Connect with us

Politics

The stunning political power of AOC by CNN

Published

 on

On Sunday night, her office confirmed that she had raised almost $5 million for that effort in less than 96 hours.
Obviously, the most important thing here is that millions more dollars will go to Texans still struggling to find potable water and deal with the damage from last week’s deep freeze. (Ocasio-Cortez also traveled to the state over the weekend to see the situation firsthand.)
But it’s also extremely important — in terms of AOC’s political future — to note how incredible it is for a second-term House member to be able to raise so much money so quickly for a cause she chose to advocate for.
Many politicians — especially in the House — don’t (and can’t) raise $5 million in the course of a two-year election cycle. That AOC can do so by simply saying she wanted to help Texans who were hurting speaks to not only her immense national donor base but also the level of allegiance those people feel for her.
Remember this: For all the bad press money in politics gets, it remains one of the best ways to gauge loyalty and passion for a candidate. If you can get lots of people to open their wallets for you, it means they truly believe in you and what you are doing in the public space.
When you can raise $5 million for a cause — and not even one in your state or having anything to do with you — in the space of four days, well, that’s real power.
It’s that power that has even Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (New York) bending over backward to make nice with AOC — and court the liberal left — in hopes of keeping her from primarying him in 2022. (She hasn’t ruled out a bid yet.)
It’s that power that makes every Democrat ambitious for national office — whether in 2024 or beyond — acknowledge that AOC is a prime mover in any presidential primary race she decides to compete in. (AOC will turn 35 just before the 2024 election, which makes her technically eligible to serve as president.)
And it’s that power that, in the near term, makes AOC her own power center within the House. Because when you can raise money in the millions over a few days, every single member of the Democratic-controlled House wants to be on your good side.
To be clear: Of course AOC didn’t raise this money to show her fundraising and political might. But that’s what it showed anyway.
The Point: No one seems to have a good grasp on what AOC wants to do next. But her ability to raise lots of money very quickly means there is very little that is out of her reach, politically speaking.

Source:CNN

Source link

Politics

Women Of Color Have Always Been In Politics. Now They Are Changing Congress. – FiveThirtyEight

Published

 on


The current Congress includes more women of color than ever before, thanks to historic wins in the 2020 election. FiveThirtyEight spoke with three political scientists about why it’s taken so long to get to this point, and how having these women in office will affect the legislature.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Zlatan Ibrahimovic to LeBron James – 'Do what you're good at,' stay out of politics – ESPN

Published

 on


AC Milan star Zlatan Ibrahimovic criticized LeBron James and others on Thursday for their activism in what the former LA Galaxy star called “politics.”

Speaking in an interview for UEFA for Discovery+ in Sweden on Thursday, the outspoken striker said that although he admired James’ talent, it’s a “mistake” when athletes step out of their lane and get involved socially and politically.

Stream ESPN FC Daily on ESPN+ (U.S. only)
Stream Serie A games on ESPN+

“[LeBron] is phenomenal at what he’s doing, but I don’t like when people have some kind of status, they go and do politics at the same time,” Ibrahimovic said. “Do what you’re good at. Do the category you do. I play football because I’m the best at playing football.

“I don’t do politics. If I would be a political politician, I would do politics. That is the first mistake people do when they become famous and they become in a certain status. Stay out of it. Just do what you do best because it doesn’t look good.”

James has been a force for social change and political action. His More Than a Vote organization drew more than 42,000 volunteers to work at polling stations for the November election, helped some earn back their voting rights and pushed for turnout among Black people and young voters.

He has also focused on his hometown of Akron, Ohio.

The I Promise School he opened in 2018 now has over 450 students in third through sixth grades. When the pandemic shut down the school, James and his team ensured students got hot meals delivered to their homes — even complete Thanksgiving meals. An affordable housing project for 50 families broke ground this year. And in December, plans for House Three Thirty (a nod to Akron’s area code) were announced, detailing how James is going to offer things like accessible family financial health programming, job training and a community gathering space.

“I still know what I do on the floor, and obviously, I give everything to the game,” James told The Associated Press in December. “But I can make a greater impact off the floor right now, more than I can on the floor. And I want to continue to inspire people with the way I play the game of basketball. But there’s so many more things that I can do off the floor to help cultivate people, inspire people, bring people together, empower them.”

