Major Super PAC Supporting Desantis May Face New Legal Issues

Florida Governor and Republican president nominee Ron Dasantis’ campaign experiences turbulence as one of his most influential political action committees (PAC), Never Back Down (NBD), according to sources from the Associated Press, have been coordinating with Desantis.  

This important super PAC is a major contributor to Desantis’ campaigns, spending over 40 million on advertising alone this year.  16 million of which is spent solely in Iowa, which holds the US’ first and most influential presidential primaries.  To put that into perspective, Desantis’ own campaign spending amounts to just only over 4 million dollars. 

PACs, or political action committees, are organizations that pool funds in order to donate to political campaigns.  Regular PACs are subject to limitations on how much they can accept from individuals or corporations, and how much they can contribute to a campaign.  However, super PACs, made possible in 2010 by a Supreme Court decision, are not subject to these limitations, on the condition that they do not directly contribute to a campaign and that they do not coordinate with candidates.  As a result, they can independently spend a limitless amount of money supporting a candidate through running ads or electioneering, all while being able to receive an unlimited amount of money from individuals or corporations

. 

According to the Associated press, at November 2023, Desantis’ wife, Casey Desantis expressed concerns about NBD taking down an ad criticizing their political opponent, Nikkey Haley.  Desantis relayed these concerns to NBD’s board, who then relayed it to the staff of NBD.  This clearly violates the condition that NBD, as a super PAC, may not coordinate, in any way, with Desantis. As small and innocuous as this action may seem, giving Desantis the benefit of the doubt would make historically hard to prove cases like these even more slippery.

“To actually have a conversation with the candidate’s agents and the super PAC’s agents about strategy — there is no plausible argument that that is legal,” legal director of the Campaign Legal Center Adav Noti expresses.

A hit to Never Back Down will be a major hit to Desantis and his campaign. As these concerns grow, disagreement between the nominee and the group fester, and many of the NBD staff being fired or quitting, Desantis seeks to appeal to new super PACs such as Fight Right.

Sources Used

Associated Press

Politico

Washington Post

Further Reading

Florida Politics - Similar case pertaining to Senator Rick Scott

- Ray Zhang

Republican members in House vote for impeachment inquiry of President Biden

 On Wednesday December 13th the House formalized an impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden. Republicans in the House claim that President Biden was financially benefited from his family's foreign business dealings. The vote ruled in favor of the inquiry, a 221 to 212 victory. 

The inquiry was first proposed earlier this year, in September, but lacked support and could not pass for a lack of evidence against the president, and even Republican members in the house were not in support of the inquiry. 

President Biden and House Democrats question the purpose of the investigation because no evidence has tied the President to any of the family business dealings. 

Jamie Rasking, Democratic representative from Maryland, says “What is the crime that Joe Biden is being accused of? They don’t have it,” 

However Republicans hope this is a step in the right direction. The party gained many votes in favor after Hunter Biden refused to go and testify to his closed hearing in Capitol Hill, and demanded to testify in a public hearing instead.  

Republicans who were formerly against the inquiry voted for it, all in agreence that the White House has been uncooraportive and hope to further investigate. As House Majority Whip Tom Emmer reminds the world; “Voting in favor of an impeachment inquiry does not equal impeachment.”

Sources:

USA Today

CNN 

- Olin Gawel

Big Name School Presidents in Congressional Antisemitism Hearing

During the December 5th Congressional hearing led by the House of Education and Workforce Committee, respective President from Harvard, MIT and University of Pennsylvania testified in front of Congress. The focus of the hearing? Whether the calling for the genocide of Jews violated their campus bullying and harassment policies. 

Harvard University President Claudine Gay (left) and University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill (right) testifying in Congressional hearing on antisemitism in their respective campus 

Congressmen held this hearing to officially decipher University's policy conduct on bullying and harassment as antisemitism is on the rise on college campuses due to the Israel-Hamas war. Unofficially, these Congressmen wanted to hold the top three Universities responsible for enforcing their bullying and harassment policy by calling them to testify on whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their  policy. 

Despite the war, rise of anti-semitism and Islamophobia being a causation for the House of Education and Workforce Committee's to hold this hearing, committee hearings are typically held to "gather information for use by the committee in it's activities" (Senate Finance Committee). Committee hearings are typically held in order to shape a bill proposal.  

Due to anti-semitism being on rise, and the US being a staunch ally for the Jewish population, the purpose of this hearing could be a result of affirming that private institutions are being held to the same standard's as public institutions in the United States. 

So what came of this hearing? Public outrage. Video's of the hearing are going viral all over TikTok and other social media platforms, depicting all three Presidents of ambiguously avoiding the yes or no question that the congresswoman repeatedly asked: "Is the call for the genocide of Jews a violation of your Bullying and Harassment policy?" They basically stated that it can violate their policy based on the context of the situation. 

