countableus

[countableus]

Two Major Bush Administration Bills Were Enacted on This Date (and Clinton Voted For Both!)

October 26 proved to be a busy date for President George W. Bush during his time in office.

In 2001, he signed the PATRIOT Act into law on October 26 and five years later, he signed the Secure Fence Act as well. Both pieces of legislation are still being debated in Congress and on the campaign trail in 2016. How should the federal government balance national security and Americans’ privacy? Is a fence (or wall) the best way to secure the U.S. border?

Click here to learn more about the PATRIOT Act and tell your reps what you think →

Click here for more information on the Secure Fence Act and contact your members of Congress →

[countableus]

Congress Required a 700-mile Fence to be Built on the Southern Border 10 Years Ago

On October 26, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law, to secure the southwestern U.S. border  and prevent illegal immigration and drug trafficking. The law required the U.S. government to construct 700 miles of fencing along the border and add new surveillance by both federal agents and technology.

A decade later, the border fence is still incomplete and the debate around its necessity is as heated as ever. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made its completion a central pillar of his campaign.

Why did it come up?

The idea of building a border fence wasn’t initially part of Bush’s plan to reform America’s immigration policies. He had preferred to increase enforcement, while creating a guest-worker program to reduce the need for individuals to enter the U.S. illegally, and offering unauthorized immigrants already in the country a path to citizenship.

But going into a midterm election year, Republican lawmakers controlled both chambers of Congress and decided to pass legislation to secure the border before Election Day. In the House, the bill passed on a 283-138, party-line vote with a majority of Democrats voting against the bill. Things were a little more bipartisan in the Senate, which passed the bill on a 80-19 vote with the support of 26 Democrats, including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who will take over as the Senate Democratic leader next year.

What did it do?

The Secure Fence Act required the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) to “achieve operational control of the border” by using a combination of fencing and other technology. It called for 700 miles of double layered fencing in five segments stretching from Tecate, California to Brownsville, Texas.

In areas with rugged terrain and/or hills with slopes of 10 percent or greater, fencing wasn’t required and the law allowed for those sections of the border to be secured by other means, such as by aerial drones, cameras, satellites, etc.

The bill also designated priority areas for fencing and surveillance systems to be put in place, and set deadlines for the completion of projects in those areas. It required DHS to build an interlocking camera system from Calexico, California, to Douglas, Arizona, by May 30, 2007, and to complete the fence for that segment one year later. DHS was also required to complete the fence near Laredo, Texas by December 31, 2008.

What has its impact been?

For starters, the fence was never finished. This was due to a combination of factors, primarily a lack of funding and a change in the political landscape. Republicans lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, and after providing about $1.5 billion for the project in 2007 (the last fiscal year during which the GOP controlled both Congress and the White House) funding began to decline under the Democratic Congress. That trend continued when President Obama took office, who gave a 2011 speech saying: “The (border) fence is now basically complete.” That claim was rated as “mostly false” by Politifact.

While the government has built 652 miles of fencing on about one-third of the southern border, only 36 miles of it is double-layered, as required by the Secure Fence Act. Nearly 300 miles of that total is vehicle fencing (think standalone, waist-high metal posts meant to stop cars), which means that those parts of the border are still very accessible to people on foot.

Trump has called for an “impenetrable physical wall” to be built along the U.S.-Mexico border, which he made point number one in his 10-point immigration plan. His Democratic rival for the presidency, Hillary Clinton, has said that “we do need to have secure borders and what that will take is a combination of technology and physical barrier.”

Tell your reps

Congress has introduced a bill to prevent DHS from spending money on new facilities until the border fence is completed. Is the fence an integral part of any border security plan, or would building it be a waste of resources? Use our advocacy tool below to tell your rep and senators what you think!

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Kimberlee Hewitt / Creative Commons)

[countableus]

The PATRIOT Act Became Law 15 Years Ago

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act (better known simply as the PATRIOT Act) into law. The controversial legislation expanded the authority of the federal government to use surveillance technologies in order to prevent future terror attacks in the wake of 9/11.

(If you’re wondering about what the bill’s full acronym stands for, here it is: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. What a mouthful!)

Since its enactment, the PATRIOT Act has been the focal point of a debate between the need for personal privacy and for national security. While many of its original provisions are still in effect, civil liberties advocates have fought successfully for reforms in recent years.

Why did it come up?

Following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people, the American people and their lawmakers were deeply concerned by the threat of terrorism. The anthrax attacks that began one week later, only added to those concerns.

What did it do?

Members of Congress quickly drafted the PATRIOT Act as a response by combining three existing anti-terrorism bills. The package received a vote in the House just one day after it was introduced on October 23. The House passed the bill with bipartisan support on a 357-66 margin. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill 98-1, with now-presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voting in favor. Then-Sen. Russ Feingold (R-WI), who is running for Senate again in Wisconsin this year against Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), was the lone dissenter in the upper chamber. President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law the following day.

The PATRIOT Act contained 10 sections that were all related to counterterrorism in one way or another. It included provisions aimed at improving domestic security and surveillance, stopping money laundering, securing the border, redefining how criminal law treats acts of terrorism, and improving the nation’s ability to gather intelligence.

