Archive by Author

Republican election deniers make gains in primary contests

Republican candidates who were in Washington, D.C., during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection won primary elections to appear on the November ballot in North Carolina and Idaho on Tuesday, while one of the few Republicans who refused to go along with a lawsuit seeking to overturn the 2020 election results lost a bid for a new term in Idaho.

Pennsylvania Republicans picked state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R) as their nominee for governor, nearly three months to the day after the select House committee investigating the insurrection issued him a subpoena seeking his testimony.

Mastriano was photographed outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, though he has said he did not enter the building. His state Senate campaign spent donor dollars chartering buses that ferried supporters to Washington that day.

In North Carolina, Republican primary voters chose accountant Sandy Smith (R) as their nominee to run for a U.S. House seat currently held by retiring Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D). Smith lost to Butterfield in 2020; two months later, she attended the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington that preceded the insurrection.

Smith faces an uphill challenge against state Sen. Don Davis (D), who won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday. But she has raised more than $733,000, according to the most recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, after winning endorsements from Trump-backing figures including retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Roger Stone.

In Idaho, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden (R) lost his bid for a sixth term in office a year and a half after he refused to join a lawsuit, spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), that sought to reject 2020 presidential election results in six battleground states.

Wasden lost renomination to former Rep. Raul Labrador (R), who questioned the integrity of the 2020 presidential election.

“Numerous states unconstitutionally changed their laws during the election, subverting the role of state legislatures through unilateral actions taken by the executive and judicial branches,” Labrador wrote to the Idaho Statesman when asked about the results of the 2020 elections. “Idaho’s current Attorney General refused to join other Republican State [attorneys general] in challenging these matters, claiming he was protecting Idaho’s sovereignty. Hogwash! He didn’t join the lawsuit because he agreed with Democrat across the country that governors could change election laws without the consent of the people’s representatives.”

Republican voters in North Carolina nominated Rep. Ted Budd (R) as their candidate for a U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Richard Burr (R); Budd was among the Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 election results. In Pennsylvania, the two leading contenders locked in a neck-and-neck contest for the Republican Senate nomination — Mehmet Oz and David McCormick — have both refused to acknowledge Biden’s victory.

The results Tuesday are a prelude to primary elections that will come in dozens of other states where election deniers are running for state and federal office. 

At least 20 candidates are running for secretary of state offices in 16 states that have yet to hold primaries, according to States United Action, a watchdog group founded by former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman (R). Another 13 candidates are running for attorney general in 13 states that hold their primaries in the coming months.

“The issues we all care about most deeply depend on the freedom to vote and those votes being counted fairly. With election lies and conspiracy theories becoming a prominent issue on the campaign trail, voters need to know what is at stake heading into the primaries,” Thania Sanchez, the group’s senior vice president of research and policy development, said in a statement.

Several candidates who denied the results of the 2020 elections lost their election bids on Tuesday. 

Rick Saccone, the former Pennsylvania state representative who appeared with Mastriano in Washington, finished second in his bid to become lieutenant governor. Among three candidates running for secretary of state in Idaho, the winner, Ada County Clerk Phil McGrane (R), was the lone contender who acknowledged President Biden’s victory.

In North Carolina, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R), who had become a prominent Trump backer, lost his renomination bid to state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R), who attracted support from top Republicans across the state.

Source: TEST FEED1

Tech industry, advocacy groups join forces to oppose Texas social media law

An unlikely group of allies — made up of tech industry groups and advocacy organizations that are usually on opposing battle lines — is forming a joint front to push back on a newly instated Texas law that hinders social media companies’ ability to remove content and users that violate platform rules. 

Tech industry groups, civil society organizations and even a conservative think tank are asking the Supreme Court to intervene and block the Republican-backed law after an appeals court last week reinstated it even as litigation remains pending on its ultimate fate.

The request to the Supreme Court is being led by NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and amicus briefs have been filed with support from the Anti-Defamation League, the NAACP, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the conservative Cato Institute — and dozens more.

You end up having all these groups concerned about our lawsuit because they understand that the First Amendment implications here are far beyond just tech,” Chris Marchese, a counsel for NetChoice, told reporters Wednesday.

