What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.
This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.
The Supreme Court Just Gave the G.O.P. a New Midterm Edge
(This horrible decision is huge! The Supreme Court right wing majority is owned and controlled by the mega wealthy who use race and immigration to divide the rest of us!)
"The decision, which allows parties to spend more in coordination with candidates, is likely to further expand the power of big money in American politics.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on party spending restrictions was expected to give Republicans a significant financial advantage in this year’s midterms.Eric Lee for The New York Times
Shane Goldmacher is a national political correspondent who has covered the intersection of money and campaigns for years.
Just days before the 2022 midterm elections, as Democratic candidates were drastically outspending JD Vance and other Republicans running for the Senate, the future vice president and the Senate G.O.P. campaign arm filed a lawsuit to try to change the rules of the game.
They knew it was too late to affect that year’s elections. The lawsuit was part of a longer-term gambit to tilt the financial playing field in future elections in the Republican Party’s favor. The goal was to unshackle political parties from existing limits on what they could spend in coordination with the candidates they were supporting.
The plan paid off on Tuesday, when the Supreme Courtrolled backdecades-old restrictions on political party spending, further expanding the power of big money in American politics.
It couldn’t have come at a better time for Republicans: Their party committees are flush with cash, and they can start spending that money immediately on midterm battlegrounds that will determine control of Congress.
For years, Republican candidates had faced a persistent disadvantage. Their Democratic counterparts had raised far more money, primarily from small-dollar donors online. Andcandidates qualify for cheaper advertising rates than political parties do.Republicans wanted to close that gap by letting parties — which can be funded by six-figure checks from wealthy donors — spend as much as they wanted in coordination with candidates. In the process, the parties would also qualify for those lower ad rates.
The lawsuit was the brainchild of Ryan Dollar, then the general counsel of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The Supreme Court had been loosening campaign spending restrictions for years, and Mr. Dollar spied an opportunity to loosen them some more.
“We had our eyes on SCOTUS from Day 1,” Mr. Dollar said in an interview.
In a 6-3 decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled limits on coordinated spending violated the constitution’s First Amendment.
“For nearly 200 years after the ratification of the First Amendment, parties could spend freely to support their candidates during campaigns and could do so in coordination with the candidates,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. He cast the decision as returning to that era.
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s liberal justices, wrote a dissent lamenting that while donations to candidates are now limited to $7,000, donations to parties can be “as much as half a million dollars.”
“The Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check,” she wrote.
The ruling inNational Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commissionis widely expected to usher in the biggest shift in how campaigns are funded since the aftermath of the Citizens United decision in 2010, which lifted limits on corporate expenditures and laid the groundwork for the current era of big-spending super PACs.
The decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings in recent years that have struck down limits on political spending using the argument that spending money amounts to protected speech. The ruling also suggested the court’s willingness to further dilute such limits in the future.
In the short term, the case is likely to benefit Republicans. The Republican National Committee entered June with $125.5 million in the bank, while the Democratic National Committee carried more debts than cash on hand.
“The R.N.C. is playing with nuclear weapons and the D.N.C. has one of those Wile E. Coyote guns with a flag that says ‘Bang!’” said Sean Cooksey, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and a former general counsel to the vice president, ina social media post.
Both parties expected television stations to to give the expanded universe of coordinated spending by political parties the discounted ad rates but how exactly that will work with the new expanded spending was unclear.
“It will be a massive advantage for our party,” said Mike Ambrosini, a top party strategist and chief of staff of the Republican National Committee.
Tim Persico, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2022 cycle, said the midterm elections just became instantly more challenging for Democrats. “It just makes it harder,” he said.
“Democrats have figured out how to leverage our grass-roots support so we can compete with billionaires and corporations,” Mr. Persico said. “This is another example of this Supreme Court undermining the voices of the many for the voices of the millionaires, billionaires and corporations.”
In the long term, Democrats could adjust their fund-raising and spending strategies to try to push the playing field back in their favor. Few advantages become permanent in the ever-changing world of money in politics.
But this much is clear: The new landscape will result in a greater concentration of power within both national parties, which may now buy unlimited ads on behalf of the candidates they are supporting, all while coordinating directly with them.
Inside the R.N.C., Mr. Ambrosini said, the planning for the ruling began early last year. His internal mandate was to conserve as much cash as possible, so the party could be ready to spend heavily on ads in tandem with congressional candidates if a favorable ruling landed and granted the parties those lower TV rates.
The effect will magnify the importance of the G.O.P.’s huge cash advantage.
“It’s one of the main reasons that anyone that is a Republican should not write our obituary in June,” Mr. Ambrosini said.
The specifics of why the ruling matters are as technical as they are important.
Political committees have previously faced strict limits on coordinated spending between parties and candidates. The result has been a logistical headache. Parties have had to erect internal firewalls in order to run ads for House and Senate candidates. Those making the party’s ads could not talk to the campaigns they were trying to help.
That amplified the value of the small donations pouring into Democratic campaign accounts. Not only was that money controlled by the candidate’s own team, but it stretched further because of a federal law entitling candidates of both parties to the cheapest available ad rates.
The upshot: Republicans relying on outside money have been paying much more than Democrats for similar ad time.
“In some of these races that get really intense and competitive, it can be 10 and 20 times as much,” said Jason Thielman, who served as executive director of the Senate Republican campaign arm in the 2024 elections.
“This is about as significant as a game changer and leveler we could see,” Mr. Thielman said.
Take North Carolina’s Senate race in 2026.
Roy Cooper, the Democratic former governor, entered April with $18.5 million in the bank. His Republican opponent, Michael Whatley, a former R.N.C. chairman, had less than $2 million after accounting for debts.
Before, a Republican super PAC would have to spend $50 million to $100 million to purchase the same amount of ad time that Mr. Cooper could buy with his funds. Now, Republican Party committees may qualify for candidate rates for TV ads, offsetting Mr. Cooper’s cash edge.
Mr. Dollar, who had been at the N.R.S.C. in 2022, is now the general counsel at the House Republicans campaign committee, which took over leading and funding the case last year. The chairman of the both party committees, Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, issued a joint statement cheering the ruling on Tuesday.
“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” they declared."
Supreme Court Live Updates: Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship
"President Trump tried to ban birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors
Members of League of United Latin American Citizens gathered on Tuesday outside the Supreme Court after the justices released their decision on birthright citizenship.Credit...Allison Robbert for The New York Times
The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, and the justices reaffirmed the long-held principle that nearly all children who are born on U.S. soil are American citizens.
Mr. Trump’s executive order had aimed to prevent babies born to undocumented immigrants and temporary foreign residents from automatically becoming Americans. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, explained that Mr. Trump’s executive order violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’”
He added: “We keep that promise today.”
The 6-3 decision capped a more than decade-long effort by Mr. Trump touse the issue as a political tool. In a social media post, the president called the Supreme Court’s decision “too bad for our Country.” He urged Congress to take up the issue with legislation and wrongly asserted that “no long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary.”
With their decision, five justices — a majority — found that birthright citizenship was guaranteed in the Constitution.
Here’s what else to know:
Read the decision:In a sign of the importance of the birthright decision, the court’s decision and dissentstallied nearly 200 pages.
The majority:The chief justice was joined in upholding birthright citizenship by the court’s three liberal justices, along with two fellow conservatives, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett M. Kavanaugh. (Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he would strike down the executive order based on federal law, not the Constitution.)
Dissents:Three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented in the case."
