TRUMP - In Nashville

"In Nashville, Trump bent and broke the truth.  Here are the facts" PBS NewsHour 5/30/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Wednesday on the PBS NewsHour, Yamiche Alcindor joins Judy Woodruff to fact-check some of President Trump’s claims.

President Donald Trump made several misleading statements Tuesday during an hour-long campaign-style speech in Nashville.  Trump traveled to Tennessee in part to boost the Senate candidacy of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn).

But Trump’s support for Blackburn, who is running to replace retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn) was largely overshadowed by criticism that he exaggerated his record in office.  Here’s a look at four misleading or outright false assertions Trump made in his speech.

"How businessman Trump turned exaggeration into his brand" PBS NewsHour 5/30/2018

IMHO:  In Trump World, the only fact is HE LIES.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has been called out before for not sticking to the facts.  Gwenda Blair, author of "The Trumps: Three Generations of Builders and a President," joins Judy Woodruff to discuss his lifelong predilection for “truthful hyperbole.”

SUPREME COURT - Three Big Decisions

"Supreme Court Upholds 'Most Controversial Part' of Arizona's Immigration Law" PBS Newshour 6/25/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: According to the Supreme Court, Arizona police may still stop people they believe to be illegal immigrants, but cannot arrest them without a warrant. The National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and law professor Steven Gonzales weigh in on the ruling.

NOTE: This makes the Arizona law toothless from the Arizona enforcement perspective, they cannot arrest without warrant or take any other direct enforcement action. Enforcement is federal.

"High Court Reaffirms Campaign Finance, Strikes Down Juvenile Life Sentences" PBS Newshour 6/25/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: In addition to the judgment on Arizona's immigration laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday on mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders and refused to reconsider a decision it had made in 2010 on corporate campaign finance rules.

POLITICS - Local San Diego, Campaign Funding

"San Diego explores limits on political party campaign donations" KFMB-TV CBS San Diego 5/16/2012

New limits on financial contributions by political parties to candidates for San Diego's ostensibly nonpartisan municipal offices were proposed Wednesday to the City Council's Rules Committee.

The plan drawn up by the city's Ethics Committee stems from a federal court ruling that struck down San Diego's old ban on donations from political parties. A temporary $1,000 ceiling was later rescinded by the judge in the case, so there are no limitations on such giving in the current election year.

The commission proposed a limit of $12,000 per election for citywide races, and $3,000 for City Council races. The cap would be a combined total of all levels of the parties, whether local, state or federal, said Stacey Fulhorst, the commission's executive director.

Councilman Kevin Faulconer said the limits were necessary, but their levels were a big question.

"In a city as big as San Diego, a $3,000 limit might be tough to justify," Faulconer said.

Fulhorst said the proposed limits were in line with most of the 15 largest cities in the U.S., with Jacksonville an outlier with a $50,000 party contribution cap.

She said during commission meetings, the San Diego County Democratic Party proposed that the lid be somewhere around $5,000 to $10,000, while the Republican Party of San Diego County suggested figures of $29,000 to $3 million.

A GOP representative told members of the Rules Committee that their numbers were based on current law, and significantly lower limits could invite a lawsuit.

Councilwoman Marti Emerald said lower limits were necessary so "the little guy" could meaningfully participate in the political process.

"We're hearing from the Republican Party to let us buy the election, or we'll take you to court," Emerald said.

Committee members unanimously requested that the City Attorney's Office study the legality behind various limitation levels in order to avoid litigation, and return with a report in two months to the full City Council, which would have final approval over an ordinance.

The new limits would most likely go into effect at the beginning of next year, according to Fulhorst.

POLITICS - Hidden Big-Money Election Influence

"Hidden Under Tax-Exempt Cloak, Political Dollars Flow" by MIKE McINTIRE, New York Times 9/23/2010

Excerpt

Alaskans grew suspicious two years ago when a national organization called Americans for Job Security showed up and spent $1.6 million pushing a referendum to restrict development of a gold and copper mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay.

It seemed an oddly parochial fight for a pro-business group based in the Washington suburbs that had spent tens of millions of dollars since the late 1990s roughing up Democrats with negative advertisements around election time.

But after the mine’s supporters filed a complaint with the state, it became clear that what was depicted as grass-roots opposition was something else entirely: Americans for Job Security, investigators found, had helped create the illusion of a popular upwelling to shield the identity of a local financier who paid for most of the referendum campaign. More broadly, they said, far from being a national movement advocating a “pro-paycheck message,” the group is actually a front for a coterie of political operatives, devised to sidestep campaign disclosure rules.

“Americans for Job Security has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country,” the staff of the Alaska Public Offices Commission said in a report last year.

The report went mostly unnoticed outside Anchorage. But its conclusions suddenly loom large in the current debate over nonprofit advocacy groups like Americans for Job Security, which campaign watchdogs say allow moneyed interests to influence elections without revealing themselves. Congress is now wrangling over a bill that would require some disclosure.

With every election cycle comes a shadow army of benignly titled nonprofit groups like Americans for Job Security, devoted to politically charged “issue advocacy,” much of it negative. But they are now being heard as never before — in this year of midterm discontent, Tea Party ferment and the first test of the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited, and often anonymous, corporate political spending. Already they have spent more than $100 million — mostly for Republicans and more than twice as much as at this point four years ago.

More evidence of why we Americans need to get BIG-MONEY out of politics. It is also evidence on just how wrong the Supreme Court decision was, just how bad it hurts America.

As long as ANY politician needs large sums of money for campaigning, BIG-MONEY can have undue influence on elections.