Appointments and Executive Changes

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Anwar Ibrahim Is Prime Minister of Malaysia, After a Wait of Decades

      by

      Anwar Ibrahim, whose career has also included a stint as deputy prime minister and two jail terms, said he had the alliances to command a “convincing majority” in Parliament.After days of political chaos, Malaysia has a new prime minister, its fifth in less than five years.The country is now relying on a veteran politician to bring back political stability while leading a polarized electorate — split between one faction that sees itself as modern and multicultural, and another that is driven by a conservative Muslim base — into the post-pandemic world.This is the task ahead for Anwar Ibrahim, 75, whom the king appointed prime minister on Thursday. It was the culmination of a stunning comeback for Mr. Anwar, whose career has included a stint as deputy prime minister, two jail terms that were considered politically motivated, and, finally, the role of longtime opposition leader.When Mr. Anwar arrived to a news conference late on Thursday night, his supporters chanted, “Reformasi,” or “Reform,” echoing his battle cry after he was ousted from government more than two decades ago.Mr. Anwar made light of his long, winding journey to power, telling reporters that his grandson had asked him how long he had to wait for his oath-taking ceremony.“I said: ‘Not too long, only 24 years,’” Mr. Anwar said, smiling.His appointment ended, at least for now, a crisis that has engulfed Malaysia for almost a week: Saturday’s national elections, the first since 2018, led to Malaysia’s first ever hung Parliament, with none of the three main competing groups winning a majority of the 222 seats.Mr. Anwar told reporters that he now had a “convincing majority” with his multiethnic coalition, Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope), Barisan Nasional — the incumbent coalition that includes Mr. Anwar’s former party, the United Malays National Organization — and the Sarawak Parties Alliance.Former Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, the head of Perikatan Nasional (National Alliance), said that he would not accept Mr. Anwar’s appointment, arguing that he himself had 115 votes in Parliament. Mr. Anwar said it was “not necessary” for Mr. Muhiyiddin to dispute his appointment but added that he was still open to talks.“It is a challenge because no one in Malaysian history has come in with this divided a mandate, in this context,” said Bridget Welsh, an honorary research associate with the University of Nottingham Asia Research Institute Malaysia.Muhyiddin Yassin, the leader of Perikatan Nasional, campaigning earlier this month.Hasnoor Hussain/ReutersMr. Anwar’s group had led Saturday’s election with 82 seats. In second place was Perikatan, whose success came largely because of one coalition member, the Malaysian Islamic Party, a conservative party that has called for theocratic Islamic rule in Malaysia. PAS, as the party is known, won 49 seats on its own.Barisan Nasional was far behind, with 30. The election was seen as a final rebuke to UMNO, which has long been enmeshed in corruption allegations. Mr. Anwar had actively campaigned on the public’s desire for change from UMNO, vowing that he “will not bring with him the corrupt and greedy cultures which we had before.”The final decision came down to the king, Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah. Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy, and the king has the prerogative to name the prime minister in the event of an inconclusive election.For five days, the coalitions had been locked in various closed-door negotiations, and the king and the rulers of the Malay states met on Thursday to resolve the crisis.“The fact is, people cannot be burdened by endless political turmoil when what the country needs is a stable government that is able to stimulate the economic landscape and development of the country,” the palace said in a statement.Mr. Anwar’s supporters in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday. Mr. Anwar’s coalition, Pakatan Harapan, led last Saturday’s election but fell short of a parliamentary majority.Fazry Ismail/EPA, via ShutterstockMr. Anwar, who was sworn in Thursday evening, rose to political prominence when he was part of the Malay nationalist UMNO, which has prioritized the indigenous Malay population over the country’s minorities. But after a falling out with the party, Mr. Anwar has called for equal treatment of its minorities, mainly ethnic Chinese and Indian.“Being a minority here, I feel like this is the one sliver of hope that we have left,” said Mahaysyhaa Shriedhaa A/P Gopal, a Malaysian of Indian descent, after she voted for Pakatan Harapan. “Reform is the most immediate hope for now.”Urbane and charismatic, Mr. Anwar speaks often about the importance of democracy and quotes from Gandhi as well as the Quran.“The thing about Anwar is that he is a man of many faces,” said Tunku Mohar bin Tunku Mohd Mokhtar, an assistant professor of politics at the International Islamic University Malaysia. “He is viewed as liberal but at the same time, he is also considered to be religious. But his brand of Islam is much more progressive and accommodative, so he is more popular among the urban Malays compared to the rural ones.”For years, Mr. Anwar was the heir apparent for Mahathir Mohamad, the long time leader of UMNO and Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister. But in the late 1990s, the relationship between Mr. Anwar and Mr. Mahathir deteriorated after Mr. Anwar criticized what he saw as a culture of cronyism within UMNO. Later, both men differed over the handling of the Asian financial crisis, with Mr. Anwar favoring a free-market approach and no bailouts, while Mr. Mahathir blamed the financier George Soros for the currency crisis.Mr. Anwar addressing supporters at a rally in Kuala Lumpur in 1998, after he was fired from the cabinet, and before being sentenced to prison.Fiona Hanson/PA Images, via Getty ImagesIn 1998, Mr. Anwar was fired from the Cabinet. He started a protest movement called Reformasi (Reform) that called for the end of corruption and greater social justice. That year, he was charged with sodomy. Many Malaysians were stunned when he turned up with a black eye in court after he was roughed up by a police chief. Later, he was sentenced to nine years in prison. Amnesty International called Mr. Anwar a prisoner of conscience, detained “for holding different opinions to the prime minister,” Mr. Mahathir.After his release from prison, Mr. Anwar taught abroad before returning home to run for office again. He won a by-election, trouncing UMNO, and was again arrested that year over sodomy charges, which he denies. In 2014, Mr. Anwar was sentenced to five years in jail, a conviction that was widely seen by human rights groups as politically motivated.But miraculously, Mr. Anwar was back in the orbit of the prime minister’s job in a few years. He had made up with Mr. Mahathir, his former mentor, who had come out of retirement to join the opposition. They successfully ousted the incumbent UMNO government, which was led by Najib Razak, but had another falling out over succession plans.Now, Mr. Anwar is finally in the seat he has long sought.