Due to their evasive response, the White House has condemned all three Presidents for their lack of clarity on the issue, and not firming stating yes. Public black lash has led to now former President of UPenn Liz Magill to resign Saturday, while many call for Claudine Gay to resign as Harvard's president. 

Sources: 

Gzero

The Guardian 

Business Insider 

The Times of Israel 

Trump redirects "Threat to Democracy"claims onto Biden as he takes the 2024 election lead over Biden

 On December 9th, our beloved ex-president Donald John Trump has responded to the comments claiming that his victory in 2024 would be a "threat to democracy", and in the most Donald Trump way possible, he flips it onto current president Joe Biden, who's job performance rating hits all-time low in the latest polling. "Hoax... Democrat Misinformation" were words used by Trump to describe these latest accusations as he continues to grow his lead over Biden for the 2024 presidential election. Trump, facing federal and states charges stemming from his effort to overturn the 2020 election, claims that Biden is "the real threat to democracy." 

Our former president, claims that he never wanted to be a dictator, except for his day 1 in office, where he expresses how badly he "Wants a wall," and that he'd like to "drill, drill, and drill." These comments soon drew attention from many Democrats who would call out his behavior and label his potential victory "threat to democracy." Trump said later that Democrats’ attacks regarding democracy were a “desperate and shameless attempt to distract from the monstrous abuses of power the left is committing before your very eyes." His evidence? The dozens of state-level petitions to remove him from the 2024 ballot. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a rival for the 2024 Republican nomination, believes that Trump's second stint in office could be very different than his first. Christie claims that "[Trump] Is an angry bitter man who wants to be back as president to exact retribution on anyone who has disagreed with him."

But this showdown doesn't end here, Trump went on to say that Democrats and the media "think the threat to democracy will save Biden from having created the worst inflation in our country's history, a fragile economy that may soon end in a depression like 1929 … We are very, very close to a depression, the likes of which you have never seen. We owe $36 trillion and this guy has no clue." The former president is currently facing 91 Indictments yet warns Biden about potential "retaliation" if he returns to the White House.

Trump seems to be gaining steam as we get closer and closer to the 2024 presidential election, and to conclude his speech on Saturday, he predicted that he'd return to the White House and make American "Great Again." 

Here's a bonus quote for reading this blog of mine. "We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media. We will evict Joe Biden from the White House and we will finish. This job of making our country great again once and for all." - Donald John Trump.

The Fight For Chip Supremacy

In recent years a cold war of sorts between the U.S. and China has been ramping up over the one thing that makes modern life possible, chips. Also known as integrated circuits, IC’s, and microchips, chips serve as the foundation for our modern way of life. You can find them in cars, phones, and even toasters. With the rise of artificial intelligence, chips only grow more important in the global struggle for computing power. It is not an understatement to say that chips are THE most important commodity in the world right now.

Before we get back to the U.S. and China, we need to quickly understand the world’s chip ecosystem. Advanced chips are unsurprisingly incredibly complicated to design, manufacture, and assemble which has left only a few big companies able to compete and return a profit. The ecosystem is incredibly complicated but for the sake of simplicity we will focus on the major players: 

• ASML(Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography): ASML, a Dutch company, is the only company in the world capable of manufacturing extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) photolithography machines. EUV’s are required to fabricate the most advanced chips, making ASML an indispensable part of the chip supply chain.

• Fun fact: ASML is currently Europe’s most valuable tech company with a valuation of $281 billion.

• TSMC(Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company): TSMC is the world’s most powerful semiconductor company, with around 90% of the global market share of advanced chip manufacturing.

• Nvidia/AMD: Gamers and PC enthusiasts will be the most familiar with these two GPU companies. In addition to their gaming enterprises, they are the two leading players in the AI hardware acceleration market (Nvidia is currently miles ahead of AMD though).

As the world’s premier economic heavyweights, both the U.S. and China recognize the importance of computing power and are accordingly investing heavily in chip advancements. 

Due to purported national security concerns the U.S. has repeatedly attempted to stifle China’s burgeoning chip industry and cut it off from key suppliers like ASML, Nvidia, and TSMC. To sum up America’s approach we can look to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Ramoindo who said at the Reagan Defense Forum: “We cannot let China get these chips. Period”. Whether or not you agree with America’s protectionist approach, its sanctions on China have prevented China from importing Nvidia chips and ASML EUV machines. This may keep China’s chip industry lagging behind the US's. It’s also possible that by restricting access to the world’s largest technological market (China), the U.S. may hurt its own interests. Only time can tell.