“This is more than just Google, YouTube and Facebook. This is really about what can the government force private individuals and private businesses to do,” he said. 

The decision that lies before the Supreme Court is whether to take immediate action to block the law as the CCIA and NetChoice case against it continues in the lower court. The request comes after the appeals court reversed a block on the law last week while an ultimate judgment of the law’s merits remains under consideration.

The law is going into effect at a precarious time — with critics slamming tech companies’ handling of dangerous misinformation and hate speech following the deadly mass shooting in Buffalo, N.Y. Companies have come under scrutiny over clips of the shooting spreading online and faced accusations that they are not taking a hard enough stance against extremist content.

And the debate around the law is heating up as the fate of former President Trump’s now suspended accounts on mainstream platforms is up in the air in the lead up to a potential 2024 run. The law could potentially force or compel companies to reinstate previously removed users, including Trump.

Meta, Facebook’s parent company, has said Trump will remain banned until 2023, at which time it may allow him to return based on an evaluation of the “risk to public safety.” YouTube has yet to make a definitive decision on Trump’s presence on the platform, but CEO Susan Wojcicki last year said his account will only be reinstated when the risk of violence has decreased. Twitter, which was previouslythe former president’s most frequented platform, made the most definitive decision to fully ban Trump, but that decision may be overturned if Elon Musk is successful in his bid to buy the company. 

Spokespeople for Facebook and Twitter declined to comment. A spokesperson for Google, YouTube’s parent company, did not respond to a request for comment. 

The bill, signed by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in September, forbids social media companies with more than 50 million monthly users from banning users based on political views.

Marchese said if it remains in place, the platforms could be compelled to reinstate banned politicians including Trump, because it is “so poorly written” it encourages plaintiffs to “bring as many novel and creative lawsuits as possible.” 

Matt Schruers, president of the CCIA, said he agrees the law is ambiguous, but said there would be a strong argument for companies to not have to reverse content decisions in place prior to it taking effect. 

Republicans have been accusing platforms of censoring content with an anti-conservative bias, a narrative boosted by the suspensions of Trump’s accounts over posts he maderelated to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Despite a lack of evidence to back the claims of biased censorship, the law opens the floodgates for users to sue companies over bans even if they violated the platforms’ rules. 

Even the Real Facebook Oversight Board, an activist group that formed to hold Facebook accountable and is nearly always in opposition of the tech giant and the industry groups that back it, is against the law.

“Tech companies may have their reasons for opposing the law – they want as little interference as possible. But in this case they’re right – the Texas law stands in the way of critical safeguards against hate speech and incitement to violence. We need policy oversight, but it has to be good policy and this is not,” a spokesperson for the group said in a statement. 

As a whole, the amicus briefs argue the law violates the First Amendment by taking away private entities’ rights to decide what content they display and host, and does so in a way that would lead platforms to leave dangerous content online, including pro-terrorist content, animal abuse and pornography and hate speech. 

“I think the organizations opposing this law realize that this type of approach that Texas has taken could easily be used from either a right wing or left wing perspective,” said Thomas Berry, a research fellow at Cato Institute. 

“So it may be Texas today, but it could easily be a blue state next year that puts in place similar restrictions on the rights of editors. So it’s more important to draw a principled line based on what are the First Amendment rights of publishers — and it shouldn’t matter whether those rights are being infringed by a conservative state or a liberal state in order to achieve a conservative outcome or a liberal outcome,” he said. 

The request was filed to Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees the Fifth Circuit. Marchese said they expect Alito will review the filings and write a memo to the rest of the conference, and said there could be a vote from justices on whether to block the law by Friday. 

It’s not certain if there will be a written opinion along with the decision, but the case is largely expected to come back to the Supreme Court depending on how it plays out before the Fifth Circuit appeals court. 

If not, NetChoice and CCIA expect another case they have lodged against a similar Florida bill will ultimately make its way to the high court.

Source: TEST FEED1

State judicial elections take on new importance with Roe in peril

Battles to control state courts and offices are quickly gaining greater focus with the Supreme Court appearing poised to overturn its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

Roe’s impending demise has already raised the stakes for some down ballot races, with state court judges and attorneys general expected to take on expanded roles in the fight over abortion access if the Supreme Court eliminates the federal right in coming weeks. 

