Hillary Clinton building vast network of campaign staff, volunteers
Scott Hogan wanted to know why his batch of potential volunteers was “ready for Hillary.” The campaign staffer didn’t get the answer he wanted, but it was enough to get the conversation started. “To tell you the truth, I like Bernie Sanders for just his honesty, but I don’t think he’s electable,” said Gina Casey, 59, sitting at a conference table at a Democratic Party office. “So, I’m trying to love Hillary and I need to know more.” A former gun control activist hired by Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s presidential campaign to organize the reliably Democratic state, Hogan made the pitch for his boss over Sanders, the independent Vermont senator mounting a longshot challenge for the Democratic nomination. “This campaign is about you,” Hogan told Casey and a handful of other Democrats gathered on a hot Tuesday night in this small southern Minnesota city. “It’s not about me. It’s not about Hillary. It’s about how best to move this country forward.” In a presidential race likely to include more than 20 candidates, none has an operation like Clinton. In just eight weeks since announcing her plans to run for president, Clinton has deployed an army of roughly 100 organizers such as Hogan nationwide and opened 15 offices in early-voting states – far more than any other candidate of either party in the 2016 contest. The overwhelming favorite for her party’s nomination, Clinton doesn’t necessarily need the volunteers now. But worried she will lack the power of a competitive primary to energize the core group of supporters she will need for the general election, Clinton’s team has set off on an early hiring spree that’s all but unprecedented. “You can’t get to a point where the polls are tight and say, `Oh, wow, we need to do some organizing,’” said Marlon Marshall, Clinton’s director of state campaigns and political engagement. “These organizing relationships will create a sense of urgency to let people know why we have to do this work now.” In Iowa, Clinton now has at least 27 paid organizers – three times as many as any of the dozen or so Republicans in the race. Her campaign has hired at least one staff member in every state, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. She has two regional directors in California and has even put one person on the payroll in Wyoming, a state that has not voted for a Democratic nominee in more than 50 years. The effort isn’t cheap: Senior campaign aides have set a goal of raising $100 million to pay for Clinton’s primary campaign. While Clinton has so far limited her campaign appearances to the first four states to vote and mostly private fundraisers, her campaign has organized 320 house parties – attracting almost 11,000 people in the 46 other states and the District of Columbia. This weekend, the day after Clinton gives the first major speech of her campaign, her appearance at an event in Iowa will be streamed to a party in every congressional district nationwide. “At this point, it’s more about finding people and getting them involved then convincing them to back Clinton,” said Hogan, as the group of students, retirees, and local activists began to filter into the office Tuesday night. The meeting was the fourth the Indiana native had organized in the state, including one in Minneapolis that attracted 200 participants. “There’s benefits to a place like Minnesota,” he said. “It’s got a ton of Democratic energy and people are really engaged.” Clinton’s campaign staff takes great pains to keep a focus on the primary campaign, insisting they take nothing for granted despite a lead in early polls over Sanders and a few others that often approaches 50 percentage points. Should the Democratic race become competitive, Minnesota – voting on Super Tuesday in the first set of primaries after the first four states – could be decisive. But if not, and Minnesota appears likely to vote as it has since 1972 for the Democratic nominee, the supporters Hogan is organizing now will become a valuable resource to raise funds, make calls and travel to neighboring battleground states such as Iowa and Wisconsin. The staff working now in deep blue states such as Minnesota will be redeployed to battleground states at the end of June, with the goal of having built an engaged volunteer networks to organize small dollar fundraisers and make sure Clinton is represented