Mediaboss Marketing

A pack of 50 Kimberly-Clark N95 masks cost $2,319 in October 2021. By mid-January, the same box of masks cost $5,715, according to the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning activist group focused on economic issues.

Manufacturers like Kimberly-Clark say the price hikes are a result of supply-chain bottlenecks, worker shortages, and other pandemic-related disruptions.In December, the cost of consumer goods and services rose 7% over the past year.

Lawmakers say its price-gouging. And its not just happening in pandemic-related supplies. The cost of diapers, food and even drugs has skyrocketed dramatically in recent months as corporations have increased prices and maintained healthy profit margins, according to Democrats in Congress who conducted a hearing on pricing on Wednesday.

Corporate greed is motivating large companies to use the pandemic and supply chain issues as an excuse to raise prices simply because they can. And a lot of executives brazenly boast to investors about raising prices on consumers without consequencesand these executives are saying they're going to continue to do so, House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said during Wednesday's hearing.

American consumers have experienced unconscionable price hikes in everyday consumer goods, added Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.). We are at war with this pandemic, war with this virus. And during World War II, war profiteers were held accountable. The same should be applied here today.

To fight this kind of price-gouging, Pallone, Schakowsky, and several Democrat co-sponsors introduced legislation earlier in the week to hold companies accountable. The COVID19 Price Gouging Prevention Act would give the Federal Trade Commission the ability to seek civil penalties from companies that raise prices to unconscionably excessive levels during the pandemic. The bill also gives states attorneys general the authority to enforce the legislation without losing any of their existing authority under state law.

Story continues

But enforcing this proposed legislation may be impossible, supply-chain expert Glenn Richey said Wednesday. The legislation will have to be quite careful in uncovering what is really a price-gouging situation and what is just a natural need to increase prices, he said.

It is important to remember that prices move with the market and across supply chain transactions, said Richey, a professor and department chair in supply chain management at Auburn Universitys Raymond J. Harbert College of Business.

Among the bills serious flaws is the fact that it fails to define what constitutes an excessive price increase, according to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)

On the issue of price-gouging, standing up against those who have profiteered during the pandemic is a bipartisan issue, McMorris Rodgers said Wednesday, chastising Democratic leadership for their go it alone approach and for failing to get Republican input.

Currently, about 39 states have some kind of statute or regulation that defines price-gouging as illegal during a time of disaster or emergency, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But the specifics of each states rules vary substantially, as do the consequences.

The fact of the matter is there is no federal price gouging work today. While most states do have some kind of authority, those laws are inconsistent, and many failed to address the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, Pallone said. So Congress has to give the FTC and state authority the enforcement tools they need to go after companies that are gouging consumers.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Excerpt from:
Top Democrats rip corporations for price gouging. Executives brazenly boast to investors about raising prices - Yahoo Finance

Rep. Josh Gottheimer is the latest addition to the Democrats list of House members who could face tough re-election campaigns as polls show Republicans with an edge in this falls midterm elections.

Gottheimer, D-5th Dist., became the fourth New Jersey Democratic representative more than any other state on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees Frontline program, which provides extra help for incumbents expected to be in tight races.

This is in large part a reaction to the gubernatorial election and closer-than-expected result there, said Jacob Rubaskin, an analyst with Inside Elections, which rated the district as solid Democratic.

Thats when Gov. Phil Murphy defeated Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli in a race that was not called until the following day. Ciattarelli outpolled Murphy in Gottheimers old 5th District.

Im focused on one thing: fighting for the families of the 5th District, Gottheimer said.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman James Singer said the decision to include Gottheimer was made on internal DCCC criteria. Gottheimer was one of seven people added.

Rep. Gottheimer has been a bipartisan leader who has represented New Jersey with distinction and we look forward to working with him to win this district again, he said.

Under the new map approved by the states independent redistricting commission, Gottheimer will be running in more friendly terrain come November. In addition, he is one of the Houses formidable fundraisers, having banked $11 million for his re-election entering October.