Battles for some of those offices have already grown more heated in the last decade, but they are expected to gain further attention as bitter battles over abortion rights take place across the country.

“In states where judges are elected, state supreme court elections have long flown under the radar, and at least attracted much less attention than elections for governor or U.S. Senate,” said Douglas Keith, counsel at the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program. “But all of that may be poised to change if these courts increasingly have the final word on high-profile legal questions.”

A leaked draft opinion striking down Roe, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and reportedly backed by at least four other conservative justices, would strip away the constitutional right to abortion, leaving regulatory authority with the states. 

Abortion rights advocates incensed at the draft opinion also fumed over the Biden administration’s seeming lack of preparation for such a scenario, despite widespread consensus about Roe’s jeopardized status under the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. And a failed bid by Senate Democrats last week on long-shot legislation to codify Roe’s protections seemed to further underscore the absence of a federal backstop if the ruling is struck down.

The Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the draft opinion, published by Politico on May 2, while cautioning that the ruling’s contents and the justices’ votes were subject to change prior to the publication of a final decision. 

But if the draft opinion becomes law, changes to abortion access in some states would be swift and, in some cases, drastic. The case under review, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerns Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that directly challenges Roe’s prohibition on banning abortion before fetal viability, around 24 weeks. 

According to the abortion rights advocacy group Guttmacher Institute, 26 states would be certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Among those, 13 have trigger laws already in place, designed to take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies. 

If Roe is overturned, court watchers say, the battle would then turn to state constitutions and state courthouses, arenas which have been largely eclipsed by the existence of a federal constitutional right to abortion that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court since 1973. 

“With the Supreme Court on the verge of taking the entire federal judiciary out of the business of protecting reproductive rights, most of the important legal brawls will occur in state courts and state houses,” said Robert Tsai, a law professor at Boston University.

In some states, the leaked draft has generated legislative momentum on both sides of the aisle over the issue of abortion access, with conservatives pushing to stiffen restrictions and liberals seeking to bolster protections in anticipation of Roe’s possible undoing.  

Republican officials in at least eight states have called for legislative sessions to consider new limits on abortion since Alito’s draft opinion was made public earlier this month, according to the polling and research firm Pew.

Meanwhile, some Democratic-controlled legislatures have moved in the opposite direction.

“States like Connecticut and California are drafting laws to protect providers performing legal abortions in their states and to protect and support patients that travel to their states,” said Rachel Rebouché, a law professor at Temple University School of Law. “Those measures will become increasing important if states, like Missouri, attempt to enforce anti-abortion policies across state lines.” 

In addition to legislation, new attention is likely to be paid to state constitutions, a source of legal authority that has been largely overlooked since the 1973 decision in Roe. 

A number of top state courts have interpreted the state constitution as enshrining a right to abortion. These include Kansas (2019), Iowa (2018), Montana (1999), Alaska (1997) and Florida (1989). If Roe is struck down in coming weeks, citizens of those states would still retain a right to abortion, and experts expect advocates in other states to adopt this strategy.

A Michigan judge on Tuesday agreed to temporarily halt a 1931 criminal ban on abortion that would become enforceable if Roe fell. The judge also said there was “a strong likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of their constitutional challenge.”

But as advocates seek to enshrine state constitutional protections, efforts by abortion opponents are also underway in at least two of those states to have their state supreme court’s interpretation struck down. 

In Montana, for instance, the state’s Republican attorney general has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn its 23-year-old decision that held that the state constitution’s privacy protections encompass abortion — a ruling some advocates refer to as “Montana’s Roe v. Wade.”

As a sign of just how critical the attorney general role could be in a post-Roe world, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, in a memo written after the Supreme Court leak, said it would spend up to $30 million on candidates who would protect abortion rights.

In Kansas, a ballot initiative would effectively overrule its top court’s ruling by amending the state constitution. The Kansas Supreme Court’s recognition in 2019 of a state-constitutional right to abortion is also likely to figure as a flashpoint in the midterm elections, when a majority of its justices are up for election.  