at local events, like parades and festivals, into the fall. Clinton aides said the early investment will pay dividends in the final weeks of the campaign. Data analyzed by President Barack Obama‘s campaign showed a direct correlation between supporter enthusiasm in the last six weeks before the election and when local operations began in their area, according to former staffers. “The earlier you start, the larger your volunteer structure will be the last two weeks or last month of the campaign, which is ultimately when that investment pays off,” said Mitch Stewart, who oversaw battleground states for Obama’s campaigns and advised the pro-Clinton super PAC Ready for Hillary. In Mankato, the gathering included brainstorming on ways Clinton could spread her message. At one table, a group of women had a suggestion for Hogan: Farmfest. Before Tuesday, they hadn’t considered the idea they should put together a booth for Clinton at the three-day agricultural trade show in August, a must-attend event for political candidates in this part of the state. “Next year will be the more important time to be out there,” said Lori Sellner, a 46-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota. “This is just earlier than we’ve seen before.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama delegation supports U.S. House passed fishing reforms, despite Obama veto threat
Disregarding a veto threat from President Barack Obama, the U.S. House of Representatives reauthorized the four-decade-old Magnuson-Stevens Act, the nation’s primary fishing law, on Monday, which sets the policy for fisheries all across the United States. The legislation, H.R. 1335, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, makes a number of improvements to the MSA in order to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal communities, and includes provisions sponsored by Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne. Specifically, Congressman Byrne’s provisions would repeal the inflexible quotas for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, extend state water boundaries for each Gulf state to nine nautical miles, and remove data collection and stock assessments from federal control. “Tonight was a big win for red snapper fishermen in the Gulf and fishermen all across the country,” Byrne said in a news release Monday. “These provisions were designed to give the Gulf states control over the science and data collection as it relates to red snapper, and I believe that with better data and more flexibility for fisheries managers, we can get back to having a real red snapper season in the Gulf.” The Alabama delegation joined Byrne in his support of the bill, with the exception of Rep. Robert Aderholt who did not vote, and Rep. Terri Sewell who voted no. Fellow U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer also celebrated the passage of the fishing reforms, saying, “Fishing is important in Alabama, both for commerce and for recreation. This bill will provide for more opportunities for Alabamians to have a stronger voice in the process of deciding how our fisheries are managed by replacing the current one-size-fits-all approach to a state managed approach that requires state and local data in decision-making.” U.S. Rep. Martha Roby reiterated the importance of the bill to Alabama. “Fishing is not only a large recreational attraction in Alabama, it’s also an important facet of our state’s economy. The bill … works to increase transparency, empower local experts who have a greater knowledge of regional needs, give states more of a say in decisions affecting them and support job growth- all with no increase in federal spending. “ The measure now goes to the Senate, and is facing a veto threat from the White House should it pass. In a May 19 statement Obama said the House bill would “undermine the use of science-based actions to end and prevent overfishing” and would “interfere with the tremendous success achieved in rebuilding over-fished fisheries by setting rebuilding targets that are not based on sound, credible science, and that unnecessarily extend the time to rebuild fisheries.” Byrne however, is optimistic. “I started working on this issue as soon as I got to Washington last year, and this vote is a big step forward. I will now get to work with my Gulf Coast colleagues in the Senate, including Senators Shelby and Sessions, to keep this legislation moving.”
