Friday, December 2, 2016

NYC Council to Move 22 Campaign Finance Bills


Within the next two months, the New York City Council is expected to vote on a large Legislative package that would alter the City’s Campaign Finance system in a variety of ways and regulate donations to Political Nonprofits, Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito said this week. Some of the proposals and the timing of their likely passage have raised concerns, though, that the Council is weakening the City’s model Campaign Finance system, pushing some reforms through after too long a wait and rushing other, newer bills through just in time for the next Municipal Election.

The Council has before it 22 bills relating to Campaign Finance law and Elections, 14 of which were heard just last week by the Committee on Standards and Ethics. It was the first hearing on Legislation for the Committee under this Council, which took office in January 2014, owing to the fact that the main bill in that bundle deals with Conflicts of Interest. The 13 others relate to the campaign Finance system.

The other eight bills of the 22 were heard in May by the Committee on Governmental Operations, which has oversight of the Campaign Finance Board (CFB), and were introduced about one year ago. They have awaited a Committee vote since, but have not moved.

Mark-Viverito, who largely controls which bills are heard and voted on, has promised that the two bundles of bills will be lumped and voted on together. “We will be moving ahead with an extensive package,” she said at a news conference on Tuesday, in response to questions about the concerns raised at last week’s hearing. “We’ve been going through a lot of deliberations, a lot of conversations with stakeholders and others, so I’m very confident about what it is that we will be presenting.”

When asked when the vote could happen, she said, “It’s gonna be soon. Probably within the next month or so, without a doubt.”

Although a common theme unites 21 of the 22 bills, they have taken vastly different trajectories in the Council’s Legislative process. The first package was only heard six months after it was introduced and has since languished in Committee. Those proposals came straight out of the Campaign Finance Board’s 2013 Post-Election report, which recommended improvements to the Campaign Finance law. These proposals mainly seek to tighten gaps in the Campaign Finance law, including the elimination of Public Matching Funds for contributions bundled by people with City business, Enhanced Disclosure rules for entities that do business with the City, and a prohibition on contributions from Non-Registered Political Committees to candidates who don’t participate in the Public Matching program.

The second package has not been as thoroughly vetted, it seems, including the 22nd and most high-profile bill, Intro. 1345, which would limit donations to Political Nonprofits affiliated with Elected officials.

That bill is a direct response to the Campaign for One New York, a now-defunct Nonprofit affiliated with Mayor Bill de Blasio that accepted large donations from people who have business with the City. Those activities have led to multiple investigations and allegations of a Pay-to-Play culture at City Hall, with Federal authorities investigating whether Government action was offered or done in exchange for donations to the Campaign for One New York. De Blasio has denied any wrongdoing and no one has been charged.

Intro. 1345 and the accompanying 13 bills were introduced on November 16 and were heard just one week later. Although Intro. 1345 was embraced by the Campaign Finance Board, which is an independent City entity, the de Blasio Administration, and Government Reform groups, the rest of the bills are seen as a bit more problematic. Even Representatives of the City Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB), which would be tasked with implementing Intro. 1345, expressed doubts about COIB’s ability to do so and questioned whether it is the appropriate agency to be assigned the job. Meanwhile, Representatives for the Campaign Finance Board critiqued several of the bills relevant to its operations and the City’s well-regarded Public Campaign Finance system.

In contrast with the first Legislative package, some of the new bills are more friendly to Council members and candidates in general, and would ease certain elements of Campaign Finance regulation including Documentation requirements for contributions and the current restriction on the use of Non-Public Campaign funds for official purposes.

Government Reform groups have questioned the overall approach the Council has taken with the most recent bills, which they say are being rushed along and are based on Council members’ personal experiences with the system rather than objective analysis that would usually be identified by the Campaign Finance Board.

In written testimony submitted to the Committee, Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause New York, a Good Government group, said it was “perplexing” that the 14 bills were heard by the Standards and Ethics Committee when only one of them dealt with conflicts of interest.

“These bills are, in major part, detailed technical changes that, unlike previous revisions, have not grown out of the Campaign Finance Board’s statutorily required reports and recommendations, which result in revisions of the system which are openly discussed, negotiated and considered far in advance of the City’s next election cycle,” Lerner wrote, stressing that they could inadvertently weaken the CFB’s independence.