The surveillance sections made wiretaps more broadly available through Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (or FISA courts), which were to be used to gather “foreign intelligence information” from Americans and non-U.S. citizens. The law broadened the definition of what information could be collected to include internet addressing and routing information and voicemail, while a related section allowed for the bulk collection of Americans’ communications. The law also authorized any district court judge in the U.S. to issue surveillance orders and search warrants in terrorism investigations.

The surveillance sections of the bill also authorized “sneak and peek” warrants, which allowed authorities to delay notifying the subject of a search warrant that a search had occurred. They also authorized law enforcement to use “roving wiretaps,” which focus on a specific person, rather than a device, allowing authorities to track suspects that may change phones.

What has its impact been?

Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act were initially supposed to sunset in 2005, but Congress reauthorized most of them in their original form in 2006. That set up another reauthorization battle in 2011, this time with President Obama in the Oval Office. Ultimately, Congress and Obama allowed roving wiretaps, surveillance against a non-citizen “lone wolf” terrorist, and court-approved seizures of records and property to continue. The 2011 reauthorization, however, did impose new limits on “sneak and peek” searches and subjected applications for roving wiretaps to a more rigorous approval process.

But the pressure to reform the surveillance program ramped up in 2013, after Edward Snowden leaked classified memos describing the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection programs. Later that year, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) — who introduced the original PATRIOT Act — brought up a new reform bill dubbed the USA FREEDOM Act. The Senate didn’t bring it up for a vote during the 113th Congress, so Sensenbrenner introduced a modified version of the bill in 2015, hoping for a better result.

The 2015 version of the USA FREEDOM Act reinstated roving wiretaps and “lone wolf” surveillance, which lapsed for a total of one day due to Congress’ inaction. But it also reformed the NSA’s bulk data collection programs, following public outcry after the Snowden leaks and a high-profile filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Tell your reps

Should the PATRIOT Act have remained unchanged, like some members of Congress proposed? Should it undergo further reforms or be repealed altogether? Use our advocacy tool below to let your rep and senators know what you think!

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Kimberlee Hewitt / Creative Commons)

[countableus]

Early Voting Numbers Look Good for Dems, GOP Works to Save Two Senators and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. The Big Story: “What the Early-Voting Numbers Are Telling Us”

Early voting “appears to be up significantly as compared to 2012, and that is with 34 of the 37 states with real early-voting opportunities having already received votes.” No ballots have been counted, but several of those states — including some major battlegrounds — at least report which party early voters belong to. The data so far shows that “Republicans are leading in absentee ballots returned in Florida and North Carolina, but not by the margins they had in 2012,” which is good news for Democrats as both states begin early in-person voting which tends to favor candidates with Ds behind their names. But the GOP seems to have the advantage in Iowa, where early voting numbers for Democrats are running behind 2012, and Ohio, which doesn’t report party affiliation for early voters, but has seen a drop in early voting “in the big urban [read: Dem-leaning] centers of Cleveland and Columbus.”

“Somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of voters in the 2016 general election will cast ballots before November 8.”

Read more at New York Magazine.

Want to vote early? Check out our handy map to see if it’s available in your state.

2. “Colin Powell: I’m Voting for Hillary Clinton”

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said at an event on Tuesday that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, saying that “Republican nominee Donald Trump ’insults us every day’ and is ‘selling people a bill of goods.’”

Read more at the Daily Beast.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

3. “GOP rushes to save Burr and Blunt”

The Republican Party’s Senate campaign group is rushing to save Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), buying up TV ads for both candidates just two weeks before Election Day. Both Burr’s and Blunt’s reelection campaigns “are now toss-ups and are critical pieces to each party's hopes of controlling the Senate next year. Burr is up by about 3 points” over Democrat Deborah Ross, “according to RealClearPolitics poll averages, while Blunt is up a point over Democrat Jason Kander, who serves as Missouri's secretary of state.”

Read more at Politico.

4. “Poll: Respect for Police Near All-Time High”

Seventy-six percent of U.S. adults say “they have ‘a great deal’ of respect for their local police,” according to a new Gallup poll. That’s “a 12-point jump since last year and just one point shy of the all-time Gallup high in 1967.” Gallup found an increase among both whites and non-whites from last year’s poll, with 80 percent of white Americans now “saying they have ‘a great deal’ of respect for local law enforcement, compared with 67% of non-whites.”

Read more at CNN.

5. “The largest auto-scandal settlement in U.S. history was just approved. VW buybacks start soon”

“A federal judge has approved a $14.7-billion settlement in the Volkswagen emissions-cheating case, the largest auto-scandal settlement in U.S. history. The deal, approved Tuesday, gives about 475,000 owners of Volkswagens and Audis with 2-liter diesel engines the opportunity to have their cars bought back or modified by Volkswagen and to seek additional cash compensation. It also provides billions of dollars to support environmental programs, reduce emissions and promote zero-emissions vehicles.”

Read more at the Los Angeles Times.

— Sarah Mimms

[countableus]

What Congress Was Doing the Last Time the Cubs & Indians Had World Series Success

Today the Chicago Cubs and Cleveland Indians will face off in game one of the World Series, ending 108- and 68-year droughts, respectively, since either claimed a title.

