Mediaboss Marketing

Amid a flurry of recent claims that prosecuting former President Donald Trump for various alleged crimes would be too dangerous for American democracy, progressive critics are pushing back forcefully to argue that the authoritarian threat will only increase if such lawbreaking is not held to account.

"The Republican Party has turned itself against electoral democracy."

On Tuesday, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie delivered a cogent rebuke of the hands-off argument and declared that "fear of what Trump and his supports might do cannot and should not stand in the way of what we must do to secure the Constitution from all its enemies, foreign and domestic."

His column followed opinion pieces in the Times by Damon Linker and Rich Lowry warning that the U.S. Department of Justice or others pursuing Trump could set a "dangerous precedent" and provoke future unwarranted probes of Democratic elected officials.

Meanwhile, others have even proposed that President Joe Biden offer his 2020 opponent a pardon with the condition that he doesn't seek elected office again.

The argument that "American democracy might not survive the stress" of investigating or prosecuting Trump, Bouie wrote, "rests on two assumptions that can't support the weight that's been put on them." First, he pushed back against the idea that U.S. politics "has, with Trump's departure from the White House, returned to a kind of normalcy," and thus, "a prosecution would be an extreme and irrevocable blow to social peace."

"The most important of our new realities is the fact that much of the Republican Party has turned itself against electoral democracy," he argued, citing the ouster of U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and public support for Arizona and Pennsylvania's GOP candidates for governor, Kari Lake and Doug Mastriano, who both back Trump's "Big Lie" about the 2020 election.

"Big Lie" supporters "are actively working to undermine democracy for the next time Trump is on the ballot," Bouie emphasized. According to him:

This fact, alone, makes a mockery of the idea that the ultimate remedy for Trump is to beat him at the ballot box a second time, as if the same supporters who rejected the last election will change course in the face of another defeat. It also makes clear the other weight-bearing problem with the argument against holding Trump accountable, which is that it treats inaction as an apolitical and stability-enhancing movesomething that preserves the status quo as opposed to action, which upends it.

But that's not true. Inaction is as much a political choice as action is, and far from preserving the status quoor securing some level of social peaceit sets in stone a new world of total impunity for any sufficiently popular politician or member of the political elite.

Now, it is true that political elites in this country are already immune to most meaningful consequences for corruption and lawbreaking. But showing forbearance and magnanimity toward Trump and his allies would take a difficult problem and make it irreparable. If a president can get away with an attempted coup (as well as abscond with classified documents), then theres nothing he can't do. He is, for all intents and purposes, above the law.

Journalists, scholars, and other critics of those pushing prosecutors to let Trump walk welcomed Bouie's piecewhich reporter Dave Levitan called a "very clear rebuttal of all the we-can't-prosecute-him arguments out there."

Tweeting a link to the column, Adam Serwer, a staff writer at The Atlantic, said that "among the problems with 'just beat Trump at the ballot box a second time' is that the same people didn't accept that the first time, they invented a fantasy for why it didn't count. If the issue with criminal prosecution of Trump is his biggest fans not accepting the legitimacy of that... [they] won't accept the legitimacy of any outcome he does not tell them to accept. Can't get there from here."

Others highlighted Bouie's use of American historyspecifically, the emergence of the Jim Crow South in the wake of the U.S. Civil Warto drive home his point that the suggestion that declining to pursue Trump criminally will lead to stability "is foolish to the point of delusion."

"National politics in the 1870s was consumed with the question of how much to respond to vigilante lawlessness, discrimination, and political violence in the postwar South," Bouie explained. "In the face of lawlessness, inaction led to impunity, and impunity led to a successful movement to turn back the clock on progress as far as possible, by any means possible."

Summarizing the columnist, Nicholas Grossman, a University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign international relations professor, said, "Not holding Confederates accountable to get social peace led to Jim Crow."

Quoting Bouie's argument that "there is a clear point at which we must act in the face of corruption, lawlessness, and contempt for the very foundations of democratic society," Grossman asserted that "now is such a time."

Linker on Sunday made clear he believes Trump deserves to be prosecuted by Attorney General Merrick Garland for the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and potentially mishandling documents seized by federal agents at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month, but also warned of the lack of happy endings, writing that it would "set an incredibly dangerous precedent" for future GOP administrations and likely not prevent Trump from running for president again.

