Worth a look. Helps define what makes cities unique.
Thursday, May 16, 2019
ANATOMY OF A ROAD 1960s ROAD AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION FILM 78004
I'm really getting into these. The growth of roads across the US fascinates me. Expect more.
It's also a great example of federalism in action - especially fiscal federalism.
It's also a great example of federalism in action - especially fiscal federalism.
From the Dallas News: How police felt stonewalled by Dallas Diocese at every turn in sex abuse investigation
An example of due process, specifically a search and seizure. The back and forth between Dallas police and the Diocese interests me.
- Click here for the article.
An affidavit Dallas police used to obtain a search warrant Wednesday to raid Dallas Catholic Diocese offices laid out allegations against five priests and suggested the church subverted police efforts to obtain more information.
The affidavit, signed by Detective David Clark, who is working full-time on sex abuse allegations within the Diocese, sought to seize Diocese records because the church hadn’t handed over all the records it had about allegations against the priests.
All five priests are on the Diocese’s list of 31 “credibly accused” priests, which the church released in January. That list included only accusations against priests that the Diocese concluded were credible after a review by former law enforcement officials and the Diocean Review Board.
- Click here for the article.
An affidavit Dallas police used to obtain a search warrant Wednesday to raid Dallas Catholic Diocese offices laid out allegations against five priests and suggested the church subverted police efforts to obtain more information.
The affidavit, signed by Detective David Clark, who is working full-time on sex abuse allegations within the Diocese, sought to seize Diocese records because the church hadn’t handed over all the records it had about allegations against the priests.
All five priests are on the Diocese’s list of 31 “credibly accused” priests, which the church released in January. That list included only accusations against priests that the Diocese concluded were credible after a review by former law enforcement officials and the Diocean Review Board.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
From the Texas Municipal League: How Cities Work
A great, informative pamphlet put together by the interest group that represents cities at the state and national level.
- Click for it.
Click here for:
- The Texas Municipal League.
- Legislative Updates.
- National League of Cities.
- State Municipal Leagues.
- Click for it.
Click here for:
- The Texas Municipal League.
- Legislative Updates.
- National League of Cities.
- State Municipal Leagues.
From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: The Texas Legislature’s unexciting, no drama, very humdrum session
As seems to be intended.
- Click here for the article.
Are you not bored?
And do you not remember that this is what the governor and legislative leaders promised the people of the great state of Texas in January?
They said they were going to get along, that they were all on the same page, that this would be a meat-and-potatoes or bread-and-butter session. (Choose your preferred food group, if it’s in there.) In conversation, elected officials — the Republicans in particular — said they wanted to govern without looking like they had been driving around in a Washington, D.C., clown car. This was going to be a serious, no-nonsense legislative session.
They weren’t kidding.
And for the most part, that’s what they’ve delivered. No "bathroom bill" to bring out the armies of culture warriors. Education bills without fights, or really any conversation at all, about vouchers or other ways to use public money on private schools. Efforts to fan the immigration flames have been relatively scarce, unlike the days of "sanctuary cities" legislation (once deemed an emergency issue by Gov. Greg Abbott). Compared with other states in recent months, this Legislature’s abortion law disputes have been muted. Other than false claims that an election bill would prevent old people from carpooling to the polls, the perennial skirmishes over voting rights have been side issues.
Sure, there are battles. That voter legislation, Senate Bill 9, has plenty of material for snarling, snarky debate. And the state’s misbegotten effort to purge noncitizens from voter rolls ended with a court settlement and, probably, the busted gubernatorial appointment of Texas Secretary of State David Whitley, who oversaw that fiasco. But those wrangles haven’t reached the pitch of years past and certainly haven’t been loud enough to invoke comparisons with Congress.
- Click here for the article.
Are you not bored?
And do you not remember that this is what the governor and legislative leaders promised the people of the great state of Texas in January?