She also said the bills “appear to be on a fast track,” while the older bills based on recommendations in the Campaign Finance Board’s 2013 post-election report have languished. Taking issue with the timing, right on the eve of a city election year, she said the Council should wait till after the 2017 elections to reconsider most of the campaign finance bills and do so through the appropriate committees.

The CFB itself criticized the bills as hampering its ability to enforce the Campaign Finance law, calling them “poison pill” measures in testimony at the November 21 hearing.

At a public meeting on December 1, CFB Chair Rose Gill Hearn reiterated those concerns. “This legislation has been considered on an accelerated schedule,” she said, stressing that the “hastily drafted” proposals would undermine the Board’s oversight of the Campaign Finance system. She specifically called on the Council to reject one of the bills, Intro. 1355, sponsored by Council Member David Greenfield, which allows Candidates or their Committees to complete or correct contribution cards. “The board believes this bill will enable fraud,” she said, “and remove a weapon for the CFB to detect and prevent it.”

In urging the Council to delay the bills till after the 2017 Elections, Hearn did promise to work with the Council on improving the Campaign Finance program and commended Council members for Intro. 1345, the Political Nonprofit Donation limits bill. This bill is sponsored by Mark-Viverito, who was not present for the hearing on the bill, which was chaired by standards and Ethics Committee Chair Alan Maisel.

Dick Dadey, Executive Director of Citizens Union, a Government Reform group, stressed that the bills need more time to breathe. “We hope we have at least a month or two to make some needed changes to these bills that represent new ideas and are a marked shift in the management of the campaign finance board,” he said. Dadey said the new package “does feel rushed to us” and that “there’s some question as to whether these will actually strengthen or weaken the program and a much fuller discussion needs to be had before these move forward.” While he acknowledged that Council members should have a significant voice in improving the Campaign Finance system, he said they should avoid imposing solely their own concerns. “[The campaign finance law] needs to reflect the public’s interest in protecting taxpayer dollars while making it a workable program for the candidates themselves,” Dadey said.

Council Member Maisel said the timeline of these newer bills, from drafting to hearing to a possible vote, may be short but is necessary. “There’s an effort to try to get these bills voted on sooner than later because the election is next year,” he said in a phone interview, adding that he was not given a specific timeline to push through the bills. “Whether it’s done before December 31 or the first week of January, I can’t tell you,” he said. Maisel is meeting this week with Council staff to review feedback from the hearing to amend and tweak the bills, he said. Maisel also pushed back against the criticism that the bills might weaken the CFB’s authority, insisting that they’re aimed at making the system more reasonable to encourage participation. “They’re protecting their turf,” he said of the CFB. “If these bills are passed, their powers are intact. I don’t see how [the bills] undermine their authority.” When asked if his Committee was the appropriate venue for the Campaign Finance bills, he said it was the Speaker’s office that made the decision. “I have no experience with campaign finance bills, I deal with ethics issues,” he said, in a sense echoing the critique made by others who’ve questioned why Campaign Finance bills were heard in his Committee as opposed to their typical place, Government Operations, the Committee Chaired by Council Member Ben Kallos.

The proposals have created some degree of internal tension within the Council for multiple reasons, including the Committee venue. Additionally, before the bills were introduced, Council Member Kallos was openly skeptical of the effect they might have, telling the New York Times, “I am concerned about undermining the best parts of a system that has worked for the people.”

Council Member Brad Lander, sponsor of one of the new bills, disagrees. First, Lander told Politico New York that the Times report had mis-haracterized the bills under consideration. On Tuesday, shortly after the Speaker’s news conference, Lander told Gotham Gazette the concerns over the bills would be addressed through Amendments and that criticism of their timing was unfounded. That the bills were heard through the Standards and Ethics Committee rather than the governmental Operations Committee made little difference, he said, since the same people and Advocacy groups would testify even if there were separate hearings. He also noted that Kallos, the Governmental Operations Chair, was present at the hearing as well.