It takes more than close gubernatorial election to make a race competitive, Rubashkin said. If things are really terrible for Democrats, could this district become more competitive? At the moment, we just havent seen that yet.

But National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Samantha Bullock called Gottheimer one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country because hes failed to deliver for his district.

Former investment banker Frank Pallotta, who lost to Gottheimer in 2020; businessman Fred Schneiderman, who has former Donald Trump campaign manager and New Jersey native Kellyanne Conway working for him; and Marine Corps veteran Nick De Gregorio are seeking the Republican nomination.

In a recent Monmouth University Poll, 35% of Americans said theyd rather see Republicans control Congress, compared with 33% who chose the Democrats. And just 39% approved of President Joe Bidens performance in office with 54% disapproving.

Democrats are spooked and they have good reason to be, Rubashkin said. If this race truly is one of the Democrats most vulnerable, they are in a world of trouble.

Also on the House Democratic list are 3rd Dist. Rep. Andy Kim, 7th Dist. Rep. Tom Malinowski and 11th Dist. Rep. Mikie Sherrill.

Kim and Sherrill also got friendlier districts for 2022 while Malinowski did not. The map is being challenged in court by the Republican commission members.

After the new districts were drawn, Kim and Sherrill were rated as safe bets for re-election while Inside Elections called Malinowskis race a tossup and the Cook Political Report gave the Republicans an edge in that district.

Those three and Gottheimer all are on the House Republicans target list. The NRCC also announced it was going after the four Democrats in 2020 but fielded only one strong challenger, then-state Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., R-Union, who barely lost to Malinowski.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Jonathan D. Salant may be reached at jsalant@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him at @JDSalant.

Start your day with the latest from Trenton, D.C. and your town. Get the N.J. Politics newsletter now.

See the original post here:
Democrats concede this N.J. congressman could be in trouble. Is it a warning sign for Biden midterm? - NJ.com

The TAKE with Rick Klein

On this they see eye to eye: President Joe Biden says he's not Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sanders says he's not Biden.

That may be as far as agreements take the Democratic Party for now -- even though the Biden and Sanders wings of the party have been working in lockstep in recent months. Different Democrats see different threats from different foes, both inside and outside their party, with implications for policy or the lack thereof.

In Arizona, the fallout from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's vote to keep Senate rules intact now includes a formal censure from the state Democratic executive committee. Her fellow Democrats over the weekend approved that move while citing what they call "her failure to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our democracy."

Sen. Bernie Sanders responds to questions from reporters before a meeting with Democrats at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 18, 2022.

Sanders says he is fed up as well, telling CNN on Sunday that Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., "have sabotaged the president's effort to address the needs of working families." Sanders also said that Democrats have "failed politically" over the past six months, and his solution in part is to bring up repeated votes to put his colleagues on the record "and let Manchin and Sinema decide which side they are on."

Biden also has said he wants to break down his Build Back Better bill into "chunks," but his inclination is more toward cutting compromises that all Democratic senators, starting with Manchin, will back. Then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is discouraging attacks on fellow Democrats though she is also skeptical of the approach of breaking Build Back Better into component parts.

Toward the end of his news conference last week, Biden said it's clear to him that the public doesn't want a "president-senator": "They want me to be the president and let senators be senators," he said.

Letting the Senate be the Senate hasn't worked of late, though. It has Democrats looking at themselves when it comes to confronting challenges in the second year of Biden's presidency.

The RUNDOWN with Averi Harper

In defense of restrictive voting legislation in Republican-led states, GOP lawmakers often cite even stricter voting procedures in some Democratic states, but the argument is flawed.

On ABC's "This Week," Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, reiterated the talking point when discussing sweeping voting legislation in her home state with co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

"I will also say that even with those changes in [Iowa's] law, our voting election systems are much more liberal than President Joe Biden's home state of Delaware, as well as Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's home state of New York," said Ernst.

Sen. Joni Ernst speaks during a press conference following the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, Jan. 19, 2022 in Washington, DC.