Even if Trump couldn't run or another candidatesuch as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantisgot the GOP's 2024 nomination, "How long do you think it would take for a freshly inaugurated President DeSantis to pardon a convicted and jailed Donald Trump? Hours? Minutes?" Linker wrote. "And that move would probably be combined with a promise to investigate and indict Joe Biden for the various 'crimes' he allegedly committed in office."

Some, such as writer and editor Graham Vyse, concluded: "This is well worth reading even if you don't agree with its conclusion. [Linker] walks us through a bunch of very troubling scenarios. We are in a bad place."

Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, similarly said that "I disagree with this [Linker] essay, even though it makes valuable points. No one is above the law, especially someone as dangerous to democracy as Donald Trump. 3-D political chess is impossible to play here; let's start with basic accountability."

Columbia University professor Nicholas Christie-Blick tweeted that the path Linker "advocates is basically to throw in the towelto agree that American democracy is done, that a president cannot be held accountable for even the most egregious crimes. Sorry. I don't agree."

Like Linker, Lowry suggested Monday that indicting Trump "would invite retaliation" from the GOP, adding that "all of the criminal investigations of Mr. Trump and his associateswhether related to January 6, his handling of classified material, the Georgia electors, or the Trump Organizationare being handled by partisan Democrats at the federal or local level who have every incentive to nail him to the wall. This isn't a formula for legitimacy."

"Another obstacle to the widespread acceptance of a potential indictment of Mr. Trump for January 6 is that, absent smoking-gun evidence we aren't aware of, it will be far from a clear-cut case," he also wrote. "An indictment on the grounds that he obstructed Congress or defrauded the U.S. government will depend on novel interpretations of the law and present entirely new legal questions that, at best for the prosecution, will take years to settle and, at worst, ultimately lead to a collapse of the case."

Several critics of the question in Lowry's headline"Can You Tell Me What Would Happen if the FBI Were Investigating a Democrat?"accused him of what Hussein Ibish, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, described as "whataboutism gone bestial."

Jim Cottrill, an associate professor of political science at St. Cloud State University, tweeted: "This is the biggest pile of horseshit I have read in a long time. The level of false equivalence achieved here is truly remarkable. I began reading it with the assumption it was going to be satiricalalas, it was not."

Pointing to the lines about who's behind the Trump investigations, Cottrill said, "Uh, Christopher Wray might beg to differ," referring to the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who was appointed by Trump.

Journalist Marcy Wheeler also noted Wray in a detailed takedown.

"Obviously this piece sucks in a 100 different ways," attorney and podcast co-host Ben Yelin said of Lowry's column. "But there's one especially fatal error: He doesn't even contend with the fact that maybe Trump committing lots of crimes is the reason he's been targeted!"

More here:
Critics Call Bullsh*t on the 'Let Trump Walk to Save Democracy' Crowd - Common Dreams

Get Weekend Reads from Ideas

A weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'

Even putting aside the ethics of corporate giving to both parties, while legal, its obvious that bipartisan giving is becoming both financially and politically irrational. Bipartisan giving is no longer risk free and can even be actively detrimental to a corporations bottom line. And it is politically risky too.

The Jan. 6 committees public hearings have made it clear that we came frightfully close to losing our democracy. And while much of the focus is on one mans actions and that of his administration, members of Congress also played a critical role in advancing and spreading the Big Lie that has undermined our democracy. Today, those members of Congress who stand with truth barely outnumber those who chose to support the first serious attempt at a coup dtat since the Civil War. There are no longer two parties committed to ensuring our country remains a democracy. By giving to both sides, corporations are effectively saying that the possibility that this country ceases to be a democracy is a business risk theyre willing to take. They couldnt be more wrong.

Corporations have much incentive to preserve American democracy. Capitalism cannot exist without a democracy. As research has shown, democracy is good for business. American democracy has given corporations free rein to expand and innovate to develop new products and technologies that make everyones lives better and democratize access to information. There is a reason that Silicon Valley is located in California and not in Beijing.

If corporations want to continue to enjoy the ability to thrive and innovate, they need to commit to democracy not just in their words, but in their political giving. They must stop financing incumbents and challengers who support the Big Lie and are actively engaged in dismantling our democracy. Its time for them to choose. Either they support democracy and capitalism or they support autocracy.