“Many Malaysians are invested in his struggles and his family’s struggles,” said Rabi’ah binti Aminudin, an assistant professor in political science at the International Islamic University Malaysia. “They finally see it like a dream come true.”A polling station in Kuala Lumpur earlier this month. As prime minister, Mr. Anwar would have to unite a polarized country.Annice Lyn/Getty ImagesBut Mr. Anwar also will have to contend with a more religiously conservative bloc of the electorate, which sees him as too liberal.Take, for instance, PAS, the Islamic party that won the largest number of seats in Parliament. The party’s leader, Abdul Hadi Awang, wants the secular Constitution to be interpreted from an “Islamic context.” He has called for the implementation of harsh Islamic laws called “hudud” that allow for punishments including amputation, caning, and stoning to death.Mr. Anwar took pains to remind the public that he would continue to uphold constitutional guarantees regarding the Malay language, Islam and the special rights of the “sons of the soil,” referring to the Malays and indigenous people.But he added that no Malaysian, regardless of race or religion, “should be left to feel that they are ignored in any way.” “None should be marginalized under my administration,” Mr. Anwar said.Liani MK More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa Wins a Crucial A.N.C. Battle

      by

      President Cyril Ramaphosa emerged well-placed to win a second term as the head of the country’s governing party, although there is much haggling and horse-trading to come.JOHANNESBURG — President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, whose presidency has been upended by claims that he tried to cover up the theft of a huge sum of cash at his farm, emerged well-placed to win a second term as leader of the governing African National Congress, and president of the country, after nominations by his party’s rank and file were released on Tuesday.The A.N.C. revealed that 3,543 branches across the country had submitted nominations for leadership positions that will be contested during a national party conference that begins on Dec. 16 in Johannesburg.At the gathering, held every five years, members choose the A.N.C.’s top officials, including their president, who typically serves as the country’s president. National elections are set for 2024, and the A.N.C. has won an outright majority of votes in every national contest since South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994.Mr. Ramaphosa won nominations from 2,037 branches, more than double that of his closest challenger, Zweli Mkhize, who served as health minister under the president. But analysts cautioned not to make too much of the results because the contest could change drastically by the time the conference begins.Delegates, who vote by secret ballot, are under no obligation to stick with the nominations of their branches. A lot of horse-trading and haggling over votes occur between the time that nominations are released and when delegates step to the ballot box, analysts said.Dr. Mkhize said in an interview after the nominations were announced that he was still confident he would prevail next month. He said he had heard from supporters throughout the country who planned to vote for him at conference but said they did not nominate him in their branches because they feared repercussions from the party’s current leadership.“We expected this pattern,” he said. “That’s why it’s important for us to look forward to a secret ballot. Our sense at the moment is that we’ve still got very good support.”Among the names nominated for the governing party’s leadership, known as the “top six,” were several of Mr. Ramaphosa’s allies, a reflection of his political strength and the continued role of factional politics and bitter infighting, analysts said.The nominations also show a party that is falling short of its own so-called renewal agenda, said Hlengiwe Ndlovu, a senior lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand. Only two women have been nominated for a leadership position, and they will be competing for the same spot. Younger leaders also struggled to gain traction.“How do you renew without centering women and the youth?” Dr. Ndlovu said.Jacob Zuma, the former president who has tried to re-enter the political scene after serving a 15-month sentence for failing to cooperate with a corruption inquiry, did not secure enough nominations to run for the national chairman of the A.N.C. He is still in legal jeopardy. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who was vying to become the party’s first female president, also did not get enough nominations to automatically qualify for the ballot.Members can still enter the contest if they get nominations from 25 percent of delegates at the conference.The nominations are an early positive sign for Mr. Ramaphosa, who has been under intense scrutiny since a former intelligence chief and political rival filed a police complaint claiming that in February 2020, $4 million to $8 million in U.S. currency stashed in furniture had been stolen from Mr. Ramaphosa’s game farm, Phala Phala Wildlife.The former spy chief, Arthur Fraser, laid out scandalous accusations, including that Mr. Ramaphosa had never reported the theft to the police, instead relying on an off-the-books investigation by the head of the presidential protection unit to look into the theft.The president’s opponents within his own party have called on him to step down, accusing him of trying to cover up the theft to shield himself from accusations of money laundering and tax fraud associated with having that much foreign currency hidden at his farm.A panel appointed by Parliament is scheduled to reach a decision by the end of this month on whether Mr. Ramaphosa should face an impeachment inquiry. Since transitioning to a democracy, South Africa has never had a president face impeachment. The national prosecutor’s office and the public protector, an anticorruption watchdog, have also begun their own investigations.Mr. Ramaphosa, who has denied any wrongdoing, has argued that the investigative process must play out.During a recent meeting of A.N.C. executives, he offered a few more details about the theft. He said that about $500,000 in proceeds from the sale of game had been stolen and he named the businessman who he said was the buyer, according to South African news articles.The president’s statement did little to quell the venom he faced, local news outlets reported, saying that a leaked draft of a report by the A.N.C.’s integrity commission suggested that the scandal had brought disrepute to the party.The tense leadership battle within the A.N.C., Africa’s oldest liberation movement — and the scrutiny Mr. Ramaphosa faces over the theft — comes as the party faces a crossroads. Much of the country has become fed up with the constant drumbeat of corruption accusations against party officials. Entrenched poverty and poor delivery of services like electricity and water have caused daily hardships for many. This has all led the party’s electoral support to plummet.During last year’s local government elections, the A.N.C. failed to garner at least 50 percent of the national vote for the first time since the country’s transition from apartheid to democratic rule. Many analysts predict that the party will fall short of 50 percent during the next national elections, meaning that it will have to form a coalition with other parties to remain in power.The leadership that emerges out of next month’s A.N.C. conference “will be quite critical as a turning point of the demise of the A.N.C.,” said Mmamoloko Kubayi, a member of the party’s executive committee and a supporter of Mr. Ramaphosa. “Society will see whether the A.N.C. is serious about turning around, whether the A.N.C. is serious about showing that it has listened.”For much of his four years in power Mr. Ramaphosa had appeared to be coasting toward winning a second term. But the scandal, called Farmgate by news outlets, may threaten that.He came to power as A.N.C. leader in 2017 as an anticorruption crusader, later replacing Mr. Zuma, whose nine years in office were marred by numerous accusations that he had allowed people close to him to enrich themselves by robbing state coffers.In the wake of Mr. Zuma’s tenure, Mr. Ramaphosa championed a contentious A.N.C. rule that required party officials to be suspended from their positions if they were criminally charged in a court of law.Now, Mr. Ramaphosa could find himself facing that same rule.Lynsey Chutel More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Liz Truss Resigns After 6 Chaotic Weeks, Igniting New Leadership Fight

      by

      LONDON — Prime Minister Liz Truss of Britain announced her resignation on Thursday, bringing a swift end to a six-week stint in office that began with a radical experiment in trickle-down economics and descended into financial and political chaos, as most of those policies were reversed.With her tax-cutting agenda in tatters, her Conservative Party’s lawmakers in revolt and her government in the hands of people who did not support either her or her policies, Ms. Truss, 47, concluded that she could no longer govern. She departs as the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.“Given the situation, I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party,” a grim Ms. Truss said, standing on the rain-slicked pavement outside 10 Downing Street, where only 44 days ago she greeted the public as Britain’s new leader.Ms. Truss said she would remain in office until the party chooses a successor, by the end of next week. That sets off an extraordinarily compressed, unpredictable scramble to replace her in a party that is both demoralized and deeply divided. Among the likely candidates is Boris Johnson, the flamboyant previous prime minister she replaced after he was forced out in a string of scandals.Only a day after declaring in Parliament, “I’m a fighter, not a quitter,” Ms. Truss bowed out after a hastily scheduled meeting on Thursday with party elders, including Graham Brady, the head of a group of Conservative lawmakers that plays an influential role in selecting the party leader.Graham Brady, leader of an influential group of Conservative lawmakers, following the resignation of Liz Truss as Prime Minister.Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesIt was the most shocking jolt in a week of seismic developments that included the ouster of Ms. Truss’s chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng; the bitter departure of the home secretary, Suella Braverman; and a near melee in Parliament on Wednesday night, as cabinet ministers tried to force unruly Tory lawmakers to back the prime minister in a vote on whether to ban hydraulic fracking.The spectacle dramatized how Ms. Truss — only the third female prime minister, after Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May — had lost control of her party and government.By then, though, her mandate had already been shredded: her proposals for sweeping, unfunded tax cuts rattled financial markets because of fears they would blow a hole in Britain’s finances.That sent the pound into a tailspin that left it briefly near parity with the dollar, forced the Bank of England to intervene in bond markets to stave off the collapse of pension funds and sent mortgage interest rates soaring.The resulting chaos has left Britons frustrated and jaded, with many convinced the country is spinning out of control.