Lander also sought to dispel the notion that the bills were being expedited through the Council. “That’s a silly thing to say,” he said, noting that discussions on Intro. 1345 in particular have been in the works since the shutdown of The Campaign for One New York was announced months ago. And while there was not the same urgency with the eight Campaign Finance bills from last year, he said, “I think if we get a good package that combines a lot of good reform and sensible legislation, that’s a good legislative process.”











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Statewide Election Recounts 2000-2015




The ability to handle a Recount of votes to ensure fair, accurate and genuinely democratic outcomes is widely recognized as a critical component of Election Administration. Trust in Elections requires trust in the Recount process and ongoing vigilance in lessons to be learned about how best to do Recounts and how to determine what victory margins and Post-Elections Audit results should trigger a Recount.

FairVote's September 2016 report by Rob Richie and Haley Smith is an update to past Recount reports examining Statewide Election Recount outcomes and practices in the United States. Using data from the decade and a half of Elections taking place between 2000 and 2015, they determined how often Recounts occur, how often they change outcomes, how much vote totals change and how these figures vary with the size of the electorate.

They conclude that:

- Statewide Recounts are rare: Out of the 4,687 Statewide General Elections in the 2000 to 2015 decade, there were 27 Statewide Recounts, 15 of which were deemed "consequential". with an original victory margin no more than 0.15%. In other words, there was one Recount for every 173 Statewide Elections and one consequential Recount for every 312 Statewide Elections. This pattern was true of most subcategories of Statewide Elections as well, including only three consequential Recounts out of the 808 Elections in this period for the Offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Treasurer.

- Outcome reversals are even rarer: Over the 2000-2015 period, Recounts resulted in three reversals out of 15 consequential Recounts, or one out of every 1,562 Statewide Elections. These reversals took place in the races for U.S. Senate in 2008 in Minnesota, Auditor in 2006 in Vermont, and Governor in 2004 in Washington.

- Margin shifts in Recounts are small: Statewide Recounts resulted in an average margin swing of 282 votes between the front-runners, representing 0.0191% of the Statewide vote in those Elections. The median average shift was 219 votes, with 22 of the 27 Recounts changing the victory margin by fewer than 500 votes.

- Margin shifts are smaller and Recounts rarer in larger Electorates: Recounts in Elections with more voters altered the vote margin by lower percentages than Recounts in Elections with fewer voters. In the seven cases in which the total votes cast were above two million, the margin shift was on average 0.016% of the vote. In the eight cases in which the total votes cast were fewer than one million, the margin shift was on average 0.039%. No recounts took place in our three largest states.

- Most states should revise their laws governing Statewide Recounts: Model State laws should establish clear Post-Election audit procedures and define a reasonable victory margin percentage for automatic, taxpayer-financed recounts.

CLICK HERE to read the 18 page report.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Strict Voter ID May Be Coming to Michigan


Most Michigan voters would have to present an ID card for their votes to count under Legislation that popped up suddenly during Michigan's lame-duck session.

Currently voters who are registered but do not have a Voter ID can fill out an Affidavit attesting to their identity and then vote. House Bills 6066, 6067, and 6068, introduced Tuesday, would change that.

Under the bills a voter without ID would fill out a Provisional ballot. That ballot would only be counted if the voter returned to their clerk's office within 10 days to show either a Photo ID or present evidence they are either indigent and can't afford an ID or have a religious objection to having their photo taken.

"I can't emphasize how simple this is. If you want your vote to count, you must prove your identity," said Rep. Lisa Lyons, R-Alto, who sponsored the bills.

The bills also allow indigent voters to receive free Birth Certificates and IDs.

Lyons said the legislation's goal was two-fold. "I want to make sure that we are setting policy that protects the integrity of our elections but we are also not setting up barriers," Lyons said.

But others say the bills will disenfranchise voters.

"The practical effect of these bills, we believe, will be to disenfranchise the vast majority of voters who either don't have ID or show up to the polls without it," said Merissa Kovach, a Policy Strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

"Instead of modernizing our elections or bringing Michigan in line with other states that with critically needed reforms like no-reason absentee voting, same-day registration, or early voting, the Michigan GOP is rushing to push voter suppression laws," said Lonnie Scott, Executive Director of Progressive advocacy group Progress Michigan in a statement.