Lindsey Graham, sees world of peril, opens 2016 bid
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham opened his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination Monday with a grim accounting of radical Islam “running wild” in a world imperiled also by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He dedicated himself to defeating U.S. adversaries, a commitment that would place thousands of troops back in Iraq, essentially re-engaging in a war launched in 2003. “I’ve got one simple message,” he told supporters in Central, S.C., the small town where he grew up. “I have more experience with our national security than any other candidate in this race. That includes you, Hillary.” In that fashion, he took on Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state, as well as non-interventionists in his own party and rivals with little to no foreign policy experience. Graham, 59, becomes the first candidate in either party to hail from one of the first four states that cast presidential primary ballots. Iowa and New Hampshire lead the process, followed by South Carolina and Nevada. Having won his third term in November, Graham is a prominent Senate voice in seeking a more muscular foreign policy and one who casts the threats facing the United States in particularly dark terms. “Simply put, radical Islam is running wild,” he said. “They have more safe havens, more money, more weapons and more capability to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11. They are large, they are rich, and they’re entrenched.” He said as president, he’d “make them small, poor and on the run.” “I’m afraid some Americans have grown tired of fighting them,” he said. “I have bad news to share with you: The radical Islamists are not tired of fighting you.” Despite his focus on Islamic State militants with footholds in those two nations, Graham said Iran poses the gravest threat. If the U.S. does not head off a nuclear capability in Iran, Graham said, “Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the least stable region on Earth, and make it more likely that people who aspire to genocide will have the most effective means to commit it.” He said recently there is no avoiding the reality that more Americans will have to fight and die to defend the country. His approach contrasts with that of fellow senator and presidential candidate, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who favors less military intervention. His blunt talk about more troops and casualties stands out even among other Republican contenders who promise to quash Islamic State militants, but sidestep details. Polls suggest a majority of American adults support military action against the group commonly called ISIS. But support drops when respondents are asked specifically about a ground war. Graham came to Congress an outspoken member of the conservative freshman class that brought Republicans a majority in 1994. Yet he’s since joined with Democrats on some contentious votes. He backed a 2012 immigration overhaul and voted to end a 2013 partial government shutdown, for example. He also backed President Barack Obama‘s two Supreme Court nominees. That earned Graham enmity among some Republicans, but he said Monday his willingness to “work with anybody” is necessary. Graham said wealthier members of his generation will have to take fewer Social Security and Medicare benefits, while younger workers may have to work longer and pay more. “We have to fix entitlement programs to make sure people who need the benefits the most receive them,” he said. “That’s going to require determined presidential leadership.” That statement impressed Daniel Nichols, 35, of Central, S.C. “You know, I think he may be right on Social Security,” Nichols said. “I wonder if he’s being a little too truthful when he says that, though.” Graham leaned heavily on his personal story Monday, delivering his speech in front of the building where he grew up and his parents ran a pool hall, bar and restaurant. Graham’s parents died when he was in college, leaving him as guardian to his then 13-year-old sister, Darline. “We depended on Social Security benefits to survive,” Graham said. “As president, I’ll gladly do what it takes to save a program that once saved my family.” Graham planned appearances this week in New Hampshire and Iowa if the Senate schedule lets him go. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Starting his 2016 campaign, Lindsey Graham is blunt on Middle East
