DOCSLIB.ORG

SENATOR MITCH Mcconnell, Et Al., Plaintiffs, V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Et

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SENATOR MITCH Mcconnell, Et Al., Plaintiffs, V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Et UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SENATOR MITCH McCONNELL, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-582 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-581 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. EMILY ECHOLS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-633 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-751 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, Plaintiff, Civ. No. 02-753 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-754 (CKK, KLH, RJL) v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. 2 CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-781 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-874 (CKK, KLH, RJL) v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-875 (CKK, KLH, RJL) v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. 3 VICTORIA JACKSON GRAY ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-877 (CKK, KLH, RJL) v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, Defendant. BENNIE G. THOMPSON, et al., Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 02-881 v. (CKK, KLH, RJL) FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. 4 “To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 478 (1897). KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidate- focused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers. Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 349 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“[T]he prospect that voters might be persuaded by . endorsements is not a corruption of the democratic political process; it is the democratic political process.” (emphasis in original)). Further, the opinions are similarly flawed in their dissection of the statute’s dense and interlocking provisions, upholding a portion here and striking down a fragment there until they have drafted legislation the Congress would never have enacted — all in the name of deference to that 5 body. See, e.g., Per Curiam Op. at Part I; Memo Op., RJL, at Parts I.A.2, I.A.3, I.B, II.C.1 1 To the extent this opinion overlaps with or is non-responsive to the other opinions, the disconnect is necessitated by the statute’s mandate that we “advance on the docket and . expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action[s].” BCRA § 403(a)(4); FECA § 310 note; 2 U.S.C. § 437h note. In light of that mandate, the panel held a status hearing on April 23, 2002—now over one year ago—at which the court and the parties discussed expedition and the significance of the statute’s delayed effective date. Compare Status Hearing Tr. at 23, 39, 82 (counsel for plaintiffs suggesting parties “ought to do our best” to “put[ ] this court in a position where, if it can, it can resolve everything by the effective date of the statute”), with id. at 58-61 (counsel for defendants disagreeing with “assumption . that section 403, the expedition section, requires some type of decision by this court by November 6th [of 2002]”); see also id. at 61 (court stating “I read [the statute] to mean that they want it to happen before [November 6th]” (Henderson, J.)). At that time, the parties differed somewhat as to the latest date on which the Supreme Court could receive the case and still decide it during the Court’s October 2002 Term. Compare, e.g., id. at 60, 69-70, 73-74 (counsel for government and intervenors proposing that “this court . resolve all the issues by early February” so that “the Supreme Court of the United States could in the ordinary course resolve this [case] by the end of the 2002 [T]erm”), with id. at 76, 82 (counsel for plaintiffs suggesting “the schedule that is being proposed by the government does place an extraordinary burden on the Supreme Court” and that “things should be done before November 6th if at all possible”); see also id. at 60 (court stating “[t]hat’s putting an awful lot on the Supreme Court to decide this if we don’t hear it until February. As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather put the burden somewhere [other than on the Supreme Court] [as] an inferior court.” (Henderson, J.)). All agreed, however, that the Supreme Court had to receive the case no later than the first week of February. See id. at 23, 39-40, 58, 60, 69-71, 73-74, 82. On April 24, 2002 the panel issued a scheduling order setting out a discovery and “paper trial” timetable that fixed an argument date of December 4, 2002. During the next eight months—a necessarily-compressed discovery and trial period—the parties conducted extensive discovery and submitted an “elephantine” record, Oral Arg. Tr. Vol. 1, Afternoon Session, at 152 (counsel for Senator McConnell), an impressive achievement due in no small measure to their