“It is hard to overstate how important state courts and state constitutions are about to be,” said Keith, of the Brennan Center. “If, as the Dobbs draft suggests, the U.S. Supreme Court is abdicating its responsibility to protect constitutional rights like abortion access, people are going to look to other courts and other bodies of law to step in.”

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP lawmakers say primaries show Trump’s firm grip on party 

Senate Republicans say the strong performances by Trump-backed candidates in the Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio GOP primaries show the former president maintains a vice-like grip on their party and will be the heavy favorite heading into the 2024 presidential election.  

Former President Trump has not only picked winners in various key gubernatorial, Senate and House primaries but his endorsements in several high-profile instances appear to have propelled lagging candidates to victory.  

Lawmakers say this is most apparent in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, where Trump’s involvement appears to have altered the outcome of the election. 

Even if Trump can’t take all of the credit for producing winners, there’s no question his endorsement moves poll numbers, GOP senators say.  

“There’s no question in my mind that he would become the nominee in 2024 if he decides to run for the Republican nomination,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012.

In terms of Trump’s affect on down-ballot races, Romney added: “He has a significant impact on state races and he’ll win some and lose some but surely people will want his endorsement if they can get it.”

When Trump endorsed television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz in the Pennsylvania Senate Republican primary on April 9, the move surprised some of his advisers as Oz was trailing his rival, former Bridgewater CEO David McCormick by an average of 6 points in the polls.  

A day after Election Day, Mehmet held a slim lead of less than 2,000 votes over McCormick with 95 percent of the vote counted.  

Trump’s backing appeared to turbocharge the campaign of Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Douglas Mastriano, who spread discredited claims of widespread election fraud in the 2020 election and attended the Jan. 6 protests outside the Capitol.  

Mastriano, who was already in first place, surged even higher in the polls after Trump’s endorsement and wound up winning with 44 percent of the vote.  

Some Republicans aren’t thrilled with the idea of GOP candidates rehashing debunked theories about the 2020 election having been stolen.  

“Most voters are concerned about what’s going to happen in the future, not what happened in the past,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) Wednesday.  

But as Trump consolidates his hold over the GOP, claims of widespread election fraud in the last election are likely to stick around for a while. 

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he agrees with Romney that Trump will be heading into the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential election as the clear leader of the Republican Party.  

“He’s clearly still the most significant person of influence in the party,” he said. “What he did in Pennsylvania is not insignificant if Dr. Oz pulls it out.  

“You have to give a lot of credit to Donald Trump. There’s just no question he’s still got a broad influence over a broad swath of Republican primary voters and activists,” he added.  

He predicted that Trump will be able to roll victories in 2022 into his 2024 presidential campaign, if he decides to run.  

“Donald Trump, he’s good with capital. He’s good at maximizing capital. Chits get called in at some point and politics is a business of capital. Usually all you have is your political capital. He’s gathering a lot of it right now,” he added. “It gives him a lot to spend if he needs to.  

“I think he’s the clear frontrunner for the nomination,” he said.  

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is eyeing a potential White House run himself in 2024, acknowledged that Trump retains massive influence over GOP voters. 

“In Ohio, there’s no question that Trump’s endorsement won that race. It had a dramatic impact. In Pennsylvania, there’s no question that Trump’s endorsement moved Dr. Oz’s numbers significantly and President Trump continues to have the deep respect and admiration of a great many Americans and when he makes that endorsement, it carries weight,” he said.  

“There’s no doubt he has strong support among Republican primary voters,” he added.  

When Trump endorsed J.D. Vance in the Ohio Senate Republican primary on April 15, he was in third place, well behind the two frontrunners, former state treasurer Josh Mandel and businessman Mike Gibbons, though he was ticking up in the polls.  

Buoyed by Trump’s backing, Vance wound up easily winning the May 3 primary with 32 percent of the vote.  

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), who has been critical of Trump from time to time, and who became the target of his wrath after urging colleagues not to attempt to block the certification of Biden’s 2020 victory, said pundits will doubtless see the primary results as a sign of Trump’s strength within the GOP.  

