Dispatches

DONATION TO TRUMP’S RNC IS A DONATION TO HIS LAWYERS BEFORE IT’S A DONATION TO HIS PARTY. Former President Donald Trump’s new fund-raising agreement with the Republican National Committee directs a portion of donations to the political account he has used to pay his legal bills before any money goes to the party itself, the New York Times reported (3/21).

The order in which entities will receive funds from big donors through what is known as the Trump 47 Committee was disclosed in the fine print of an invitation to a big dinner in April in Palm Beach, Fla., where top donors are asked to contribute up to $814,600 per person to attend.

The invitation shows that the first $6,600 donated will go to Trump’s campaign. The next $5,000 will go to his Save America PAC, which paid more than $50 million in legal and investigation-related bills for Trump in 2023. The $5,000 amount is the maximum that federal rules say can be contributed to Save America by an individual.

After that, the RNC gets the rest of the donation, followed by dozens of state parties.

In practice, what that means is that even modestly large contributors — anything above $6,600 — will fund the account that Trump has used to defray legal costs. And the fund-raising agreement came as Save America, which has averaged roughly $5 million a month in legal payments for Trump and witnesses in his cases, is on course to run low on funds as the spring ends.

“Given their respective financial situations, the former president*’s campaign and the Republican National Committee look like two guys on a park bench, fighting over an apple,” Charles Pierce noted at Esquire.com (3/22). “But as a demonstration of how thoroughly the party has capitulated to its swamp monster, it’s hard to beat the fact that the priority in its fundraising is to keep the party’s nominee out of jail, and hardly anyone mentions that this whole situation is flatly bizarre. Of course, this is all made possible because we are in the brave new world of campaign finance that arose when Citizens United legalized influence peddling.”

TRUMP LAWSUIT AGAINST ABC, STEPHANOPOULOS IS RISKY. Donald J. Trump filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News (3/19), arguing that anchor George Stephanopoulos harmed his reputation by saying multiple times on-air that Trump had been found liable for raping the writer E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos is also named as a co-defendant in the case.

The controversy, to the extent that one exists, began (3/10), when US Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) appeared on ABC’s This Week and faced a difficult line of inquiry: Stephanopoulos asked the congresswoman how she reconciles her support for rape victims with her support for Trump.

“You endorsed Donald Trump for president. Judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape. How do you square your endorsement of Donald Trump with the testimony that we just saw?” Stephanopoulos asked Mace.

The ABC host was, of course, referring to E. Jean Carroll’s case, in which Trump was held liable for sexual abuse. The jury did not find the defendant liable for “rape” as defined in the applicable state law, though the judge in the case later concluded that the former president, for all intents and purposes, “‘raped’ her, as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’”

Mace, who has spoken publicly about being raped as a teenager, condemned the questions, but Trump is going a step further with his civil suit, claiming that the anchor’s line of inquiry with Mace was “false, intentional, malicious and designed to cause harm.”

Steve Benen noted at MaddowBlog (3/19) that Trump has been unusually litigious when it came to independent news organizations. His campaign filed suit against CNN, for example, and it didn’t turn out well. Trump also sued the New York Times, which also proved pointless. His suit against social media giants was also dismissed.

In this case, Benen noted, many Republican voters have no idea Trump was recently held liable for sexual abuse. His new civil suit might help change that.

“Legal experts can speak with more authority than I can about the case’s prospects — though given recent history, the former president and his followers should probably keep their expectations low — but I wonder if Team Trump appreciates the political risk it’s taking,” Benen noted..

For one thing, there’s not much of an upside for a presidential candidate to effectively argue, “I was held liable for sexual assault, not rape, even if a judge said there’s little meaningful difference between the two given the details of the case.”

SENATE MAP IS TOUGH FOR DEMS, BUT THEY CAN BEAT TED CRUZ AND RICK SCOTT. Senate Democrats are facing yet another cycle where the battleground map favors Republicans—this time by a lot. Several Democrats are up for reelection in red states like Ohio and Montana. Democrats also need to hold battleground seats in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania. And with Sen. Joe Manchin’s impending retirement, West Virginia will almost certainly flip to Republicans, meaning the contest for control of the Senate effectively starts at 50-50 and could very well be decided by which party wins the White House and the vice president’s tie-breaking vote, Kerry Eleveld noted at Daily Kos (3/25).