They said they were going to get along, that they were all on the same page, that this would be a meat-and-potatoes or bread-and-butter session. (Choose your preferred food group, if it’s in there.) In conversation, elected officials — the Republicans in particular — said they wanted to govern without looking like they had been driving around in a Washington, D.C., clown car. This was going to be a serious, no-nonsense legislative session.
They weren’t kidding.
And for the most part, that’s what they’ve delivered. No "bathroom bill" to bring out the armies of culture warriors. Education bills without fights, or really any conversation at all, about vouchers or other ways to use public money on private schools. Efforts to fan the immigration flames have been relatively scarce, unlike the days of "sanctuary cities" legislation (once deemed an emergency issue by Gov. Greg Abbott). Compared with other states in recent months, this Legislature’s abortion law disputes have been muted. Other than false claims that an election bill would prevent old people from carpooling to the polls, the perennial skirmishes over voting rights have been side issues.
Sure, there are battles. That voter legislation, Senate Bill 9, has plenty of material for snarling, snarky debate. And the state’s misbegotten effort to purge noncitizens from voter rolls ended with a court settlement and, probably, the busted gubernatorial appointment of Texas Secretary of State David Whitley, who oversaw that fiasco. But those wrangles haven’t reached the pitch of years past and certainly haven’t been loud enough to invoke comparisons with Congress.
100 Years on the Lincoln Highway
This might be a bit cheesy, but I'm fascinated by the gradual process by which roads were built in across the US. From what I can tell, this was the first attempt to create a highway coast to coast. The effort pulled together a variety of governing and political forces. Take note of Eisenhower's involvement in the effort, as well as local governments.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
From the Texas Tribune: "People were giving us lip service": Texas cities' legislative efforts have struggled this year
For 2306's look at the relationship between cities and states.
- Click here for the article.
The interest group representing Texas cities used to be one of the most powerful legislative forces at the Capitol. This session, it has become the GOP’s most prominent adversary.
Its members have been harangued at hearings. Targeted by a proposed ban on “taxpayer-funded lobbying.” And seen multiple proposals sail ahead over their protests.
When, around March, one mayor inquired about the reasoning for a controversial provision in a property tax bill, he said an adviser to Gov. Greg Abbott suggested, “You reap what you sow.”
The message was clear, said McKinney Mayor George Fuller: Local officials had been obstructionists in the past.
Although the antagonistic relationship between Texas cities and the state has been building for years, this session has reached the fever pitch of all-out legislative assault, Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in April. Typically, the Texas Municipal League tracks bills it opposes that are gaining momentum in the Legislature. This session, the group had amassed more than 150.
Among them was a bill regarding cable franchise fees authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Beaumont Republican and chair of the powerful State Affairs Committee. After the Texas Municipal League warned its members the proposal could cut into cities’ revenues, Phelan had a concise response for the group, which represents 1,156 of Texas’ roughly 1,200 cities.
“When you are in a hole — you should stop digging,” Phelan recommended in an email obtained by The Texas Tribune.
In an interview, Phelan said he harbored no animus toward the organization but took umbrage with its opposition to legislation his constituents want. The sentiment is widely shared in the Legislature, Phelan said, as evidenced by the support bills on taxpayer-funded lobbying and franchise fees have garnered.
Mentioned in the article:
Lobbying
Governor
Mayor
Republicans in the Legislature
State Affairs Committee
Texas Municipal League
model legislation
conservative think tanks
progressives
Lt. Governor
property taxes
local budgets
House Speaker
- Click here for the article.
The interest group representing Texas cities used to be one of the most powerful legislative forces at the Capitol. This session, it has become the GOP’s most prominent adversary.
Its members have been harangued at hearings. Targeted by a proposed ban on “taxpayer-funded lobbying.” And seen multiple proposals sail ahead over their protests.
When, around March, one mayor inquired about the reasoning for a controversial provision in a property tax bill, he said an adviser to Gov. Greg Abbott suggested, “You reap what you sow.”
The message was clear, said McKinney Mayor George Fuller: Local officials had been obstructionists in the past.