Kovach said that while we require IDs for things like the purchase of alcohol, that is a business transaction while Voting is a Constitutional right. Lyons countered that the right to bear arms was Constitutional and required Photo identification.

Nationally, there has been a wave of states requiring Voter ID in recent years. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the pace of laws requiring voters to present ID picked up starting in 2011. Lyons said Michigan's law was patterned after Indiana's, which had been vetted through the legal system. "It should be easy to vote. It should not be easy to cheat," Lyons said.

The Committee did not vote on the bills Wednesday but Lyons said she hoped to see the bills pass before the end of the year.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

NYC's CFB Fines Weiner Campaign for Infractions During 2013 Mayoral Bid


New York City's Campaign Finance Board (CFB) on Thursday ordered former Mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner's Campaign to repay more than $195,000 in public matching funds he received as part of his failed 2013 Mayoral bid.

The Board also ordered Weiner's Campaign, which received more than $1.6 million in Public Matching Funds, to pay a $64,956 fine for spending irregularities uncovered by the Board's auditors, including personal expenses not allowed under New York City Campaign Finance law.

The campaign committed multiple infractions, the Board found, including:

- Accepting 21 contributions that exceeded the legal limit.

- Accepting contributions in excess of the limit for donors who have business with the City.

- Failing to demonstrate how some expenses were made in furtherance of the Campaign.

Weiner was fined for using Campaign Funds for personal use, including expenses of more than $1,500 for dry cleaning and mobile wireless services which "appear to be personal expenses of the Candidate," the Board wrote.

The roughly $65,000 fine is the largest penalty the Board has assessed for a Citywide candidate from the 2013 Election cycle, but Weiner is only the second Democratic Primary Candidate whose audit and enforcement has been completed, a CFB spokesman said.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Trump's Options for Making Anti-Regulation a Top Priority


Trump is making anti-regulation a top priority, saying regulatory cuts are even more important than tax cuts. So we could be facing a frenzy of Deregulation that will be at least comparable to, and likely worse than, what we experienced under Reagan and Bush II.

There will be several pathways for Trump’s De-Regulatory push.

First, much of what the Republicans label “Regulation” was done through Executive Orders and other Administrative actions. Trump can undo many of these actions unilaterally.

Second, Congress can use the innocuously named Congressional Review Act, a holdover from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, to rescind any Regulation adopted in the last 60 Legislative days of the current Congress, meaning rules adopted since about May 30th. A Resolution of Disapproval under the Act requires only a Majority of both Houses, with limited debate, no Senate filibuster and no possibility of Judicial review. And here’s the kicker: A rule revoked under the Act cannot be reissued in “Substantially Similar” form, ever!, unless Congress allows it.

Third, Congress can override any Regulation through Legislation, and can Legislate to overturn all or parts of previous Statutes, such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act or the Affordable Care Act. Only the filibuster, if it isn’t abolished, will enable to block such efforts.

Fourth, the Trump Administration may undo Regulation on its own by issuing new rules to rescind prior ones. That would require the Administration to go through the full Rulemaking process, giving space for outsiders to work and block their De-Regulatory proposals. Trump’s Administration may also choose not to further defend Obama-era Regulations that are mired in ongoing Litigation. And Trump may choose not to enforce existing rules, or to enforce them minimally.

Fifth, Trump appears set to adopt an overriding policy of “One-In, Two-Out,” by which his Administration would have to rescind two rules for every one adopted. This makes no sense to people who understand the Administrative process. For one thing, most rules have to do with the normal functioning of Government. For another, the mechanism to rescind a rule is to issue a new, De-Regulatory rule. The idea that the number of rules matters or that we need fewer of them, per se, is incoherent. Nonetheless, it looks like we are going to face such a policy.

Sixth, with Republican control of both the Legislative and Executive branches, we may see a new push for Anti-Regulatory bills that have been fended off for the past five years. These generally add lengthy procedures to the Rule-Making process and/or further entrench corporate-biased “cost-benefit” analysis as the standard for rules.

Types of multi-pronged responses to address the above Trump's options:

- Messaging, rapid response, communications and quick-hit research will be crucial. We will need to hammer home the point that Deregulation is a giveback to corporate donors. And we must tirelessly expose how Trump’s extremist Anti-Regulatory agenda betrays his Campaign promises to aid the middle class.