Yet, in an interview with Daily Kos, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Tommy Garcia projected optimism about matching up Democrats’ battle-tested incumbents against the Republican agenda to, for instance, pass a national abortion ban and strip millions of health care coverage by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

“The strength of our Senate Democratic candidates—who are backed by a broad, unique coalition of voters, the Republican party’s flawed recruits, and their toxic agenda on the defining issues of the 2024 election will all lead the GOP’s Senate campaigns to defeat,” Garcia said.

Democrats are poised to make a play in Texas and Florida against two of the most reviled Republican senators nationwide: Ted Cruz and Rick Scott.

“In both Texas and Florida, Republicans have unpopular and unlikable incumbents who have turned off voters of every political persuasion,” Garcia said. Holding the seats Democrats have is paramount, but Garcia added that Democrats are working to “take advantage of the good offensive opportunities we have in Texas and Florida.”

Both Republicans have proven electoral weaknesses: Cruz held onto his seat in 2018 by just 2 points, and Scott has never won a general election by more than 1.2 points, his margin of victory in his first bid for governor back in 2010. It’s been all downhill from there. In 2018, Scott secured his Senate seat by less than half a point, and he remains deeply unpopular, with approval and favorability ratings hovering around 35% among Florida voters.

Cruz’s Democratic challenger, Rep. Colin Allred, a former NFL linebacker and civil rights attorney, has come on strong. Allred was first elected in 2018, ousting incumbent Republican Pete Sessions from his seat in the 32nd Congressional District, which was nearly 10 points more Republican than the nation as a whole.

Upon learning last year of Allred’s intent to challenge Cruz, Cook Political Report downgraded the race from “solid” to “lean” Republican. When Allred officially announced his candidacy, he raised $2 million in the first 36 hours of his campaign. In the final quarter of 2023, Allred raised nearly $4.7 million, ending the year with $10.1 million in cash on hand, while Cruz raised about $2.7 million during the same period, with about $6.1 million on hand.

Allred also turned heads in the Democratic primary in March, winning 59% of the vote in a nine-candidate contest, avoiding a runoff and demonstrating widespread appeal to voters across the state.

In head-to-head matchups against Cruz, several polls this year have found Allred polling even or just a couple points behind the two-term GOP incumbent.

In short, the Democratic nominee is a charismatic over-performer, while one of Cruz’s most indelible images remains fleeing the state for Cancún, Mexico, in February 2021 as millions of Texans were without power amid a major winter storm.

In Florida, Democrats got the candidate they wanted in former Miami-area Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the first South American immigrant elected to Congress. Mucarsel-Powell still faces a crowded Democratic primary, but she has party backing and has posted solid fundraising numbers, raising more than $2 million in the final quarter of 2023.

In a recent head-to-head poll, Mucarsel-Powell is already giving Scott a run for his money, trailing him by just 3 points, 41% to 44%, in a Public Policy Polling survey paid for by EMILY’s List. The survey also found she had plenty of room to grow, with 63% of Florida voters saying they were unsure about their opinion of her. The same poll showed 53% of Florida voters think it’s time to elect someone new to the U.S. Senate.

In November, Scott will face voters for the first time since he penned a proposal two years ago seeking to sunset Social Security and Medicare. One year later, Scott—seeking reelection in a state with one of the country’s largest share of voters over age 65—thought better of the plan, amending it to exclude Social Security and Medicare from the provisions his plan would end.

Last July, Senate Democrats used the anniversary of Medicare becoming law to launch digital ads hitting Republicans on the issue, including individualized spots for Scott and Cruz.

In head-to-head polling conducted by Global Strategy Group for the DSCC last year, Mucarsel-Powell beat Scott handily among politically unaffiliated voters once they were apprised of the candidates’ profiles, according to Florida Politics.

Before hearing profiles, Scott leads among those no-party voters by 7 percentage points, but after hearing profiles, pollsters found Mucarsel-Powell leading by 16 points.