extraordinary efforts to keep delay to a minimum. At the oral argument held on December 4 and 5, the parties again gave their estimates of the latest date on which an appeal could reach the Supreme Court in time for a final decision by June 30, 2003. Again there was consensus that the Court had to receive the case no later than early February. See Oral Arg. Tr. Vol. 1, Morning Session, at 19 (counsel for Senator McConnell stating “it 6 would be very helpful to the [C]ourt” if district court issued its judgment “as of the end of January or as soon into February as possible”); id., Afternoon Session, at 277-78 (counsel for intervenors stating Court could hear the case “in the regular course of briefing” if district court issued its judgment during “the third week in January”); see also id., Morning Session, at 19 (“I estimated actually less [time] than that, but, all right.” (Henderson, J.)). The panel’s subsequent delay in resolving these actions has not only defied the statute’s expedition mandate but, regrettably, has ill-served the strong public interest in election law clarity and stability. In my view, the delay could have been avoided—as it was avoided in Buckley v. Valeo—by the Congress’s lodging judicial review of constitutional questions in an en banc court of appeals instead of a three-judge district court. By contrast to BCRA section 403, which provides for judicial review “by a 3-judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, United States Code,” BCRA § 403(a)(1); FECA § 310 note; 2 U.S.C. § 437h note, FECA’s judicial review provision provided—and still provides—that the Federal Election Commission, any national political party committee or any eligible voter “may institute such actions in the appropriate district court of the United States . as may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision of [FECA]” and that such court “immediately shall certify all questions of constitutionality of [FECA] to the United States court of appeals for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc,” 2 U.S.C. § 437h. Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437h, and noting a comment of the provision’s sponsor that “it is in the interest of everyone” to have “serious question[s] as to the constitutionality of this legislation . determined by the Supreme Court at the earliest possible time,” Buckley v. Valeo, 387 F. Supp. 135, 139 (D.D.C. 1975) (quoting 120 CONG. REC. S5707 (daily ed. April 10, 1974) (statement of Sen. Buckley)), remanded by Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1975), the district court in Buckley certified 28 such questions to the en banc D.C. Circuit, see Buckley v. Valeo, 519 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The D.C. Circuit, in turn, resolved the questions—which were no less novel than the ones the panel decides today—two months after oral argument. See Buckley, 519 F.2d at 821. A similarly swift resolution here would have yielded a decision by the first week of February. That the Buckley en banc panel consisted of eight members, not three—and that it did not have, as we have had, the benefit of a statutorily-prescribed eight-month stay in the effective date of the legislation—did not prevent it from issuing a decision more expeditiously than has this panel. Although the actions before us have produced a large (but probably unnecessary) record, see infra pages 64-65, we have decided the constitutional questions presented in the same manner as the Buckley panel did — after briefing and oral argument and in lieu of a full-blown trial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood: Who They Are and How American News Media Gets It Wrong
    Jeremy Abrams The Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood: Who they are and How American News Media Gets it Wrong Jeremy Abrams 1 Table of Content I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 II. Defining Political Parties and their Role in Democracies ................................................................. 2 A. Generally ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 B. Structurally .................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. How the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood Fit the Mold ................................................. 4 III. Brief Descriptions of the Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood ............................................. 4 A. The Tea Party ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1. History ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. The System in Which it Operates ..................................................................................................... 9 3. Official Status ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matt Rosendale/Nrsc – Choice Fact Check
    MATT ROSENDALE/NRSC – CHOICE FACT CHECK OVERVIEW • Jon Tester, as Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, has been a leader in working with the Trump Administration to secure our borders, and has fought tirelessly throughout his career to put more boots on the ground and deploy technology to secure the Northern and Southern borders. • Matt Rosendale has repeatedly opposed efforts to keep Montanans safe – he was called out by the Billings Gazette for being one of only seven state senators to vote against legislation to toughen penalties for human trafficking, voted against creating a permanent sexual assault prosecution office in the Montana Department of Justice, and voted against funding a service to notify victims or sex crimes when their attacker was released from prison. • Matt Rosendale is a multimillionaire East Cost real estate developer who moved to Montana after buying a $2 million trophy ranch that he doesn’t even ranch himself; he’s a political opportunist who has run for 5 offices in 8 years and who started his campaign with a “pants on fire” lie about Jon Tester’s record. Rosendale was hand- picked by Washington insiders and special interests; his campaign has been propped up by millions in dark money outside spending – he’ll do their bidding, not what’s best for Montana. CLAIM FACTS V/O: There's a JON TESTER HAS BEEN A LEADER IN EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE TRUMP choice on ADMINISTRATION TO STRENGTHEN OUR BORDER SECURITY immigration. HEADLINE: “Tester Joins Bipartisan Group Working On Border Security Deal.” [MTPR, ON SCREEN: 1/24/18] THERE IS A CHOICE ON CNN: Jon Tester “Was One Of A Handful” Of Senators To Meet With Trump IMMIGRATION Administration Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen On Immigration Reform Negotiations.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominations of Hon. David C. Williams, Hon. Robert M
    S. Hrg. 115–450 NOMINATIONS OF HON. DAVID C. WILLIAMS, HON. ROBERT M. DUNCAN, AND CALVIN R. TUCKER TO BE GOVERNORS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION NOMINATIONS OF THE HONORABLE DAVID C. WILLIAMS, THE HONORABLE ROBERT M. DUNCAN, AND CALVIN R. TUCKER TO BE GOVERNORS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE APRIL 18, 2018 Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.Govinfo.gov/ Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 32–453 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma GARY C. PETERS, Michigan MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota KAMALA D. HARRIS, California STEVE DAINES, Montana DOUG JONES, Alabama CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel JENNIFER L. SELDE, Professional Staff Member MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director DONALD K. SHERMAN, Minority Senior Advisor LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk BONNI E. DINERSTEIN, Hearing Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Opening statements: Page Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 Senator McCaskill ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Majority and Minority Leaders”, Available At
    Majority and Minority Party Membership Other Resources Adapted from: “Majority and Minority Leaders”, www.senate.gov Available at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 3: Majority and Minority Whips (Assistant Floor Leaders) Chapter 4: Complete List of Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 5: Longest-Serving Party Leaders Introduction The positions of party floor leader are not included in the Constitution but developed gradually in the 20th century. The first floor leaders were formally designated in 1920 (Democrats) and 1925 (Republicans). The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate. The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Majority and Minority Leaders Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties' positions on the issues. The majority leader has also come to speak for the Senate as an institution. Working with the committee chairs and ranking members, the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar and keeps members of his party advised about the daily legislative program.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. 60 Plus Association, Inc. 2. Adams, Victoria Jackson Gray 3
    PLAINTIFFS IN THE CONSOLIDATED LAWSUITS (in alphabetical order) 1. 60 Plus Association, Inc. 2. Adams, Victoria Jackson Gray 3. AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education Political Contributions Committee 4. Alabama Republican Executive Committee, as governing body for the Alabama Republican Party 5. Alby, Barbara 6. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 7. American Federal of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) 8. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. 9. Associated Buildings and Contractors Political Action Committee 10. Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now 11. Barr, Representative Bob 12. Bolton, Carrie 13. Boyd, Douglas R., Sr. 14. Brown, Cynthia 15. California Democratic Party 16. California Public Interest Research Group 17. California Republican Party 18. Center for Individual Freedom 19. Chamber of Commerce of the United States 20. Christian Coalition of America, Inc. 21. Citizens United 22. Citizens United Political Victory Fund 23. Cloud, Michael 24. Club for Growth 25. Connors, Martin 26. Cressman, Derek 27. Dallas County (Iowa) Republican County Central Committee 28. Duncan, Mike, as member and Treasurer of RNC 29. Dupage Political Action Council 30. Echols, Emily 31. Fannie Lou Hamer Project 32. Fitzgerald, Victoria 33. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund 34. Gun Owners of America, Inc. 35. Hilliard, Rep. Earl F. 36. Howell, Carla 37. Indiana Family Institute 38. Jefferson County Republican Executive Committee 39. Joshi, Anurada 40. Kostmayer, Peter 41. Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 42. Libertarian Party of Illinois 43. Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group 44. McConnell, Senator Mitch 45. McDow, Hannah 46. McDow, Isaac 47. McInerney, Thomas E. 48. Mitchell, Jessica 49. Morgan, Timothy J.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: a Narrative- Based Analysis of His Supporters and of the Candidate Himself Mitchell A
    University of Puget Sound Sound Ideas Summer Research Summer 2016 Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: A narrative- based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself Mitchell A. Carlson 7886304 University of Puget Sound, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation Carlson, Mitchell A. 7886304, "Who Supports Donald J. Trump?: A narrative-based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself" (2016). Summer Research. Paper 271. http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/summer_research/271 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Sound Ideas. It has been accepted for inclusion in Summer Research by an authorized administrator of Sound Ideas. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Mitchell Carlson Professor Robin Dale Jacobson 8/24/16 Who Supports Donald J. Trump? A narrative-based analysis of his supporters and of the candidate himself Introduction: The Voice of the People? “My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads: “I’m With Her.” I choose to recite a different pledge. My pledge reads: ‘I’m with you—the American people.’ I am your voice.” So said Donald J. Trump, Republican presidential nominee and billionaire real estate mogul, in his speech echoing Richard Nixon’s own convention speech centered on law-and-order in 1968.1 2 Introduced by his daughter Ivanka, Trump claimed at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio that he—and he alone—is the voice of the people.
    [Show full text]
  • SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT Offenses Fcompieted/Attempted
    SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT DISTRICT ATTORNEY HARDCOPY DISTRICT ATTO NEY COPY ** «FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY*** GO# SJ 2014-140520291 OPEN 245C-1 245C PC ASLT OFC W/O FIREARM General Offense Information OperPtion l t tes: OPEN ¦- - ¦ Reported on: Fe -21-2014 Fri.) 1104 Occurred on: Fe -21- 014 (Fri.) 1104 Ap rove on: Fe -21-2014 (Fri.) by: 3007 SCHNEIDER JOSE H P eport submitte by: 3125 - SHEPPA D CARLTON T Org unit: BFO P trol Team 028 Accom anied by: 3698 - SILVEIRA HONORIO M Address: E SAN SALVADOR ST / S 8TH ST Municipality: SA JOSE District: DK Beat: K2 Grid: 184 Feiony/Misde eanor: FELONY Bias: NONE (no bias) Family violence: NO Offenses fCompIeted/Attempted Offense: # 1 245C-1 245C PC ASLT OFC /O FIREARM - COMPLETED Location: STREET/ROAD/HIGHWAY/ALLEY Offender suspected of using: NOT APPLICABLE ¦ Weapon r pe: KNIFE/CUTTING INSTRUMENT 2014-140520291 Page of SAN JOSE POLICE DEPT DISTRICT ATTORNEY HA DCOPY DISTRICT ATTORNEY COPY ***FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY*** GO# SJ 2014-140520291 OPEN 245C-1 245C PC ASLT OFC W/O FIREARM Related Person(s 1. Victim # 1- VAN DER HOEK, ™tS (Case S ecific Information) Se : MALE Race: Caucasian Year of birth: Ap ro imate age: , California P rticulars Occupation: POLICE OFFICER Employer: SAN JOSE STATE U IVERSITY Additional remarks: B DGE #135 TJnk pe factors Resident statu : U KNOWN Age range ; 30-49 YEARS Aggravated assault homicide : ASSAULT ON POLICE OFFICER Ty e of injury : NONE Victim of: 245C-1 245C PC ASLT OFC W/O FIREARM- COMPLETE Victim s Rel tionship to Offender : VICTIM WAS STRANGE Person's role : Sus ect #1 Person's name : GUZMAN, ANTONIO Nov-15-1975 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcconnell Announces Senate Republican Committee Assignments for the 117Th Congress