This isnt just an abstract, moral requirement to do better for the sake of the world though it is that as well. And its not just a requirement that corporations defend the country that has allowed them to grow and prosper though this too is true. Corporations have a business incentive to fight for democracy.

With at least 20 million Americans tuning in to watch the Jan. 6 prime-time hearings, Americans are paying attention. Shareholders, asset managers, board members, employees, and customers are all interested in knowing which corporations are financing members of Congress who support the Big Lie. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, where I serve on the board of directors, has made it easy to follow the money. In the weeks following the Jan. 6 insurrection, hundreds of companies and industry groups committed to pause or stop giving to members of the so-called Sedition Caucus, the 147 members of Congress who voted not to certify the 2020 presidential election. Despite these initial commitments, over half of these companies have now gone back on their word and that number appears to be growing.

By continuing to support election objectors in Congress, corporations are taking another big risk because bipartisan political giving is becoming an issue of corporate governance. Directors and executives should think hard about whether donating their corporations funds to election objectors runs afoul of their legal obligations. Ethical corporate governance extends beyond the fact that the average CEO makes 351 percent as much as an average employee, or that corporate political spending doesnt align with their public messaging.

For corporations, there is no middle ground. They can continue their acquiescence to democratic decline by aligning themselves with those who support the Big Lie. Or they can choose to support truth, justice, the rule of law, and integrity with their campaign funding like the more than 70 companies, such as Nike and Microsoft, that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has found have kept their promises to not give to members of the Sedition Caucus.

Similarly, corporations can make a decision to not provide any corporate or PAC money to any candidate for public office. Either of these are principled decisions.

So yes, Home Depot, Toyota, AT&T, Walgreens, General Motors, and Comcast. Were talking about you and the other corporations that are financing the promoters of the Big Lie.

Shareholders, boards, regulators, employees, and consumers are all watching, because today, youre either part of the solution or youre part of the problem. Choose wisely.

Claudine Schneider, a former Republican US representative from Rhode Island who served for 10 years in Congress, is a member of the board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

Visit link:
Corporations, youre either part of the effort to secure democracy or dismantle it. Choose. - The Boston Globe

Washington, D.C.Today, the States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy, and Law Forward released an August update and trend analysis to the 2022 volume of their report A Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Elections, which analyzes the nationwide trend of partisan state legislatures considering laws that increase the risk of election subversion. With most state legislative sessions closed for the year, the August update identifies at least 244 bills in 33 states that would interfere with nonpartisan election administration, with 24 of these bills becoming law or being adopted this year.

This August update focuses on three key evolving issues that put the future of free and fair elections at risk:

Legislative proposals and enactments that increase the risk of election subversion

The Independent State Legislature theory: Moore v. Harper and the democracy crisis

Insider threats, the trend of misconduct by officials in trusted election administration roles and other concerns for the future on nonpartisan election administration

To view a PDF of the report, click here.

The trends we are seeing in the anti-democracy space, especially in state legislatures, have a unifying theme: they would make it far easier for hyperpartisan actors to stir up the doubt, chaos, and confusion that could be used as a pretext for election subversion, said Victoria Bassetti, Senior Counsel for the States United Democracy Center. They set the stage for a rerun of the democracy subversion playbook of 2020and its crucial we understand how it all works together. One of the best ways to protect our free and fair elections from those seeking to undermine them is to understand how they are attempting to change the rules in their favor.

State legislatures and their anti-democracy allies are waging a multifront campaign to politicize, criminalize, and interfere with the way elections are run in this country, said Rachel Homer, Counsel with Protect Democracy. This is happening at the same time we see election deniers running and winning primary elections across the country, rising distrust among the electorate in our democracy, and rising acceptance of political violence. Its all connected, and together, its a recipe for a democracy crisis.

As we have tracked over time, the risk of election subversion is evolving, tooand its not limited to state legislatures, said Elizabeth Pierson of Law Forward. Here in Wisconsin, we are watching the U.S. Supreme Court as well as our own Supreme Court issue opinions that could undermine free elections, we have people pushing election lies to fuel campaigns for public office or using their current offices to destabilize our democracy, and we have seen election administrators leaving their posts. This latest update puts it all together to sound the alarm that our democracy is in trouble.

