosecutorial discretion enjoyed by the special prosecutor charged by Republicans in Congress to investigate…well, anything they could possibly find or conjure to impugn the integrity of former President Bill Clinton. An investigation that began with real estate deals ended up producing articles of impeachment over oral sex with an intern. The fact remains that crimes committed during the course of an investigation, like perjury and obstruction, are still crimes. By contrast, the investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russians to win the election has been hewing pretty closely to the original stated scope–and, we might add, fruitfully.
But seriously, folks. If you poll 100 people about whether we should “investigate anything a president could have done wrong,” we’re pretty sure the answer is going to be an enthusiastic yes in about 99% of cases. The only exception to that would most likely be sycophant cronies of the president.
At The Progressive Pulse of North Carolina, Joe Killian writes—Historical Commission hears public comments on removing Confederate monuments:
Nearly 60 people came to speak at Wednesday’s public hearing on removing three Confederate monuments from the Capitol Square in downtown Raleigh. Most of the speakers, who skewed older and white, said they were against moving the statues.
Boyd Sturges, attorney for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, was spoke first—and set the tone of much of what followed.
“My client can give many sound philosophical, intellectual and historical reasons why you should not move these or any other historical statues,” Sturges said. “However, they don’t have to do that here – because the law clearly protects these statues.”
Sturges was referring a 2015 law that makes it more difficult to remove such statues or “objects of remembrance” – passed in response to a growing movement to move or remove Confederate monuments. The law makes such requests the business of the North Carolina Historical Commission, whose special task force on the issue arranged Wednesday’s public hearing at the State Archives and History/State Library Building in downtown Raleigh.
“You don’t have to like a law to have to follow a law,” Sturges said. “Otherwise you have anarchy and mob rule. Anarchy and mob rule is not how North Carolinians conduct themselves.”
In his comments Rick New of Jacksonville represented a strain among the crowd who seemed to think the commission, by taking up the matter as they must under the law, was somehow violating state law.
“It looks like what you’re trying to do is circumventilate [sic] the law, ” New said. “The law is clear. It says when you relocate a statue, it has to be in an equal place of prominence. There is no equal place in North Carolina other than the capitol grounds.”
At ProgressNow New Mexico, a staffer writes—Armed protestors pressure Las Cruces City Council to drop School Safety resolution:
On Monday, armed, pro-gun activists loosely organized by Republican and outspoken pro-gun candidates in Doña Ana County amassed at the Las Cruces City Hall to protest “A Resolution to Better Ensure the Safety of Students in Las Cruces Schools.”
The protest started on the road in front of City Hall with folks carrying AR-15s and handguns, holding signs, and waving variations of the Gadsden Flag, the infamous coiled snake with the phrase “Don’t tread on me.” Most of those protestors then entered City Hall for the regular meeting and took up menacing positions around the back of the chamber with their weapons in full view of anyone coming and going. There were additional seats, added in the lobby of City Hall, that were also filled with armed supporters so that anyone from the public who may have been coming to pay a utility bill or apply for a business license was welcomed by a phalanx of people with rifles and handguns. [...]
At least two candidates who are running in November were a part of the protest and took some credit for organizing it. William Webb is running as a Republican for Probate Judge in Doña Ana County. [...]
Webb was seen carrying what he identified as a .45 caliber Glock in an inside-the-waistband concealed hostler, although it was plainly visible. Bev Courtney, who is running as a Republican for the state legislature in District 37 was also in attendance and carrying a .45 caliber Colt-design with the hammer visible cocked. Courtney runs a shooting club in Las Cruces called the American Gun Culture Club and has run unsuccessfully for City Council positions twice in the past.
At Florida Politics, Scott Powers writes—Marco Rubio, Bill Nelson introduce federal legislation for ‘red flag’ gun seizures:
Florida’s U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio and Bill Nelson on Friday announced a federal bill that would encourage other states to follow Florida’s lead with legislation allowing law enforcement to seek court orders removing guns from dangerous individuals.
Republican Rubio and Democrat Nelson were joined Thursday by U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, in announcing they are introducing a federal “Red Flag” bill that would create incentives for states to enact laws like Florida’s recently-signed law as part of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School response.
Rubio said the Florida law already has been used three times since Gov. Rick Scott signed it March 9, including in an Orlando case Wednesday. The law allows family members or law enforcement to seek orders declaring someone an extreme risk of violence to themselves or others, and then prevent them from possessing guns.
Rubio contended that in many cases, including the confessed Parkland shooter who murdered 17 people in Douglas High School on Feb. 14, there are plenty of “red flags” that tell family members, law enforcement and others that the person is an extreme danger.
“These extreme risk protection orders are in my view one of the most effective things a state can do to address it,” Rubio said at a press conference in Washington Thursday. “These tools now give authorities the ability to go in and take away their guns with due process.”
At Dakota Free Press, Cory Allen Heidelberger writes—Those Who Don’t Know History (e.g., Lynne DiSanto) Are Doomed to Repeat Internet Hoaxes:
DiSanto’s Facebook followers do an excellent job of debunking DiSanto’s quote. Briefly:
- Hitler never made this statement. I easily find an online debunking dating back to 2000.
- There was no German Weapons Act of 1935. A 1938 German Weapons Act removed gun restrictions from long guns and ammo, lowered the legal age for buying guns, tripled how long gun permits were good for, and exempted hunters, government workers, and Nazi Party members from gun laws. The only new restriction it imposed was kicking Jews out of the guns and ammo business.
As one astute Rapid City observer notes in DiSanto’s comment section, “Why should we trust you to represent us when you can’t even factcheck a Facebook post?”
At Blog for Iowa, Trish Nelson writes—Will Youth Decide The 2018 Election In Iowa’s First District?
Here’s a bit of cheery news. Young people could help Iowa prevent a trending downward slide to becoming a third world country/state. (If they can overcome our spiffy new voter ID law that makes it harder for just about everyone to vote). Nevertheless, this is hopeful information from CIRCLE ( (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement)
###
In many communities, young people make up a substantial proportion of the population, yet are sometimes not included in campaign outreach. More local elections can help to connect issues youth care about in their communities to elections. The Youth Electoral Significance Index (YESI) utilizes indicators of demographics, historical voting patterns, and projected competitiveness to produce a ranking of the states and districts where young people (ages 18-29) have the highest potential for impact on the 2018 elections.
Today, CIRCLE is releasing the top 10 congressional districts where young people might have an especially high electoral influence. Later this month will release the top ten Senate and Governor races.
Here’s why these ten districts ranked so highly:
Iowa 1st (Cedar Rapids) – Iowa’s 1st district has 20 colleges and universities and a high proportion of 18 to 29-year-olds enrolled in college (over 40%). The district population is predominantly white and young people had one of the 20 best turnout rates in the nation in the 2014 midterms: 22%. There are several so-called pivot counties in this district, meaning that voters supported President Obama in 2012 and President Trump in 2016; so competitiveness will be a factor.