“We are in an economic crisis, a political crisis, a food crisis — an everything crisis,” said Cristian Cretu, a gas engineer on a break from work. “Whoever is going to replace her, I don’t think they will make a difference.”The opposition Labour Party called for an immediate general election. But under British law, the Conservatives are not required to call one until January 2025.If enough Conservative lawmakers joined with the opposition, they could force an election, but with the party’s support collapsing in opinion polls, it is in their interests to delay any encounter with the voters. British political convention also allows them to change party leaders — and therefore the prime minister — using their own flexible rule book.Boris Johnson, the former prime minister who left office amid scandal only last month, is said to be considering a new run for the top job. Henry Nicholls/ReutersMs. Truss’s position was already shaky on Monday, when her newly appointed chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, announced that the government would undo the last vestiges of her tax proposals. As Mr. Hunt presented details of the reworked fiscal plan in Parliament, a silent Ms. Truss sat behind, a faraway smile on her face.For Britain, it is another chapter in the political convulsions that followed its vote to leave the European Union in 2016. The country will soon have its fifth prime minister in six years. Ms. Truss is the third consecutive leader to be deposed by the Conservative Party, also known as the Tory Party, which now appears to have devolved into warring factions and has fallen as many as 33 percentage points behind the opposition Labour Party in polls.The political upheaval also comes only a month after Britain buried Queen Elizabeth II, who reigned for seven decades and acted as an anchor for the country. Among the queen’s last official duties was greeting Ms. Truss at Balmoral Castle after she had won the party leadership contest. On Thursday, Ms. Truss said she had informed King Charles III of her decision to step down.The Conservatives announced rules for the new leadership contest, including a minimum threshold of 100 nominations from lawmakers, which will limit the number of candidates to a maximum of three.From a shortlist of two, selected by lawmakers, Conservative Party members will then vote online to choose the victor, with the goal of avoiding the prolonged, multistage campaign last summer that resulted in Ms. Truss. In fact, the contest might not get that far: if only one candidate passes the threshold of 100 nominations, or if the second-place contender drops out, there will be a decision on Monday.“In recent leadership contests, they have chosen someone who is manifestly unsuitable for the job,” said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. “It is unlikely anyone can rescue them electorally, but there are people who can walk into No. 10 and do the job of prime minister intellectually, emotionally and practically.”Still, the convulsions of recent days have exposed how divided the Conservative Party is, after 12 exhausting years in power, and how difficult it will be for Ms. Truss’s successor to unite it.Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer who lost out to Ms. Truss in this summer’s leadership contest, is considered a strong candidate to succeed her.Andy Buchanan/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRishi Sunak, a former chancellor who ran against Ms. Truss last summer and warned that her proposals would produce chaos, should be in the pole position, having led the Treasury and performed well under pressure in the leadership campaign. But he lost that contest largely because many party members blamed him for bringing down Mr. Johnson, from whose cabinet he resigned.“The obvious candidate is Rishi Sunak,” Professor Bale said. “The question is whether they can forgive him. The situation is now so extreme that people might be prepared to forgive him his supposed sins.”That is far from clear, however, because Mr. Sunak is also distrusted on the right of the party and among hard-core Brexit supporters in Parliament. His leadership would be hard to stomach for some who opposed him, including the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who once refused to deny reports that he had described Mr. Sunak’s policies, which included tax increases, as “socialist.”Supporters of Mr. Johnson, who is reported to be considering a run at his old job, argue that because of his landslide election victory in 2019, he has a mandate to lead without holding another general election. Under the hashtag #bringbackboris, one of his supporters, James Duddridge, wrote on Twitter: “I hope you enjoyed your holiday boss. Time to come back. Few issues at the office that need addressing.”But restoring him would be highly risky, given the circumstances of his forced resignation in July and the fact that he remains a polarizing figure among voters. Mr. Johnson is also being investigated by a parliamentary committee over whether he misled the House of Commons about parties held in Downing Street that broke pandemic rules.Even if Mr. Johnson is exonerated, it will remind Britons of the serial scandals that led lawmakers to oust him. And the committee could recommend Mr. Johnson’s expulsion or suspension from Parliament — a sanction that might mean his constituents get a vote on whether to kick him out of Parliament altogether.The party’s ideological divisions were laid bare by Ms. Braverman in a blistering letter written after she was fired, ostensibly for breaching security regulations in sending a government document on her personal email. She accused Ms. Truss of backtracking on promises and going soft on immigration.While the government has reversed Ms. Truss’s tax cuts, the economy is still suffering from inflationary pressures that sent food prices soaring by 14 percent last month.Sam Bush for The New York TimesMs. Braverman’s parting shot illustrated the resistance from people on the right to what they see as the growing influence of Mr. Hunt, a moderate who voted against Brexit and was a supporter and ally of Mr. Sunak. Mr. Hunt, who has run twice for party leader, said he would not be a candidate this time.Were the Conservatives to allow Downing Street to fall into the hands of another untested candidate, outside the mainstream, like Ms. Braverman or perhaps Kemi Badenoch, who currently serves as the secretary of international trade, there could be renewed instability in the financial markets.Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the House of Commons who finished third in the contest last summer, appears well placed to straddle the divide. She is a good communicator, but is untested at the top level of government.Another option might be a candidate with little ideological baggage, like Ben Wallace, the defense secretary, or Grant Shapps, the new home secretary. But Mr. Wallace decided against running earlier this year, saying he did not want the job enough. Mr. Shapps concluded that he did not have the support to win.Whoever is chosen will inherit a forbidding array of problems, from 10.1 percent inflation and soaring energy prices to labor unrest and the specter of a deep recession. The new leader will have to make cuts to government spending that are likely to be resisted by different coalitions of Conservative lawmakers.On Monday, Mr. Hunt said the government would end its huge state intervention to cap energy prices in April, replacing it with a still-undefined program that he said would promote energy efficiency. That could prove unpopular, increasing uncertainty for households facing rising gas and electricity prices.While the government has abandoned Ms. Truss’s tax cuts — in one of the most striking policy reversals in modern British history — the chaos her program unleashed in the markets has left lingering damage. The rise in interest rates has made borrowing more expensive for the government, economists said, which will produce pressure for even deeper spending cuts.Despite the Conservative Party’s internal feuds, Professor Bale said he believed it was not inherently ungovernable, so long as it makes the right choice. As recent history has shown, the stakes for the party are extremely high.“The Conservative Party is an incredibly leadership-dominated party,” he said, “which means that if you get the choice of leader wrong, you’re in serious trouble.”Euan Ward More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk’s Twitter Will Be a Wild Ride

      by

      His deal to buy the company is back on. Here are six predictions about Twitter under Musk’s control, if it happens.Buckle up.Elon Musk, who for months has been strenuously trying to back out of a deal to buy Twitter for $44 billion, now appears ready to buy the company after all. In a surprise letter to Twitter on Monday night, Mr. Musk offered to take Twitter private at his originally proposed price — $54.20 per share — marking a possible end to one of the most dramatic legal feuds in Silicon Valley history.It’s worth noting that the deal could still fall apart — Mr. Musk is famously subject to 11th-hour mood shifts — but the most likely outcome now is that the world’s richest man will in fact become Twitter’s new owner, possibly as soon as this week.Much is unknown about what Mr. Musk will do with Twitter if he acquires it. The mercurial billionaire has made only the vaguest of public statements about his plans for the company and its products.But we now know, thanks in part to a bevy of text messages released as part of the protracted legal battle, that it will be nothing like business as usual. And there are at least six predictions I feel confident making, if the deal does in fact close.He’s going to clean house, starting with firing Twitter’s chief executive, Parag Agrawal.A juicy set of text messages between Mr. Musk and his friends and business associates emerged last week, as part of the legal battle. In them, Mr. Musk made clear that he was unhappy with Twitter’s current leadership — in particular with Parag Agrawal, the chief executive, who took over last year from Jack Dorsey.The texts revealed that Mr. Agrawal had initially sought to work constructively with Mr. Musk, and that the two even had a friendly dinner near San Jose, Calif., in March. But the men eventually clashed. Mr. Agrawal, at one point, told Mr. Musk via text message that his habit of tweeting things like “Is Twitter dying?” was “not helping me make Twitter better.”“What did you get done this week?” Mr. Musk shot back. “This is a waste of time.”From reading Mr. Musk’s texts, it’s clear he believes that Twitter’s leadership is weak and ineffective, and lacks the ability to carry out his vision for the company. If Mr. Agrawal doesn’t immediately resign once the deal is complete, I’d expect Mr. Musk to fire him on Day 1 and name himself or a close ally as a replacement.Mr. Musk has also expressed displeasure with other Twitter executives, and it’s hard to see how he could fire Mr. Agrawal without also clearing out most or all of the company’s top leadership and installing his own slate of loyalists.Parag Agrawal, the chief executive of Twitter, may be at risk of losing his job if Mr. Musk takes control of the company.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesEmployees will revolt.Another easy prediction to make about Mr. Musk’s takeover is that it will generate enormous backlash among Twitter’s rank-and-file employees.Twitter, more so than other social media platforms, has a vocally progressive work force and many employees who are deeply invested in the company’s mission of promoting “healthy conversation.” Those employees may believe — for good reason! — that under Mr. Musk’s leadership, Twitter will abandon many of the projects they care about in areas like trust and safety. Or they may simply not want to deal with the drama and tumult of a Musk regime, and start looking for jobs elsewhere.What Happened to Elon Musk’s Twitter DealCard 1 of 9A blockbuster deal. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Gov. Kathy Hochul Seeks Donations From Cuomo Appointees

      by

      Gov. Kathy Hochul’s campaign says contributions from board and commission members and their families are fair game because she did not appoint them.ALBANY, N.Y. — On the road to building one of the largest campaign war chests the state of New York has ever seen, Gov. Kathy Hochul has been taking money from appointees of the governor — despite an executive order designed to prevent it.In her first year in office, Ms. Hochul has accepted more than $400,000 from appointees on boards from Buffalo to Battery Park City as well as the appointees’ spouses, a New York Times analysis of campaign finance data has found.The fund-raising has occurred despite the longstanding executive order — reissued by Ms. Hochul on her first day in office — that prohibits such transactions in order to avoid even the appearance of rewarding donors with jobs in exchange for contributions.Ms. Hochul’s campaign said it was appropriate to accept the contributions because they came from people appointed by her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo. The argument underscored a loophole in the ethics order that would seem to allow one governor to accept money from another governor’s board and commission appointees. In some cases, Ms. Hochul received donations from people Mr. Cuomo had appointed and then gave them new appointments.A spokesman for Ms. Hochul’s campaign, Jerrel Harvey, said that Ms. Hochul had not accepted money from people she appointed and emphasized that all of her fund-raising had been aboveboard.