“The pundits will be interpreting these results. If you want to draw that conclusion, you certainly can,” he said of colleagues and members of the media who see wins by Trump-backed candidates as evidence of the former president’s political dominance in the GOP. “In many of these cases, the people he endorsed performed well.”  

But Thune said he’s not yet entirely convinced because elections are complicated and driven by various factors. 

 “It’s not real clear cut in the sense that you have in most of these races multiple candidates who are taking votes away from each other so … you can make some generalized assessments but I don’t think you can make very specific ones,” he said.  

Trump skeptics point out that he hasn’t been successful across the board.  

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), whom Trump asked voters to give a second chance after a series of scandals, lost his bid to serve a second term.  

And in Nebraska, Charles Herbster, an agribusinessman who had Trump’s support but also faced allegations he had inappropriately touched several women, lost his race against Jim Pillen for the gubernatorial nomination. Herbster had denied the allegations.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who voted to impeach Trump in February of last year, said Oz did well in Pennsylvania because he was a strong candidate, downplaying the impact of Trump’s endorsement.  

He said Oz’s performance doesn’t say much about Trump’s strength because “Oz started off with almost universal name ID, very high favorable ratings.”  

“Frankly he’s a good candidate, spent a lot of money. He did well,” he said, predicting either Oz or McCormick will beat Democratic nominee John Fetterman in November.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Speculation over whether Biden will run again heats up

Everywhere you go in Washington, people are wondering the same thing: Will Joe Biden run for re-election? 

The 79-year-old Democrat and his closest allies say he wants a second White House term and plans to run again. Biden told former President Barack Obama he intends to launch another bid. 

But that hasn’t silenced the whispered questions about whether he will do so given his age — he will be 81 in November 2024 — and his rocky approval ratings.  

The party is also bracing for a difficult midterm election season, and some think negative results could change the president’s calculations.  

“If he’s weakened, the sharks will be circling the tank,” said one Democratic strategist who asked to speak candidly on background. 

Few doubt Biden’s desire for a second term and some Democrats are convinced he’ll do it regardless of the skepticism of many others in political circles.  

“I fully expect for him to run again,” said Democratic strategist Jim Manley, who served as an adviser to the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “But I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of Democrats and their staffers watching very carefully as the weeks and months go by.” 

If Biden does not run, Vice President Harris is the obvious successor.  

She has been staying mostly in Washington after a series of internal office and personnel changes rankled her first year. Harris would almost certainly run for the Democratic nomination if Biden decided to stop at one term, and her stature and personal story — she is the first Black, the first woman and the first Asian American to hold her position — would make her a formidable candidate. 

Yet her missteps in office and her struggles as a presidential candidate in 2020 have raised questions about her political strength. 

That means she’s likely to have challengers for the nomination if Biden steps away. 

“I’m not so sure whether any Dems will defer to the VP if President Biden decides not to run,” said Manley. “If he decides not to run, I don’t think she has a lock on it.” 

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who also ran for the White House in 2020, is keeping a busy travel schedule to promote Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which became law six months ago.  

Some view him as eager to launch a second bid, noting his meteoric rise and success in the early primary contests. But at just 40, he doesn’t have the experience of other Democrats like Biden himself, and also failed to get much traction with Black voters, a key constituency where Biden thrived.  

Progressive Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would also be possible contenders in a wide-open race. Warren has said publicly she will not run if Biden is in the mix. 

That effectively means that she and many others are waiting for the president.

“Everything is frozen,” said one Democratic bundler.  

For now, most Democrats are more focused on the midterms — and a series of national and international issues with potentially long- and short-term political effects, from inflation and a possible Supreme Court reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision to the Russian war in Ukraine and the racist shooting last weekend at a Buffalo supermarket that many Democrats link to the GOP’s rhetoric on race and immigration.  

“Senior Democrats aren’t so worried about the presidential right now. They’re looking at the governors’ races more than anything,” the bundler said.  “But after the midterms, everything will change,” the source hedged. “It’s game on and we better be ready.” 

Former President Trump is also a shadow on everything — and a waking nightmare of sorts for Democrats. 

Trump was the reason Biden ran for the White House in 2020, and a big reason he won the party’s nomination. Many Democrats wanted to elect the candidate best positioned to defeat Trump. 

