Campaign Finance

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Read the FEC Complaint a Liberal Group Filed Against Trump

      by

      AMERICAN

      BRIDGE

      21ST CENTURY

      Once he made the private decision to become a candidate, Mr. Trump was obligated to file a Statement of Candidacy with the Commission within 15 days of receiving contributions or making expenditures of more than $5,000 to influence his election, either directly or through third parties. 26 This Statement of Candidacy has not yet been filed. Yet, subsequent to several of his public remarks about a 2024 candidacy, Mr. Trump’s leadership committee, Save America, has spent more than $100,000 per week on Facebook ads and has consistently raised more than $1 million per week.27 Save America’s ads are clearly an attempt to influence Mr. Trump’s election to federal office in 2024.28 Commission regulations specify that an individual becomes a federal candidate when he has 1) consented to expenditures beyond $5,000 on his behalf, and 2) those expenditures have been made.29 Because he sponsors Save America, Donald Trump has consented to Save America’s expenditures on his behalf, which greatly exceed $5,000, and thus he has become a federal candidate. ³

      30

      Google Transparency Report, Save America Joint Fundraising Committee (Feb. 9, 2022, 3:30 P.M.), https://transparencyreport.google.com/political

      ads/advertiser/AR386358112438714368/creative/CR536153033986277376 (“Biden has turned his back on America, and completely failed the American people. Biden is Weak. We all know it.”). 26 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 100.3(a).

      27 Michael Scherer & Josh Dawsey, Trump Looks To 2024, Commanding a Fundraising Juggernaut, as He Skirts Social Media Bans, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2021, 6:00 AM),

      07223c50280a_story.html.

      28 Kayla Gogarty, Facebook Is Letting Trump’s PAC Run Ads Implying He Is The “True President”, MEDIA MATTERS (Oct. 4, 2021, 3:10 PM), https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/facebook-letting-trumps-pac-runads-implying-he-true-president (“Our latest study has found that Trump’s PAC has created over 1,600 ads since we last reported in August. Among these new ads, 186 pushed election misinformation, 322 were about Trump’s September rally in Georgia, and 139 were about Trump’s October rally in Iowa.”).

      11 C.F.R. § 100.3(a)(2).

      30 See, e.g., Jason Lange & Alexandra Ulmer, Trump Fundraising Slows but Still Yields Over $100 Million in Cash, REUTERS (Feb. 1, 2022, 1:55 AM), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-fundraising-groups-haveover-122-mln-cash-2022-01-31/ (“Trump is spending large sums to hold political rallies that ostensibly support Republican candidates but which feature his own speeches as the main event.”).

      800 Maine Ave SW, suite 400 Washington DC 20024 | 202.747.2060

      29 More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Read the FEC Complaint a Conservative Group Filed Against Biden

      by

      STATEMENT OF FACTS

      9. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. was elected as President of the United States in 2020 and was sworn in on January 20, 2021.²

      10. Since January 20, 2021, President Biden’s principal campaign committee, Biden for President, has spent more than $5 million dollars, including $1 million on “text message/email

      outreach” and almost $250,000 on a “database subscription” – thereby exceeding the $5,000 threshold to be declared a candidate.³

      11. In addition to significant campaign expenditures, President Biden’s White House staff, spokespersons, Vice President, and surrogates have made numerous on-the-record statements indicating that he has commenced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election.

      12. Beginning in November of 2021, in response to a reporter’s question, “[t]here were reports that President Biden was telling allies that he is going to run for re-election in 2024. Can you confirm, is he going to run in 2024? Is he telling staff that?,” then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stated, “[h]e is, that’s his intention.”4

      13. President Biden’s current Press Secretary – Karine Jean-Pierre – conclusively stated on June 13, 2022, “[y]es, he’s running for reelection. I’m I can’t say more than that.” Later that day, she doubled down and tweeted that, “[t]o be clear, as the President has said repeatedly, he plans to run in 2024,” and a month later again tweeted that, “[t]he president has been very clear about this. He intends to run in 2024.”5

      –

      14. U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has also gone on-the-record to discuss President Biden’s campaign for reelection, stating, “I’m looking forward to supporting the president’s reelection. Ah, that is as much as I can say about these things while I’m here on an official…capacity”

      15. President Biden himself has gone so far as to confirm that Vice President Kamala Harris will be his running mate in 2024: “Yes’ and ‘yes,’ Biden responded during his first news conference of the year [2022] when a reporter asked whether Harris would be on his ticket and whether he thought she was doing a good job on voting rights policies.”