“We’ve been clear from the beginning of Governor Hochul’s term that people who are appointed by her are prevented from donating once they are appointed,” Mr. Harvey said. “We have followed that straightforward standard consistently and strictly.”But legal experts and good government advocates have called Ms. Hochul’s reasoning into question.“It’s a silly argument to say if I appointed you then you can’t contribute to me, but if my predecessor appointed you, then I can hit you up for donations,” said Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham University Law School and a former member of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. “Going forward, presumably, they’re both going to want to be reappointed.”Ms. Hochul has already raised some $35 million and set a goal of raising as much as twice that amount ahead of the general election in November. Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesThe donations that Ms. Hochul accepted from appointees represent just a small portion of her campaign’s huge haul ahead of the election in November. She has already raised some $35 million and set a goal of raising as much as twice that amount, people familiar with her plans said. Doing so would put the 2022 governor’s race at or near the most expensive in state history.Ms. Hochul, a Democrat who was sworn in as governor after Mr. Cuomo resigned amid a scandal last year, easily defeated two primary rivals this summer and is heavily favored to win against Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican, in the fall.Although she has promised a clean break from the ways of her predecessor, Ms. Hochul’s willingness to raise money from appointees runs counter to that pledge. Mr. Cuomo was known for taking a hawkish approach to soliciting donations from the people he appointed, raising ethics concerns.Ms. Hochul’s campaign has not shrunk from accepting donations from Mr. Cuomo’s appointees, receiving more than $250,000 from them, records show.She got more than $56,000 from the real estate developer Don Capoccia, whom Mr. Cuomo appointed to the Battery Park City Authority in 2011 and who did not respond to requests for comment.She accepted more than $90,000 between October and May from a trial lawyer, Joe Belluck, who was chosen by Mr. Cuomo for two statewide panels, and his wife. Ms. Hochul appointed Mr. Belluck to the state’s new Cannabis Advisory Board in June.Mr. Belluck scoffed at the notion of any impropriety in his donation.“I receive no remuneration and do no business with the state, period,” he said. “I have no private interests related to these positions. I donate to Governor Hochul because I support her policies and admire her leadership, and I am honored to serve.”Ms. Hochul also received $45,200 from John Ernst, an heir to the Bloomingdale’s fortune, whom Mr. Cuomo appointed to the Adirondack Park Agency board in 2016, and Mr. Ernst’s wife. Less than three weeks after receiving those donations, she reappointed Mr. Ernst to the park agency’s board and made him chairman.Mr. Ernst said he initially turned down Ms. Hochul’s offer of the chairmanship, which comes with a $30,000 annual salary, and emphatically denied any connection between his donating and being appointed to the position.“If I had thought it was a conflict, I wouldn’t have done it — wouldn’t have made a contribution,” he said. “I did it independently as a citizen because I believed in Kathy Hochul.”A spokeswoman for the governor’s office, Julie Wood, said Ms. Hochul has applied the ethics order far more “broadly and strictly” than Mr. Cuomo did, saying his administration “violated their own rules.”“Governor Hochul holds herself to a higher ethical standard,” Ms. Wood said.Ms. Hochul has also accepted contributions and then appointed the donors to state boards and commissions. She received $3,000 from Robert Simpson, the chief executive of a Syracuse nonprofit that promotes economic development, in two donations and named him to the board of Empire State Development, New York’s economic development agency, less than a month after the second one.A spokeswoman for Mr. Simpson said that after he assumed the post he adopted policies to limit conflicts of interest and pledged to no longer contribute to or raise money for Ms. Hochul.Ms. Hochul accepted more than $7,800 from Janice Shorenstein, the mother of Ms. Hochul’s former transition director, Marissa Shorenstein, and Janice Shorenstein threw a fund-raiser for the governor in May. Marissa Shorenstein, who attended the event, was confirmed to the New York State Gaming Commission about two weeks later. Ms. Shorenstein and her mother did not respond to requests for comment left at their offices.And Ms. Hochul accepted another $5,000 in April from Sammy Chu, a Long Island businessman whose company also paid more than $2,100 for a Hochul fund-raiser in Plainview two days later. In late May, she tapped him for a spot on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.Mr. Chu said he learned of the rules against governors’ accepting money from appointees only when The Times informed him of them in August.“There was certainly no quid pro quo,” Mr. Chu said. “Now that I’m appointed to the board, you know, I’ll be hypervigilant about it. But at that time, I was not a nominee or a board member.”Taken together, records show, Ms. Hochul accepted at least 40 donations totaling more than $475,000 from her nominees or Mr. Cuomo’s appointees and their family members. Those appointees are sitting on more than 20 boards, commissions and public authorities across New York, including the State University of New York board, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New York Power Authority and the United Nations Development Corporation.Ms. Hochul’s campaign stressed that she had been careful not to take contributions from any person she appointed to a state position. In at least one case, The Times found, Ms. Hochul accepted contributions from a person appointed by Mr. Cuomo, appointed that person to a different commission and then declined to accept further contributions from him.While none of the donations accepted by Ms. Hochul’s campaign from her own appointees appeared to violate any rules, they nevertheless might create the appearance of impropriety, legal experts said.Some might feel pressure to give to an elected official with power over their appointed positions. Others who wish to be appointed might donate in hopes of getting the job, said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor.“It may appear that the way to get appointed is to give money or to hold fund-raisers,” Professor Clark said, adding: “The scandal is what we allow rather than what we prohibit.”For her part, Ms. Hochul has dismissed any suggestion that her fund-raising practices might raise ethical concerns. When a reporter asked at a recent news conference if she worried about the optics of taking campaign money from people who are doing business with the state, she bristled.“I will say one sentence on this,” she said. “I follow all the rules, always have, always will.”Nicholas Fandos More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution

      by

      On a balmy Saturday night in June, Traci Lovitt hosted a 50th birthday party for her husband, Ara, at their 9,800-square-foot Westchester mansion overlooking Long Island Sound. The couple met while clerking for Supreme Court justices: Traci for Sandra Day O’Connor, Ara for Antonin Scalia. These days, Ara worked in finance. Traci was a top partner at — and a contender to one day run — the international law firm of Jones Day, best known for representing Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns. To serve as M.C. for the event, the Lovitts flew in Richard Blade, the veteran disc jockey Ara listened to while growing up in Southern California. But Blade wasn’t the party’s biggest star. That distinction belonged to Justice Amy Coney Barrett.One day earlier, Barrett and four of her colleagues on the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. Now she was wearing a pink dress and sitting at a flower-bedecked table under a tent on the Lovitts’ lush lawn. Barrett clerked for Scalia in the same session as Ara, in 1998 and 1999, and also became friends with Traci, jogging together around the National Mall after work. (When Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, Traci wrote to senators, praising the judge’s fair-mindedness and commitment to the rule of law.) But the connection to the court ran deeper than that. Scalia had spent years at Jones Day in the 1960s. And Traci ran an elite practice inside the firm that was focused in part on arguing cases before Barrett and her colleagues. Guests at the Lovitts’ estate danced to Blade’s beats until 1 a.m. At one point, an attendee spotted Barrett chatting with Noel Francisco, another Jones Day partner, who had himself clerked for Scalia the year before Lovitt and Barrett. Francisco left the firm in 2017 to become Trump’s solicitor general, responsible for representing the government before the Supreme Court, and returned in 2020, eventually taking over Jones Day’s enormous Washington office. Now his and Lovitt’s underlings were appearing regularly before the court. In one recent case brought by Jones Day, the court killed the Biden administration’s moratorium on home evictions during the pandemic. Less than a week after the Lovitts’ party, in another case Jones Day worked on, the court would severely limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of power-plant emissions.For much of its history, Jones Day was a juggernaut in the field of corporate litigation. A global goliath with more than 40 offices and about 2,500 lawyers, it raked in billions a year in fees from tobacco, opioid, gun and oil companies, among many other giant corporations in need of a state-of-the-art defense. More than most of its competitors, the firm had an army of litigators who had perfected the art of exploiting tiny legal wrinkles, of burying outmatched opponents in paperwork and venue changes and procedural minutiae. But over the past two decades, Jones Day has been building a different kind of legal practice, one dedicated not just to helping Republicans win elections but to helping them achieve their political aims once in office. Chief among those aims was dismantling what Don McGahn — the Jones Day partner who helped run Trump’s campaign and then became his White House counsel — disparagingly referred to as the “administrative state.” To do that, the firm was bringing all the ruthless energy and creativity of corporate law to the political realm.Jones Day lured dozens of young Supreme Court clerks, mostly from conservative justices, with six-figure signing bonuses and the opportunity to work on favored causes, including legal challenges to gun control and Obamacare. The firm allotted countless pro bono hours to aiding the needy — and also to assisting deep-pocketed right-wing groups as they fought against early voting and a federal corporate-oversight body.Representing Trump’s 2016 campaign, Jones Day helped him solidify Republican support by pledging to pick federal judges from a list that was vetted in advance by the law firm and the Federalist Society. When Trump won, a large fleet of Jones Day lawyers sailed into his White House, the Justice Department and other parts of his administration. But the biggest impact was on the judiciary. Trump delegated the task of selecting federal judges to McGahn, who — working closely with Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader — placed well over 100 conservatives on the federal courts, including several who had recently worked at Jones Day. Even after rejoining Jones Day in 2019, McGahn continued to advise Senate Republicans on judicial strategy.It is not uncommon for partners at corporate law firms to dabble in politics. Nor is it rare for a firm itself to throw its weight behind causes on the left or the right. One of the country’s richest firms, Paul, Weiss, for example, has long staked out liberal stances on the public issues of the day (even as it rakes in fees from companies that undercut those ideals). What sets Jones Day apart is the degree to which it penetrated the federal government under Trump and is now taking advantage of a judicial revolution that it helped set in motion.The power