To properly evaluate if a state is making changes that restrict access to the ballot box, one must look at the history of access in that specific state.

For example, since the passage of the state's sweeping elections law last year, Iowa now only has 20 days of early voting -- down from 29 days. Before the passage of a 2017 voter ID law, the state offered 40 days of early voting. The number of early voting days in other states is a red herring.

The crux of the argument in favor of restrictive voting legislation has been that it makes voting "more secure," though many Republicans have struggled to articulate how exactly these measures do that.

"Well, it is the same level of security," said Ernst when asked by Raddatz how these changes make voting more secure. Ernst later suggested changing the number of early voting days in her home state was part of an effort to keep polling locations staffed.

The TIP with Alisa Wiersema

Rep. Henry Cuellar is continuing with his reelection campaign for Texas' 28th Congressional District against the backdrop of a federal grand jury probe.

As reported by ABC's Mike Levine, federal officials have begun issuing subpoenas, seeking records related to the congressman, his wife and at least one of his campaign staffers. An attorney representing Cuellar, Joshua Berman, told ABC News that "the congressman and his family are fully cooperating" with the investigation. On Wednesday, FBI agents raided Cuellar's home and campaign office.

Rep. Henry Cuellar speaks during a press conference at the southern border at the Humanitarian Respite Center, July 19, 2019, in McAllen, Texas.

Those developments, paired with a competitive primary season, appear to be giving progressives hope of seeing an upset in the south Texas contest. Cuellar's top competitor, Jessica Cisneros, came within four points of winning the Democratic primary in 2020 and is heading into 2022 with the backing of heavyweight progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Cuellar's political success is largely centered on being one of the few lawmakers publicly willing to work across the aisle. But with the nation's first primary election just weeks away, progressives could look at the race as a bellwether for potential primary upsets elsewhere.

THE PLAYLIST

ABC News' "Start Here" Podcast. Monday's Start Here begins with the economy. ABC's Deirdre Bolton breaks down how COVID-19 is affecting the IRS and disrupting the stock market. Then, ABC's Patrick Reevell details the escalating tensions in Ukraine. And, ABC's Sabina Ghebremedhin describes how an investigation into a young Black woman's death has inspired social media outcry. http://apple.co/2HPocUL

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY

Download the ABC News app and select "The Note" as an item of interest to receive the day's sharpest political analysis.

The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the day's top stories in politics. Please check back Tuesday for the latest.

Read the original:
Democrats turn on each other as Biden agenda stalls: The Note - ABC News

Like many scholars of democracy, I have strongly supported both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Both are necessary (though not sufficient) to secure the most precious rights in any democracy the right to vote and the right to have ones vote counted fairly and accurately.

Most supporters of these bills believed the urgent need for them justified lifting the Senate filibuster and passing them on a purely partisan vote. But with the refusal of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (or any Republican senators) to vote to suspend the filibuster, its clear that these bills will not pass this Congress.

The only remaining option is to pare back the reform cause to a much narrower agenda that can command bipartisan support. Democrats must recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and democratic responsibility demands that we not sacrifice what is valuable and possible on the altar of the unattainable. That means supporting the bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

This work is now taking shape in bipartisan negotiations among moderate senators convened by Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. The new bill would fix some of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in the 1887 Electoral Count Act some of which we saw in the 2020 election that could enable a future Congress (or a rogue vice president) to reverse the vote of the Electoral College in certain states or to plunge the process of counting electoral votes into such chaos that there would be no way of determining a legitimate winner. Such a deadlock could precipitate a far larger and more violent assault on the democratic order than what we saw on Jan. 6. Reducing the risk of such a calamity is a democratic imperative.

Senator Collinss group is reportedly considering making it much more difficult for Congress to question properly certified state election results, clearly specifying that the vice presidents role in counting the electoral votes is limited, protecting election officials from harassment and intimidation while they carry out their lawful functions and granting states new funding to improve their voting systems.