- Expand the regulatory Coalition like the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.

- Work with Congressional allies on any possible maneuvers to decelerate the Anti-Regulatory locomotive, including aggressive work for filibusters to block any Legislative rollbacks.

- Exploring every opportunity for litigation to block the Anti-regulatory agenda. Where specific rules are repealed, Public Interest Advocates will in many cases have an opportunity to challenge Agency action as arbitrary and capricious. There should be openings to sue in many cases to block unilateral Executive actions to roll back regulation.

A Trump Administration poses legal challenges beyond the composition of the Supreme Court. Litigation practice should engage actively in fighting the Administration’s harmful policy agenda. It will require going to Court in an effort to block harmful legislation, deregulation and regressive Executive action, in vast swaths of policy making: involving consumer protection, access to courts, money in politics, the regulatory process, financial reform and more.

We also will see a much-heightened role for longstanding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) practice. Public Citizen intends to submit even more FOIA requests than we have in the past and to develop a more systematic approach to doing so. In an administration that shows every sign of susceptibility to scandal, no regard for ethical standards, procedural requirements, and complete alignment with the corporate agenda, I expect that explosive information can be obtained through FOIA.

DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY

We know we have to do a few things:

Fighting, in Congress and the Courts, any efforts to roll back the minimal Campaign Finance rules that remain, especially limits on contributions to candidates.

Connecting the Corporate Extremist Legislative agenda with Campaign contributions, to pound the message of corruption and insider deal-making.

Running Corporate campaigns urging key companies to disclose all political spending.

We also know something else: The nature of Democracy Campaigning in America has changed fundamentally with the Election of Donald Trump.

We can’t have a Functioning Democracy when people are fearful of participating in public spaces and engaging in civic acts.

There’s no Democracy when Muslim Americans are forced to, or fear they will be forced to, register.

There’s no democracy when Latinos and other recent immigrants fear they may be harassed and intimidated, or plucked up by the police and deported.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

NJ Gov. Christie Throws Hat Into Ring for RNC Chair


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expressing interest in the job of Republican National Committee Chairman.

Christie told senior members of Trump's Presidential Transition team on Thursday morning that he is interested in the post, according to three sources familiar with the talks. One person said the Governor had embarked on an aggressive, “full-court press” in hopes of getting the Chairmanship.

Christie's prospects for a job in the Trump Administration have dimmed in recent weeks. Yet he has downplayed interest in a position, saying that he intends to serve out the remainder of his term as Governor, which expires in January 2018.

The Governor huddled with the President-Elect last month in New Jersey, where they discussed several possible still-vacant Cabinet posts, including Secretary of Homeland Security, according to one person briefed on the meeting. Christie, however, has told his aides he isn’t interested in the position.

Some Christie aides, however, believe that Christie, who formerly Chaired the Republican Governors Association and has relationships with many of the Party’s donors, would make a natural fit for the RNC.

Christie also has a gift for political combat, a skill needed for the Chairmanship. During a GOP Primary debate this year, he delivered a scorching attack on Florida Sen. Marco Rubio that left Christie’s rival badly damaged.

Reince Priebus, the current RNC Chair, is stepping down to take a job as Trump’s Chief of Staff. Jockeying for the Chairmanship has intensified in recent days as the President-Elect begins to consider how to fill out his political operation.

Yet there isn’t agreement on who should get the post. Steve Bannon, Trump’s Chief Strategist, and Rebekah Mercer, one of his top donors, have been encouraging consideration of Mercedes Schlapp, a former George W. Bush Administration official who has close ties to the Conservative movement. Yet Priebus, who will have a big say over who gets picked, is seen as favoring someone from the Party establishment, such as Michigan GOP Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, who is Mitt Romney’s niece. Unlike Schlapp, McDaniel is a sitting RNC member.

Pence’s Political team, meanwhile, has been supportive of Nick Ayers, a Georgia-based operative who advised Pence during the Presidential Campaign. Ayers, a former Republican Governors Association (RGA) Executive Director, is currently helping the transition.