of that revolution, which is spreading to courtrooms and statehouses around the country, is now on vivid display. Even with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress, the Supreme Court has been on a rightward tear. In its most recent term, Trump’s three appointees — the first two handpicked by McGahn and the third, Barrett, plucked by him out of academia for the federal bench — helped erase the constitutional right to abortion, erode the separation of church and state, undermine states’ power to control guns and constrain the authority of federal regulators. Jones Day had a hand in some of those cases, and the firm has telegraphed that it is eyeing additional legal challenges in line with its leaders’ ideology.Jones Day’s influence seems poised to grow. This year, it has been collecting fees from a remarkable assortment of prominent Republican players: a Trump political-action committee; moderates like Senator Susan Collins; Trump allies like Dr. Mehmet Oz; hard-liners like Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House minority leader, and Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — not to mention an assortment of super PACs supporting fringe candidates like Herschel Walker, the former N.F.L. star who is running for a Senate seat in Georgia. Francisco recently represented former Attorney General Bill Barr before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. McGahn recently began representing Senator Lindsey Graham as he fights a grand jury subpoena to testify about Trump’s efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia. The chief of staff to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is a recent Jones Day alum. The next Republican presidential administration — whether it belongs to Trump, DeSantis or someone else — will most likely be stocked with Jones Day lawyers.Founded in Cleveland in 1893, Jones Day was at the vanguard of an era of breakneck expansion in the legal industry. In the 1970s and ’80s, it was one of the first law firms to open multiple offices in the United States and then overseas. It was a tireless, and extremely successful, defender of some of America’s worst corporate actors. The firm helped R.J. Reynolds sow doubts about the dangers of cigarettes. It helped Charles Keating’s fraud-infested savings-and-loan association fend off regulators. It helped Purdue Pharma protect its patents for OxyContin. But it didn’t become a conservative machine until Stephen Brogan took over as managing partner in 2003.Brogan, the son of a New York City police officer, joined Jones Day straight out of the University of Notre Dame’s law school in 1977 and, aside from a two-year stint in the Reagan Justice Department, has worked there ever since. A number of Brogan’s allies said the key to understanding him and his politics was through his faith. “Brogan is extremely conservative, hard-core Catholic, and that is the bedrock of who he is,” one of his Jones Day confidants told me. Brogan brought on a series of high-profile devotees of the Federalist Society — including leading Reagan and Bush administration lawyers like Michael Carvin and Noel Francisco — to work in the firm’s issues-and-appeals practice, which became a sort of in-house conservative think tank. Even as most of the firm’s lawyers remained focused on bread-and-butter work for big companies, Jones Day took on a growing list of ideologically charged cases and causes, including efforts by the ultraconservative Buckeye Institute to prevent the expansion of early voting in Ohio and challenge the legitimacy of the Obama administration’s newly inaugurated Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. By 2014, when a trio of Republican lawyers at Patton Boggs, a Washington law firm that was in financial trouble, began looking for a new home, Jones Day was a natural fit. It was huge, it had a thriving Washington office and its leaders were conservative. Plus, the Patton Boggs crew — McGahn, Ben Ginsberg and William McGinley — would fill a void. While Jones Day had built up a formidable practice advising companies on how to navigate the federal bureaucracy, the firm didn’t have a practice advising politicians on how to navigate election and campaign-finance laws. And without the relationships that came from helping people win office, it was harder for Jones Day to wield influence on Capitol Hill and in the White House. It helped that Ginsberg, who had been the top lawyer on presidential campaigns by George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, had known Francisco and Carvin for years. During the interview process, Ginsberg told Francisco that he recognized that Jones Day, despite its conservative reputation, probably employed a lot of Democrats. Would it be a problem to bring in a team that would represent polarizing Republicans? It would not, Francisco assured him. Indeed, promoting conservative principles was becoming part of the firm’s marketing pitch. “The government’s tentacles invade virtually every aspect of what our clients do,” Francisco said in a Jones Day promotional video in 2015. “The job of a lawyer and the job of courts is to ensure that the federal government lives within the limits that our Constitution sets, and I love making sure that those lines are enforced.” Ginsberg and McGahn were well known throughout the Republican establishment, and several would-be presidents soon came to them seeking counsel; Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Perry of Texas and Chris Christie of New Jersey would become clients. McGahn — who had recently served on the Federal Election Commission, watering down campaign-finance rules and slowing the agency’s decision-making in what he said was an effort to make it more responsive to the people and groups it regulated — also represented a who’s who of other G.O.P. power players: the Republican National Committee, the National Rifle Association, the billionaire Koch brothers.There was at least one other key client: Citizens United. The group, famous for its successful Supreme Court challenge of campaign spending restrictions, was run by Dave Bossie, an influential right-wing activist. One day in late 2014, Bossie and McGahn were on the phone, batting around ideas about which presidential campaigns the Jones Day lawyers should work for.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6The Trump InvestigationsNumerous inquiries. More