The world has changed a lot since the Cubs lost to the Detroit Tigers in 1945 and the Indians defeated the Boston Braves in 1948. That got us wondering what Congress was up to way back then. Here’s what we found:

The last time the Cubs competed for a title: 1945

World War II was drawing to a close, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed away in April of that year, paving the way for Harry Truman to be sworn in as president.

In March, around the time the Cubs were in Spring Training, Congress passed legislation known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act which exempted the insurance industry from federal regulation and left it up to the states. In 2010 when the House was under Democratic control, it voted to repeal parts of the McCarran-Ferguson Act that relate to health insurance, but it didn’t pass the Senate and no subsequent votes occurred.

Congress also passed two major pieces of legislation related to the global economy, enacting both the Bretton Woods Agreement Act and the Export-Import Bank Act at the end of July. The Bretton Woods Agreement required the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Japan to adopt monetary policies that tied their national currency to the gold standard to stabilize international exchange rates. The Export-Import Bank helps finance and insure overseas exports for U.S. companies, and it has been the subject of recent attempts to eliminate or reform it.

There were also two significant bills that became law just before the end of the year. The United Nations Participation Act established a process for appointing U.S. representatives to the newly-formed United Nations. And the War Brides Act exempted the non-citizen spouses and children (natural born or adopted) of members of the U.S. military from immigration quotas, allowing them to start their post-World War II life in America. After its initial passage, the War Brides Act was amended to allow fiancees of U.S military personnel to immigrate, in addition to letting Korean and Japanese wives immigrate by repealing restrictions they’d faced due to the war.

The last time the Indians won a title: 1948

Cold War tensions were ramping up, as the Soviet Union began its blockade of Berlin, leading the U.S. to start the Berlin Airlift to deliver needed supplies and undertake the second peacetime military draft in the nation’s history.

1948 was also a presidential election year, and President Harry Truman had labelled obstinate Republican lawmakers who wouldn’t enact his “Fair Deal” programs as the “Do Nothing Congress.” As a result, opportunities for legislative compromise were few and far between. Congress did, however, pass the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, which allowed women to serve as permanent, regular members of the military rather than as nurses or in auxiliary roles.

Congress’ big legislative project for the first half of 1948 was the passage of the European Recovery Program, which is more commonly known as the Marshall Plan, after General of the Army and soon-to-be Secretary of State George Marshall. The U.S. gave Western Europe more than $12 billion in aid (about $120 billion in 2016 dollars) to help those nations rebuild their economies out of the post-World War II rubble. Aside from rebuilding and modernizing industry in those countries, it also reduced barriers to trade and looked to reduce the influence of communism.

The 80th Congress did achieve one more milestone in 1948, though it had nothing to do with actual legislation. A congressional hearing was televised for the first time in history when the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which investigated subversive activities by alleged communist sympathizers. The HUAC hosted Alger Hiss, an accused Soviet spy who was eventually convicted, and Whittaker Chambers — a former Soviet spy who became an outspoken anti-communist.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Blake Bolinger / Creative Commons)

[countableus]

Feds to Defend Clinton in Benghazi Lawsuit, Facebook Co-Founder Gives Millions to Dems and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. “Feds step in to defend Clinton in Benghazi email suit”

“The U.S. government has taken over part of Hillary Clinton’s defense in a civil lawsuit contending that her use of a private email server caused a breach of security that resulted in the deadly attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012.” The Justice Dept. said in a notice last week “that most of the allegations against Clinton in the suit pertain to her duties as secretary of state, so the federal government will assume her defense on those claims.”

Read more at Politico.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “Facebook co-founder drops unprecedented cash to stop Trump”

Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz surprised Democrats with $35 million, an unexpected cash infusion that “significantly altered the short-term financial position of the pro-Hillary Clinton forces and revealed a previously unknown source of cash for Democrats.” The donation from the “deeply private 32-year-old” has “puzzled Democrats in Washington and Silicon Valley” wondering whether Moskovitz could finally be their answer to GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson or whether “his unparalleled cash infusion [is] a non-replicable, one-off response to Donald Trump.”

Read more at Politico.

3. “Trump lands first major newspaper endorsement”

Donald Trump received his first endorsement from a major newspaper on Saturday, when the Las Vegas Review-Journal threw its support behind the GOP nominee. "History tells us that agents for reform often generate fear and alarm among those intent on preserving their cushy sinecures," the paper wrote. The LVRJ is owned by Adelson.

Read more at The Hill and check out the full editorial here.

4. “Ex-[Pennsylvania] attorney general sentenced to jail, then cuffed in court”

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (D) “was sentenced Monday to 10 to 23 months in jail for illegally disclosing details from a grand jury investigation to embarrass a rival and lying about it under oath.” Kane was considered a possible contender to run against Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) this year, but declined.

Read more at WTAE.

5. ICYMI: “Was the Declaration of Independence ‘defaced’? Experts say yes.”

“Two retired experts with the National Archives” say that the Declaration of Independence was defaced “sometime between 1903 and 1940, ”when unknown “officials” with access to the document rewrote or overwrote some of the signatures and left behind “a print of a left hand. … The two scholars contend that it was also during this period that the handwriting on the Declaration was mysteriously diminished, costing it more of its already dwindling original ink. Now, little of that ink survives.”