The U.S. also recently passed its CHIPS and Science act, which incentivizes domestic chip production and goes as far as partnering with companies like TSMC to create chip plants within the U.S, making the U.S. an even bigger part of the chip ecosystem.

Sanctions have caused a flurry of innovation in China, with Chinese companies like SMIC and Huawei now focused on catching up to western (and western-adjacent) rivals. If the U.S. continues its sanctions and enacts sanctions on TSMC, China may finally follow through on invading Taiwan. China has poured trillions into its domestic chip industry as well.

There’s a LOT more to this. Way more than I can fit here (or in a few books), but this was a brief overview. Try out the following sources to learn more.

More on what chips are and why they’re important here. 

Further Reading on ASML

Further reading on TSMC

Further reading on Nvidia’s AI ventures

Huawei vs. Nvidia

Huawei

China and Chips

CHIPS Act

Financial Times Documentary (very detailed)

- Vishal

UPenn president steps down after controversial comments at a House Hearing.

 Liz Magill, the third consecutive female president at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, has surprisingly resigned after being named the president in January 2022. 

"Prior to her career in higher education, Magill acquired experience working in politics and at the U.S. Supreme Court. She completed her bachelor’s degree in history at Yale University in 1988, then served as a senior legislative assistant for energy and natural resources for U.S. Senator Kent Conrad." It's hard to believe someone with such level of education and level of political involvement would perform so horribly during a house hearing, but that's exactly what happened.

The presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn all attended a congressional hearing on December 5th where all three colleges were defending their effort to combat antisemitism behaviors on campus. Universities all around the nation is being accused of improper protection of Jewish students amid rising fears of antisemitism worldwide and fallout from Israel’s intensifying war in Gaza. When Representative Elise Stefanik, R-NY... repeated asked if  “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate Penn’s code of conduct. Magill's responded saying that “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes,” and even further stating It is "a context-dependent decision." Immediately heavy criticism came from the White House as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro threatened to withdraw $100 million in gifts unless Magill was replaced. On Friday, more than 70 congress members called for the firing of Magill as well as the other two presidents that showed up alongside her to the hearing. 

Immediately after, two Penn students would file lawsuits against the University, arguing that the there has been a strong lack of response to antisemitism behavior on campus. This seemed to be the last straw as four days later, Magill's resignation would be announced to all of the Penn community via Email. Magill's resignation as president doesn't mean she is leaving campus, she'll remain at the University's Carey Law School. Days after the hearing, Ms.Stefanik came out and said "one down, two to go." The New York City Representative has begun her journey to address the increasing issue of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America. This forced resignation of the president of Penn is the bare minimum of what is required.”

Sources

PBS News

Daily Pennsylvanian

House of Representatives vote to censure Democrat House Rep for pulling fire alarm

On September 30, the House of Representatives was in session to halt a government shutdown and was scheduled to vote on a government funding bill that the Republicans proposed. Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat New York House representative, was on his way to vote when he approached a locked door inside a congressional building. He tried the door handles to try to open it, which didn’t work. He then pulled the fire alarm, and as it was going off, he exited the building and didn’t tell any security personnel about it. As a result of the fire alarm, the House had to evacuate and was delayed an hour. 

In Washington D.C, purposely pulling a fire alarm without there being a threat of a fire is punishable by a fine or up to 6 months in jail. Bowman got by, by paying $1,000 and writing an apology letter to the U.S. Capitol Police chief, and has since given context to the incident:

“I was trying to get to a door. I thought the alarm would open the door, and I pulled the fire alarm to open the door by accident.”

This week, the House voted (214-191) to censure (express severe disapproval and condemn) Bowman, which was largely along party lines - with only 3 democrats voting for the censure and the rest against it, dismissing the incident as an accident and accusing the Republicans of trying to take advantage of it.

Democrat representative Rashida Tlaib from Michigan called the censure “yet another attempt to silence a person of color in this chamber”, while Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York said “Let me tell you what’s actually going on … New York Republicans are so embarrassed that they propped up George Santos, got him elected to office and then had to turn around and vote to expel him […] So they’ve decided to target one of the first Black men to ever represent Westchester County.”

On the other hand, the Republican representatives accused Bowman of trying to delay the government funding bill using a tactic similar to filibustering in the Senate, which is when senators delay decisions on a bill by talking for as long as possible, as we have learned in class.

Then Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, remarked: “This is an embarrassment. You are elected to be a member of Congress. You pulled a fire alarm, in a (matter) of hours before the government being shut down, trying to dictate that the government would shut down?”

Bowman has since responded to these allegations, saying he wasn’t trying to delay the vote on the government funding bill and instead was going to vote on it. Eventually, Bowman did end up voting in favor of the bill to prevent the shutdown, and so did many Democrat representatives.

