Daily Archives: July 13, 2023

INDIANAPOLISA seventh candidate for Indiana governor was announced this week, as former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill attempts to put his past groping controversy behind him in his quest to regain public office.

Former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill.

Hoosiers are hungry for a proven conservative leader with the courage to stand up for the traditional values upon which our Republic was built, Hill said in a press release.

Hill was accused by four women of drunkenly groping them in 2018 and had his law license suspended in the lead-up to the 2020 Republican state primary, resulting in delegates selecting current AG Todd Rokita over Hill.

He has denied the accusations, publishing a statement back in 2018 that said, The allegations against me, which continue to change, are vicious and false. At no time did I ever grab or touch anyone inappropriately.

Two years later, after the suspension was handed down, a Hill press release said, I accept with humility and respect the Indiana Supreme Courts ruling of a 30-day suspension of my license with automatic reinstatement.

Hill returned to the political scene last year, running in the primary to be the Republican nominee to fill the U.S. House of Representatives seat that was open after Rep. Jackie Walorski died in a car crash in August 2022. Rudy Yakym won the primary and the general election.

Hill will continue to attempt a political comeback by joining the increasingly crowded field of candidates for governor.

Our campaign will emphasize a positive vision for Indiana, restoring faith in our institutions, protecting our children, investing in our law enforcement, prioritizing the rebuilding of our economy and placing the needs of Hoosiers above the manipulation of Washington, D.C., Hills statement said.

During his time as attorney general, Hill criticized Marion County prosecutor Ryan Mears for saying he wouldnt prosecute people for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana and testified in front of the Indiana General Assembly against a bill allowing cities to create needle exchange programs without approval from the state.

He also partnered with faith-based organization Indianapolis Ten Point Coalition in an attempt to reduce crime. The coalition does peace walks to build relationships with the community and has members who work as liaisons to get information about crimes from community members to the police.

And in 2017, Hill wrote an opinion article for The Statehouse File criticizing NFL players kneeling, saying, Rather than kneeling in silence, they should choose to stand as men of character and courage and tackle black-on-black violence.

Hill joins three other Republicans, two Democrats and a Libertarian in the race to succeed Gov. Eric Holcomb, who is term limited from serving a third consecutive time.

U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, Republican, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2018 after spending three years in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch, Republican, went from being a state representative to state auditor to her current position, lieutenant governor under Holcomb.

Eric Doden, Republican,has never held public office but was president of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation under Gov. Mike Pence for two years.

Jennifer McCormick, Democrat, served as superintendent of public instruction under Holcomb but has since switched party allegiance.

Bob Kern, Democrat, is a perennial candidate who, since 2012, has appeared in primaries for the U.S. House, Indiana House, Indiana Senate and, most recently, Indianapolis mayor.

Donald Rainwater, Libertarian, is most known for his 2020 governor run in which he received 11.4% of the vote.

Original post:

Indiana governor's race grows more crowded with addition of ... - The Statehouse File

The so-called Consumer Choice Center, a libertarian pressure group, has advocated against green regulations in the EU without being registered as a lobby group, DeSmog can reveal.

The US-based organisation which has links to a network of fossil-fuel-funded think tanks and advocacy groups has opposed climate-friendly measures in Europe such as the phase-out of petrol cars and green farming reforms despite being removed from the lobby register over a year ago.

It appears that Consumer Choice Center's activity puts it in breach of EU transparency rules, which require lobbyists to declare their activities on the EU Transparency Register.

"Anyone who seeks to influence policymaking, or decision making of EU institutions should be on the register," said Green MEP Daniel Freund. "It makes no difference whether that's a meeting, an email, an op-ed, or a giant billboard in front of the European Parliament."

MEPs need to know "who they're dealing with," Freund added.

However, the rules are not legally-binding, and organisations in breach face minimal sanctions. According to transparency campaigners, this allows groups like Consumer Choice Center to "try and influence the Brussels bubble without respecting transparency".

Consumer Choice Center, based in Washington DC, styles itself as a consumer advocacy group that "represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe". However, on its website, which lists 62 staff members, the group says that it has previously been funded by the energy, chemical, and airlines industries and does not publish its current sources of finance.

The group spent 250,000 on EU lobbying in 2020 and employed 16 lobbyists.

Vicky Cann from LobbyFacts said it was "absolutely fundamental" for organisations to publish their funding sources. "We need to understand why an organisation is advocating certain positions," she said.

DeSmog understands that the group was removed from the EU's lobby register in May 2022 following a quality check by the secretariat aimed at detecting potential inaccuracies, errors or omissions in the register. The group's removal from the register also followed the introduction of new lobbying rules requiring more transparency over funding sources, which were brought in last March.

Freund said that it was important for policymakers to interact with lobbyists in "any healthy democracy", but that "wherever there could be an influence of money on politics, the bare minimum is to make it transparent and give voters the possibility to hold decision makers accountable."

Consumer Choice Center was established in 2017 by the libertarian advocacy group Students for Liberty, which is funded by the Koch oil network.

Students for Liberty has received almost $1m [910,000] in funding since 2009 from the philanthropic organisations of Charles Koch, who co-owns Koch Industries one of the largest privately-held companies in the US which trades heavily in oil and gas. Organisations connected to Koch Industries have directed at least $100m to climate science denial groups since 1997.

Between 2017 and 2019 while Consumer Choice Center was part of the group Students for Liberty also received donations of over $100,000 from the Atlas Network, an alliance of libertarian think tanks that has received funding from Koch foundations and fossil fuel firms. Members of the Atlas Network have campaigned against legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and have questioned the presence and severity of human-caused climate change.

Students for Liberty also received a one-off donation of $10,000 from the Cato Institute, a US-based libertarian think tank that has received millions in funding from Koch sources and has downplayed the severity of global warming. Consumer Choice Center was part of US-based Students for Liberty until 2020.

Fellows and employees of the Consumer Choice Center also have professional links to programmes run by Koch-funded groups, the Cato Institute and the Atlas Network, while over half of those listed on the organisation's website have been involved in Students for Liberty.

Consumer Choice Center fellow Maria Chaplia completed a Charles Koch market-based management programme, while the group's US affairs analyst Elizabeth Hicks completed a Koch associate programme at the Charles Koch Institute.

Research manager Emil Panzaru and Latam policy fellow Antonella Marty both completed internships at the Cato Institute, while Marty is also associate director of the Center for Latin America at the Atlas Network.

The Center has paid for adverts on Facebook in recent months lobbying against EU plans to ban petrol and diesel cars, and against the strengthening of chemical regulations.

It has written almost 50 articles on EU policy issues since it was removed from the lobby register, as well as hosting a "cross-party and cross-committee" group in the European Parliament attended by more than 30 MEPs.

The Consumer Choice Center has suggested that Europe should "shelve all their climate ambitions [and] refine more oil" in light of the war in Ukraine and warned that EU plans to become carbon neutral by 2050 would have disastrous economic consequences.

Under new lobbying rules introduced last March, non-commercial entities like Consumer Choice Center have to declare their sources of funding on the EU Transparency Register if they amount to over 10 percent of an organisation's budget and exceed 10,000.

Consumer Choice Center did not update its funding sources before its removal from the register in May 2022. DeSmog did not receive a response to questions about whether Consumer Choice Center's removal from the register related to the introduction of the new rules.

The group does not publish information about its current funders. However, its website states that it has previously "received funding from multiple industries such as energy, fast-moving consumer goods, airlines, manufacturing, digital, healthcare, chemicals, banking, cryptocurrencies, and fin-tech". It says that its "support comes from corporations, individuals, and foundations" and that it has a "tiered membership model" on offer.

Lisa Graves of True North which has spent decades researching the Koch network said she was not surprised that Consumer Choice Center has attempted to brand itself as a consumer rights organisation despite its ties to industry.

"Groups take on names to try to convey that they stand with consumers, but they promote a narrow agenda that is at odds with what most people want: policies that protect the rights and interests of ordinary people to safe products and safe practices that don't harm our environment or our lives," she said.

The tactic of 'astroturfing' of groups adopting a consumer-rights image while being funded by commercial entities is commonplace among those with ties to the Koch network.

Consumer Choice Center says on its website that, "We strictly maintain editorial independence and do not give our funders any influence on editorial decisions."