Read more at the Washington Post.

Bonus: The Best Political Ad of the Year Is Absolutely Delightful.

Gerald Daugherty is running for re-election as the Travis (TX) County Commissioner.

Via Digg.

— Sarah Mimms

Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr

[countableus]

Who Will You Vote for in the Presidential Election?

Election Day is just two weeks away! Who are you planning to cast your ballot for on November 8?

#qp_main858815 .qp_btna:hover input {background:#00355F!important} #qp_all858815 {max-width:815px; margin:0 auto;}

If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton

Gary Johnson

Evan McMullin

Donald Trump

Jill Stein

Undecided

[countableus]

The Second Round of Reagan Tax Cuts Were Signed 30 Years Ago

On October 22, 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law, lowering income tax rates and consolidating tax brackets while also eliminating deductions. The legislation dramatically changed America’s tax code and is the most significant overhaul the tax code has undergone in recent decades.

The “supply-side” policies of the Reagan administration still influence the political debate surrounding U.S. economic policy, as the Republican Party continues to advocate for lower rates across the board and fewer tax brackets and the Democratic party generally disagrees. Given the seemingly endless debate over America’s tax policy, walking through this legislation on its 30th anniversary could be helpful in examining the presidential candidates’ tax plans in 2016.

Why did it come up?

When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he defeated Jimmy Carter in an election that was heavily focused on economic issues. The U.S. was experiencing what’s known as “stagflation” — meaning that unemployment and inflation were both rising — and the economy wasn’t showing signs of improving.

Reagan advanced a platform that called for cutting income tax rates across-the-board while simplifying the tax code by reducing the number tax brackets. Shortly after taking office as president, he enacted his first round of tax cuts in 1981, which reduced the number of income tax brackets from 25 to 14 and lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent.

By the time he ran for reelection, the American economy began to rebound and Reagan campaigned for further tax cuts, ultimately riding that momentum to a landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984.

What did it do?

Much of 1985 was spent drafting the tax cut package, which was introduced by (now retired) Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL). The House passed it by voice vote in December before the Senate passed an amended version in June by a 97-3 margin. After the conference committee ironed out the differences in September 1986, Congress passed the revised bill with bipartisan support in both chambers as the House approving 292-136 and the Senate following suit on a 74-23 vote.

The 1986 legislation further simplified the tax code, shrinking the number of tax brackets from 14 down to two over the course of two years. The top income tax rate fell from 50 percent to 28 percent. The rate for the lowest-income Americans rose slightly from 12 percent to 15 percent, just above the level it had been prior to Reagan’s first tax plan, but lower than  the rate had been between World War II and 1964.

The bill also made significant changes to the deductions available to taxpayers. The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction was increased, allowing people to deduct interest they repay on their home mortgage loan. Meanwhile deductions for consumer loans (like credit card debt) were eliminated. There were also new restrictions placed on deductions available for business depreciation and contributions to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).

What has its impact been?

The Reagan tax cuts remain controversial to this day. Proponents note the strength of America’s economic recovery during Reagan’s administration, when the unemployment rate fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.4 percent and over 16 million jobs were created. On the other hand, detractors point to a marked increase in budget deficits during Reagan’s administration and argue that the tax cuts helped fuel income inequality, as the richest Americans saw their incomes grow faster than those who earned less.

Reagan’s successor in the White House, President George H.W. Bush famously broke his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge by raising income tax rates slightly and adding a third bracket in 1991. SInce then, the trend has been back toward higher rates and more brackets. President Clinton added two more brackets and raised the top rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent. President George W. Bush added a single bracket but reduced the top rate to 35 percent, which was then raised back to the Clinton-era level by President Obama (who added a seventh bracket).

As for the future? Well, under a Donald Trump administration federal income taxes would go back to having only three brackets with a top rate of 33 percent, while Hillary Clinton would retain the current brackets and rates as president and add an additional 4 percent tax on income over $5 million.

— Eric Revell

[countableus]

Massive Cyber Attacks Still Plaguing U.S., Judge Strikes MS Abortion Law and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. The Big Story: “Dyn Warns Customers That a Third Cyber Attack Is Currently Underway”

Three consecutive denial of service (DDoS) attacks led several of the most popular websites in the nation to experience outages on Friday. The attacks targeted “internet traffic company Dyn,” which provides a Domain Name System for “many prominent websites” in the U.S. Dyn said Friday that “the attacks are ‘well planned and executed, coming from tens of millions of IP addresses at the same time.’” They believe that at least one source of the attack is coming from “devices such as DVRs, Printers, and appliances connected to the internet,” which have become “infected with a malware code that was released on the web in recent weeks.”

The Dept. of Homeland Security is looking into the attacks, as are “U.S. authorities” connected to the White House. "A senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News the current assessment is that this is a classic case of internet vandalism ... [and] does not appear at this point to be any kind of state-sponsored or directed attack."

Read more at CNBC.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “Judge Sides with Planned Parenthood over Mississippi Abortion Law”

A federal judge blocked Mississippi’s new abortion law on Thursday, siding with Planned Parenthood. The law, which took effect in July, “barred medical providers that perform abortions from participating in the state's Medicaid program,” which provides healthcare to low-income Americans through a combination of state and federal funds. Courts have struck down similar laws in other states recently as well.