That question will reverberate again as Democrats consider who is best to lead the party against Trump or a Trump-like GOP successor — such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R).  

Biden seemed like a somewhat unlikely choice at times in the 2020 cycle as two dozen candidates competed for the position.  

He wasn’t as intriguing as fresher-faced rivals like Harris and Buttigieg and he wasn’t as idealistic as Sanders and Warren. The former vice president and longtime senator didn’t appear to represent the party’s future.  

“Few people thought that Joe Biden could be elected president, and he was,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Hill. “Irrespective of what his defeated predecessor may say, he won the election and did so fair and square.”

In 2024, just as in 2020, many may end up deciding that Biden remains the party’s best bet to hold the White House.  

Celinda Lake, one of Biden’s lead pollsters during the last presidential election, said she takes him at his word when he says he intends to launch a second-term bid.

“He has said he is running, so I think he is,” said Lake, effectively quieting chatter that he might change his mind down the road. 

Some on the left even begrudgingly believe the frozen field means Biden will likely be the nominee.  

“I personally believe he will run,” said one progressive donor adviser close to several left-wing lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  

Still, progressives such as Sanders and Warren are getting ready, publishing opinion pieces in national outlets pushing their preferred policy outcomes ahead of the midterms. Each is also doing a lot of television interviews. 

Moderates say Biden is likely to prove again to be the strongest fit for the nomination. They point to his ability to pull from multiple constituencies as a force that will drive voters back to him, even if they’re tempted to shop around first. 

“I think Democrats are deluding themselves if they think Joe Biden could be beaten in a primary,” said Jim Kessler, a policy vice president at the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, noting that he doubts the White House is paying much attention to the speculation. 

“I don’t think it bothers them at all,” Kessler said. “I expect that in less than a year’s time the president will make clear whether he’s running or not in 2024. I certainly hope he is running.” 

Morgan Chalfant contributed 

Source: TEST FEED1

Here are the Republicans who bucked the party on baby formula bills

A handful of Republican lawmakers bucked their party on Wednesday in votes on two separate bills aiming to address the nationwide baby formula shortage causing rising concern for parents across the country.

The main bill, dubbed the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed in a 231-192 vote that mainly broke along party lines. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

The legislation would grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) $28 million in emergency funding to respond to the scarcity of baby formula.

Twelve Republicans bucked House GOP leadership and voted for the legislation: Reps. Don Bacon (Neb.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Trey Hollingsworth (Ind.), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), David McKinley (W.Va.), Tom Rice (S.C.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Michael Turner (Ohio), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Ann Wagner (Mo.).

Earlier on Wednesday, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) sent a memo to all House GOP offices recommending that members vote against the legislation. He argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought up the bill “in hopes of covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.”

The House on Wednesday also passed the Access to Baby Formula Act in a 414-9 vote that was largely bipartisan. Five Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

The bill calls for permanently relaxing restrictions on the kinds of baby formula that individuals in the federal low-income assistance program for women, children and infants are allowed to purchase. The program is formally known as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly referred to as the WIC program.

The only opposition to the legislation came from the Republican Party: the no votes were Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Clay Higgins (La.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Chip Roy (Texas).

There was no overlap in the two groups of GOP outlier votes.

Massie and Greene have stood out for their votes on a number of recent occasions, at times bucking the majority of their party to oppose bipartisan measures such as aide to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

The baby formula bills come as parents across the country are struggling to purchase formula for their children, leaving lawmakers scrambling to restock shelves and prevent the scarcity from worsening.

The U.S. has been grappling with the instant baby formula shortage since at least the week beginning April 24, when the out-of-stock percentage of the merchandise reached 40 percent, according to an analysis by retail tracking company Datasembly.

Source: TEST FEED1

House unanimous on measure condemning antisemitism, apart from one GOP no vote

The House passed a resolution on Wednesday condemning the rise of antisemitism in a nearly unanimous vote, with one Republican lawmaker objecting to the measure.

The resolution passed 420-1, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) representing the only vote against it. Eight other Republicans did not vote.