Consumer Choice Center has been a vocal opponent of green legislation in the EU.

Prior to its removal from the EU Transparency Register, the group published policy briefings that opposed plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035. It also criticised targets to reduce chemical pesticides and fertiliser use and increase organic farming.

Its campaigns have also seemingly sought to turn public opinion against net zero pollution reduction targets.

In late 2020, Consumer Choice Center paid for a Facebook advert to over one million people, which claimed that EU plans to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 would raise energy costs by 20 percent, lead to a GDP decline, and result in 500,000 job losses. The warnings were repeated in an article from the group in 2023.

Sign up for EUobservers daily newsletter

All the stories we publish, sent at 7.30 AM.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Cann, of the transparency watchdog LobbyFacts, accused the group of an "anti-science position". She questioned its claim to be a consumer advocacy group given its adoption of an "industry-friendly framing".

The policies advocated by Consumer Choice Center "are not solutions that citizens will benefit from or really want", she said.

Since the group was removed from the EU lobby register in May 2022, it has continued to publicly lobby against green regulations.

In April 2023, the group sponsored an advert on Facebook about the EU's plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-vehicles, stating that "Europe is favouring one type of technology over the other by banning gas-powered vehicles, when in essence the choice should be up to consumers."

The same month, it sponsored Facebook adverts opposing EU plans to strengthen chemical regulations, warning, "Don't let your favourite beauty products go away".

Since May 2022, Consumer Choice Center staff members have also written almost 50 articles (equivalent to nearly one piece per week) for media outlets on EU issues, covering subjects from pesticides reduction targets to regulations of genetically-engineered seeds.

The majority of these articles were published in EU outlets, including influential Brussels media such as the Brussels Times, and the Parliament Magazine.

Their articles include multiple warnings that the "entire agricultural sector" is in danger from green farming reforms policies that are facing pushback across the EU after a fierce industry-led lobbying campaign. Consumer Choice Center claims to have been featured in the media on more than 5,000 occasions during its history.

MEP Freund said that media outlets should ensure "organisations that don't play by the rules don't get a platform," while Graves of True North said that Consumer Choice Center's lack of transparency was a major concern. "Ordinary people and reporters can only get glimpses of how they're spending money to influence and distort public interest," she said.

Campaigners agreed that the activities of Consumer Choice Center appear to violate EU transparency rules.

Under the EU's guidelines, any "interest representatives" that attempt to influence policy, legislation or the decision making process should declare their activities, lobby spending, and registered lobbyists.

In April 2021, the European Parliament strengthened its transparency guidance to include "indirect lobbying activities".

However, campaigners say that the apparent breach shows the need to further reform EU transparency rules.

Transparency guidelines in the EU are not legally-binding. While clear guidance is provided for lobby groups, compliance is essentially voluntary, and organisations face limited sanctions for failing to comply.

In theory, MEPs should only meet with lobby groups that have been properly registered, but advocacy groups say this rule is regularly breached.

"Consumer Choice Center is proof that without a legally-binding lobby register, you will always have organisations that try and influence the Brussels bubble without respecting transparency norms," said Cann from Lobbyfacts.

"Existing rules are not enforced," Freund added. EU rules are relatively strong compared to international norms, he said, "but if they're not applied, if they're not enforced, the best rules in the world don't help us. At the moment, the institutions self-police: MEPs check on MEPs; commissioners check on commissioners... We need an independent oversight body."

Consumer Choice Center also appears to be breaking EU rules which state that organisations cannot use the logos of EU institutions "without their express permission". Consumer Choice Center displays the European Parliament's logo on its website, on a page about its MEP network on innovation. It did not answer questions about whether it had been given authorisation to do so.

The European Commission declined to comment.

See the rest here:

Revealed: The EU lobbying of the so-called 'Consumer Choice Center' - EUobserver

(The Conversation) - Americans are used to having a lot of choices. What to wear today? What to eat? What to read? Yet in so many elections when picking a president, state governor, or mayor we seem to have only two choices: Vote for the Democrat or the Republican. Why does the United States have a two-party political system?

As apolitical scientistwho studiespoliticalparties particularly theLibertarianParty I can tell you there are other options.

Why do we have a two-party system?

Political scientists like me have a simple explanation for the United States two-party system:Duvergerslaw, named after French political scientist Maurice Duverger. It states that only two major parties will emerge whenever elections follow a set of rules known as single-winner plurality voting.

Single-winnermeans only one candidate can win a given election. Plurality voting means whoever gets the most votes wins. Under this system, a party is most likely to win if it runs (or nominates) only one candidate rather than allowing party supporters to split their votes among multiple candidates.

Many voters who prefer an independent or minor-party candidate might decide that it would be more practical to choose among the major-party candidates who have better odds of winning the election. Thus, even when more than two candidates appear on a ballot, voters often believe that they only have two choices: the Republican or Democrat.

Think of it this way: Suppose a teacher threw a class party and agreed to order whatever food the students wanted. There are just two rules: The teacher will order only one food item for the whole class (single-winner), and whichever food gets the most votes wins (plurality vote). Rather than 10 pizza lovers splitting their vote with six for cheese and four for pepperoni leaving seven ice cream fans to scoop up the victory they can unite behind one pizza flavor and win.

The same logic explains why the U.S. has a two-party system. When there can be only one winner, and the winner is whoever gets the most votes, people with similar but not identical preferences have good reason to find common ground and work together or else theyll lose. They must try to build a coalition of voters that is bigger than any other. In turn, that groups opponents will try to counter by enlarging their own coalition.

Thus, the rules for voting dictate that we end up with two large parties competing to be big enough to win the next election. While other options exist, many voters decide to pick between the only two that can win.

It doesnt have to be Republican vs. Democrat

While a Democrat or Republican wins most elections in the United States, that doesnt mean voters can only have two choices. Consider these three points.

First, theU.S. Constitutiondoes not allow for only two political parties. In fact, the Constitution says nothing at all about parties. Many of theFoundingFatherswere skeptical of such factions, fearing that they would divide the American people and serve the interests of ambitious politicians. Yet many of those same visionaries soon helped to form thefirst political parties, after realizing the importance of coordinating with like-minded people to win elections and advance a common policy agenda. With afewbriefexceptions, the United States has had a two-party system ever since.

Second, plenty of candidates run for office every year as something other than a Republican or Democrat. These includeindependentswho are not affiliated with any party orminor-partynominees for instance, from the Libertarian or Green Party. Its just that these candidatestypically do not garner many votesandrarelywinan election.

Take the nations third-largest political party, the Libertarian Party. Asmy researchshows, Libertarians generally agree with the Republican Party on economic issues and the Democratic Party on social issues. This makes the Libertarian Party appealing to some voters who consider themselvesfiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Third, in states such as California that have atop-two primarysystem, elections sometimes come down to two candidates from the same party. This process begins with an open primary in which voters may choose among multiple candidates from various parties at the same time. The top two vote-getters go on to the general election months later even if they are bothDemocratsorRepublicans.

Other states, such asMaineandAlaska, useranked-choice voting. This systemallows voters to rank all candidates Democratic, Republican, independent, or minor party from their favorite to least favorite on the same ballot. The winner is whichever candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, either at first or aftereliminating the last-place finisher and reallocatingthat candidates voters to their second-choice candidates.

So voters often do have more options than simply Democrat vs. Republican. The problem is that people feel as if only one party or the other has a chance to win and cast their votes accordingly. It all comes down to the rules for running elections. If you want more choices, youll have to change those rules.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here:https://theconversation.com/why-do-voters-have-to-pick-a-republican-or-a-democrat-in-the-us-203830.

Here is the original post:

Why do voters have to pick a Republican or a Democrat in the US? - kinyradio.com

What if you could choose your own adventure for the future of the United States? That's the premise of American Futures, written by Tom Jenney, an Arizona native of libertarian bent who spent years as a fixture on the state's think tank and lobbying scene.

Within the book's conceptual framework, aliens are among us and can control our minds, to the degree they can force majorities to agree with and act on any given ideology. As a sort of social sciencefiction experiment, the reader can impose any of 14 different political philosophies onto the nation. The book then becomes a series of choose-your-own-ideology adventures narrating how things would likely turn out in each timeline.