    For Immediate Release, Wednesday, February 3, 2021 Contacts: David Popp, Doug Andres Robert Steurer, Stephanie Penn McConnell Announces Senate Republican Committee Assignments for the 117th Congress Praises Senators Crapo and Tim Scott for their work on the Committee on Committees WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following the 50-50 power-sharing agreement finalized earlier today, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced the Senate Republican Conference Committee Assignments for the 117th Congress. Leader McConnell once again selected Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) to chair the Senate Republicans’ Committee on Committees, the panel responsible for committee assignments for the 117th Congress. This is the ninth consecutive Congress in which Senate leadership has asked Crapo to lead this important task among Senate Republicans. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) assisted in the committee selection process as he did in the previous three Congresses. “I want to thank Mike and Tim for their work. They have both earned the trust of our colleagues in the Republican Conference by effectively leading these important negotiations in years past and this year was no different. Their trust and experience was especially important as we enter a power-sharing agreement with Democrats and prepare for equal representation on committees,” McConnell said. “I am very grateful for their work.” “I appreciate Leader McConnell’s continued trust in having me lead the important work of the Committee on Committees,” said Senator Crapo. “Americans elected an evenly-split Senate, and working together to achieve policy solutions will be critical in continuing to advance meaningful legislation impacting all Americans. Before the COVID-19 pandemic hit our nation, our economy was the strongest it has ever been.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Www. George Wbush.Com
    Post Office Box 10648 Arlington, VA 2221 0 Phone. 703-647-2700 Fax: 703-647-2993 www. George WBush.com October 27,2004 , . a VIA FACSIMILE (202-219-3923) AND CERTIFIED MAIL == c3 F Federal Election Commission 999 E Street NW Washington, DC 20463 b ATTN: Office of General Counsel e r\, Re: MUR3525 Dear Federal Election Commission: On behalf of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney as candidates for federal office, Karl Rove, David Herndon and Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc., this letter responds to the allegations contained in the complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. The Kerry Campaign’s complaint alleges that Bush-Cheney 2004 and fourteen other individuals and organizations violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 197 1, as amended (2 U.S.C. $ 431 et seq.) (“the Act”). Specifically, the Kerry Campaign alleges that individuals and organizations named in the complaint illegally coordinated with one another to produce and air advertising about Senator. Kerry’s military service. 1 Considering that no entity by the name of Bush-Cheney 2004 appears to exist, 1’ Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. (“Bush Campaign”) presumes that the Kerry Campaign mistakenly filed its complaint against a non-existent entity and actually intended to file against the Bush Campaign. Assuming that the foregoing presumption is correct; the Bush Campaign, on behalf of itself and President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Karl Rove, David Herndon (the “Parties”), responds as follows: Response to Allegations Against President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Visual Culture
    Journal of Visual Culture http://vcu.sagepub.com/ Just Joking? Chimps, Obama and Racial Stereotype Dora Apel Journal of Visual Culture 2009 8: 134 DOI: 10.1177/14704129090080020203 The online version of this article can be found at: http://vcu.sagepub.com/content/8/2/134 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Journal of Visual Culture can be found at: Email Alerts: http://vcu.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://vcu.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://vcu.sagepub.com/content/8/2/134.refs.html >> Version of Record - Nov 20, 2009 What is This? Downloaded from vcu.sagepub.com at WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY on October 8, 2014 134 journal of visual culture 8(2) Just Joking? Chimps, Obama and Racial Stereotype We are decidedly not in a ‘post-racial’ America, whatever that may look like; indeed, many have been made more uneasy by the election of a black president and the accompanying euphoria, evoking a concomitant racial backlash in the form of allegedly satirical visual imagery. Such imagery attempts to dispel anxieties about race and ‘blackness’ by reifying the old racial stereotypes that suggest African Americans are really culturally and intellectually inferior and therefore not to be feared, that the threat of blackness can be neutralized or subverted through caricature and mockery. When the perpetrators and promulgators of such imagery are caught in the light of national media and accused of racial bias, whether blatant or implied, they always resort to the same ideological escape hatch: it was only ‘a joke’.
    [Show full text]