Read more at Reuters.

Tell your reps

Should the U.S. allow federal Medicaid dollars to be used for abortions as well? Some members of Congress are supporting a bill that would allow federal funds from Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to go toward abortion procedures. What do you think? Tell your reps.

3. “North Carolina Slashed Their Early Voting Hours and Now This Is What the Lines Look Like”

North Carolinians attempting to vote early faced long lines on Friday, thanks in part to cuts in the state’s number of early voting days, hours and polling locations for the 2016 elections. “This year, 17 North Carolina counties will provide fewer total early voting hours than in 2012, and three counties that offered early voting on a Sunday in 2012 got rid of that option.” That’s important because North Carolina will be a major battleground in the presidential campaign and also features a contentious Senate race that could help decide which party controls the chamber for the next two years.

Read more at ThinkProgress.

Can you vote early? We’ve made a handy chart of all the states that offer early voting and excuse-free absentee voting. If you’re looking to avoid the lines and your state allows you to vote absentee, check out Vote.org to request a ballot.

4. “Philippine President Says He Won’t Sever Ties With U.S.”

In a bizarre 24 hours, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said Thursday in Beijing that he was announcing his “separation from the United States … both in military and economics,” only to say Friday that “he did not mean he would cut off ties with the United States ... adding it’s in his country’s best interest to stay with America. … What he meant by his remarks in China, Duterte said, was ending a Philippine foreign policy that closely leaned toward the U.S.”

Read more at the Associated Press.

5. “Bill Murray Makes Surprise Appearance at White House Briefing Room”

Actor Bill Murray, who is Washington this weekend to accept the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, stopped by the White House briefing room on Friday to talk up the Chicago Cubs, who are just “one win away from their first World Series appearance since 1945.” Murray was at the White House to meet with President Obama before the awards ceremony on Sunday.

Read more at NBC News.

— Sarah Mimms

Image via Matthias Töpfer/Flickr

[countableus]

California Voters Could Tell Their Reps to Overturn Citizens United

This post is a collaboration between Countable and our partners at CALmatters.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, a debate has raged over whether corporations should be entitled to free speech rights and the ability to make political contributions. This November, voters in California will join those in Washington state in deciding whether to press their state’s congressional delegation to take steps toward overturning Citizens United.

What the Proposition Does

This proposition asks voters if they want California’s elected officials to take steps toward overturning the Citizens United ruling, potentially by amending the U.S. Constitution to clarify that corporations don’t have the constitutional rights people are granted.

As an advisory question, this proposition only asks for California voters to give their opinion and wouldn’t enact any laws if passed.

This question will appear on California ballots on November 8 as “Proposition 59.”

In Favor

As one piece of a passionate, nationwide movement, this measure takes a step toward undercutting big-money politics. Similar measures have already passed in Montana and Colorado, and voters in the state of Washington will vote on one in November. Even if these non-binding measures don’t lead to a Constitutional amendment, approval of Prop. 59 could influence Supreme Court justices in the future if they reconsidered Citizens United.

Opposed

The measure doesn’t actually do anything but clog the ballot and potentially confuse voters. Citizens United isn’t the only ruling that governs campaign finance issues—and overturning it would still allow a lot of money to gush through the political system, including campaign spending by wealthy individuals, and potentially corporate and union donations to PACs. Besides, political spending is and should remain a form of free speech.

In Depth

The Supreme Court ruling that this proposition hopes to eventually overturn, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, effectively prevented the government from restricting political spending by corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Since then, bills have been introduced in Congress to overturn the decision and several state legislatures have passed resolutions expressing opposition to the ruling and calling for the passage of a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

In two others states, Colorado and Montana, voters had an opportunity to call on their congressional delegation to support efforts to overturn Citizens United in 2012. Both the Colorado and Montana ballot measures passed with nearly 75 percent of the vote.

However, a portion of the Montana initiative that required state lawmakers to enact an amendment to the state constitution was struck down by a state court. The court ruled that voters can’t use an initiative to compel legislators to take an action.

Read more at CALmatters.

(Photo Credit: Jonathan McIntosh / Creative Commons)

[countableus]

EPA Delayed Flint Water Warning, Wells Fargo Under Criminal Investigation and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. “Watchdog Says EPA Delayed Flint Emergency Order”

“The Environmental Protection Agency had sufficient authority and information to issue an emergency order to protect residents of Flint, Michigan, from lead-contaminated water as early as June 2015 — seven months before it declared an emergency, the EPA's inspector general said Thursday.”

Read more at the Associated Press.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “How Can a Presidential Candidate Contest the Results of the Election?”

Donald Trump wouldn’t say during Wednesday’s debate that he’ll accept the results of the election. We broke down what a candidate can do if they believe that the results aren’t legitimate.

Read more at Countable.

3. “California Attorney General Begins Wells Fargo Criminal Probe”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), who is running for California’s open Senate seat this year, has “begun a criminal investigation into Wells Fargo bank.” In documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Harris alleges that the bank engaged in criminal identity theft.”

Read more at New York Magazine.