The book is massivethree volumes in its printed doorstop edition. But it's an easy read, since Jenney uses hyperlinking in the navigable (and far cheaper) Kindle edition to let readers take short trips into the future through multiple scenarios for each ideology. Some scenarios evolve naturally, while others test systems' responses to war, natural disaster, and even the Rapture.

Jenney's libertarian leanings and his background in economics and politics come through, to the degree that certain pointssuch as warnings about high debt and inflationinevitably start to seem repetitive. The main characters vary from story to story, and Jenney manages to make most of them sympathetic no matter their ideology, though that dedication necessarily frays for some very unsavorily authoritarian options.

It's a quirky book, but it's oddly addictive. While not a traditional policy tome, it's a serious attempt to consider the impact of the choices we make in the voting booth.

The rest is here:

Review: Choose Your Own Adventure in 'American Futures' Book - Reason

Good Wednesday morning!

No Pay To Play Law!

Those five words were included in the subject line for an email invite to A July 31 fundraiser for Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh.

Paterson a city not exactly untouched by corruption enacted a strict local pay-to-play law in 2011. It was a condition of receiving millions of dollars in transitional aid from the state.

But the Elections Transparency Act eliminated local pay-to-play laws, holding them only to the state pay-to-play law with a loophole so big you can fit numerous contractors dump trucks through it. And so now Paterson effectively has no law restricting contractors from giving to campaigns something clearly noted on Sayeghs fundraiser invitation.

I dont know if the near-elimination of pay-to-play restrictions in New Jersey will make a huge difference. Many of those contractors already gave indirectly to help elect candidates that were later responsible for giving them contracts, often through PACs and non-profits. Some advocates had long called for a single, statewide comprehensive pay-to-play law instead of the patchwork of local ordinances. But they also called for eliminating the notorious fair and open loophole that all but exempted local governments . Now, theres just one statewide pay-to-play law, but the loophole remains.

Sayegh told me that he had no problem with Patersons old pay-to-play ordinance. In fact, he authored it as a councilmember. But, he said, Now that its no longer effective, people do need to know.

TIPS? FEEDBACK? Email me at [emailprotected]

QUOTE OF THE DAY: Im not surprised at all by the data, nor is any Black person in the state of New Jersey surprised by the data. Rev. Charles Boyer on a Northeastern University that found State Police stop Black and Hispanic drivers at far higher rates than their share of the population

HAPPY BIRTHDAY Erica Jedynak Richard Simmons

WHERES MURPHY? In Atlantic City for the NGA meeting, then attending the wake of Newark firefighter Augusto Augir Acabou

CRITICS SLAM NJ TRANSIT FOR ONYX DEAL, URGE AGENCY TO BACDAFUCUP NJ Transit signs controversial lease with Onyx for pricey new HQ, by The Records Colleen Wilson: NJ Transit has signed a controversial lease with Onyx Equities, LLC, to move its headquarters to the 2 Gateway building in Newark, NorthJersey.com has learned. The lease for 407,000 square feet more than previous estimates was confirmed by a Q2 real estate report published by commercial real estate firm CBRE, but other information has been minimal. Controversy over the deal has been building since February as reporting from NorthJersey.com has revealed that the Onyx building was the most expensive option on the table, and emails reveal discussion about a possible move to Gateway a year before the agency started to solicit bids. The agency chose the more expensive option even though it faces large fiscal deficits in the next two years. A board member resigned over the lack of transparency with the decision to move.

NJSP N.J. State Police pull over minorities at unacceptable rate, study finds, by NJ Advance Medias S.P. Sullivan: A team of independent researchers will monitor the traffic stops of New Jersey state troopers after a study of more than 6 million cases found concerning racial and ethnic disparities in who gets stopped by police on Garden State roadways, state authorities said Tuesday The division of State Police has a long and troubled history of racial profiling complaints and spent more than a decade under federal monitoring, which ended in 2009. But a preliminary study of a massive trove of enforcement data found disparities have only grown. In 2009, 35% of the motorists troopers stopped by state troopers were Black or Hispanic. That figure has since risen to 46%, far more than their share of the population, the data shows.

CHRISTIE ADMINISTRATION: NUMBNUTS. MURPHY ADMINISTRATION: NUTS NUMBERS Not a perfect process': How did two versions of NJs budget differ? by The Records Katie Sobko: In each chamber of the Legislature, late-night committee meetings saw budget bills introduced and read into the record with a fiscal plan that would spend $54,324,277,000. But by the time Gov. Phil Murphy signed the legislation and made it the law of the land less than 48 hours later, that number had grown to $54,357,547,000. A NorthJersey.com review found more than 100 differences between the budget bill approved by committee on June 28 and the version voted on by the full Assembly and state Senate on June 30. According to Marc Pfeiffer, assistant director of the Bloustein Local Government Research Center at Rutgers University, these short-cuts in the legislative process are not new. Pfeiffer said the discrepancies between the two versions of the state budget bill could certainly be seen as disconcerting to New Jersey voters. They are not illegal, but when the average citizen reads about them, they appear to be another abuse of the publics trust of government.

CATCHING HEAT BPU wants to begin decarbonizing buildings, despite criticisms, by NJ Spotlight News Tom Johnson: The Murphy administration is preparing to adopt a program to electrify the building sector, a move that aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from the second-biggest source of global warming pollution. In one of the states most controversial clean-energy strategies, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities is scheduled at its bimonthly meeting Wednesday to adopt the initial steps of its building decarbonization policy. The program primarily involves switching space and water heating from fossil fuels to electric heat pumps.

Workers compensation program still at risk of fraud and abuse, comptroller says

News organizations across NJ examine segregation in the states schools

New Jersey attorney general releases report on impact of white supremacy in state

Bill to halt residency requirement for N.J. teachers in limbo for the summer

DICK GEPHARDT SUPPORT DEFINITELY A GAME CHANGER Moderate Partys fusion voting lawsuit gets more high-profile backers, by New Jersey Globes Joey Fox: A legal effort by the fledgling New Jersey Moderate Party to bring fusion voting to New Jersey has gained a number of new prominent backers, with a several notable politicians and advocacy groups filing amicus briefs today as the case makes its way through the New Jersey Superior Court. Included among the newly professed supporters of fusion voting, which allows general election candidates to run on multiple party lines, are the ACLU of New Jersey, the left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, the libertarian-minded Cato Institute, the New Jersey Libertarian Party, and a bipartisan group of five former members of Congress, one of them being former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri).

HOMECOMING Jill Biden coming to N.J. this week as National Governors Association led by Murphy will meet, by NJ Advance Medias Derek Hall: The National Governors Association, chaired by Gov. Phil Murphy, is set to begin its annual summer meeting Wednesday in Atlantic City, bringing the yearly conference back to New Jersey for the first time in more than three decades. Governors from 50 states and five territories will join business leaders and federal officials, including First Lady Jill Biden, for two days of public discussions on some of todays most pressing issues for state leaders.

New Jersey lawmakers take aim at flood insurance rate hikes. Heres why

Snowflack: Back from the Trump cult: Christie soaks up media attention

PORT FIRE The fire is out, officials say. Next, an investigation into Port Newarks deadliest incident in decades, by NJ Advance Medias Jackie Roman: The deadly shipboard fire in Port Newark has finally been extinguished after six days and round-the-clock firefighting, officials with the U.S. Coast Guard and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey announced Tuesday The U.S Coast Guard is now conducting a multi-agency investigation into the blaze, which killed veteran Newark firefighters Augusto Augie Acabou, 45, and Wayne Bear Brooks Jr., 49, and injured five others from the department. The New York and Elizabeth fire departments, the Coast Guard and other agencies also responded.

Newark firefighters union blasts neglect by city in wake of two deaths, by The Records Liam Quinn: Firefighters union officials were blunt at a Tuesday press conference. We want to shine a light on the neglect that the [Newark Fire Department] has endured under [the citys] administration, Newark Firefighters Union President Michael Giunta said Giunta was was joined by Anthony Tarantino, president of the Newark Fire Officers Union, and Edward Kelly, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, among other members of the citys firefighter union. The trio said the neglect is a combination of understaffing, regular apparatus failures and inadequate training, and they laid it at the feet of the citys administration. Mayor Ras Baraka refused many of the claims made at the Tuesday press conference. Statements issued to the media at a time when our fallen heroes have yet to be honored by funeral services, are unconscionable, divisive, and only add insult to the injury that the families and our city is already experiencing, Baraka said in a statement.