As the N.Y.U. election law expert Richard Pildes has written, federal election laws from the 19th century (the Presidential Election Day Act and the Electoral Count Act) contain provisions that could offer troubling opportunities for disruption and abuse during a postelection struggle over the presidential vote. The potential for a state legislature to declare a failed election and appoint its own slate of electors must be closed through a reformed law. The danger that postelection litigation could carry on beyond the meeting of the Electoral College can also be addressed by extending the safe harbor date for reporting a states electoral votes from early December until later that month and then postponing the formal Electoral College vote from December until early January (shortly before the Congress convenes to count the electoral votes on Jan. 6).

Mr. Pildes and three other leading electoral law experts from diverse ideological backgrounds recently proposed a reform of the Electoral Count Act that would prevent Congress from questioning a states electoral votes once the state certified them through policies established in advance of the election. If state authorities could not agree on who won their electoral votes, the reformed law should establish a mechanism like a nonpartisan tribunal to resolve the dispute. (In addition, before the safe harbor deadline, there would still be the option of challenging in the courts any state legislative effort to circumvent rules and steal an election.) Angus King, an independent senator from Maine, has also been leading efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act; one focus is to establish a procedure for judicial review of state results if a state failed to follow the procedures it previously prescribed for choosing its electors. This reform would at least remove one pathway to reversing a states legitimate presidential election result.

So far, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, have expressed openness to Electoral Count Act reform. Beyond such a bill, Republican senators such as Mitt Romney have also signaled an openness to considering some reforms on voting rights.

We cant know what might be possible through bipartisan negotiations, but we do know that the Democrats two voting rights bills have not gotten passed this year.

We must embrace the reform we can achieve and continue the fight for the important reform work of the future.

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow in global democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford. He is the author, most recently, of Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | Democrats, Want to Defend Democracy? Embrace What Is Possible. - The New York Times

Not that it matters in the slightest, but when Donald Trump refused to commit to accepting the legitimacy of the 2020 election results, he had his reasons.

It wasnt the facts that mattered; it was the ontology of Trumpism the all-consuming persecution complex that characterizes his movement that mattered most.

You know that Ive been complaining very strongly about the ballots, the then-president rambled during a White House news conference, and the ballots are a disaster. Trump advised states to get rid of the ballots, which enterprising reporters translated into a slightly more coherent argument against the absentee and mail-in balloting regimes approved at the state level in response to Covid. Some of the issues Trump raised, like the accusation that the state of New York had mailed out ballots riddled with errors, were valid. Others, like the idea that West Virginians were selling ballots and that whole cases of military votes were thrown in the trash, were not.

All told, however, it wasnt the facts that mattered; it was the ontology of Trumpism the all-consuming persecution complex that characterizes his movement that mattered most. Trumps most stalwart supporters believed that American institutions were set against the president and, by proxy, themselves. To look too deeply into the substance of Trumps allegations was to miss the point.

The former presidents critics correctly surmised that his rhetoric was dangerous. It created a psychological permission structure that would allow his voters to dismiss any evidence that invalidated their fears about a stolen election. Trump was playing with fire. It wouldnt be long before that fire conflagrated into an unprecedented attack on the seat of American government, but that was no ones intention in September 2020. At the time, it was all just talk.

To their credit, Democrats have integrated their hostility toward the rhetorical delegitimization of elections into their political identity. At least, they oppose it when Republicans are doing the delegitimizing. And yet, Democrats dont seem to be above embracing unfounded attacks on the electoral process when it advances their interests. Thats exactly what President Joe Biden did during a news conference on Wednesday, and he seems to be dragging his party with him.

Speaking of voting rights legislation, one reporter asked the president, if this isnt passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?

To their credit, Democrats have integrated their hostility toward the rhetorical delegitimization of elections into their political identity.

Biden responded by noting that it all depends on whether his administration can make the case to the American people that the voting rights bill should become law. Bidens contention that this years midterms would only be conditionally valid prompted reporters to follow up on this claim, whereupon Biden made everything worse.