Although the antagonistic relationship between Texas cities and the state has been building for years, this session has reached the fever pitch of all-out legislative assault, Austin Mayor Steve Adler said in April. Typically, the Texas Municipal League tracks bills it opposes that are gaining momentum in the Legislature. This session, the group had amassed more than 150.
Among them was a bill regarding cable franchise fees authored by state Rep. Dade Phelan, a Beaumont Republican and chair of the powerful State Affairs Committee. After the Texas Municipal League warned its members the proposal could cut into cities’ revenues, Phelan had a concise response for the group, which represents 1,156 of Texas’ roughly 1,200 cities.
“When you are in a hole — you should stop digging,” Phelan recommended in an email obtained by The Texas Tribune.
In an interview, Phelan said he harbored no animus toward the organization but took umbrage with its opposition to legislation his constituents want. The sentiment is widely shared in the Legislature, Phelan said, as evidenced by the support bills on taxpayer-funded lobbying and franchise fees have garnered.
Mentioned in the article:
Lobbying
Governor
Mayor
Republicans in the Legislature
State Affairs Committee
Texas Municipal League
model legislation
conservative think tanks
progressives
Lt. Governor
property taxes
local budgets
House Speaker
Monday, May 13, 2019
From the Houston Chronicle: Three articles on the state pof political parties in the state
- GOP fights to keep Texas red amid rifts.
Analysts say the Texas Republican Party is at a critical juncture heading into the 2020 presidential election, with the possibility that an increasingly diverse population will make Texas a swing state. So far the risk is remote, but the number of people of color in Texas is rising. According to the Texas Demographic Center, people of color accounted for 58 percent of the state's population, up from 47 percent in 2000.
November's dismal election results for Republicans were a wake-up call, party officials say. Cruz barely pulled off a victory over O'Rourke, and the party lost two state Senate seats and 12 state House seats to the Democrats.
"I'm warning people: If we don't do the hard work that we must, we will not, nor would we, deserve to retain control of Texas," said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. "We have to continue to earn the votes of rural Texas and increase the numbers in the major metro areas that are growing the fastest."
As Texas Republicans attempt to widen their reach, they're grappling with the party's standard-bearer, Trump, whose anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened some of the more extreme members of the party.
Analysts say the Texas Republican Party is at a critical juncture heading into the 2020 presidential election, with the possibility that an increasingly diverse population will make Texas a swing state. So far the risk is remote, but the number of people of color in Texas is rising. According to the Texas Demographic Center, people of color accounted for 58 percent of the state's population, up from 47 percent in 2000.
November's dismal election results for Republicans were a wake-up call, party officials say. Cruz barely pulled off a victory over O'Rourke, and the party lost two state Senate seats and 12 state House seats to the Democrats.
"I'm warning people: If we don't do the hard work that we must, we will not, nor would we, deserve to retain control of Texas," said James Dickey, chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. "We have to continue to earn the votes of rural Texas and increase the numbers in the major metro areas that are growing the fastest."
As Texas Republicans attempt to widen their reach, they're grappling with the party's standard-bearer, Trump, whose anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened some of the more extreme members of the party.
- Democrats flex in Texas Legislature, with an eye on 2020.
After picking up 14 seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are using their increased numbers this session to derail key Republican priorities in a state where the left has long been out of power.
In flexing their political muscle, Democrats have blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s embattled secretary of state nominee and helped stop a sales tax hike that GOP leaders had championed in order to cut property taxes.
"This session more than other sessions, the Democratic caucus has stuck together more. We’ve communicated a lot better,” said Senate Democratic Leader José RodrÃguez of El Paso. "I think the midterm elections may have had something to do with the caucus being much more united."
- Texas House passes bill to allow more third-party candidates.
With the memory of a heated 2018 election cycle still fresh, Texas House Republicans and Democrats were divided this week over how to treat third-party candidates who have the potential to siphon votes from the major parties.
After picking up 14 seats in the midterm elections, Democrats are using their increased numbers this session to derail key Republican priorities in a state where the left has long been out of power.