What do you think? Did Bowman pull the fire alarm purposely, or was it a genuine accident?

- David Tabor

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-censuring-rep-jamaal-bowman-pulling-fire-alarm-rcna128492

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/30/politics/jamaal-bowman-pulls-fire-alarm/index.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-tees-up-censure-vote-for-rep-jamaal-bowman-over-fire-alarm-pull/ar-AA1l7e45

https://msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-censures-rep-jamaal-bowman-for-pulling-fire-alarm/ar-AA1l9uVb

State Marijuana Laws vs. Federal Gun Rules: A Battle of Rights

 In a clash of conflicting state and federal laws, individuals enrolled in state medical marijuana programs are facing unexpected obstacles to exercising their Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. This challenge arose on November 29th, following Vera Cooper's decision to pursue purchasing a gun for her safety.

Vera Cooper, in her mid-70s, felt vulnerable and scared living alone, especially after her husband's recent passing. She also found herself entangled in a distressing incident at her workplace, where she had to fire an employee who then responded with verbal threats. Facing chronic knee pain and sleeplessness following her husband's passing, Vera Cooper turned to Florida's medical marijuana program for relief in order to use marijuana to alleviate her chronic knee pain and improve sleep quality. Following her ex-coworkers' threats Vera searched for a way to protect herself. Her quest for security led her to a gun store in her area  where she selected a .22 caliber pistol that she felt comfortable with. However, as she was purchasing the weapon a complication came up when a question on the required firearms transaction form asked her about her status as an "unlawful user of marijuana or any other federally classified controlled substance".

                                                                                                                    

This situation put Vera in a tough spot as she used medical marijuana legally in Florida to help with pain and sleep problems, but when she tried to buy a gun for safety, a form asked if she used any federally controlled substances. That included her legal medical marijuana. She felt stuck because state laws said she could use it, but federal rules made it seem like she was doing something wrong.

At the federal level, there are relatively few restrictions on who can buy or possess firearm. The national background check system focuses on issues such as criminal convictions, mental health concerns, dishonorable military discharges, unlawful immigration status, or domestic violence restraining orders. However, even as more states legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes, participating in a state's medical marijuana program remains a barrier to gun ownership.

A picture of Vera, who was denied a firearm at a local gun store because she clicked "yes'” on a question that asked if she was a marijuana user.

Do you think that the clash between state-level marijuana legalization and federal firearm regulations could affect the fundamental principles of federalism in the United States?

Source:

New York Times

Super PAC to Spend more than $10 million on RFK Jr. 's Presidential Campaign

As of December 5 2023, Super-PAC American Values 2024 announced that they will spend over $10 million dollars to get independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the ballot.

                         Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty images)

Based on the chapter 9.3 textbook reading, "Government in America" by Edwards and Wattenberg, a Political Action Group (PAC) raises money from individual donors and is then distributed in the form of contributions of which the group supports. Well what makes a Super PAC different from a regular PAC? Super PACS are Independent-expenditures only, which means that they can accept limitless donations and donate to groups that express viewpoints that may aid a specific campaign. They also have the ability to endorse candidates. Therefore, the American Values 2024 Super PAC will be donating to groups that will make sure RFK Jr. gets on the presidential ballot, and being able to accept limitless donations means they can spend as much as they want on these groups to make it happen.  

In October, RFK Jr. announced that he would be dropping as a Democrat presidential candidate, and instead seek the presidency as an Independent. His argument for dropping the Democratic Party and seeking a third-party is because he believes the democratic candidacy is rigged against him. Despite understanding that no Independent candidate has won the presidency in modern history, RFK Jr. knows that he will be a spoiler for both Republican former President Donald J. Trump, and incumbent President Joseph R. Biden Jr.: "I intend to spoil the both of them." (ABC)

What begs the question is whether RFK Jr. is going to siphon more votes from Donald Trump or Joe Biden in a three-way presidential race, tilting the win to one of them. I believe that we will see similar repeat of history from the 2016 election in Joe Biden, where Jill Stein, a Green party candidate, was a likely factor to cause Hillary Clinton from losing the electoral votes needed in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Despite winning the popular vote by 2 million, Hillary Clinton was not able to win key electoral votes to reach the 270 electoral majority to win the presidency. 

So what do you think? Many sources on the discussion are stating that Joe Biden is likely to lose as Democrat voters may pander to RFK jr. as a more favorable, more capable leader. While others say that his anti-vaxx ideology may appeal to the MAGA base of Donald Trump. Others state that it is just too difficult to predict where voters will swing to. 

Sources: 

The New York Times

NBC News

ABC News

Vox