Moran:Did these firefighters have to die?

RSUIT Wind power company sues Cape May County over permitting delay, by The Press of Atlantic Citys Eric Conklin: The company building a controversial wind farm off New Jerseys coast is suing Cape May County officials for not fulfilling permitting requests and following regulator orders it argues has delayed the project. Ocean Wind 1, owned by Danish-based energy company rsted, contends the county, its clerk and its engineer are prolonging the paperwork needed for easements required by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities. The officials also are not yet granting road opening permits for work in Ocean City, the suit alleges.

MELITOPOBOKEN, BIRTHPLACE OF FRANK SINATROV City of Hoboken and Melitopol, Ukraine formalize agreement as sister cities, by Hudson County Views John Heinis: The City of Hoboken and Melitopol, Ukraine have formalized an agreement, facilitated by the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), as sister cities. As Russia continues to wage war on the citizens of Ukraine, it is all the more of a reason to stand with our global neighbors, Mayor Ravi Bhalla said in a statement.

VAPE MAY COUNTY INCLUDES STONED HERBOR AND HIGHER TOWNSHIP Legal weed is on its way to Cape May County, by The Press of Atlantic Citys Bill Barlow: Work continues on a Sunset Boulevard property thats set to become Cape May Countys first legal cannabis dispensary. The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission approved a class 5 retail license for Tomas Nuscis for Shore House Canna LLC in March. The business had originally planned to open its doors by April 20, often described as a weed holiday, and later advertised a June 30 opening. Now, the store hopes to begin serving customers by Labor Day.

HIS POLITICAL MOVES ARE MACHIAVELLIAN McGreevey forms civic association to serve communities in Jersey City, Hudson County, by New Jersey Globes David Wildstein: Taking a page out of Brian Stacks playbook, former Gov. James E. McGreevey has formed the McGreevey Civic Association to provide services to Jersey City and Hudson County residents. The move allows McGreevey to expand his humanitarian footprint in Jersey City while boosting his electoral chances if he runs for Mayor in 2025. The Foundation seeks to build a sense of community, shared responsibility, and healthy values through service to those in need, McGreevey said.

CLARK BARRED Clark whistleblower sues township as racism scandal reaches third year without resolution, by NJ Advance Medias Riley Yates: A whistleblower who documented racism at Clarks town hall is suing the Union County township, charging officials have retaliated against him, disrupting his life and preventing him from securing new jobs. Former Lt. Antonio Manatas lawsuit represents the latest salvo between him and the township, which in 2020 agreed to pay him a settlement of more than $400,000 to conceal secret recordings he made of Mayor Sal Bonaccorso and police brass using racial slurs that included the n-word. The suit, filed June 30 in state Superior Court, alleges the township has since put up roadblocks that cost Manata prospective work as a former law enforcement officer and violated his settlement agreement.

Newark probing whether zoning board member violated residency rule

Galloway police assumed this woman was doing drugs. Instead, she was having an epileptic seizure

Police contacting youth sports groups after charging well-known coach [and Cumberland County Utilities Authority member] with assaulting teen

Controversial Hillsborough warehouse proposal drags on as Manville mayor joins critics

Marie Hayes named Cape May County surrogate

Unarmed man shot in back, paralyzed by Paterson cop sues for $50M

The Paterson Police Department will see a massive infusion from NJs new budget: How much?

Drama between [North Wildwood] and N.J. over fixing the shrinking beach intensifies

Ink-free Hoboken proposes lifting prohibition on new tattoo parlors for first time since 1998

IS ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS-BASED CNBC ANGLING FOR A TAX BREAK? New Jersey is 2023s most-improved state for business, led by a strong economy and housing market, by CNBCs Scott Cohn: First, the good news. The state has received two consecutive credit rating upgrades from Moodys. In its latest upgrade, in April, the agency cited the states solid economic recovery, with job gains leading the region and driving employment above the states pre-pandemic peak. Now, the bad news. New Jersey still has the nations second-worst debt rating, according to Moodys, just above Illinois. CNBCs 2023 Americas Top States for Business rankings tell a similar story. New Jersey is this years Most Improved State, climbing 23 places to No. 19, and vaulting convincingly into the top half from a 42nd place finish last year. The bad news is that The Garden State is still one of the most expensive states in which to do business (No. 44), and among the least business-friendly (No. 48), according to the CNBC rankings.

THEIR FIRING WAS 32BS American Dream workers, fired after trying to organize union, getting jobs back this week, by The Records Daniel Munoz: Two cleaning staff at the American Dream Mall who said they were fired for trying to form a union are being given their jobs back this week, according to an attorney for the union. Their reinstatement comes after a decision last week by Kevin McNulty, a federal judge, who handed down his order siding with the two workers and the union, 32BJ, which represents service workers in the state. Both have been offered reinstatement at the employee, HSA Cleaning, and have accepted the offers, according to 32BJ attorney Brent Garren.

Bergen man who murdered his family in 1976 is released from prison on parole

NJ real estate influencers, radio DJ accused of defrauding almost $2 million from 2 men

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this newsletter partially misidentified Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh.

Read this article:

Fundraisers revel in gutted N.J. pay-to-play law - POLITICO

Twitter users roasted Vice President Kamala Harris for putting an emphasis on the "inequity" of airplane restrooms, questioning why that issue is a priority for the vice president while the southern border remains in dire condition and prices continue to soar.

"The majority of domestic flights do not have accessible restrooms. This is absolutely unacceptable," the Democrat wrote Tuesday on Twitter. "Our Administration will soon announce a solution to help end this inequity."

The comment section was filled with laughs and confusion over Harris' suggestion, with numerous users sounding the alarm that the potential remodeling of most American aircraft would spike domestic flight prices nationwide.

"So when seating capacity is diminished, do you plan to deploy the government to solve the pricing problem the government created," the Arizona Libertarian Party responded.

KAMALA HARRIS RIDICULED FOR NONESENSE COMMENTS AT TRANSPORTATION ROUNDTABLE: SHE CANT BE SERIOUS'

"Yeah get on that VP!! Forget the Border, and all the other" actor Dean Cain wrote.

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

"I honestly had to check to see if this was a parody account," another Twitter user said in the comment section.

"Really?" wrote Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.

NEW MEXICO RANCHER SLAMS BIDEN'S APPALLING BORDER POLICY: ABSOLUTELY A CRISIS

"What are you talking about?!?! I fly all the time and the only flights that do not have bathrooms are the puddle jumper flights that have like 10 seats and only fly 40-45 minutes," someone said.

"Oh fn lovely. Get ready for trans bathrooms big enough to hold a baby whale and the increase in ticket prices for the rest of us to make up for the missing row of seats," Newsmax's Rob Schmitt said.

"I thought you were fixing the border and doing AI regulation, but airplane bathrooms now" another individual posted in the comment section.

Story continues

Harris posted the tweet Tuesday evening, just hours after prompting sarcasm over her definition of transportation during a roundtable discussion.

"This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go! It's that basic," Harris said, to which Tomi Lahren responded "she's a genius" on Twitter,

"Kamala Harris gives voice to thought and then this nonsense comes out. She cant be serious," Republican communicator Steve Guest wrote of Harris' comment.

Fox News' Alexander Hall contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Twitter users slam Kamala Harris for airplane bathroom demand amid the ongoing border crisis: 'Really?' - Yahoo News

How much should 14-year-olds be on their phones? The effects of phones and social media on teenagers and adults continue to be at the center of public health, tech, civil liberties and more.

In March, Utahs Republican governor, Spencer Cox, signed an extensive package of laws intended to limit kids access to social media platforms, including time restrictions and requirements that parents and guardians have access to private messages and posts. On Sunday, he said that Utah in the coming months would file lawsuits to hold tech companies accountable.

Utahs laws were among the first in a tranche of actions by state governments, like those of Montana and Louisiana, which have greatly limited access to certain social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, either for minors or all users. Some researchers have alleged that social media is responsible for increases in anxiety and depression. If this was childhood cancer or childhood car accidents, or if we had seen these significant changes anywhere else, we would all be losing our minds about this, he told me.