4. “Another North Korea missile fails after launch, say U.S. and South”

“North Korea test-fired a missile that failed immediately after launch early on Thursday,” just hours after the U.S. and South Korea agreed to increase their efforts to stop the nation’s nuclear program. North Korea “attempted but failed to launch the same type of missile on Saturday” as well.

Read more at Reuters.

5. “Here Are the Actual Issues from the Final Presidential Debate”

ICYMI: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrapped up their final, contentious debate Wednesday night. Amid the sparring, the candidates actually discussed some pretty important issues that are worth taking a look at. Check out the top issues from the debate, vote and tell your reps what you think.

Read more at Countable.

— Sarah Mimms

Image via Flickr

[countableus]

How Can a Presidential Candidate Contest the Results of the Election?

Donald Trump said during Wednesday night’s debate that he couldn’t guarantee that he will accept the results of the November 8 election, but would have to “look at it at the time.” Trump has repeatedly warned in recent months that the election will be “rigged” and added on Thursday that he’ll accept the results “if I win.”

While close elections have led to court battles and recounts, once the results have been finalized, no presidential candidate in U.S. history has contested the result.

But if a candidate on either side believes that the election results aren’t legitimate, what can they do about it?

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

They have to go to the states

CNN’s Steve Vladeck, who is also a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, broke down how to contest an election on Thursday. As Vladeck notes, a presidential candidate cannot contest the results of an election at the national level, they have to go state-by-state. That’s because the electoral system in this country is largely left up to the states and controlled by local secretaries of state and other elections officials.

Any question about the validity of election results would have to be run through state courts, individually for any area where the results are questioned. Potentially, these fights could make their way all the way up to the state supreme court.

But Vladeck points out that these cases are unlikely to make it to SCOTUS. The Supreme Court’s intervention in the 2000 election was highly unusual and it was based on the Court’s feeling “that the unique manner in which the Florida state courts had ordered a manual recount violated the U.S. Constitution.” The public wasn’t a huge fan of SCOTUS getting involved in that case, Vladeck writes, and given that the Court is one-justice short it’s “highly unlikely” that they’ll get involved in the 2016 election.

There is a timeline

There’s a federal law, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, that requires that states certify their election results “within 35 days of the election” in order for their votes in the Electoral College to count, Vladeck writes. In close elections, many states have their own laws that require recounts to determine a winner if, say, there’s a 1 percent difference between the candidates. That has to be done within that 35-day timeline, barring a legal challenge to extend the deadline.

And it’s important to remember that on election night, the numbers that the states are reporting aren’t final. Typically, they still have batches of absentee ballots and provisional ballots (those cast by voters whose eligibility to vote has to be confirmed after-the-fact) that need to be counted. Generally, the winner is clear enough that those ballots wouldn't make a difference. But in a really close election in a particular state, those ballots can be pivotal and a candidate can sue in state court to make sure that they’re counted (or not).

Not every state will matter

Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates aren’t necessarily competing to win more states or the popular vote, they’re racing to get to 270 electoral votes. So even close races in some states won’t make a difference in the final outcome of a presidential campaign and pushing back on those results would be pretty meaningless.

Vladeck points again to the 2000 race, in which George W. Bush and Al Gore fought over the results in Florida even though the race was even closer in New Mexico. Florida had enough electoral votes to change the outcome, New Mexico didn't.

What happens if no one gets to 270?

Then it goes to the House, where each state (not each representative) gets one vote for president and whoever has the majority wins. Given the political divisions of the congressional delegations in purple states like Colorado, those could be some really fascinating back-room discussions. Thanks to the 12th Amendment, only the top three presidential candidates can be considered by the House.

Currently Republicans make up the majority of 33 delegations, Democrats control another 13, while four state delegations are evenly divided. However, it’s not the current Congress that would be casting their votes, as that responsibility would fall to the newly elected Congress.

The newly elected House take on electing the president and the Senate would vote on a vice president before January 20. But if they haven’t resolved things by then, the Senate could choose a VP first so the country wouldn’t be indefinitely leaderless while the House figures out who the president will be. In the Senate, they don’t have to vote by state; each senator would get his or her own vote.

This has actually happened three times in U.S. history, Vladeck notes, in the elections of 1800, 1824 and 1876. In 1800, the House chose Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr, after taking 36 different votes. John Quincy Adams was selected over Andrew Jackson in 1824. And in 1876, Congress declared Rutherford B. Hayes the winner in three states where the results had been disputed, making him president, even though he lost the popular vote by three percentage points and had been behind in the Electoral College count as well.

What happens if there are still problems when all that is over?

Once the states have certified their results, ballots have been recounted, absentee and provisional ballots have been tallied and any court cases seeking recounts or throwing out ballots have been resolved, that’s pretty much the end of the ballgame — at least if you look back at U.S. history. A candidate who contests the results at that point “would be unprecedented in American history,” Vladeck writes.

— Sarah Mimms and Eric Revell

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

[countableus]

Maryland Voters Could Impose Party Affiliation Requirements for Filling Vacant Statewide Offices

When elected officials in significant positions like the state attorney general or a senator vacate their post, the governor who is tasked with a replacement often has to make an appointment to fill the vacancy. The Maryland legislature decided earlier this year to limit their governor’s options when filling vacancies in the Senate to people in the same political party as their predecessor. This November, Maryland voters will decide whether or not to add those requirements for the attorney general and state comptroller as well.