Lindsey Graham will formally launch his bid for president in the small South Carolina town where he grew up. His White House ambitions are rooted half a world away in the Middle East. When kicking off his campaign Monday, South Carolina’s senior senator is sure to blast President Barack Obama‘s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, insist on the need to strong-arm Iran over its nuclear program and work to subdue the violent Islamic State militants who have gained footholds in Iraq and Syria. Yet in the early days of the 2016 campaign for president, Graham has already gone further than most of his rivals for the GOP nomination in saying how he would tackle such problems, while acknowledging the potential costs of his strategy. Graham wants to put an additional 10,000-plus U.S. troops into Iraq, adding to the several thousand there now working as trainers and advisers only. He says it could take even more troops to stabilize the Middle East over time, adding “more American soldiers will die in Iraq and eventually in Syria to protect our homeland.” The Islamic State militants, Graham argued at a recent campaign stop, “want to purify their religion and they want to destroy ours and blow up Israel. Every day they get stronger over there, the more likely we are to get hit over here.” He added, “I don’t know how to defend this nation, ladies and gentlemen, with all of us sitting here at home.” It’s a calculated risk for the 59-year-old three-term senator and retired Air Force lawyer who surprised many when he began to hint earlier this year he would run for president. A February poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found 63 percent of adults backed some kind of military campaign against the Islamic State group, compared to 30 percent who disapprove. When asked about using ground troops, support dropped to 47 percent – with 49 percent opposed. Further, the same survey found Americans almost evenly divided on whether military force is “the best way to defeat terrorism” or whether it “creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.” Graham’s hawkish approach stands in stark contrast to his fellow U.S. senator and presidential candidate, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, who favors less military intervention abroad. It’s also notable for its specifics, especially his warning that U.S. troops are likely to perish in the Middle East as part of his approach. While New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said in a recent speech in Georgia that “we should work with our allies that want to stand against ISIS,” he’s described that role as helping with the “weapons, equipment and training” needed for a “long fight.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he’d “take the fight to them before they take the fight to us,” but he has yet to detail what that entails. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, writing over the weekend in The Washington Post, said the U.S. should increase the number of American troops in Iraq, but unlike Graham, didn’t say how many ought to deploy. While Graham barely registers now in national polls that will be used to determine which candidates are invited to the GOP’s presidential primary debates beginning this summer, he argues Republican voters will reward him for his blunt talk about future American casualties. “Look, I know from polling that (national security) is the No. 1 issue in Iowa and New Hampshire” among likely GOP voters, he said. “And I’ve been more right than wrong,” he adds, noting that he was an early supporter of the troop “surge” in Iraq under President George W. Bush and was always critical of Obama’s effort to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq. Graham hammers Obama for not playing a more active role in establishing a functioning, democratic government in Libya after revolutionaries toppled Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. And he insists that Obama’s work to reach a nuclear accord with Iran is in vain, because the Iranians are “liars” who won’t stick to whatever inspections and restrictions make up an eventual deal. “To the Iranians: You want a piece of a nuclear power program, you can have it,” Graham says as part of his standard campaign speech. “If you want a bomb, you’re not going to get it. If you want a war, you’re going to lose it.” After a pause, he adds, “There’s no other way to talk in the Mideast.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Federal judge Mark Fuller resigns amidst domestic violence allegations
According to various news reports, an Alabama federal court judge accused of domestic violence has delivered his resignation to President Barack Obama. AL.com is reporting that attorneys for U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller have confirmed the judge’s resignation effective August 1st. Last summer, Judge Fuller was arrested for alleged battery of his wife, Kerri Fuller. Several members of Congress have urged a thorough investigation of the case, including U.S. Congresswoman Terri Sewell who has called for the federal judge’s impeachment. In a written statement following Judge Fuller’s announcement, the Congresswoman had this to say: “News of Judge Fuller’s impending resignation is a welcome outcome to a very painful breach of the public trust. His resignation will be the culmination of a drawn out process that was woefully unnecessary. The public trust was violated the moment his wife phoned the police. “Justice was not served. We sent the wrong message to victims of domestic violence by allowing a federal judge to collect a paycheck — without managing a caseload — and ultimately having his record expunged. “Fuller failed to uphold our most fundamental values. Perhaps the only consolation is that he has chosen to spare his family and our nation of the expense of a drawn out impeachment process.”