The legislation is already facing legal challenges, as tech groups and libertarians balk at how involved the government will be in verifying users ages. But the governor told me he wasnt worried. When I asked if he had any hesitations about the bills he said simply, Uh, no.

This is the first in a series of Opinion Q. and A.s exploring modern conservatism today, its influence in society and politics, and how and why it differs (and doesnt) from the conservative movement that most Americans thought they knew. This interview has been edited for quality and clarity.

Jane Coaston: Utah has passed legislation that would bar people under the age of 18 from having social media accounts without the explicit consent of a parent or guardian, create a social media curfew of sorts, and give Utah parents and guardians access to the childrens posts and private messages. Why this legislation, and why now?

Gov. Spencer Cox: Theres a couple of reasons. Look, weve talked to mental health professionals across the state and across the country. Weve looked extensively at the research. Weve done our homework on this one. Weve spent time with parents and children, all across the state, and there is a general consensus and acknowledgment that social media and access to these devices is causing harm. Significant harm.

If you look at the increased rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm since about 2012, across the board but especially with young women, we have just seen exponential increases in those mental health concerns. Again, the research is telling us over and over and over again that it is not just correlated, but its being caused, at least in part, by the social media platforms.

[The C.D.C. found that in 2021, nearly three in five adolescent girls felt persistent sadness and one in three girls had seriously contemplated suicide. The rates of mental health issues reported has increased with every report since 2011.]

So we felt like we need to do something. If this was happening anywhere else, if this was childhood cancer or childhood car accidents, or if we had seen these significant changes anywhere else, we would, I think, all be losing our minds about this.

The second part of your question is, why now? And I think the better question is, why didnt we do this four or five years ago? Now because its sooner than tomorrow.

Coaston: You talked about the problems that could be caused by social media, but it seems as if the problems of social media and young people, they could be amorphous enough to invite potentially endless legislation. So what kinds of results are you looking for? What would tell you or the Utah legislature, yes, this is working, or no, it is not working?

Cox: The biggest results would be that we would see a decline in the terrible tragedies of anxiety, depression and self-harm. Those are the most important numbers that we look at, and that weve been following very closely. Over time, were hoping to see a decline back to close to pre-2012, 2013 levels.

Coaston: Last April you shared an article by Jonathan Haidt on Twitter, titled online Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid, and its about social media. And you said of the article, if I could convince every elected official, every voter, every citizen to read one thing today, it would be this. That leads me to think that your concerns about social media arent just about kids. Is that true?

Cox: That is absolutely true, yes.

Coaston: Is this about the types of platforms? Are these concerns about specific tech? Or something broader about social media, what these platforms mean now?

Cox: I think its all of those things. I do think its important though to separate them. And I think the answers to the problems that were facing are maybe different for the problem and the person.

Again, we have a longstanding tradition in our country of drawing lines around ages for brain development when it comes to certain activities. We dont let kids smoke or drink or drive a car before certain ages, because we know the danger and the damage that is being done there, and the science will back that up.

If I could wave the magic wand and have all adults spend less time on these devices, social media platforms, I would love to be able to do that. But that isnt something I could do. Its not something Im comfortable doing, and its not something that sits nicely within the general legal tradition of our country.

Coaston: Clearly parents could do this without the state getting involved. What are parents not doing that necessitates the state acting in their stead, or augmenting parents?

Cox: We talked to parents, including parents who are in this space. Parents who are psychiatrists, parents who deal with this every day. And what theyre saying is we need help. Even the parents who are the most engaged are desperate for some help, because of the other cultural forces that are just pushing this and making it so very difficult to deal with.

Just a couple of examples, right? One is the ability to have phones turn off or have these social media platforms disengaged at certain hours during the night. Thats something that parents can override, but setting that as a standard and helping them to understand how important this is again from a scientific standpoint, that sleep at that age with developing brains and having that time off from 10:30 at night until 6:30 in the morning, that that can make such a huge difference.

Coaston: There are still a lot of tensions within the conservative movement between a more libertarian viewpoint on, whether its social media or pretty much anything else, about protecting children and certain ideas about family.

Why do you think that there have been more conservatives, whether in Utah or elsewhere, who have been saying, look, libertarianism hasnt led to what we wanted it to do. We have to step in, its time for the government to play a role in how parents parent.

[The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposed the legislation, arguing, Utahs bill is part of a wave of age verification laws that would make users less secure, and make internet access less private overall. EFF opposes laws that mandate age-verification requirements, and Utahs S.B. 152 would be one of the worst weve seen.]

Cox: Well, look, were not telling parents how to parent. The law empowers parents. It doesnt tell parents what they have to do at all. Again, if they want their kids to be on social media at 4 in the morning, they have the ability to allow their kids to do that.

This is giving more tools to parents. So I will push back as vehemently as possible about that narrative, because its wrong. And thats dishonest by the libertarians that are using that narrative that the state is trying to take over for parents. Theyre lying to you about that, because thats not what the law does and they know it, but they know thats an argument they lose every time.

I come from that libertarian background and line of thinking. And it works great with adults. Save those arguments for the adults, but spare me the kids.

Coaston: So I think that Utah has taken a more expansive view with online restrictions on adult material, and now with social media. Are there any trade-offs youre worried about? I know that youve heard from some of the tech lobbies, but as much as people talk about teen anxiety and depression, Im also sure that lots of teens have found a lot of support on TikTok or social media when theyre in a tough home. Are there any concerns that you have about this legislation?

Cox: Uh, no.

Coaston: What other leaders in your party do you think have good ideas about social media? Who are you listening to and who are you reading?

Cox: Weve mentioned Jonathan; Jean Twenge has been fantastic on this issue. Shes got her new book Generations. Shes been really important.

[Twenges 2017 book iGen argued that cellphones and social media were having an outsize and negative effect on the lives of teenagers and young adults.]

And these arent partisan people, these are on the research and the science side. Were working with anybody thats interested in this space, and weve had other governors who have reached out to us. Im really interested in Montana, their decision to ban TikTok completely. Thats a step we have not taken. We did ban TikTok on state devices, and of course TikTok is subject to the social media legislation that we passed. But a complete ban on TikTok is one that were watching very closely. We have a year to implement this, and were working through that process now.

[Montanas ban on TikTok would impose a $10,000-a-day fine on TikTok or app companies that make the app available within the state beginning on Jan. 1, 2024. TikTok has filed a lawsuit arguing that the ban violates the First Amendment and is also funding a lawsuit led by a group of the apps users in the state.]

We knew that there would be some problem points that we would have to work through with the social media companies. And we dont hate business. We want business to be able to thrive and succeed. But we also want people to be held accountable.

Coaston: Yeah, Id be interested to think about those tweaks, because you mentioned that you would know that this was working if you saw rates of depression or rates of suicides going down. What would be the next step if you didnt see the results that you wanted to see? Would there be a moment when youd say that maybe age verification isnt enough? Maybe its time to ban TikTok? Maybe its time to go past where youve gone right now?

Cox: Its hard to answer that. It wont even take effect until next year. So were a couple of years away from seeing the true impact of this, and a lot can change in a couple of years. What I really hope is that over the course of the next year or two, we have a Congress that is engaged here.

I really do think this is the one area where there is just such a broad agreement. The president in his State of the Union address has brought this up. Ive had calls from members of Congress, senators on the left and the right, that are looking at this.

Its because theyre real people and theyre parents, and theyre all (laughs) theyre all dying with this too. And its not just that kids understand it. Its fun sometimes in the media to kind of posit this as like an old man shaking his fist at the clouds, versus kids these days.

I toured 29 schools in the past two months, and I asked the question, do you think social media is causing harm to your generation? They do. They know that this is causing harm, and theyre so often desperate for help.

I guess my point is, I hope that there will be a collective desire to try to solve this. I dont know if ours is the one thats going to solve it. I certainly hope so. Weve put a lot of thought into it. But Im not going to stand here and tell you what we did is perfect and its the right solution.

Coaston: All of your kids have grown up in the social media era. So obviously if youre a little bit older, you might not have gotten on TikTok when you were in eighth grade. Or a little younger, this might have just been what you grew up with. How have their experiences differed? Is there anything that you would have done differently? What has your experience of parenting kids in the social media age been like?