Read the original post:
States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy and Law Forward: Report update details acceleration of state legislative election subversion trend;...

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson called abortion the issue that could "save democracy" while appearing on MSNBCs "The ReidOut."

Host Joy Reid asked Johnson on Tuesday about plans to combat "anti-abortion candidates" following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. While Johnson was dismayed at the restrictions set by Republican legislatures, she remarked how it can be a good chance to mobilize voters.

"Its about mobilization. Look, what we have seen in the immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade is that we saw these anti-abortion candidates continue to double down and pursue a deeply radical, extreme unpopular agenda around continuing to constrain access to [abortion]. I think what we have done is basically show people what the choices are. You can vote for the people who are really extreme on these issues, or you can actually vote to govern your own body with people who actually support your access to choice," Johnson said.

Planned Parenthood promised to spend over $50 million during the 2022 midterm elections. (REUTERS/Gaelen Morse)

She pointed to Kansas where voters rejected a state constitutional amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to regulate abortion as an example.

HOW RELIGION, ABORTION WILL AFFECT THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS IN FLORIDA AMONG CRUCIAL HISPANIC VOTERS

"Just look at Kansas. Abortion rights were literally on the ballot and we saw Kansas come out in droves to support the right to choose. And so, I think thats incredibly important. The majority of Americans do support access to abortion in every single state. When they really look at whats happening, when they look at the number of states that have done these restrictions, its also actually helping us understand how gerrymandered the states to become, how it is possible that you can have a state where there is a majority support but you actually cant have the laws that you want because you have these politicians who have been safely put into these states," she added.

Johnson then quoted a colleague from NARAL and agreed that "abortion is actually going to save democracy."

Abortion became a larger election issue after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

PRO-LIFE ACTIVISTS BLIND TO HUMAN TRAGEDY CAUSED BY ABORTION RESTRICTIONS: WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD

A report on Wednesday showed that Planned Parenthood is planning on spending over $50 million in the 2022 midterm elections. This number will beat the companys previous record spending amount of $45 million in 2020.

Johnson has frequently appeared on Reids show and denounced the pro-life movement in May, suggesting they are in line with racist and segregationist attitudes.

"This is a super minority position which is being imposed essentially by Christian nationalists, five Christian nationalists on the court," Reid said. "Does it hit you differently to know that this has grown out of this essentially segregation movement?"

Alexis McGill Johnson denounced Planned Parenthood's original founder Margaret Sanger in 2021 and promised to "examine" her influence on the company. (Photo by Getty Images/Getty Images for Supermajority)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"I think its completely consistent with the segregationist movement," Johnson answered.

Lindsay Kornick is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to lindsay.kornick@fox.com and on Twitter: @lmkornick.

Excerpt from:
Abortion is actually going to save democracy by mobilizing voters, Planned Parenthood president tells MSNBC - Fox News

(Editors note: Joe Kirby of Sioux Falls has recently joined the South Dakota bogosphere with his blog SIOUXFALLSJOE.COM. Were sharing one of his posts here along with our wishes for success in his venture.)

As a lifelong Republican and casual observer of South Dakota politics, I have had a nagging feeling for several years that something just wasnt working right. The I heard reports from this years Republican convention and it started to sink in.

Our 20th century election system has enabled a small right-wing faction to have outsized influence on political dialogue in our state. Recognizing this, I think we would be wise to modernize our election system to include more South Dakotans in the process.

The Republican convention was reportedly a fiasco

The reports from the Republican State Convention this summer are concerning. A small, but effective right-wing element in the party got out their vote and nearly disrupted the plans of the complacent majority.

The incumbent secretary of state was surprisingly dumped for spurious reasons. The incumbent lieutenant governor almost suffered the same fate, but for some last-minute political maneuvering. And Marty Jackleys bid to return to the office of attorney general was also nearly sidetracked.

I imagine some conservative Republican office holders (Noem and Thune) are scratching their heads wondering how they suddenly became liberals.

Our election system was established in a different time, with different realities

Decades ago, the Republican and Democratic parties were all that mattered in South Dakota politics. Both could field electable candidates. While the Republicans were mostly dominant, the Democrats were certainly relevant with leaders like Daschle, Johnson, Herseth Sandlin and McGovern. Independents and third parties were not so important.