The Hill reached out to Massie for comment on his vote.

The resolution calls on elected officials, faith leaders and leaders in civil society to use their positions of authority “to condemn and combat any and all manifestations of antisemitism.”

The measure also urges individuals to denounce denials or distortions of the Holocaust, and encourages them to promote education focused on the Holocaust and antisemitism.

“Tragically, antisemitism followed Jewish Americans from the old world to the new one, and its become a growing cancer on our body politic,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said from the House floor on Wednesday.

“Too many Americans need to hear the loud voices of their Congress calling out antisemitism. Because too many of our fellow citizens are hearing leaders they support and trust either give voice to antisemitism or rationalize antisemitism,” he added.

The resolution comes after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported last month that antisemitic incidents in the U.S. hit a record high in 2021. In its annual audit, the group said it counted 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the U.S. last year, including harassment and vandalism.

That number marked the highest the organization has recorded since it started tracking antisemitic incidents in 1979. The resolution cited the ADL’s report.

The measure comes during Jewish American Heritage Month. It was also passed days after a gunman opened fire at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., killing 10 individuals. Thirteen people were shot, 11 of whom were Black.

The suspected shooter — 18-year-old Payton Gendron of Conklin, N.Y. — allegedly espoused the “great replacement” theory, which is a baseless, racist theory that an increasing number of minorities and immigrants are intentionally overrunning white Americans.

According to the ADL, the theory is now associated with antisemitism because many white supremacists in the U.S. say Jews are responsible for non-white immigration to America.

Hoyer mentioned the Buffalo shooting in remarks on the House floor when discussing the bill.

“It is not enough simply to be against antisemitism. We must not rationalize or temporize with antisemitism,” Hoyer said.

The resolution also calls for “amplifying and ensuring” that the U.S. takes a lead in fighting global antisemitism, specifically urging cooperation with the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, along with international governments and parliaments.

Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt was confirmed as special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism in March.

Additionally, the resolution calls on social media platforms to step up efforts to address antisemitism while still safeguarding free speech concerns, and encourages taking “all possible steps” to bolster the security of Jewish institutions and groups in the U.S, among other provisions.

Source: TEST FEED1

House passes domestic terrorism bill in mostly party-line vote

The House passed a bill mostly along party lines on Wednesday that seeks to create domestic terrorism offices throughout the U.S. government, just days after a gunman fatally shot 10 people in Buffalo, N.Y., in an incident that President Biden called “domestic terrorism.”

The bill, dubbed the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, passed in an 222-203 vote, with one Republican bucking party leadership and voting for the legislation.

The legislation specifically calls for the formation of domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI that would be tasked with monitoring and scrutinizing potential terror activity.

A vote on the bill was scheduled after Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), the sponsor of the legislation, called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bring the legislation to the floor. He pointed to the Saturday shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, where 13 people were shot, 11 of whom were Black.

The suspected shooter — identified as 18-year-old Payton Gendron of Conklin, N.Y. — reportedly embraced ideas that are connected to the “great replacement theory,” a racist, far-right conspiracy that liberal elites are encouraging immigration to replace white voters.

Some Democrats referenced the fatal shooting during debate on the bill prior to its passage.

“Here we are again, reeling from another horrific domestic terrorist attack. This week, a racially motivated shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., perpetrated by an avowed white supremacist,” Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) said on the House floor.

She mentioned previous mass shootings carried out by individuals with ties to white supremacy, including the 2018 attack at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, which is in her district.

“H.R. 350 will give communities like mine a fighting chance the next time an angry racist shares a deranged screed online and decides to drive hours to attack vulnerable and innocent people at our grocery stores or our houses of worship,” Escobar said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) pointed to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol as reason the legislation is needed.

“I know, as I believe every member of this house knows, that extremist violence can reach anyone, anytime, anywhere, whether it be a place of worship, a grocery store or, as we learned last year, this very hall,” the Maryland Democrat said.

Republican leaders had recommended that their members vote against the legislation. In a memo to House GOP offices, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) said the bill “would create unnecessary and duplicative domestic terrorism offices” in departments throughout the government, among other qualms.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on the House floor said the bill was about “empowerment of the federal bureaucracy to target Americans.”