John McMillan: Global trade vital to Alabama ag, industry
As Agriculture & Industries Commissioner, I work closely with the Alabama farming and business communities to grow the economy and create prosperity for our state. This provides firsthand knowledge that one of the most important factors in generating this kind of growth and prosperity is international trade. That’s why Congress needs to take a bold step and pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA has been in the national news quite a bit lately, and garnered a fair share of controversy. But much of what one reads or hears about TPA is misleading or misinformed. Heated rhetoric aside, TPA is nothing more than an agreement between Congress and a U.S. president as to how they will work together to negotiate, consider, and vote on international trade agreements. TPA allows both branches of the federal government to participate in trade development and set up an expedited process for trade deals. TPA does not take power away from Congress and give it to President Barack Obama. Presidents can negotiate trade deals any time they want — with or without TPA, they still need Congressional approval of any trade deal they negotiate. In fact, TPA provides for more oversight of and transparency from the administration, and gives Congress a voice in the entirety of the process, instead of just a vote at the end. TPA also makes sure the public has its say by requiring any agreement to be published for public review 60 days before it can be finalized. Why is TPA necessary? Because Congress is Congress, and no matter how beneficial a trade agreement would be for the nation, there will always be one or two legislators who have a political axe to grind who will hold up the process. TPA makes sure the narrow interests of the very few don’t trump the broad interests of the very many. In doing so, it lets our potential trade partners know they can rely on the terms of the agreements they negotiate with a president and that they will not be changed or unduly delayed by a highly politicized Congress. That’s why it is so important to get TPA back on the books for our state. Alabama is a major exporter, and our farms and businesses count on new global markets to grow their businesses and create jobs. Without TPA, we cannot finalize the kinds of deals that open up these markets. TPA is not some abstract federal legislative issue — it has a direct impact on Alabama’s economy and the 90,000 jobs supported by Alabama exports. Recently, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman described Alabama as an “exporting powerhouse,” and said that Alabama “exports are supporting well-paying jobs.” These are not understatements: In 2014, Alabama exported $19.5 billion in goods. In 2013, almost 4,000 companies exported from the state, more than 80 percent of which were small- and medium-sized companies. It’s no surprise, then, that a recent poll found that an overwhelming majority of Alabamians support free trade. Last week the U.S. Senate voted in favor of TPA with a strong, bipartisan majority. I strongly urge Reps. Robert Aderholt, Gary Palmer and Terri Sewell — as well as the rest of Alabama’s congressional delegation — to support TPA as it moves through the U.S. House of Representatives. John McMillan is the Commissioner of Agriculture & Industries for the state of Alabama. You may contact him at john.mcmillan@agi.alabama.gov.
Hillary Clinton to unveil platform in June campaign kickoff rally
Hillary Rodham Clinton will end weeks of smaller campaign events with a splashy rally designed to start her run for the White House that aides expect to cost over $1 billion, senior Clinton advisers said Thursday. The June 13 event — at a location still being kept quiet — aims to detail Clinton’s vision for the country in a higher-profile manner than the roundtables she’s held in early voting states since announcing her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination last month. She’ll be joined by former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, who have so far stayed away from the campaign trail, going so far as to travel to Africa in the weeks after Clinton’s entry into the race. Clinton’s speech will be followed by the release of a series of detailed policy proposals throughout the summer and fall, the officials said. While many of her would-be Republican challengers are focused on foreign policy, Clinton’s message will center on economic issues that directly affect families still struggling to recover from the Great Recession. The officials who described the plans Thursday did so on condition of anonymity, in order to brief reporters on campaign strategy. Even as Clinton makes reforming the campaign finance system a major tenet of her bid, her team expects to raise more than $1 billion between both her campaign and Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing her candidacy. That’s about the same amount of money President Barack Obama raised for his re-election campaign in 2012. Like Obama, officials say they are first focused on raising about $100 million to spend in the Democratic primaries. In recent weeks, Clinton has ramped up her fundraising, adding a series of donor events to her schedule and announcing she would court donors for Priorities. Officials said they increased early fundraising because of concerns about the amount of money expected to be raised by her Republican rivals. While Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination, her campaign insists its focus is solely on the primary contest. Despite that focus, campaign officials are eying opportunities to expand the electorate beyond the coalition of young people, women, African-Americans and Hispanics that helped Obama twice win the White House. Officials raised the prospect of Clinton being able to compete in some traditionally Republican states where demographics are beginning to look more favorable for Democrats. While the campaign did not specify which states they were looking at, Democrats outside the campaign have mentioned Arizona and Georgia as possible options. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Marshall Yates: Will Obama use IRS to silence religious groups on same-sex marriage?
Weddings are typically not a time for politics, but because the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering altering the definition of marriage, a ceremony in which a minister highlights the biblical foundation of marriage could be found to be discriminatory. I recently attended a wedding during which the minister spoke about the biblical principles of a marriage covenant. While his comments were simple and meant to be harmonious, his unintentional “political” message led me to consider the possible ramifications of a court directly testing this religious doctrine. Assuming the court rules in favor of same-sex marriage, where will that leave religious organizations that hold true to the biblical principle of marriage? As a consequence of an overly ambitious IRS, a religious organization that continues to adhere to such a belief could expect additional scrutiny over their tax exempt status. The possibility that this basic, longstanding religious belief could subject religious organizations to additional taxation contradicts the First Amendment in which the free exercise of religion is paramount. Before discounting the possibility as fear mongering, consider two points. First, in response to questions by the court, President Barack Obama‘s top attorney, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, admitted that the tax exempt status of certain religious organizations will become an issue if the Court holds in favor of same-sex marriage. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli whether a religious school that believed marriage was solely the union of husband and wife would lose their nonprofit tax status. Verrilli responded, “I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It’s certainly going to be an issue.” Second, President Obama has already tried to use the IRS to silence political opponents. Instead of Tea Party groups, now the opposition would be religious nonprofit organizations that advocate for a traditional definition of marriage. That would take aim directly at churches and church doctrine, signifying a major shift in the debate surrounding same-sex marriage. Up to this point, debate has focused on government’s involvement in marriage through the taxing and licensing process. However, if the Obama administration pursues the next step that the solicitor general left open to the Court, the churches will become the new target as states will no longer be the problem. Justice Alito’s question also highlights the theoretical connection between the civil rights movement and the LGBT marriage movement. If the court’s opinion in any way associates the marriage with the civil rights movement, it is well within reason that a religious organization could have its tax exempt status revoked for opposing same-sex marriages. Court precedent notes that an institution receiving a tax exemption must “demonstrably serve and be in harmony with the public interest.” Who could guess how a court of law would interpret whether or not the public interest is served by any particular religious tenet? Churches, for the most part, have never been in the business of conforming to the overwhelming cultural demand for political correctness that has now seeped into our judicial system. If the court follows the administration’s line of thinking, religious organizations would be forced to choose: either conform to new cultural norms to preserve their tax status or stand firm in their sincerely held beliefs and pay a financial cost for their convictions. Marshall Yates is a legal fellow for the Alabama Policy Institute, a nonprofit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families.
Poll indicates Alabama support for federal trade reform
The pro-business Main Street Growth & Opportunity Coalition has announced the results of a new poll that purports to show that a steep majority of Alabamians support the Trade Promotion Authority legislation being debated in Congress. In a news release Tuesday, the group said that 75.6 percent of Alabama residents think the TPA will potentially increase trade exports and create jobs in the state. They also touted the poll’s findings that 62 percent would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported the federal plan. Cory Brown issued a statement on behalf of Cygnal, the firm that conducted the poll. “There has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the TPA debate, but this poll shows that even voters in reddest-of-red Alabama believe that bipartisan trade reform being pushed by Republican leadership and President Obama will create jobs and increase exports,” said Brown, Cygnal vice president of data and strategy. “Support for TPA was surprisingly even stronger among Democrat and Independent respondents.” The survey showed bipartisan support for TPA, the release said. It said 68 percent of Republicans were said to support granting the president authority to negotiate trade agreements as TPA provides. Despite significant blowback on the national stage from the left including many Democratic lawmakers, the survey says Alabama Democrats by a nearly 2-to-1 margin want Congress to pass TPA. The poll also reportedly found that 72 percent of respondents agree that a president — regardless of party — should have the authority to negotiate trade agreements pending congressional approval, a core tenant of TPA legislation. In Birmingham, 65 percent of respondents stated they want their member of Congress to vote for legislation along the lines of TPA. Of African-American voters 87 percent thought that TPA may create more jobs.