Cox: Yeah. I will say it has been very different across that gap. My oldest, he just graduated from college. My youngest is a sophomore in high school. With my oldest, social media was there, but it was just never that big of a deal. Didnt spend much time on it. Never got addicted to it. We certainly learned as we went along, and to the point now where my daughter does not have social media. Shes the only one among her friends who does not have social media.

But they share videos with her, and were constantly having to try to figure out how long has she been on her phone, and your phone doesnt go in your bedroom at night. Weve set those rules. And it is a constant battle, even though she doesnt have social media accounts.

Shes pushed back hard. That is a battle that we have with her that we did not have with our older kids. My wife will tell you the same thing, that if we had to do it all over again, we would have waited much longer to give our kids a smart device.

Its not just the social media, but its the time spent on that device away from other things. Every hour spent on that device is an hour not spent face to face or engaging or doing something else.

Coaston: How has this shifted your own view and use of social media? Because I think its kind of funny to be having this conversation. I mentioned that Atlantic article that you recommended, but you recommended it on social media.

Cox: I did.

Coaston: I think that theres been a lot of conversation about the threats of social media that were having on social media, which is kind of ironic to me. Has it changed how you think about using social media? How often youre using social media? Your own use of these platforms?

Cox: So let me assure you that I am very self-aware.

I recognize the irony, and this is something that I share with young people as well. Social media, it has positives as well. Again, we could theoretically just ban all social media for kids under the age of 18. Thats not what I wanted. I want the ability for people to connect on social media, in the ways that we originally used social media for. The kind of the good parts of social media, the pieces that we all thought were going to help make our country a better place.

Sadly that has not happened. And so, I am trying to take some of that advice. I have significantly changed the way I use Twitter. I engage a little less. And this is, this is the sad part too. I mean, I used to love being able to engage with people. I admitted this I created a burner account. Not to go on and, you know, say great things about Governor Cox, or anything like that. The purpose of my burner account is it just follows a select group. Because I do get a lot of my media intakes, the reporters, the news that I get. I curate that through social media and through Twitter, and thats really important for me.

Coaston: What does this mean for social media in Utah for everyone? You mentioned a little bit your increasing concerns, but I think that there are lots of people who routinely describe problems with social media, adults who are saying things like, theyre on it too much, its stressful, its bad. Its making our discourse worse. Do you think thats something that obviously what adults do is a very different area but is that something that could potentially lead to some sort of legislation in the future?

Cox: I dont know if we can legislate that piece. Again, I think this is where the hard work of culture changing and of being a patriotic American actually takes place. Youre going to hear me talk a lot more about this over the course of the next year.

Im really focused on how to disagree better and the toxicity of this moment, and how we can, as political leaders, but as just neighbors, as human beings. I dont pretend like Im going to be able to solve that. We have a problem as a country, and it is getting worse, and these social media platforms undoubtedly are designed to make it worse, right? Im hoping I can convince more and more adults to stop making those poor decisions. But I dont know that theres a significant piece of legislation to allow that to happen. We may learn some things from these kids accounts that are helpful. Maybe some things around addictive algorithms and giving people the ability to turn those off.

But I dont know that theres an appetite for that. I dont know if I have an appetite for that either. Im much more of a, when it comes to adults, kind of, you know, let people decide and make those choices, and try to show them the better way.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Read more:

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox wants to spare kids from their phones - Salt Lake Tribune

TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN) Former Governor candidate Kari Lake came to Tucson Wednesday to promote her new book. She ran for Arizona Governor in 2022, but Katie Hobbs was declared the winner.

Lake presented several legal challenges to the election outcome in court, though the lawsuits have continued to uphold the certified election results.

She drew a large crowd to Firetruck Brewing on Grant to promote her new book, "Unafraid."

We asked Lake if she plans to run for U.S. Senate. She says shes still occupied with her legal challenge to the result of the Governors election but is thinking of a run for Senate.

So we'll be making a decision on that in the next couple of months and we'll see," Lake says. "I'm actually eyeing the Senate race. It's something I'm considering.

Lake did not answer a question about whether she aspires to run for Vice President in the coming Presidential election.

A look at Arizona's 2024 U.S. Senate candidates, so far:

Sixteen Arizonans have filed a statement of interest in running for U.S. Senate in 2024, according to the Secretary of State's website. The statement of interest indicates that they're collecting petition signatures for a possible nomination.

Here's the field as it currently stands:

Democrat

Libertarian

Republican

----

STAY IN TOUCH WITH US ANYTIME, ANYWHERE

Link:

Kari Lake in Tucson: "I'm actually eyeing the Senate race" - KGUN 9 Tucson News

Gary Swinghas run for office on minor party tickets a dozen times in three states since 1996 and is seeking the Colorado Unity Party's nomination on next year's ballot in the 3rd Congressional District.

The 55-year-old Boulder resident and Colorado Unity Party state secretary hasn't won any of the elections he's competed in, but tells Colorado Politics he continues to run to bring attention to issues given short shrift by the major parties. He's also making a point about representation, arguing that the country's current election system, dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties, leaves many voters without a meaningful voice in their government.

Swing supports a move from winner-take-all, single-member districts toward proportional representation, which would allow voters who make up a small percentage of the electorate to have a representative on legislative bodies, from city council to state legislatures and Congress.

Over the years, Swing has run for state representative, the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate and president under a variety of banners, most often affiliated with the Green Party, but lately as the nominee of the Unity Party following a break with the Colorado Greens. (The Green and Unity parties are two of Colorado's seven officially recognized minor political parties, a list that also includes the Libertarians and the American Constitution Party.)

In 2020, Swing filed to run in Vermont as the Boiling Frog Party candidate for president. Later that year, he appeared on ballots in Colorado as the Unity Party's nominee in the 2nd Congressional District. He was the minor party's nominee for Colorado secretary of state last year. He finished in fifth place with less than 0.5% of the vote, behind Jena Griswold, the Democratic incumbent, who won, followed by the Republican, the Libertarian and the American Constitution Party nominee, but ahead of the Approval Voting Party candidate.

Swing grew up in New Jersey and describes himself as a lifelong pacifist and advocate for nonviolence. He holds a bachelor's degree in political science and a masters in public administration from the University of Colorado. He's a spokesperson for the Boulder-based Best Democracy organization and a former national advisory board member for theCenter for Voting and Democracy, which since changed its name to FairVote, but leftthe group when it focused on promoting ranked choice voting instead of proportional representation.

When he isn't politicking, Swing gets in his steps in a big way. He's completed the triple crown of backpacking completing theAppalachian Trail, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide Trail and hiked the entireColorado Trail, Arizona Trail, Ouachita Trail, Ozark Highlands Trail and Lone Star Trail. He's also hiked to the highest point in all 64 Colorado counties and climbed all 637 Colorado mountains over 13,000 feet.

Our interview with Swing has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Colorado Politics: The Colorado Libertarians recently came to an agreement with the state GOP not to put up candidates in competitive races, in an attempt avoid being a spoiler, if they consider the Republican nominee sufficiently liberty-minded, and you responded by saying that the Colorado Unity Party welcome spoilers and candidates of all kind. How does the Libertarians' and Republicans' deal figure in third-party politics here in Colorado?

Gary Swing: I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, but it's really not legitimate for a recognized political party to tell members that they can't seek the party's nomination for any office. That's for the voters to decide, and ultimately, it's up to the members of Libertarian Party themselves to decide whether or not to run a candidate.

Under state law, any candidate who gets at least 30% of the vote at a party assembly qualifies for a primary ballot. If a person is really determined to run for office as a candidate of any recognized party, they can bypass the party assembly and petition on their primary ballot. The only way to stop someone from running on the party's ballot line would be for another candidate to defeat them in a primary. Of course, in 2019, Democratic state legislators vastly increased the number of petition signatures needed for independent candidates and candidates for minor party primaries. Now it's much harder for someone to go around minor party nominating process.

CP: You're the state secretary for the Unity Party, and you're seeking the Unity Party nomination in the 3rd Congressional District. What brought you to the Unity Party after running with the Greens for so long?

Swing:I have a long history of involvement with the Green Party, mostly in Colorado, some in Arizona and elsewhere. I was on the ballot seven times overall as a Green Party candidate. The Green Party in Colorado was taken over by a faction that has systematically purged many former Green Party candidates, activists, organizers and local chapters from the right to participate. The Greens are seeking to exclude as many people as possible from their process. The Unity Party has a process that's pretty much the opposite.