In flexing their political muscle, Democrats have blocked Gov. Greg Abbott’s embattled secretary of state nominee and helped stop a sales tax hike that GOP leaders had championed in order to cut property taxes.
"This session more than other sessions, the Democratic caucus has stuck together more. We’ve communicated a lot better,” said Senate Democratic Leader José RodrÃguez of El Paso. "I think the midterm elections may have had something to do with the caucus being much more united."
- Texas House passes bill to allow more third-party candidates.
With the memory of a heated 2018 election cycle still fresh, Texas House Republicans and Democrats were divided this week over how to treat third-party candidates who have the potential to siphon votes from the major parties.
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Cities, School Districts and Special Districts in Brazoria County
I copied these from the Brazoria County Elections Page. They all has elections last week on May 4. The links take you to the ballots presented to the voters.
School Districts
- Alvin ISD
- Angleton ISD
- Brazosport ISD
- Columbia-Brazoria ISD
- Danbury ISD
- Pearland ISD
- Sweeny ISD
Municipalities
- Alvin (City)
- Angleton (City)
- Brazoria
- Brookside Village
- Clute
- Freeport
- Iowa Colony
- Jones Creek
- Oyster Creek
- Pearland (City)
- Richwood
- Surfside Beach
- Sweeny (City)
Other Districts
- Sweeny Hospital
- Brazoria County Emergency Services District No. 6
School Districts
- Alvin ISD
- Angleton ISD
- Brazosport ISD
- Columbia-Brazoria ISD
- Danbury ISD
- Pearland ISD
- Sweeny ISD
Municipalities
- Alvin (City)
- Angleton (City)
- Brazoria
- Brookside Village
- Clute
- Freeport
- Iowa Colony
- Jones Creek
- Oyster Creek
- Pearland (City)
- Richwood
- Surfside Beach
- Sweeny (City)
Other Districts
- Sweeny Hospital
- Brazoria County Emergency Services District No. 6
From The Texas Tribune: Renewable energy proponents brace for last-minute attack on tax breaks for wind and solar
Tax breaks for wind and solar energy are discussed in the policy chapters of 2306.
- Click here for the article.
In the waning days of the 86th legislative session, as House and Senate lawmakers spend hours debating and voting on bills, wind and solar groups are watching for any last-minute attempt to make renewable projects ineligible for a local tax abatement program that benefits all types of industrial and commercial developments.
They have good reason to be on high alert.
Ahead of the legislative session, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation — the Austin-based policy institute that is an ideological beacon for many Republicans — launched a crusade against renewable energy subsidies at all levels of government. Locally, the foundation has zeroed in on property tax abatements granted under chapters 312 and 313 of the state tax code that cities, counties, school districts and other taxing entities have wielded for almost two decades to lure oil refineries and — more recently — wind farms alike.
The crux of the foundation’s argument against renewable energy subsidies is that they distort the electric market, leading to artificially low prices.
The billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies that have been awarded to renewable projects at the local, state and federal level — $16 billion, according to the foundation — “has allowed renewable energy generators ... to sell their electricity at whatever price they need to get it onto the market, which drives prices low, into negative territory,” Bill Peacock, the foundation’s vice president for research, said in an interview earlier this year.
Still, lawmakers are moving to renew both programs; Chapter 312 would otherwise expire this year, followed by 313 in 2022.
No legislation has been filed that would strip renewables from the abatement programs. But lawmakers always have the option of proposing last-minute amendments to bills just before the House or Senate vote on them.
And that’s what Jeffrey Clark, president of the pro-renewables Advanced Power Alliance, is expecting.
Mentioned in the article:
- 86th legislative session.
- property tax.
- tax abatements
- Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- state tax code.
- subsidies.
- Advanced Power Alliance.
- last-minute amendments to bills.
- University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.
- corporate welfare.
- school districts.
- Todd Staples.
- Texas Oil and Gas Association.
- Click here for the article.
In the waning days of the 86th legislative session, as House and Senate lawmakers spend hours debating and voting on bills, wind and solar groups are watching for any last-minute attempt to make renewable projects ineligible for a local tax abatement program that benefits all types of industrial and commercial developments.