Archives show Hillary Clinton OK’d tax breaks for nonprofits
As first lady in the final year of the Clinton administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed a White House plan to give tax breaks to private foundations and wealthy charity donors at the same time the William J. Clinton Foundation was soliciting donations for her husband’s presidential library, recently released Clinton-era documents show. The blurred lines between the tax reductions proposed by the Clinton administration in 2000 and the Clinton Library’s fundraising were an early foreshadowing of the potential ethics concerns that have flared around the Clintons’ courting of corporate and foreign donors for their family charity before she launched her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. White House documents in the Clinton Library reviewed by The Associated Press show Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were kept apprised about a tax reduction package that would have benefited donors, including those to his presidential library, by reducing their tax burden. An interagency task force set up by Bill Clinton’s executive order proposed those breaks along with deductions to middle-class taxpayers who did not itemize their returns. Federal officials estimated the plan would cost the U.S. government $14 billion in lost tax payments over a decade. In a January 2000 memo to Hillary Clinton from senior aides, plans for a “philanthropy tax initiative roll-out” showed her scrawled approval, “HRC” and “OK.” The document, marked with the archive stamp “HRC handwriting,” indicated her endorsement of the tax package, which included provisions to reduce and simplify an excise tax on private foundations’ investments and allow more deductions for charitable donations of appreciated property. The Clinton White House included the tax proposal in its final budget in February 2000, but it did not survive the Republican-led Congress. “Without your leadership, none of these proposals would have been included in the tax package,” three aides wrote to Hillary Clinton in the memo, days before she led a private conference call outlining the plan to private foundation and nonprofit leaders. Federal law does not prevent fundraising by a presidential library during a president’s term. While most modern-day presidents held off until the end of their term, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush allowed supporters to solicit donations while they were still in office, and President Barack Obama is now doing the same. But in directly pushing the legislation while the Clinton Library was aggressively seeking donations, Hillary and Bill Clinton’s altruistic support for philanthropy overlapped with their interests promoting their White House years and knitting ties with philanthropic leaders. Hundreds of pages of documents contain no evidence that anyone in the Clinton administration raised warnings about potential ethics concerns or sought to minimize the White House’s active role in the legislation. “The theme here for the Clintons is a characteristic ambiguity of doing good and at the same time doing well by themselves,” said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the Hubert H. Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota. Jacobs said the Clinton administration could have relied on a federal commission to decide tax plans or publicly supported changes but not specific legislation. Instead, Jacobs said, “this was a commitment by the Clinton White House to identify options and promote them with no regard to the larger picture.” Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Clinton Foundation declined to comment, deferring to the former president’s office. A spokesman for Bill Clinton’s office said that his administration was not trying to incentivize giving to the foundation, but instead was spurred by a 1997 presidential humanities committee that urged tax breaks for charities to aid American cultural institutions. Bruce Reed, Bill Clinton’s chief domestic policy adviser at the time, also responded Thursday that the former president “wanted to give a break to working people for putting a few more dollars in the plate at the church. Not for any other far-fetched reason.” Gene Sperling, former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton and President Obama, added that the tax reduction package was “developed at the Treasury Department, endorsed by experts and designed to encourage all forms of charitable giving.” The Clinton Foundation would not have benefited directly by the tax proposals. The foundation is a public charity and not subject to the excise tax, which applies only to private foundations and is still law. The foundation is also not known to donate appreciated property and stocks to other charities. But the tax changes would have indirectly helped the foundation — as well as many other U.S. charities — by freeing nonprofits’ investments and donations that otherwise would have gone into tax payments. A reduction of the excise tax would have boosted the assets of private foundations. Higher deductions for appreciated investments and property would have also aided the Clinton Foundation, which accepts noncash gifts. In 2010, for example, the charity declared more than $5 million in donated securities on its federal tax returns. By the time the Clinton administration introduced its tax package in February 2000, the foundation had already raised $6 million in donations, according