You said that it depends, another reporter remarked. Do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?

Biden doubled down. Im not going to say its going to be legit, he declared. The increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed. There was no ambiguity in the presidents remarks. Until and unless Congress passes Bidens preferred electoral reforms into law, the legitimacy of this years elections will be in doubt. And since Bidens preferred electoral reforms are unlikely to become law, the Democratic Partys most faithful will have all the license they need to reject the legitimacy of an electoral outcome that does not favor their partys candidates.

Biden managed to conscript much of his party into a rhetorical assault on the legitimacy of an election that all indications suggest favors the GOP. Are you concerned that without these voting rights bills the election results wont be legitimate? CNNs Kasie Hunt asked House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., on Thursday. Im absolutely concerned about that, he replied.

Vice President Kamala Harris agreed. When confronted with the similarities between Bidens rhetoric and Trumps, Harris dismissed the claim offhand. We as America cannot afford to allow this blatant erosion of our democracy and, in particular, the right of all Americans who are eligible to vote to have access to the ballot unfettered, she said.

We can expect that talking down the legitimacy of American elections will have a predictable partisan effect. In 2020, Gallup, which has gauged Americans confidence in elections on five occasions since 2004, found that 74 percent of Democrats believed that U.S. elections were valid compared with an abysmal 44 percent of Republicans. This is surely attributable to Republicans receptivity toward Trumps rhetoric and Democrats hostility toward it. Historically, however, it's Democratic voters who have expressed more skepticism in the legitimacy of the American electoral process. That makes sense because, historically, it's Democratic politicians who have called the legitimacy of Americas elections into question.

As late as 2018, a staggering two-thirds of Democrats told YouGov pollsters that Trumps legitimacy was questionable because Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the president in 2016.

George W. Bush was selected, not elected in 2000, according to Hillary Clinton. Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe argued that the Republican-led state of Florida and the Supreme Court tampered with the results to deliver Bush into the White House. He did the same thing again four years later. We actually won the last presidential election, folks, he told a cheering crowd. They stole the last presidential election.

As late as 2018, a staggering two-thirds of Democrats told YouGov pollsters that Trumps legitimacy was questionable because Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the president in 2016 a theory for which there is precisely no evidence, but which was bolstered by the likes of Bidens staff secretary, Neera Tanden. Americans, she argued, have intuitive sense Russians did enough damage to affect more than 70k votes in 3 states. No doubt, had Trump won re-election, a healthy number of Democrats would confess to their belief that his victory was a result of the full flowering of a conspiracy to weaponize the U.S. Postal Service an allegation that was lent credence by Senate Democrats who actually held hearings on the issue.

If White House press secretary Jen Psaki's comments are any indication, theres real tension between the political message Democrats are retailing in regard to the legitimacy of American elections and what they know to be the truth. When asked if the president had confidence in Americas elections even if his preferences didnt become law, she said plainly: yes. But Psakis unequivocal rejection of this conspiracy theory was nowhere to be found in her appearance the following day on ABC's The View. Asked why voters should have faith in the legitimacy of the next election in the absence of Democrats preferred reforms, Psaki clarified that Biden wasnt predicting that the elections were not destined to be illegitimate, but that Republicans are actively seeking to undermine their legitimacy, which the presidents reforms would prevent. This statement is many things, but what it isnt is an unqualified expression of confidence in the American electoral process.

Either calling into question the credibility of American elections mortgages the stability of our democratic institutions, or it doesnt. Either stoking paranoia and apprehension is wrong and dangerous, or it isnt. The motives of those who apply these base tactics is immaterial. By flirting with the paranoid revisionism that overtook the GOP in the wake of the 2020 vote, Biden abandoned the moral high ground on the issue and ushered in a dangerous new phase in our collective fight against the paranoid nihilism that has become so fashionable in our politics. If neither party is willing to defend the electoral process unless it delivers outcomes they like, that process isnt long for this world.

Read more from the original source:
Trump's Republicans aren't the only ones questioning election legitimacy - MSNBC