Florida Democrats may also have the advantage of campaigning on an abortion-rights ballot measure if the state’s high court green-lights it for November. Such a battle over reproductive freedom will surely infuse the race with extra money, resources, and enthusiasm. Mucarsel-Powell has been pressing Scott on his support for the state’s six-week abortion ban, calling him one of the “most radical Republicans” on the issue.

“He has also publicly said that he supports a national abortion ban, so make no mistake, abortion is on the ballot in November,” she told FloridaPhoenix.com in January.

BUDGET PROPOSAL SHOWS GOP IS ‘PARTY OF CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.’ Defenders of Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday swiftly criticized the biggest caucus of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for putting out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2025 that takes aim at the crucial programs, Jessica Corbett noted at CommonDreams (3/20).

The 180-page “Fiscal Sanity to Save America” plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) follows the release of proposals from President Joe Biden, who proposes to tax the wealthy to preserve Social Security and Medicare, and House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX), who wants to create a fiscal commission for the programs that critics call a “death panel” designed to force cuts.

The RSC plan promotes premium support for Medicare Advantage plans administered by private health insurance providers as well as changes to payments made to teaching hospitals. For Social Security, the proposal calls for tying retirement age to rising life expectancy and cutting benefits for younger workers over certain income levels, including phasing out auxiliary benefits.

The document also claims that the RSC budget “would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform, pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages, work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work, and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth.”

In a lengthy statement blasting the RSC budget, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman pointed out that recently, former President Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in the November election, “told CNBC that ‘there’s a lot you can do’ to cut Social Security.”

“Now, congressional Republicans are confirming the party’s support for cuts—to the tune of $1.5 trillion. They are also laying out some of those cuts,” Altman said. “This budget would raise the retirement age, in line with prominent Republican influencer Ben Shapiro’s recent comments that ‘retirement itself is a stupid idea.’ It would make annual cost-of-living increases stingier, so that benefits erode over time. It would slash middle-class benefits.”

“Perhaps most insultingly, given the Republicans’ claim to be the party of ‘family values,’ this budget would eliminate Social Security spousal benefits, as well as children’s benefits, for middle-class families. That would punish women who take time out of the workforce to care for children and other loved ones,” she continued. “This coming from a party that wants to take away women’s reproductive rights!”

“The RSC budget would also take away Medicare’s new power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, putting more money into the pockets of the GOP’s Big Pharma donors,” Altman warned. “And it accelerates the privatization of Medicare, handing it over to private insurance companies who have a long history of ripping off the government and delaying and denying care to those who need it.”

“In recent days, Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts,” she noted. “This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him. The Republican Party is the party of cutting Social Security and Medicare, while giving tax handouts to billionaires.”

“The Democratic Party is the party of expanding Social Security and Medicare, paid for by requiring the ultrawealthy to contribute their fair share,” Altman added. “Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November.”

TRUMP-IN-LAW KUSHNER CALLS FOR ETHNIC CLEANSING IN GAZA TO ‘FINISH THE JOB.’ Jared Kushner, son-in-law of former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump, said in an interview that if he were in charge of Israeli policy, he would push Gaza civilians into Egypt or Israel’s Negev desert—a proposal that critics denounced as ethnic cleansing. Jake Johnson noted at CommonDreams (3/19).

“You want to get as many civilians out of Rafah as possible,” Kushner told Harvard University’s Middle East Initiative, Tarek Masoud, in a March 8 interview that was first reported widely March 19. “I think that you want to try to clear that out. I know that with diplomacy maybe you get them into Egypt.”

“I know that that’s been refused, but [with] the right diplomacy I think it would be possible,” Kushner added. “But in addition to that, the thing that I would try to do if I was Israel right now is I would just bulldoze something in the Negev, I would try to move people in there. I know that won’t be the popular thing to do, but I think that that’s a better option to do so you can go in and finish the job.”

Kushner played a central role in crafting Trump’s Middle East policy during his first four years in the White House, and the former president’s son-in-law’s remarks provided a potential glimpse of how the US would approach Gaza if Trump wins another term.

Earlier in March, Trump said he wants Israel to “finish the problem” in Gaza—a remark Kushner echoed just three days later in his 3/8 interview.