They have good reason to be on high alert.
Ahead of the legislative session, the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation — the Austin-based policy institute that is an ideological beacon for many Republicans — launched a crusade against renewable energy subsidies at all levels of government. Locally, the foundation has zeroed in on property tax abatements granted under chapters 312 and 313 of the state tax code that cities, counties, school districts and other taxing entities have wielded for almost two decades to lure oil refineries and — more recently — wind farms alike.
The crux of the foundation’s argument against renewable energy subsidies is that they distort the electric market, leading to artificially low prices.
The billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies that have been awarded to renewable projects at the local, state and federal level — $16 billion, according to the foundation — “has allowed renewable energy generators ... to sell their electricity at whatever price they need to get it onto the market, which drives prices low, into negative territory,” Bill Peacock, the foundation’s vice president for research, said in an interview earlier this year.
Still, lawmakers are moving to renew both programs; Chapter 312 would otherwise expire this year, followed by 313 in 2022.
No legislation has been filed that would strip renewables from the abatement programs. But lawmakers always have the option of proposing last-minute amendments to bills just before the House or Senate vote on them.
And that’s what Jeffrey Clark, president of the pro-renewables Advanced Power Alliance, is expecting.
Mentioned in the article:
- 86th legislative session.
- property tax.
- tax abatements
- Texas Public Policy Foundation.
- state tax code.
- subsidies.
- Advanced Power Alliance.
- last-minute amendments to bills.
- University of Texas at Austin’s Energy Institute.
- corporate welfare.
- school districts.
- Todd Staples.
- Texas Oil and Gas Association.
From the Texas Tribune: Where is Texas’ growing population coming from?
For 2306: a look at the changing demographics in the state.
- Click here for the article.
The state gained 187,545 people from migration between July 2017 and July 2018 — even after accounting for people leaving the state, according to U.S. Census data.
In 2018, the majority of migrants to Texas — 104,976 people — came from other countries, with the rest arriving from other U.S. states.
That marked the second straight year that international migration into the state exceeded domestic migration, said Luke Rogers, chief of the population estimate branch for the U.S. Census Bureau.
Before 2017, domestic migration dominated the story of Texas growth: From 2005 to 2013, 4.8 million of the 5.9 million of people who moved to Texas came from other states, and since 2010 people from other states accounted for 29% of the state's population growth, compared to the 23% that came from international migration. That flipped in 2017, and between 2017 and 2018, international migration increased by 28%, while domestic migration grew by a more modest 22%.
“I think it varies from year to year,” Rogers said. “There are a lot of years going back to 2000 where net domestic migration is larger than the international migration, but there are also years the other way around where international migration is larger than than domestic migration.”
The recent uptick ended a decade-long decline in international migration — particularly from Latin America — that began with the 2008 recession, Potter said.
Meanwhile, Texas has seen an increase in migration from Asian countries, particularly China and India. Potter said around 45% of international migrants came from Asia in 2016.
“Over the 2000s, we saw a pretty significant opening of China and kind of increasing number of Indian students coming over to study,” Potter said. “And I think what happens frequently is once they finish studying, they are able to get sponsored by a company for a work visa … Once they get a green card, then they can start sponsoring their family to come over as well.”
Mentioned in the article:
- Texas Demographic Center.
- Click here for the article.
The state gained 187,545 people from migration between July 2017 and July 2018 — even after accounting for people leaving the state, according to U.S. Census data.
In 2018, the majority of migrants to Texas — 104,976 people — came from other countries, with the rest arriving from other U.S. states.
That marked the second straight year that international migration into the state exceeded domestic migration, said Luke Rogers, chief of the population estimate branch for the U.S. Census Bureau.
Before 2017, domestic migration dominated the story of Texas growth: From 2005 to 2013, 4.8 million of the 5.9 million of people who moved to Texas came from other states, and since 2010 people from other states accounted for 29% of the state's population growth, compared to the 23% that came from international migration. That flipped in 2017, and between 2017 and 2018, international migration increased by 28%, while domestic migration grew by a more modest 22%.
“I think it varies from year to year,” Rogers said. “There are a lot of years going back to 2000 where net domestic migration is larger than the international migration, but there are also years the other way around where international migration is larger than than domestic migration.”
The recent uptick ended a decade-long decline in international migration — particularly from Latin America — that began with the 2008 recession, Potter said.
Meanwhile, Texas has seen an increase in migration from Asian countries, particularly China and India. Potter said around 45% of international migrants came from Asia in 2016.
“Over the 2000s, we saw a pretty significant opening of China and kind of increasing number of Indian students coming over to study,” Potter said. “And I think what happens frequently is once they finish studying, they are able to get sponsored by a company for a work visa … Once they get a green card, then they can start sponsoring their family to come over as well.”
Mentioned in the article:
- Texas Demographic Center.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
From the NCSL: State Partisan Composition
- Click here for the article.
As of April 1st, 2019, the following information is correct:
Legislators: There are 7,383 total legislative seats throughout the states.
Chamber control: While there are 99 total chambers in states because Nebraska is unicameral, we do not include Nebraska’s legislature in this chart because members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Therefore, this represents partisan control in 98 chambers.
Legislative Control: When the same party holds both chambers, that party has legislative control. When the chambers are held by different parties, it is divided. Nebraska is not included.
State Control: When the same party holds both legislative chambers and the governorship, that party has state control. When any of those three points of power is held by another party, state control is divided. This is based on the number of members of each party, and does not take into account coalitions that might change effective control. Nebraska is not included.
As of April 1st, 2019, the following information is correct:
Legislators: There are 7,383 total legislative seats throughout the states.
Chamber control: While there are 99 total chambers in states because Nebraska is unicameral, we do not include Nebraska’s legislature in this chart because members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Therefore, this represents partisan control in 98 chambers.
Legislative Control: When the same party holds both chambers, that party has legislative control. When the chambers are held by different parties, it is divided. Nebraska is not included.
State Control: When the same party holds both legislative chambers and the governorship, that party has state control. When any of those three points of power is held by another party, state control is divided. This is based on the number of members of each party, and does not take into account coalitions that might change effective control. Nebraska is not included.
From Ballotpedia: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
- Click here for the article.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.[1][2]
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compacts awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.[1]
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an interstate compact to award member state's presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The NPVIC would go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral college votes adopt the legislation.[1][2]
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to determine how their electoral votes will be awarded: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." This compact does not abolish the electoral college system; rather, the compacts awards all of the electoral votes from the member states to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide.[1]
From Open Secrets: Obama-tied operatives and Biden supporters launch $60 million ‘dark money’ group
- Click here for the article.
A new “dark money” group is labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020.
The recently-launched Future Majority will spend up to $60 million to target voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio in the 2020 election, helping Democrats craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points, according to Politico.
The 501(c)(4) nonprofit, run by Democratic strategist Mark Riddle, is not required to disclose its donors. The group will reportedly “spend money through PACs,” potentially feeding a growing trend of dark money-funded super PACs spending to influence elections.
Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders.
The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.
With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.
The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.
Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.
A new “dark money” group is labeling itself the strategy center for Democrats in 2020.
The recently-launched Future Majority will spend up to $60 million to target voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio in the 2020 election, helping Democrats craft messaging that they are fighting for working people while countering conservative talking points, according to Politico.
The 501(c)(4) nonprofit, run by Democratic strategist Mark Riddle, is not required to disclose its donors. The group will reportedly “spend money through PACs,” potentially feeding a growing trend of dark money-funded super PACs spending to influence elections.
Earlier this year, Democratic fundraiser Matthew Tompkins formed a super PAC called America’s Future Majority Fund PAC. He is also listed as the custodian of records for an identically-named nonprofit run by Riddle and is listed as governor on incorporation records for Future Majority. The two long worked together at New Leaders Council (NLC), a nonprofit that helps recruit young progressive leaders.
The revolving door between the new nonprofit and NLC doesn’t end there. Incorporation records show Future Majority’s incorporator is Cathedral Strategies LLC, a limited-liability company with a paper trail linked to Brett Avery Seifried, who was general counsel of NLC.
With Tompkins, links between Future Majority and presidential contender Joe Biden begin to emerge. The Hill reported that Tompkins recently launched a pro-Biden super PAC, titled For the People PAC, with the aim of raising tens of millions of dollars to support Biden’s campaign.
The group hasn’t emerged in FEC filings yet, but the Washington Free Beacon reported that Tompkins established a committee called Biden PAC on April 26. The same day it was established, the PAC renamed itself to G Street and removed Tompkins as its treasurer.
Several of the operatives tied to Future Majority have long histories in former President Barack Obama’s political circles.
From Governing: How Many Local Governments Is Too Many?
- Click here for the article.
It’s not uncommon for one metropolitan area to be home to dozens of local governments. In lots of those places, mayors and other local officials often lament the difficulties of having to coordinate with so many cities, towns and counties.
There’s no agreed-upon definition for this local government "fragmentation," but most researchers measure it by the number of governments per capita. We used that measurement, along with the number of governments per square mile, to see which metro areas and counties are the most fragmented.
Our calculations are based on the latest Census of Governments survey, which is conducted every five years and counted 38,779 cities, counties, towns and other general-purpose local governments (excluding special districts).
According to the study, the Houston metropolitan area has 133 local governments.
It’s not uncommon for one metropolitan area to be home to dozens of local governments. In lots of those places, mayors and other local officials often lament the difficulties of having to coordinate with so many cities, towns and counties.
There’s no agreed-upon definition for this local government "fragmentation," but most researchers measure it by the number of governments per capita. We used that measurement, along with the number of governments per square mile, to see which metro areas and counties are the most fragmented.
Our calculations are based on the latest Census of Governments survey, which is conducted every five years and counted 38,779 cities, counties, towns and other general-purpose local governments (excluding special districts).
According to the study, the Houston metropolitan area has 133 local governments.
From the Washington Post: Who are all the political appointees in Donald Trump’s administration?
- Click here for the article.
Who are all the political appointees in President Trump’s administration?
No one knows because a Government Accountability Office report says that “there is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely” for Trump’s and at least the previous two administrations.
Why do we need to know?
“The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable,” GAO said. “As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch.”
GAO issued the report after members of Congress asked the agency how well political appointees are identified and agencies implement their ethics programs. Those questions point to problems on both those fronts in Trump’s administration. He has run through top level appointees at a dizzying pace and came into office doused by an ethical rain that has only grown heavier at the White House and in the agencies.
“Providing a simple list of who the President has appointed to senior positions in the government would make it easier to hold those officials accountable for policy decisions and compliance with ethics and transparency laws,” said House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who requested the report along with Democratic Sens. Gary C. Peters (Mich.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
A list would foster accountability by providing insight into “where the channels of political influence spreads,” said Don Kettl, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas and academic director of its Washington Center. “This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be political influence on key policy decisions — that’s why we have elections. But we surely need to know where those channels flow.”
GAO urged Congress to consider legislation requiring administrations to publish the names of political appointees in the executive branch. To show what Trump thinks of that suggestion, his Executive Office of the President (EOP) ignored a GAO request for comment on its draft report.
- GAO: FEDERAL ETHICS PROGRAMS Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved
Who are all the political appointees in President Trump’s administration?
No one knows because a Government Accountability Office report says that “there is no single source of data on political appointees serving in the executive branch that is publicly available, comprehensive, and timely” for Trump’s and at least the previous two administrations.
Why do we need to know?
“The public has an interest in knowing the political appointees serving and this information would facilitate congressional oversight and hold leaders accountable,” GAO said. “As of March 2019, no agency in the federal government is required to publicly report comprehensive and timely data on political appointees serving in the executive branch.”