Once Trump makes his choice, that person must get final approval from the 168 members who comprise the National Committee. The vote is expected to take place in January, when the RNC meets for its Annual winter meeting.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon

Another Trump’s Future Conflict of Interest


Pretty soon, Trump may get to decide whether 4 million workers will get extra pay when they work long hours. You might say the President-Elect has a dog in this fight. After all, some of those people surely work for Trump and his children.

It’s a perfect illustration of the President-Elect’s thicket of conflicts, all the more so because it’s not as glaring as some of the others.

Earlier this year, President Obama reformed our Country’s Overtime rules to make them more generous to workers. Under the changes, pretty much any salaried worker who earns less than $47,476 per year will be guaranteed time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Under the old rules, you had to earn less than $23,660 to be certain you were entitled to overtime pay.

Because of the changes, the White House estimates that 4.2 million additional workers will be covered by the Overtime rules, making this a monumental labor reform. Where it to work as planned, salaried employees will be taking home bigger paychecks, or working more reasonable hours as their employers try to avoid the time-and-a-half overtime premium.

Business groups are in a tizzy over this reform, since it’s going to raise labor costs on employers. Along with Republicans in Congress, they have pressed hard to have the reforms watered down, delayed or scrapped altogether.

And with a Republican in the White House and the GOP controlling both Chambers of Congress, they may finally get their wish. A Federal Court ruling out of Texas last week has already put the changes in limbo.

One of the industries seriously affected by the reform is the one where Trump made much of his fortune, hotels and hospitality. The industry is chock-full of workers in the reform’s sweet spot: salaried employees who make decent but not great money and who frequently have to work long weeks. Think assistant managers, front-desk agents, sous-chefs, sommeliers, and the like.

To understand the conflict in clear terms, imagine an Assistant Groundskeeper at a golf course that may or may not be owned by the Trump Organization. Our hypothetical employee works on salary, earning something in the low $40,000s. He likes his job, but it’s brutal in the busy winter season, remember we’re in Florida, and he’s often putting in 60-hour weeks to keep the course in shape. Under the old rules, he doesn’t get paid any overtime for those extra 20 hours he works in the high season, all he takes home is his base salary.

But under the new rules, he’d be eligible for time-and-a-half pay on those additional hours. That leaves his employer with a few options. They can start paying our groundskeeper overtime pay. They can bump up his salary so that it’s above the new threshold of $47,476, thereby making him exempt from the rules. Or they can hire an additional assistant and give them those extra 20 hours, thereby avoiding the time-and-a-half pay on our original worker. But any way they do it, the employer is going to have to pay some amount of money they weren’t paying before.

Many of Trump’s conflicts of interest are plain as day, regardless of whether he hands off control of his business to his children, or puts his assets in a blind trust. But as the overtime rule shows, potential conflicts may arise anywhere Trump is helping to set employment policy. He will be filling positions at agencies tasked with policing Trump workplaces, including the Labor Department, which has investigated the Trumps over wage theft allegations, and the National Labor Relations Board, whose General Counsel has accused the Trumps of Union-Busting. Mitt Romney may have gotten his Counsel from guys who sign paychecks. But Trump is the guy who signs paychecks.

And there are a few different ways Trump and Republicans could bottle up or undo Obama’s overtime reforms, if the President-Elect wants to.

Trump could write a new rule that weakens the reforms or reverses them. Though very much within his power, that tactic would be time-consuming, given the rule-making process. Republicans could send him a spending bill with riders that block funding for enforcing the rule, which would help neuter it. Or they could send Trump a bill to sign that outright kills the rule, if they can overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Each of these routes comes with a political challenge: Trump would have to tell millions of workers that they won’t be getting overtime pay after all, despite his vows to bring back good jobs and raise wages. Democrats held a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday to press this point. As Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) put it, “He made promise after promise on the campaign trail about helping workers, and he’s going to have to decide whether he’s going to follow through.”

In any case, the ball will very much be in Trump’s court, so long as the rule isn’t blocked altogether by litigation. Perhaps President Trump will set aside his own interests and decide what he thinks is best for the Country, whether that’s killing the reforms or preserving them. Just don’t expect him to forget that his family owns a bunch of hotels.











NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker
Digg! StumbleUpon