In addition to advocating removal of civilians from Rafah—which is now packed with more than 1.5 million, including hundreds of thousands of children—Kushner said Gaza’s “waterfront property could be very valuable.”

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said.

Kushner responded flippantly to concerns that if Gazans were forced out of their territory, the Israeli government wouldn’t let them return—something that top Israeli officials have publicly advocated.

“Maybe,” he said, “but I’m not sure there’s much left of Gaza at this point.”

ANOTHER RESIGNATION MEANS HOUSE GOP’S MARGIN FOR ERROR SHRINKS EVEN FASTER. Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher, who had already said he wouldn’t seek reelection, decided that he didn’t want to spend the next nine months in Congress either. And once Gallagher resigns his seat in northern Wisconsin on April 19, House Speaker Mike Johnson’s margin for error will shrink to just a single vote—almost two weeks earlier than previously expected, David Nir reported at Daily Kos (3/22).

With Colorado’s Ken Buck saying adios on Friday, the House GOP caucus now stands at just 218 members. But once Gallagher also makes his exit, that figure will drop to 217. Democrats, meanwhile, have 213 seats and have remained remarkably unified in the face of Republican anarchy.

That means that when Gallagher is gone, Johnson will be able to afford a maximum of one defection on any given vote as long as Democrats stick together. If as many as two Republicans join with Democrats, the result would be a 215-215 tie—and in Congress, a tie is the same as a defeat.

But wait! The news is about to get even worse for Johnson. Democrats are set to see their caucus increase on April 30 when a special election is held in a safely blue district in upstate New York. That won’t directly impact the topline math, but it will make the GOP’s life even harder, because there are almost always absences on the House floor.

Three vacant Republican seats, meanwhile, won’t be filled until special elections in May and June—but this is where it gets better still: Gallagher’s seat won’t be filled until November.

Under Wisconsin law, if a seat becomes vacant after the second Tuesday in April, then a special election to fill it gets consolidated with the state’s regularly scheduled elections. Gallagher could have avoided this by making his resignation take effect a couple of weeks sooner, but the fact that he didn’t has to make you wonder whether his timing was deliberate.

So in the best-case scenario, Johnson will have no better than a 220-214 advantage until the final two lame-duck months of this Congress. And that’s only if there are no more early departures.

WAGE DATA SHOWS WHEN WORKERS ORGANIZE AND FIGHT, ‘IT PAYS OFF — LITERALLY.’ A new analysis shows that unionized workers across the US secured historic wage increases under contracts negotiated last year, further demonstrating the power of collective bargaining, Jake Johnson noted at CommonDreams (3/21).

According to Bloomberg Law, 2023 union contracts “gave workers an average first-year wage increase of 6.6%”—the highest raise since at least 1988.

“With signing bonuses and other lump-sum payments added to the calculations,” the outlet added, “2023’s average first-year wage increase was 7.3%, also a record high, according to Bloomberg Law’s latest Quarterly Union Wage Data report.”

The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the US, highlighted the findings on social media (3/210, writing, “When we fight together, it pays off—literally.”

It’s well-established that unionized workers are paid more and receive better benefits than nonunion employees. A Treasury Department study released last year estimated that unions boost their members’ wages by 10-15% and “improve fringe benefits and workplace procedures such as retirement plans, workplace grievance policies, and predictable scheduling.”

But unionization also benefits nonunion employees—as shown by the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) historic contract victories at the Big Three US automakers last year.

After the UAW secured record wage gains in their contracts with Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis following a six-week strike, several nonunion car manufacturers—including Toyota and Tesla—announced pay increases for their employees in an apparent attempt to preempt organizing efforts in their factories.

Overall, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), US union membership grew by 191,000 workers in 2023—but the share of employees represented by a union fell slightly as strong job growth outpaced organizing efforts.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) noted in its analysis of the BLS figures that the share of nonunion workers who would like to have a union at their workplace is far higher than the share who actually have union representation,” a testament to the effectiveness of corporate union-busting campaigns and the need for much stronger federal labor laws.

Between 1979 and 2017, EPI has estimated, the median U.S. worker lost out on $3,250 in pay per year due to the decline in unionization during that period.

From The Progressive Populist, April 15, 2024

Populist.com