What the Referendum Does

This referendum would amend the state constitution to require the governor to fill a vacancy in the office of the state attorney general or the state comptroller with a replacement from the same party as the person who previously held the office.

The departing office holder’s political party would provide the governor with a list of three names from which to choose a successor within 30 days. If the party doesn’t offer suggestions within that timeframe, the governor would be able to choose any qualified individual who is registered with the same party as the person who previously held the office.

The constitutional referendum will appear on Maryland ballots on November 8 as “Question 1.”

In Favor

The governor shouldn’t have the ability to subvert the will of voters by appointing a replacement attorney general or comptroller from a different party than the person who previously held that office.

Opposed

The governor should have the discretion to appoint a replacement attorney general or comptroller with the best available candidate, rather than being limited to only choosing someone from the same party.

In Depth

Earlier this year, Maryland’s legislature created a party affiliation requirement for filling vacancies in the state’s two U.S. Senate seats. Because that was only a change to Maryland’s election laws, rather than a constitutional amendment, a referendum wasn’t required to enact the Senate requirement, meaning that voters won’t get a say on it in November. The legislation as a whole is known as HB 260.

To put this on the ballot for voters, the legislature had to pass HB 260 with a 60 percent majority in both chambers. The House passed the bill 89-49 in March 2016 while the Senate followed suit 33-13 several weeks later, setting up the referendum.

While it isn’t clear how many states have similar laws on the books for filling vacant partisan offices, at least two other states — Indiana and Oregon — require that replacements must be a member of the same political party as the predecessor for at least some statewide positions.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Flickr user Fort Meade)

[countableus]

Here Are the Actual Issues from the Final Presidential Debate

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrapped up their final, contentious debate Wednesday night. While the cable news talk today is largely centered on Trump’s refusal to say if he will accept the results of the election, which is now just 18 days away, the two candidates also discussed some pretty important issues that are worth taking a look at.

Who won the debate?

Vote in our survey and let us know who you think won: Clinton or Trump?

Tell your reps

Check out the issues below and click through to learn more, vote and tell your reps what you think. Passionate about something the candidates skipped over? Use the tool below to tell your members in Congress why it matters to you.

SCOTUS

Both candidates were asked Wednesday night what they'd look for in a Supreme Court nominee. That's a key question, given the current vacancy and the fact that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy are both over 80 years old. Clinton said that she would seek justices who support rights for LGBT Americans and women, and who would oppose the Court’s Citizen’s United decision (more on that later). Trump, meanwhile, said he would look for conservative justices who support the Second Amendment and are pro-life.

Trump also addressed some negative comments that Justice Ginsburg made about him earlier this year, arguing that the Supreme Court should stay out of presidential politics. Congress is considering legislation that would give SCOTUS a “code of ethics,” which would in part prohibit justices from engaging in political activity. Should Congress pass it?

Clinton also said Wednesday that the Senate should confirm President Obama’s current nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Do you agree?

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

Entitlements

The candidates were also asked during Wednesday’s debate to discuss their plans for entitlement programs and how they would save Social Security. Clinton suggested that she would raise taxes on the wealthy by raising the cap for contributions to Social Security in order  to save the program. Congress is considering a similar move. What do you think?

Trump didn’t address entitlements directly, but called for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the law is raising healthcare costs across the board.

Abortion

Abortion was a major topic at Wednesday night’s debate, with Clinton calling for additional protections for the procedure, while Trump pushed for a ban on late-term abortions. Clinton said that she supports the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, while Trump said that pro-life SCOTUS justices under his presidency would likely overturn the decision, but return the right to make decisions about abortion policy to the states.

Should Congress ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy?

And should federal funding, including dollars from federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, be used for abortions?

Immigration

Clinton and Trump went back-and-forth on the issue of immigration, with Clinton arguing in favor of Obama’s executive actions allowing children brought to the U.S. illegally to stay, as well as the undocumented parents of citizen children. Trump, meanwhile, emphasized border security, with a plan that starts with building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border before moving on to figure out what to do with the illegal immigrants who are already in the United States. But Trump argued that it was “unfair” for Clinton to allow people who entered the U.S. illegally to stay, while many others are going the legal route and waiting in line for the same opportunity.

What do you think? Should Congress cut funding for Obama’s executive actions protecting children who were brought to the U.S. illegally and the parents of citizens? Tell your reps.

Citizens United

Clinton brought up the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision on Wednesday night, which made it legal for unions and corporations to participate in politics and elections through outside groups like super PACs and dark money organizations.

Clinton argued that Citizens United has “undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money” to influence elections. Trump didn’t address the court decision directly in Wednesday night’s debate. Throughout the campaign, Trump has been incredibly critical of the influence that wealthy individuals and outside groups have over the political system, but he has not said whether that translates into a desire to overturn Citizens United or some other kind of campaign finance reform.

What do you think? Should Congress pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision? Tell your reps!

Voters in both Washington state and California will have the chance to vote directly on overturning Citizens United in November.

— Sarah Mimms

Image via C-SPAN

[countableus]

Who Won the Final Presidential Debate?