His outspokenness hasn’t always been well-received, however. In February of 2018, a prominent conservative commentator famously told him to “shut up and dribble” in response to his “talking politics.”

Ibrahimovic has made headlines for acrobatic goals, bombastic boasts and on-field controversy throughout his wildly successful soccer career.

In January, he faced accusations of racism after a clash with Inter Milan’s Romelu Lukaku during a Coppa Italia quarterfinal clash. Ibrahimovic, who often refers to himself in the third person, was accused of having used offensive language during his spat with Lukaku and later posted a message on social media reiterating that he is against racism, with his coach later backing his claims.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The risks of corporate political spending after the Jan. 6 insurrection | Column – Tampa Bay Times

Published

 on


Ever since the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC, corporations have had the ability to spend money in politics. Now after the Jan. 6 insurrection, many corporate political spenders are feeling the sting of getting into bed with the wrong politicians. These corporations are learning something that I have been writing about for years — dabbling in politics comes with huge reputational risks.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy [ File photo ]

This year is not the first time that electoral votes have had congressional objections. Back in 2004, there were limited objections to Ohio’s electoral college votes. In 2004 the objection was from Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Rep. Tubbs Jones was joined by several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who raised the objection to draw attention to the long lines and other voting difficulties experienced by Black voters in Ohio. The objection was resolved after a few hours. A big difference from 2021 was that the 2004 objection was not accompanied by violence in the halls of Congress.

The Capitol riot presents unique risks for corporate financial supporters for members of Congress who backed President Donald Trump’s position on Jan. 6.

Independent journalist Judd Legum’s Popular Information was the first to ask corporate PACs whether they would continue their financial support for members of Congress who objected in 2021 to the Electoral College votes in swing states on Jan. 6. In 2021 multiple swing states were subject to objections (instead of just one state), and this time more than a hundred House Republicans and a dozen Republican senators originally objected. This meant corporate donors to far more members of Congress were under scrutiny for supporting what some are now calling the sedition caucus.

Popular Information broke the news on Jan. 11 that three major corporations — Marriott, BlueCross BlueShield and Commerce Bank — suspended PAC donations to the 147 Republicans who objected to the Electoral College vote. A day later they reported that dozens of corporations would also suspend political support.

A month after the insurrection, the New York Times Deal Book highlighted that Morgan Stanley, Microsoft, BlackRock, Coca-Cola and Hilton all paused donations to the 147 objecting Republicans in Congress including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

A new survey by the Conference Board provides a new data both on how broadly corporations have pulled back from on political spending. The survey of 84 companies found that “about 28 percent of companies have announced their PAC’s actions both internally and externally, while another 25 percent have announced their PAC’s decision but only internally.” This indicates the firms that have been captured by Popular Information and the New York Times likely understates how many corporations have changed their political spending behavior since the changes haven’t all been public. Moreover, the Conference Board survey indicated that “concerns about company reputation was a key factor (nearly 45 percent) in driving the organization’s response (to Jan. 6).”

As I explained in my book Political Brands and in a law review article entitled “Shooting Your Brand in the Foot,” corporate political spending comes with many reputational risks including associating a well-crafted corporate brand with a toxic politician. If a politician that a corporation has supported gets into an embarrassing scandal or legal trouble, the corporation can be harmed through guilt by association. This can lead to boycotts and other shunning.

Also if the political spending is being done transparently through a corporate PAC, then there’s another lesson to hard learn: Records of political spending online last forever. Even if firms stop giving to Sens. Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz today, all their past political support is easy to find on sources like www.followthemoney.org or www.opensecrets.org. For forever and a day, the public, including a firm’s shareholders and customers, can find which corporate PACs supported Donald Trump or his congressional enablers.

Investigations into the Jan. 6 events are on-going. The FBI continues to arrest individuals who participated in the riot from the outside. New reporting notes that the Capitol Police are investing 35 officers of their own organization for their actions that day. Then there is a police investigation. about exactly which members of Congress may have given tours of the Capitol on Jan. 5 to aid and abet the future rioters. So what is now a political nightmare could get even worse if any members of Congress that were supported by a corporation gets into criminal trouble too related to the insurrection. The downside for the donor corporations can be enormous and long lasting.

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is a professor of law at Stetson University College of Law, a Brennan Center Fellow and the author of “Political Brands.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending