Tag: North Carolina

Linda Hopkins (in hat), Gerard Falls and Kathleen Henry protest for Democratic congressional candidate Dan McCready outside a 9th District forum for Republican candidates on McPherson Church Road in Fayetteville on Monday, April 8, 2019. The latest Meredith College Poll says 56.7 percent of registered voters surveyed agree with this statement: “The two parties do not do an adequate job of representing Americans and a third party is needed.” More details: 56.3 percent of Democrats, 51.3 percent of Republicans and 67.1 percent of unaffiliated voters agree with that. The survey appears to mirror North Carolina voter registration preferences in that second-largest and fastest-growing group of voters in North Carolina are the unaffiliated voters. Those percentages are 37.3 percent, 30.2 percent and 32 percent. Combined, those three parties total less than 1 percent of all voters. 9th District election bits Three protesters appeared at this past Monday’s candidate forum in Fayetteville for the 9th District Republican primary in support of Democratic candidate Dan McCready. Anglin could have tried to gate-crash, but an advisor told The Fayetteville Observer that Anglin isn’t going impose himself on events if he’s not invited. Instead, on April 10, Anglin sent a letter to the acting Republican Party chairperson demanding access to events and materials just as all the other GOP candidates. In a letter to Bishop, which Rushing copied to Facebook, Rushing said the NRA limits use of its logo to official NRA communications. As of Saturday, the NRA’s Political Victory Fund website says it has made no endorsements in 9th District election.

Our Political Fights Are Intense Because We No Longer Agree on the Rules Matthew Walther, writing about Julian Assange in The Week, lists how many Democrats and Republicans changed their minds about Assange depending upon whose secrets he was exposing and concludes: [if Assange exposes Trump’s secrets], we can expect to see both sides revert once more to their circa 2010 defaults. One of the reasons our politics is so contentious and angry is that we can’t agree on what the rules are. But a vocal chunk of Americans don’t really care about what the policies are; they would much rather argue that their side is right. For many people, it depends upon the partisan status of the person accused. For many Americans, when the side they like uses heated rhetoric, it’s speaking truth to power. Is the desire to make more money inherently greedy? For years, the mantra of Bernie Sanders was that the wealthy were driven by an intensely selfish desire: “How many yachts do billionaires need? Boy, Joe Biden’s efforts in the fight about forced busing and desegregation sure are getting a lot of attention these days, aren’t they? At the time, the motivation for spotlighting the teens was clear: to disagree with their often-heated and sometimes factually wrong assertions about gun violence amounted to “attacking children” in the eyes of their pro-gun control allies. Say, who’s the president married to again?

Raleigh, N.C. — Federal investigators from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina announced indictments this past week that outlined allegations of fraud and bribery against the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, a wealthy Durham businessman and two of his associates, one of them a chairman of the Chatham County Republican Party. While that investigation continues, so does a separate probe underway by investigators in the Eastern District of North Carolina into election improprieties in the 9th Congressional District. Five people have been indicted in that investigation, and more indictments are expected. That case involves election fraud, and one of the people indicted was running an absentee-ballot operation for Republican candidate Mark Harris. In the new case, Durham businessman Greg Lindberg is accused of trying to bribe Republican Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey to gain favorable treatment for one of his hundreds of insurance companies. Causey, however, had reported the overtures to the FBI and, according to the indictment, began assisting the FBI in its investigation. In the last three years, Lindberg has become the largest single political donor in North Carolina. Most of his contributions have gone to Republicans, but he also supported Causey's predecessor, Democrat Wayne Goodwin, who is now chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party. In a Sunday Special edition of TheWrap@NCCapitol, WRAL's Laura Leslie, Travis Fain and Cullen Browder take an in-depth look at the latest scandal to rock North Carolina politics.

Federal prosecutors have charged Hayes, chairman of the state’s Republican party, and three others, including big donor Greg Lindberg, founder and chairman of Eli Global, in connection with an effort to bribe the state insurance commissioner with campaign donations, according to a federal indictment unsealed Tuesday. Also watch: Lindsey Graham calls for a special counsel investigation on ‘the other side of the story’ following Mueller report spaceplay / pause qunload | stop ffullscreen ??volume mmute ??seek . seek to previous 12… 6 seek to 10%, 20% … 60% Adding intrigue on Capitol Hill, the indictment references a “Public Official A,” who allegedly met with those charged. The indictment offers a clue about that official’s identity, saying that on or about Feb. 5, 2018, Lindberg made a $150,000 contribution to a political committee supporting Public Official A. Lindberg made a $150,000 donation, dated Feb. 17, 2018, to the Mark Walker Victory Committee, a joint fundraising committee, according to Federal Election Commission records. State campaign finance donation records do not show any $150,000 donations from Lindberg in the first quarter of 2018. Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox The indictment also named Lindberg and two of his business associates, John Gray and John Palermo Jr. Lindberg has been under federal investigation for alleged financial crimes and for his contributions to North Carolina politicians. According to the filing, the four offered campaign donations in exchange for “specific official action favorable to GBIG, including the removal of the Senior Deputy Commissioner of the NCDOI responsible for overseeing the regulation.” The indictment also says that on or about Feb. 7, 2018, Public Official A called a state insurance commissioner “to explain that LINDBERG was doing good things for North Carolina business.” The indictment added that on Feb. 12, 2018, Palermo sent an email to Lindberg and Gray, “stating, ‘Just between the 3 of us. I was also told that the $150K will be going to [Public Official A].’” The indictment further alleges that Palermo reported having lunch with Public Official A in July 2018 and that he “took the opportunity to talk to him about our issue” with the North Carolina Department of Insurance, adding that he expected Public Official A to reach out to the commissioner over the weekend. Anne Tompkins, an attorney for Lindberg, said her client was “innocent of the charges in the indictment.” “We look forward to demonstrating this when we get our day in court,” she said in an emailed statement.

By A federal grand jury has indicted North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes and a major GOP campaign donor on conspiracy and bribery charges for their attempts to influence N.C. Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey. That was in 2017, according to the indictment. In August 2017, the indictment says Hayes texted Causey and suggested “I think u should consider a face to face (with Lindberg).” In November 2017, Gray told Causey that Lindberg had contributed $500,000 to the NC GOP and earmarked $110,000 for Causey’s campaign, according to the indictment. Lindberg and Gray suggested that Causey hire Palermo to replace or supervise the senior deputy commissioner, the indictment says In a March 5 meeting in Statesville, Causey confirmed his ability to hire Palermo. During that meeting, Lindberg told Causey that he’d support him with up to $2 million in campaign contributions, according to the indictment. Palermo then quoted “Public Official A,” saying that Causey “needs to man-up and do what he agreed to.” The indictment says the public official then contacted Causey and said Lindberg, Gray and Palermo “seemed anxious to find out” if Causey had made staffing changes. The indictment says FBI agents interviewed Hayes in August 2018 and specifically asked whether Hayes was aware of “expectations” Lindberg might have had for a $500,000 donation he made to the party. “Thanks to the voluntary reporting of the North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance, we have uncovered an alleged scheme to violate our federal public corruption laws,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Murray said in a news release Tuesday. We will work with our law enforcement partners to investigate allegations of public corruption, safeguard the integrity of the democratic process, and prosecute those who compromise it.” Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski referred to the group’s alleged actions as “a brazen bribery scheme in which Greg Lindberg and his coconspirators allegedly offered hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in exchange for official action that would benefit Lindberg’s business interests.” Lindberg donations Lindberg was the biggest political donor in North Carolina over the last few years, the News & Observer has previously reported. Bob Hall, the former head of government watchdog group Democracy NC, told the News & Observer he has identified roughly $5.5 million in political contributions from Lindberg to North Carolina politicians, political parties and Super PACs since 2016, and another $500,000 from Lindberg’s businesses and employees.

They're all accused of trying to bribe state Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey, who got in touch with federal investigators and recorded conversations quoted in the indictment. Lindberg has given more than $5 million to North Carolina political campaigns over the last few years, including more than $1.49 million to the state Republican Party. The state party turned around and gave $250,000 of that to Causey's campaign, and the indictment alleges this was an attempt to get around state political giving rules, which allow unlimited donations to parties but cap individual campaign donations at $5,400. The day after Causey agreed to switch out regulators at the department as Lindberg had requested, Hayes emailed the state party's treasurer requesting an initial wire transfer to Causey's campaign, the indictment states. The indictment also references an unidentified "Public Official A" that Gray and Lindberg discussed via text message and who called Causey to "explain that Lindberg was doing good things for North Carolina business" two days after Lindberg made a $150,000 contribution on Feb. 5, 2018, to a committee supporting the official. Dan Forest's largest donor, having given more than $2 million to political committees supporting him. Before the meeting, Gray allegedly told Causey that he and Lindberg would enter through a different door "so that nobody would see them together." Gray allegedly told Causey that, if the deputy commissioner causing Lindberg problems wasn't fired, he should "set it so that ... she doesn't breathe a word outside that office, or send a slip of paper outside that office, that is not reviewed first by John (Palermo)," the indictment states. The DOJ's Public Integrity Section and U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte are prosecuting the case. "The party has been cooperating with the investigation for several months, including staff members providing statements and responding to various document requests," Howard said in the statement.

Roy Cooper, a Democrat, and Maryland Gov. Under the current system, politicians devise maps that make some votes count more than others. Our states — Maryland and North Carolina — are among the most gerrymandered in the country. Take a look at our congressional district maps, and you will see some absurd-looking districts. It makes them more beholden to the party leaders who draw the boundaries than to the voters who live within them. In Maryland, Democrats contrived a congressional district map to distribute liberal voters from Baltimore and the Washington metro area far across the state. In North Carolina, one Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly actually told fellow legislators in 2016: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.” Later that year, Republicans won those 10 seats — 77 percent of the congressional delegation — despite winning just 53 percent of the statewide vote. Leaders in both parties would be wise to listen to and work with the people they represent to strengthen our democracy. Both of us support reform efforts in our states that would take a nonpartisan approach to redistricting. Citizens should choose their elected officials, not the other way around.

Good Tuesday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today. _____________________ • President Trump and his Republican allies vowed to pursue and even punish those responsible for the Russia investigation now that the special counsel’s inquiry has concluded without implicating him. Mr. Trump said some of them had done “treasonous” things. • The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, reached no conclusion about whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice — it was Attorney General William P. Barr who cleared him of that offense. Democrats seized on that, portraying Mr. Barr’s decision as a hasty, dubious intervention on behalf of the president who installed him. • The tight-lipped Mr. Mueller is poised to return to civilian life, still a figure of mystery and fascination. • The outcome of the special counsel’s inquiry means the 2020 race is likely to revolve around Mr. Trump’s performance in office, not how he won in the first place. • Democrats won control of the House largely by arguing that Congress needs to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions and lower the cost of health care. Today, Democratic leaders are set to unveil an incremental approach to fulfilling those promises.

If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in … partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

The Constitution makes clear that legislative redistricting is a matter for the states and Congress, not the courts, to sort out. If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The practice the court will consider is (adjective one) “partisan gerrymandering.” This modifier, however, does not modify; there is no other kind of gerrymandering. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) Furthermore, the political realists who framed the Constitution, and who understood the pervasiveness of partisanship, added the following to the elections clause quoted above: Congress may “at any time by law make or alter such regulations” as the states might write regarding congressional elections. So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. And the political-science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in . The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’s exclusive power to modify these practices.