#qp_main854190 .qp_btna:hover input {background:#00355F!important} #qp_all854190 {max-width:815px; margin:0 auto;}

Who won the final presidential debate?

Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump

[countableus]

Scientists Stumble on Possible Climate Change Fix, U.S. Hits Major Voter Registration Milestone and More You Missed in Politics Today

It’s difficult to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in this country and to break through the clutter, so we’re here to make it easier. Here’s what we at Countable are reading today:

1. The Final Presidential Debate Starts at 9pm EST

Tonight’s your last chance to catch Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discussing the issues in a live, presidential debate. The two candidates will face off on Wednesday night from 9-10:30 pm EST at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Read more and live stream the debate at Countable.

You can also follow us on Twitter for live updates and explainers about the actual issues discussed in tonight’s debate.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; width:100%;} /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

2. “Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol”

Scientists in Tennessee accidentally “discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. ... The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.”

Read more at Popular Mechanics.

3. “America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters”

“200 million people are now registered to vote for the first time in U.S. history … a sign of the aggressive voter registration efforts ahead of Nov. 8. … There is no current national database of voter registration because each state independently runs its own election. But TargetSmart, a Democratic political data firm, told POLITICO that the country passed the 200 million threshold in recent days as North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and New York reported new voter numbers.”

Read more at Politico.

Are you one of those 200 million registered voters? Register to vote and tell your friends to register as well right here!

4. “Two Americans Killed in Attack on Base in Afghanistan”

Two Americans, one service member and one civilian, “were killed and another two were injured when a gunman opened fire on a base used by foreign troops” in Kabul, Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by a man in an Afghan army uniform, according to the Afghan Defense Ministry.

Read more at the Washington Post.

5. “Poll Workers Are Hoping For Calm But Preparing For The Worst”

“Poll workers across the country are on high alert after the recent firebombing of a Republican Party headquarters in North Carolina and reports that two armed men lingered for hours outside a Democratic campaign office in Virginia. Some feel that Donald Trump's claim that the election is rigged, and his suggestion that supporters and their friends go to polling places to ‘watch,’ are rhetorical time bombs.”

Read more at NPR.

6. “Ecuador Admits Restricting Internet Access for WikiLeaks over Election Meddling”

The Ecuadorian government admitted Tuesday that it has “‘temporarily’ restricted” Julian Assange’s internet access, after his Wikileaks site released partial transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street interests. The government said that it was doing so because Ecuador does not approve of international intervention into elections in other countries. The U.S. State Dept. has denied any involvement. (Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, to avoid extradition to Sweden to face rape allegations there).

Read more at Politico.

— Sarah Mimms

[countableus]

Oregon Voters Could Increase Taxes on Businesses’ Sales

Oregon is one of only five states in the country without a sales tax and since the 1930s, voters there have rejected imposing one on consumers nine times. This November, Oregon voters will have an opportunity to weigh in on “the largest tax increase in state history” when a different type of sales tax — that instead taxes a business's total sales above a certain level — appears on the ballot.

What the Initiative Does

This initiative would increase the minimum corporate tax on gross sales that exceed $25 million by imposing an additional 2.5 percent tax on sales above that threshold. Tax revenue generated by the tax would be intended to fund education, healthcare, and senior services (more on that later). It has been estimated that it would raise taxes annually by $3 billion.

Currently, corporations in Oregon pay either a minimum tax on sales of 0.1 percent, or 6.6 percent on taxable income up to $1 million and 7.6 percent on income above that threshold (whichever is greater). That tax structure would stay in place for sales under $25 million, even if this initiative passes.

It should be noted that the tax would be imposed on gross receipts (or total sales) rather than on profits, like most corporate income taxes.

The initiative will appear in Oregon ballots on November 8 as “Measure 97.”

In Favor

Oregon has been facing budget shortfalls for years and this initiative would bring in much-needed tax revenue to fund education, healthcare, and senior services. Big businesses need to pay their fair share to fund these priorities, and while it’s possible that these taxes will be partially passed on to consumers, average Oregonians would gain more than they lose.

Opposed

A tax increase like this will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices for the everyday products they buy. This ballot measure is misleading about how tax revenue will be spent because funds will go to the general fund rather than going for education, healthcare, and senior services directly. So, lawmakers in Salem could pass laws to spend it in other areas.

In Depth

Proponents of Measure 97 have said that funds from the tax increase would go to funding education, healthcare, and senior services. But when lawyers for the legislature were asked whether funding would be restricted to those areas, they said that it “would not bind a future legislature in its spending decisions… the legislature may appropriate revenues generated by the measure in any way it chooses.”

The Oregonian reported that economists for the state legislature and Portland State University said businesses would likely pass this tax to consumers in the form of higher prices for things like groceries, energy, and gasoline — among other items. They estimated that households earning less than $21,000 per year would lose $372 annually to the tax, while those earning between $103,000 to $137,000 would lose $868 per year. The economists also said that while the tax increase wouldn’t lead to layoffs, it would probably reduce hiring by the private sector while the public sector would use the tax revenue to hire more employees.

According to Legislative Revenue Officer Paul Warner, the tax increase would be the largest in the state’s history in terms of dollar amount, though it’s unclear whether it would be when measured as a percentage increase in tax revenue collected.

— Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Flickr user ChrisHConnelly)