The Unity Party was started as a centrist party, but it has evolved into an organization that celebrates diversity and inclusion. We offer an open and democratic process for political independents and free thinkers to seek our nomination and get on the ballot for county, state or federal offices in Colorado. In the last two general elections, the Unity Party was in fourth place after the Libertarian Party for the most candidates on Colorado's ballot. We had 12 candidates in Colorado the ballot in 2020 and eight in 2020. The Unity Party describes itself as neither left nor right, but we welcome potential candidates from across the political spectrum to pitch their own campaign message at our nominating assembly.

It takes 30% of the vote that are assembling to qualify for a primary ballot. So far, we've avoided holding a contested primary. If one of our candidates doesn't place first for nomination, we encourage them to put their name in for a different office. The Unity Party is a party of friendship. We try to treat each other with respect. Our mission statement says as members of the Unity Party, we focus on similarities rather than differences. We are nonpartisan. We are a blending of diverse parties, political ideals, cultures, sexualities and genders, religions, spiritual practices, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds. We welcome progressives, conservatives, outliers, nonconformists and those from all political parties.

The Unity Party does have members across the country, but we only have ballot status as a recognized political party in Colorado. That means we're able to nominate candidates for all offices by party assembly. We encourage people to come out and seek our nomination. We'd like to recruit more women or people of color to run as candidates.

The United States has always had a political system that's been heavily dominated by white male conservatives, and we still see that today in the Republican Party. We see that in pretty much all alternative parties. Frankly, the Democrats are really the most diverse party in the United States right now. But still, the United States lags behind most of the world in representation of women or people of color, and also alternative parties in government. We want to give people who feel excluded from the political process an opportunity to participate, to get their message out and to take a stand for what they believe in.

I first thought about joining the Unity Party when I was on the Appalachian Trail hiking [it] for the second time. I was reading a book about Nelson Mandela trying to achieve unity in a post-apartheid South Africa, and I thought that his message of unity in diversity was was a good message, and that the United States and South Africa have a similar history of white supremacy racism, slavery in the United States, apartheid in South Africa and we have a long way to go in overcoming the disparities that resulted from a systematic racial discrimination.

CP: What do you see the role of minor parties and independent candidates in Colorado as being?

Swing: Minor political parties inject new ideas and diversity of perspectives into politics, and we can shift the debate on issues. Alternative parties offer a different perspective to voters. It gives them an opportunity to support to vote for someone other than the two establishment parties on a ballot that tends to be a limited choice between candidates you may not support.

I've said before, everyone owns their own vote; no one is entitled to a person's vote. Democrats often say that you must vote for Democrats in order to preserve democracy. And yet, Democrats in Colorado and elsewhere try to keep independent, alternative party candidates off the ballot through restrictive ballot access laws.

Under the winner-take-all voting system, it's true, minor party candidates really have very little representation in government. There are more than 519,000 elected offices in the United States, including small local offices. Less than one out of 1,000 offices in the United States is held by a member of a party other than the Democrats and the Republicans. There are more than 7,000 state legislative seats in the country. Almost all of them are held by Democrats and Republicans.

Libertarians are the third largest party, but they only have one state representative, in Vermont, and that was someone who was elected as a Republican and then switched after they were elected to become a Libertarian Party member. The Green Party is the fourth largest party in the country, and they currently have no members of any state legislature in the United States. They've only four times elected a Green Party member as a state legislator, and in every case it was under unusual circumstances. So it's very difficult to actually get elected to partisan office in the United States under the winner-take-all voting system as a candidate of a party other than the Democrats or Republicans.

CP:You ran as the Green Party nominee for the U.S. Senate in Arizona in 2016 against John McCain and Anne Kirkpatrick, on the "boiling frog party" theme, is that right?

Gary Swing, wearing a "Save the Frogs" T-shirt, poses for a photograph in front of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver.

Swing:I created a website with a satirical campaign message, and I ended up getting 5.5% of the vote, 138,634 votes, which was the highest percentage and highest number of votes cast for any Green candidate for any U.S. Senate seat out of the last six general elections.

One of my favorite things about being a political candidate has been injecting some humor into politics, which tends to be toxic and nasty. When I ran as a Green candidate, I tended to have a serious, straightforward platform. My Green Party campaigns for U.S. representative and state representative were prescriptive message campaigns focusing on policy proposals. When I ran satirical campaigns as a "boiling frog party" candidate for U.S. Senate and for president in Vermont in 2020, my message was focused on describing the reality of the harm that human impact has had on the ecosystem.

My message as a boiling frog party candidate went beyond what I felt comfortable saying as a Green Party candidate. Human overpopulation and overconsumption has resulted in the mass extinction of animal species over the past 200 years, human beings and livestock have largely displaced about 96% of the biomass of global wildlife mammal species. The mass of plastic now outweighs all animal life on Earth. The amount of human-made material outweighs plant and animal life on Earth. Human beings are just one of millions of species in an interdependent web of life, yet an industrialized human civilization of 8 billion people has created a toxic artificial environment.

CP:Do you think people heard your message, running what you call a satirical, zero-dollar campaign?

Swing: It's hard to gauge that, really. I did get some press in the Phoenix newspaper, I had a website, I had a page with a candidate statement on secretary of state's website, but it's really hard to know how many people voted for me just because I was the only other candidate who wasn't a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot, and how many people might have actually gotten to hear my message.

CP:Did you feel like you were a spoiler?

Swing: No, not at all. It was a landslide reelection for John McCain. He was a former Republican nominee for president, it was clear from the beginning that he was going to win reelection. I was surprised two years later when the US Senate election was so close for [Democrat] Kyrsten Sinema,

CP: In 2018, you helped recruit Angela Green to run for the U.S. Senate in Arizona, and she got attention as a potential spoiler.

Swing: That's right. I reached out to Angela Green. I saw that Angela Green had filed as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate because I was following filings with the secretary of state's office down there. Her message was that she wanted to legalize marijuana, she made a statement, "Make love not war." Her candidate statement seemed like it was a moderate version of the Green Party's message, which now has moved pretty far to the left.

I wrote to her and I said, "You're not going to get on the ballot, you're not going to make much headway running as a Democrat." But under the quirky situation, they have in Arizona, if you file as a write-in candidate for an uncontested primary for a new political party, which legally the Green Party was at that time, you only need to get more write-in votes than any other candidate to qualify for the general election ballot with the party's nomination. And as a result of my writing to her, she switched from the Democrats to the Greens. She was the only candidate to file and got on the ballot as a Green Party candidate.

It was her first campaign I think she wasn't prepared for what happened. She made national headlines when the election was so close, with people calling her a spoiler, trying to intimidate her into dropping out of the election. There was a lot of bullying and harassment going on. And I felt sad that she was subjected to all of that, and I wasn't sure that she was prepared for the reaction that people had to her simply being a candidate not necessarily (to) anything she said, but people were angry that she had the audacity simply to file as a candidate for public office.

I think there should be more candidates from more parties on the ballot, not just two candidates, and not just three or four. I'd like to see 20 candidates or 30 candidates on the ballot, like they have in Australia. And if we had a proportional representation voting system, then you wouldn't have to worry about the idea of spoiling an election for a candidate who might be a little closer to your position than the other major party candidate.

Alternative party candidates don't take votes away from major party candidates. Major party candidates take votes away from alternative party candidates. No one says, "Oh, the Democrat can't possibly win, I'm going to vote for the Green Party candidate instead." But they do the opposite for the Democrats. People who vote for alternative party candidates are either expressing their true preference, or they're expressing a protest vote against the establishment candidates who they feel don't represent them.

The Democrats and Republicans should campaign for people's votes rather than trying to convince other candidates that they must drop out or else they'll threaten to spoil on election for one of the establishment parties.

CP:You've long been an advocate for proportional representation, and are not a fan of instant runoff, or ranked-choice voting. Colorado also has the Approval Voting Party. What do you see as the advantages of proportional voting over these other methods of conducting elections?

Swing:All single-winner voting methods exclude political minorities from representation. The term ranked-choice voting is often used to refer to a winner-take-all voting method, also known as instant runoff voting. This is a ranked voting method, single member districts. Ranked voting could also be used in multi-member districts to provide proportional or semi proportional representation.