Over time, the two parties put themselves in charge of the states election system, to the exclusion of all others. That may have made sense at the time since they could keep an eye on each other and balance things out.

Eventually, the Democratic Partys influence in the state waned when national Democrats moved left. As the partys voter numbers in the state decreased, the number of independent voters increased.

Independent voter numbers on the rise

Today 49% of registered voters in South Dakota have chosen to be labeled as Republicans. That number is probably inflated by the fact that non-Republicans are motivated to register as Republican if they want their vote to make a difference. The sagest political advice you can get in South Dakota these days is regardless of your political philosophy, you might as well register as a Republican so you can have a meaningful voice in elections. Some are willing to do that, while others understandably refuse to compromise themselves.

Twenty-six percent of South Dakota voters have bravely registered as Democrats, knowing that means they can make little difference in selecting our elected representatives. And 24% have chosen to affiliate with neither party. That number appears to be low based on national trends.

According to recent Gallup polling, 43% of voters in the US now consider themselves independent. Young people especially are opting out of the choice between the two political parties they find objectionable.

Independent voters are second-class citizens in South Dakota

While the political landscape shifted in South Dakota, the mechanics of our elections did not. But no one seems to be challenging that. Most South Dakotans accept the legacy election system as is. It is familiar. We know how it works. And we know that we end up with Republican winners either way. But we should at least understand its shortcomings and what they might be costing us.

The two parties control South Dakotas election processes. The State Board of Elections runs the states elections. Six of the seven board members are appointed by elected officials from the two parties. None are appointed by other parties or by independent voters in the state.

On a more local level, county precinct superintendents and their assistants play a big role in South Dakotas elections. County auditors appoint them from lists submitted by the two parties. The states independent voters are left out of the process.

Independents are even discriminated against if they want to run for office. The signature requirements for their nominating petitions for some offices are much greater than for party candidates. This is not fair. (I wonder if it would survive a court challenge.)

Independent voters are excluded from the primaries

Political parties have decided that they should be able to exclude non-party members from participating in taxpayer-funded primary elections. As a result, 142,000 independent voters in South Dakota are often left without a meaningful role in the primary elections they help pay for.

As South Dakota Democrats became less relevant, they invited independent voters to participate in their primary. But that doesnt accomplish much when the most important election is usually the Republican primary.

A minority of registered voters has absolute control

In recent years we have become a one-party state. With less than half of the states registered voters, Republicans enjoy a monopoly on statewide races. They occupy all three federal offices, plus the office of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and more.

Republicans also win 90%+ of legislative races. Most legislative races in the state are uncontested or minimally contested, which leads to the observation that if you didnt get to participate in the Republican primary, you had no voice in choosing your state representatives.

Our legislature wastes time on less important issues

You might think I, as a Republican, should like all this power for my party. But as I mentioned earlier, odd things are happening in our Legislature because of it. I think we are all better off if all South Dakotans get to participate equally.

Now that Republicans are in control in our state, the most interesting debates are between Republicans. Lately, conservative Republicans have been challenged from a small, vocal group that is further right politically.

That has led to lots of fussing about seemingly irrelevant stuff like who gets to use which bathrooms. Wed be better off if our legislators would focus on issues effecting more of us, like economic development, healthcare, prisons and housing.

Democracy is a fiction in South Dakota

Our representative democracy does not appear to be working well in South Dakota. Significant groups of South Dakotans have little or no representation or even involvement in the election process. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is showing signs of dysfunction.

At the same time, disenfranchised groups of voters sometimes resort to petition drives to try to enact laws like expanding Medicaid and legalizing marijuana. Issues like that seem well suited for a more balanced legislature.

All South Dakota voters should participate equally

All of us would benefit if more South Dakotans had a meaningful role in our elections. I would like to see the Legislature update the election administration system to allow independents to have an appropriate role. I would also like to see the Republican Party open its primary to independents to broaden the partys base of supporters and reduce the influence of the vocal right-wing minority.

Joe Kirby is a fourth generation South Dakotan and lifetime Republican. He is a retired businessman who has taken an active role in election reform since helping modernize Sioux Falls city government in the 1990s.

Read the original post:
Sioux Falls blogger and lifelong Republican Joe Kirby writes that democracy is a fiction in South Dakota The South Dakota Standard - The South Dakota...