to tax disclosures. Among corporate-tied nonprofits that pledged or donated at least $1 million to the library project through the early 2000s, according to tax documents and published reports, were the Wasserman Foundation, the Roy and Christine Sturgis Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Anheuser-Busch Foundation. Though Bill Clinton did not take over the nonprofit until after his presidency, he had openly discussed his plans for the organization’s future with New York executives in June 1999. And the foundation’s fundraising was led at the time by a trusted childhood friend, James “Skip” Rutherford, now dean of the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas. Rutherford said he was not aware of the tax proposals and was focused at the time on small donors and likely contributors across Arkansas. Months before proposing the tax breaks, Clinton White House officials began courting leaders from some of the nation’s most influential charities. In the summer of 1999, aides began discussing the
Immigrants launch Twitter campaign to stir Gov. Robert Bentley on deportation relief program
Pro-immigrant activists are still taking to Twitter on Thursday amid a federal court case enjoined by Attorney General Luther Strange seeking to prevent the administration of President Barack Obama from reforming U.S. immigration rules by executive order. Supporters are using the hashtag #Bama4DAPA to converse with one another and promote their message in favor of relaxing immigration rules to stop the deportation of many categories of undocumented immigrants. “Tell @GovernorBentley to drop Alabama off the lawsuit vs #DAPA Sign the petition […] #Bama4DAPA,” reads one representative example. “Fight for keeping families united #BAMA4DAPA,” reads another. See the entire stream of related Tweets here. The campaign was organized by the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice, which made it a major priority Wednesday with the conversation continuing Thursday. Birmingham Mayor William Bell addressed the group in April. He expressed his solidarity with their cause and said that the lawsuit is an impediment to progress. “This injunction is only hurting immigrant families,” Bell said. “We need to lift the ban to allow families to remain united in these United States. It is imperative to find pathways to allow these people to continue to be vital contributors to our communities and to be treated with dignity. Our voices need to be heard in order to remove the injustice that is being put upon these families.”
10’s a crowd? GOP prepares for double digits on debate stage
The first Republican presidential debate will feature no fewer than 10 candidates. That’s according to guidelines released Wednesday by debate hosts Fox News and Facebook, which offer the first clues as to how the GOP will handle its largest presidential class in recent memory. Party officials have been working privately in recent weeks to prevent its first debate in August from becoming a nationally televised circus, while lesser-known candidates have been lobbying for access. Only announced candidates will be allowed to participate, according to the new guidelines. Participation will be limited to those who “place in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by Fox News.” More than 10 candidates would be allowed on the debate stage in the event of a tie. At least 15 high-profile contenders are expected to compete for a spot, a group likely to include eight current or former governors, four senators, two accomplished business executives and a renowned neurosurgeon. There will be winners and losers under the new system. The winners could include the likes of Donald Trump, a businessman and reality television star who has already launched a presidential exploratory committee. While some party officials were reluctant to grant him a spot on stage should he run, he has placed within the top 10 in most recent polls. The losers could include statewide office holders who have struggled to gain national traction. Those on the bubble include former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and former technology executive Carly Fiorina, the only woman in the Republican field. Their roads to the White House would be even steeper without the opportunity to stand out in a nationally televised debate. “I’ll look forward to making the cut and making my case to GOP voters on Aug. 6,” Fiorina wrote on Twitter. Several candidates have lobbied Republican officials in recent weeks to consider creative options, including debate “heats” featuring seven or eight candidates at a time on consecutive nights. CNN, which plans to hold a GOP debate in September, said Wednesday it will divide its event into two parts: one featuring the 10 highest-polling candidates, the other including “candidates who meet the minimum threshold of 1 percent in public polling but are ranked outside the top 10.” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, “We support and respect the decision CNN has made.” For its August debate, Fox News also promised to provide “additional coverage and air time … to those candidates who do not place in the top 10,” according to Michael Clemente, the network’s executive vice president of news editorial. There will be 12 GOP presidential debates between August and March, with the first scheduled for Aug. 6 in Cleveland. The moderators for the first meeting include Fox anchors Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