“This is nothing more than empowering the federal government to police thought and speech in the United States of America, and we should oppose it roundly,” he later added.

The legislation was initially slated to be passed through a fast-track process late last month, but Democratic leaders pulled it from the calendar after some progressive lawmakers voiced opposition to the bill.

Schneider told reporters on Monday that the legislation was adjusted to specify that none of its tenets would undermine First Amendment rights. It previously passed in a voice vote in 2020.

The bill calls for establishing a Domestic Terrorism Unit in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the DHS, which would be tasked with observing and examining domestic terrorism activity, in addition to a Domestic Terrorism Office in the Counterterrorism Section of the National Security Division of the DOJ, which would look into and prosecute domestic terrorism incidents and communicate with the Civil Right Division about occurrences that may be considered hate crimes.

The bill also encourages the establishment of a Domestic Terrorism Section of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, which would probe activity tied to domestic terrorism.

Source: TEST FEED1

House passes bills to address baby formula shortage

The House on Wednesday passed two bills aimed at addressing a nationwide shortage of infant formula.

The main piece of legislation, sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), would provide $28 million in emergency funding to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to beef up inspections of formula made at foreign plants and to guard against any future shortages by ensuring the agency is prepared for supply chain disruptions.

The shortages have left many parents desperate and lawmakers scrambling to find a solution to put formula back on store shelves.

DeLauro’s bill was passed 231-192 in a mainly party-line vote, with 12 Republicans going against the recommendation of party leadership and supporting the legislation. Another passed in a largely bipartisan vote.

But even as Democrats praised the vote, it was unclear how quickly the bills would help families and increase the available supply. 

Senate Republicans also seemed wary of spending new money, so the ultimate fate of the Democrats’ biggest legislative effort to fix the formula shortage was uncertain. 

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) sent out a memo on Wednesday urging his members to vote “no” on the bill. He said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) proposed the legislation “in hopes of covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.”

GOP leaders also claimed that some of their proposals to address the scarcity were ignored by Democrats.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) on the House floor characterized the legislation as “reckless spending.”

“I rise in opposition tonight to H.R. 7790, the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, a bill that just continues the majority’s reckless spending spree without actually fixing the infant formula crisis this administration caused,” he said.

The legislation also includes funding for supply chain monitoring and money to prevent fraudulent products from reaching U.S. stores.

Democrats argued the FDA does not have enough resources to adequately inspect foreign manufacturers and make sure they meet agency safety standards. The $28 million in emergency funding would make sure the agency can handle those inspections quickly.

“The FDA plays a critical role in ensuring formula provides the full nutritional needs of infants and that it is manufactured in the safest way possible. We must ensure that a lack of funding is not a barrier to getting safe formula to parents and babies. The bill before us does just that,” DeLauro said during debate on the House floor.

She said “an immediate need” exists to deliver infant formula to parents and families.

“In the wealthiest nation in the world, babies should not be at risk of going hungry. Parents should not have to play a guessing game and wonder if the food that they are giving their babies is safe,” DeLauro later added.

The other piece of legislation would permanently loosen the restrictions on the types of formula that can be purchased by people in the federal low-income assistance program for women, children and infants. That bill passed with bipartisan support in a 414-9 vote, with all nays coming from the GOP.

About half of all formula in the U.S. is purchased by people in the WIC program, which relies on exclusive contracts with formula manufacturers. Abbott Nutrition products serve 89 percent of all infants participating in WIC. The legislation would let states substitute other brands or types of formula in the event of a recall or other type of disruption.  

The formula shortages have been months in the making but only recently caught the attention of many members of Congress. Now facing pressure from frustrated families, lawmakers are finding no easy answers. 

House Republicans knocked Democrats for giving money to the FDA without guardrails and without forcing the agency to develop a concrete plan to solve the shortage. At least two House committees are investigating manufacturers and the FDA.

The scarcity is partly due to the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by Abbott Nutrition. The plant has been shut down since February, after four infants who consumed formula made there were hospitalized with a rare bacterial infection. 

Abbott is one of the largest formula manufacturers in the country.

Source: TEST FEED1