The more seats that are elected in a district, the more inclusive and fully representative results are; however, the ballot also becomes longer and more unwieldy. The election reform group Best Democracy proposes to elect Colorado's state legislature by hybrid proportional representation: 80% of Colorado's state legislators would be elected from seven-member districts using a single transferable vote method of ranked-choice voting. Under this system, it would take about 12.5% of the vote to elect a state representative to a multi-member district seat. To make the system more inclusive, the remaining 20% of seats would be leveling seats elected from party lists.

Any party that gets at least 3% of the party list vote would win seats from the party list. Overall representation in the legislature would be proportional to the party list vote. This should produce a state legislature with about eight to 10 parties represented, not just two parties. About 98% of voters would be able to elect representatives of their choice.

Everyone should be able to elect representatives of their choice. That's the point of proportional representation. Ninety-five countries use some form of proportional representation to elect legislators.

Proportional representation makes every vote count. No minor party has been elected to Congress since since 1970. Green Party candidates have been running in the U.S. since 1985, Libertarian candidates been writing since 1972, and yet, we have no Green Party or Libertarian Party candidates holding any statewide office, only one Libertarian state legislator, less than one out of 1,000 seats. If the United States used a party list system of proportional representation, a party supported by 5% of votes should now have at least 22 U.S. representatives and at least 369 seats in state legislatures. Proportional representation provides better representation for women, racial minorities and smaller parties in government.

CP:Short of changing the whole system, are there some changes Colorado can make in the near future to better reflect the will of the voters, to move toward what you're talking about?

Swing:In 2019 and in 2021, Democrats in the Colorado state legislature passed broad-based election reform packages that included provisions to vastly increase the number of petition signatures required for independent candidates to get on the ballot in Colorado, and also to end the filing fee option for independent candidates for president, which will vastly reduce the number of options that people have on the ballot for president in 2024 and future elections, if that stands.

The United States generally has some of the worst ballot access laws in the world. Colorado had some better ballot access laws from 1995 until 2019, because a coalition of political parties, the Colorado Coalition for Fair and Open Elections, successfully lobbied the state legislature to make ballot access easier for independent candidates and for alternative parties.

I would like to see the Colorado state legislature repeal the changes that were passed to make it harder for independent candidates to get on the ballot and, in fact, to move in the opposite direction to make it easier. I think the filing fee option for president was a good idea. It used to take $1,000 to put an independent presidential ticket on a ballot in Colorado. We do tend to have too many people run for top offices, but I'd like to see the filing fee option extended to all offices in Colorado say, $1,000 for president, $500 for other statewide offices, $200 for a U.S. representative, $100 for the state legislature, maybe $50 for county offices. That would make it easier for more people to participate in the political process.

Secretary of State Jenna Griswold has said that she wants everyone's voice to be heard, including unaffiliated voters, and yet she helped craft and lobby for legislation to suppress unaffiliated candidates. Colorado Senate President Stephen Fenberg, who represents the district where I live currently, he says that everyone should have a seat at the table, yet he carried Senate Bill 21-250 to keep independent presidential candidates off Colorado's ballot. He was also the Senate sponsor for the Colorado Votes Act. House Bill 19-1278, which restricts petitioning for independent candidates.

The Democrats are really the party that represents political minorities, women, people who have historically felt excluded from the political process, and the Democrats dominate both houses of the state legislature, they dominate statewide offices. I'd like to see some Democratic legislators come out and say, "Well, we didn't support this, it was part of a broad package of election reform changes." So I'd like to see someone from the Democratic side of the legislature, preferably, introduce a bill to repeal the ballot access restrictions and improve ballot access for independent candidates for elections. Anyone in the legislature could do it, but the Democrats have a supermajority right now.

CP: You've been running for office since 1996, is that right? What motivates you to keep doing this?

Gary Swing poses for a photograph on Springer Mountain, Georgia, at the end of a southbound hike on the Appalachian Trail.

Swing: Every time I run, I say this is the last time I'm going to be a candidate. Politics is toxic. I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall. And yet, I'm still frustrated with the system.

I started out running as a candidate because I wanted to be an anti-war message candidate. Back in 1996, the Green Party of Colorado encouraged me to run for the smallest partisan office I could, and run to win. So I ran for state representative, which in Denver was the smallest partisan office I could run for. And I put a lot of effort into that campaign, and I got 8.5% of the vote in a three-way race. The Republican candidate, I think, was nominated last minute and really was just a line-holder, but not much more than that, and got 13.5% of the vote. It was the most heavily Democratic, least Republican district in the entire state, and walking door to door, trying to run a serious campaign, being in candidate forums, being in voter education guides, distributing literature door to door, I still got just 8.5% of the vote as a Green Party candidate. It was better than any other independent or third party candidate in the state running against both a Democrat and Republican. Still, it's a tiny minority of the vote.

At some point, I'll say I've had enough, I'm done doing this. But one thing or another happens, like when I was kicked out of the Green Party in Colorado. If someone tells me I can't do something that makes me want to do it. If someone tries to bully or exclude you from participation, that creates more motivation to say, "I'm going to do it anyway." So that's part of my my argument against the spoiler effect. If you tell people they can't run for office because they're going to spoil an election, that's just going to motivate them to run for an office where they can be a spoiler or be perceived as a spoiler.

I recognize the reality that under the system we have, the Democrats and Republicans are the only viable political parties. I think if I were going to leave alternative party politics, the time to have done it would have been 1996 on election night. I should have said, "I'm done with this." I actually liked Penfield Tate, who was my Democratic opponent in 1996. I called him to congratulate him before the polls were closed. I said, "I know what the demographics are, you're going to win, congratulations." And he and I were on friendly terms. I enjoyed going to campaign events with him. I supported him when he ran for mayor of Denver. He invited me to visit him in the state legislature, invited me to sit in his seat on the floor of the House, which is nice.

When I ran in 1996, I had some vague notion that I was trying to run to win, but I still realized how much the system was stacked against alternative party candidates. Since then, I've very openly run as a protest candidate without the expectation that I could win.

I think people have an unrealistic expectation of what their results will be as an alternative party candidate. Running as alternative party candidate does give people an opportunity to participate in the system and get some experience. Some people start with an alternative party and then move to the Democrats or Republicans when they realize they just can't win, they can't get very far as an alternative party candidate. And that's a product of the system we have in the United States.

We have Green Party candidates in at least 30 national legislatures around the world, and that's because they use proportional representation. With our single-member district, winner-take-all voting system, we're tilting at windmills as alternative party candidates. I think once people realize that, they either leave and join a major party or they campaign for fundamental election reform.

Unfortunately, a lot of people have the idea that just changing the system to a different winner-take-all voting methods in single member districts will change it and open the process for alternative parties. But you need proportional representation so that everyone has fair representation. That's how most of the modern world does it.

Read more from the original source:

Q&A with Gary Swing | Veteran minor party candidate advocates for ... - coloradopolitics.com

Over the past quarter-century, Jonah Goldberg has made his name as one of the most provocative and unapologetic conservative journalists around. He was the editor of National Review Online for years before leaving over differences related to Donald Trump and he's penned bestselling books such as Liberal Fascism and Suicide of the West. He was a Fox News contributor for years, resigning in 2021 in protest of the channel's airing of Tucker Carlson's documentary Patriot Purge.

Along with former Weekly Standard editor Steve Hayes (who also resigned from Fox over the Carlson documentary), he founded The Dispatch in 2019. He also hosts the popular podcast The Remnant.

At a recent event in New York City, I talked with him about the fracturing of the political right into groups such as national conservatives, integralists, Never Trumpers, anti-Trumpers, and more. We also discussed the 2024 election and whether libertarians and conservatives can get along.

Previous appearances:

Jonah Goldberg on Why He Left National Review, Dislikes Sean Hannity and Seb Gorka, and Is Inching Toward Libertarianism, December 4, 2019

Is Jonah Goldberg Turning Into a Libertarian? It Sure Sounds Like It., July 5, 2017

Jonah Goldberg on The Tyranny of Cliches, Creating NRO, and the Firing of John Derbyshire, May 31, 2012

Read more:

Jonah Goldberg: A NeverTrumper's Take on the 2024 Election - Reason