GAO issued the report after members of Congress asked the agency how well political appointees are identified and agencies implement their ethics programs. Those questions point to problems on both those fronts in Trump’s administration. He has run through top level appointees at a dizzying pace and came into office doused by an ethical rain that has only grown heavier at the White House and in the agencies.
“Providing a simple list of who the President has appointed to senior positions in the government would make it easier to hold those officials accountable for policy decisions and compliance with ethics and transparency laws,” said House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who requested the report along with Democratic Sens. Gary C. Peters (Mich.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.).
A list would foster accountability by providing insight into “where the channels of political influence spreads,” said Don Kettl, a public affairs professor at the University of Texas and academic director of its Washington Center. “This isn’t to say that there shouldn’t be political influence on key policy decisions — that’s why we have elections. But we surely need to know where those channels flow.”
GAO urged Congress to consider legislation requiring administrations to publish the names of political appointees in the executive branch. To show what Trump thinks of that suggestion, his Executive Office of the President (EOP) ignored a GAO request for comment on its draft report.
- GAO: FEDERAL ETHICS PROGRAMS Government-wide Political Appointee Data and Some Ethics Oversight Procedures at Interior and SBA Could Be Improved
Thursday, May 2, 2019
From Lawfare: Constitutional Hardball and Congress’s Oversight Authority
Key words: Separated Powers, Checks and Balances
- Click here for the article.
Over the past week, the president’s statements and the executive branch’s actions in response to congressional oversight requests suggest that the executive branch may have decided to adopt a strategy of maximal resistance to oversight across the board. If so, this would be a dramatic break from the executive branch’s approach to responding to congressional requests for at least the past half-century. Implementing a strategy designed to stonewall meaningful oversight across the board would also be a form of constitutional hardball that significantly increases the stakes in this contest of will between the branches.
At least since Watergate, if not for longer, the executive branch has recognized the important role congressional oversight plays in the constitutional system and has understood itself to have a constitutional obligation to accommodate legitimate oversight requests from Congress. This long-standing executive branch perspective is embodied in a 1982 memorandum to all agency heads regarding how to respond to congressional requests, often referred to as the Reagan memo. This memorandum, which remains in force, explicitly states that it is executive branch policy “to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch.”
While the Reagan memo recognizes there may be times when it is necessary to withhold information to protect important executive branch confidentiality interests, it emphasizes the expectation that such impasses should be rare and limited to “compelling circumstances.” Instead, the Reagan memo underscores the importance of engaging in a good faith negotiation to accommodate the interests of both branches: “Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.” This process of good faith negotiation has become known as the accommodation process.
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company.
-
- Click here for the article.
Over the past week, the president’s statements and the executive branch’s actions in response to congressional oversight requests suggest that the executive branch may have decided to adopt a strategy of maximal resistance to oversight across the board. If so, this would be a dramatic break from the executive branch’s approach to responding to congressional requests for at least the past half-century. Implementing a strategy designed to stonewall meaningful oversight across the board would also be a form of constitutional hardball that significantly increases the stakes in this contest of will between the branches.
At least since Watergate, if not for longer, the executive branch has recognized the important role congressional oversight plays in the constitutional system and has understood itself to have a constitutional obligation to accommodate legitimate oversight requests from Congress. This long-standing executive branch perspective is embodied in a 1982 memorandum to all agency heads regarding how to respond to congressional requests, often referred to as the Reagan memo. This memorandum, which remains in force, explicitly states that it is executive branch policy “to comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent with the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch.”
While the Reagan memo recognizes there may be times when it is necessary to withhold information to protect important executive branch confidentiality interests, it emphasizes the expectation that such impasses should be rare and limited to “compelling circumstances.” Instead, the Reagan memo underscores the importance of engaging in a good faith negotiation to accommodate the interests of both branches: “Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the Executive Branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the Branches.” This process of good faith negotiation has become known as the accommodation process.
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company.
-
From U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary: Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism
Key Words: House of Representatives, Oversight, Congressional Committees, Hearings. Nationalism
- Click here for the link.
- Click here for the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)