      16. Vice President Kamala Harris emphatically told CNN’s Dana Bash – when asked about the president’s campaign for reelection in 2024 – that, “Joe Biden is running for reelection and I will be his ticket mate…Full stop. That’s it.”

      998

      17. Public reporting has stated that, “[i]n public and private, Biden himself has emphasized that he is running, effectively shutting down any discussion of the topic between the president and

      2 Toluse Olorunnipa and Annie Linskey, Joe Biden is Sworn In as the 46th President, Pleads for Unity in Inaugural Address to a Divided Nation, The Washington Post (Jan. 20, 2021).

      3 Federal Election Commission, Statement of Organization, Biden for President (Apr. 25, 2019). Federal Election Commission, Disbursements (search for spender “Biden for President” and Disbursement Type “Made By Presidential Committees: Operating Expenditures,” time period “1/20/21 to date”); Federal Election Commission, Disbursements (search for spender “Biden for President” and Disbursement Detail “text message/email outreach,” reporting time period “2021-2022”); Federal Election Commission, Disbursements (search for spender “Biden for President” and Disbursement Detail “database subscription,” reporting time period “2021-2022”); 11 C.F.R. § 100.3.

      4 Steve Nelson, Psaki Says Biden Still Intends to Run in 2024 Despite Poor Polls, Old Age, New York Post (Nov. 22, 2021).

      5 The White House, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre (June 13, 2022); Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec), Twitter (June 13, 2022); CBS News (@CBSNews), Twitter (July 28, 2022).

      6 CNBC, Squawk Box, Squawk Newsmaker: Prices at the Pump: Transportation Secretary Weighs In, Clip begins at 0:54 (Aug. 4, 2022).

      7 Claire Rafford, Biden Commits to Harris as His Running Mate for 2024, Politico (Jan. 19, 2022).

      8 Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN), Twitter (June 27, 2022).

      2 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

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      An Unusual $1.6 Billion Donation Bolsters Conservatives

      by

      WASHINGTON — A new conservative nonprofit group scored a $1.6 billion windfall last year via a little-known donor — an extraordinary sum that could give Republicans and their causes a huge financial boost ahead of the midterms, and for years to come.The source of the money was Barre Seid, an electronics manufacturing mogul, and the donation is among the largest — if not the largest — single contributions ever made to a politically focused nonprofit. The beneficiary is a new political group controlled by Leonard A. Leo, an activist who has used his connections to Republican donors and politicians to help engineer the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court and to finance battles over abortion rights, voting rules and climate change policy.This windfall will help cement Mr. Leo’s status as a kingmaker in conservative big money politics. It could also give conservatives an advantage in a type of difficult-to-trace spending that shapes elections and political fights.The cash infusion was arranged through an unusual series of transactions that appear to have avoided tax liabilities. It originated with Mr. Seid, a longtime conservative donor who made a fortune as the chairman and chief executive of an electrical device manufacturing company in Chicago now known as Tripp Lite.Rather than merely giving cash, Mr. Seid donated 100 percent of the shares of Tripp Lite to Mr. Leo’s nonprofit group before the company was sold to an Irish conglomerate for $1.65 billion, according to tax records provided to The New York Times, corporate filings and a person with knowledge of the matter.The nonprofit, called the Marble Freedom Trust, then received all of the proceeds from the sale, in a transaction that appears to have been structured to allow the nonprofit group and Mr. Seid to avoid paying taxes on the proceeds.For perspective, the $1.6 billion that the Marble trust reaped from the sale is slightly more than the total of $1.5 billion spent in 2020 by 15 of the most politically active nonprofit organizations that generally align with Democrats, according to an analysis by The Times. That spending, which Democrats embraced to aid the campaigns of Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his allies in Congress, dwarfed the roughly $900 million spent by a comparable sample of 15 of the most politically active groups aligned with the Republican Party.The Marble Freedom Trust could help conservatives level the playing field — if not surpass the left — in such nonprofit spending, which is commonly referred to as dark money because the groups involved can raise and spend unlimited sums on politics while revealing little about where they got the money or how they spent it.In a statement, Mr. Leo cited some of the left’s biggest donors and an advisory firm that helps manage the nonprofit groups they fund.“It’s high time for the conservative movement to be among the ranks of George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, Arabella Advisors and other left-wing philanthropists, going toe-to-toe in the fight to defend our constitution and its ideals,” Mr. Leo said. Mr. Seid and an associate did not respond to messages seeking comment.More Coverage of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsChallenging DeSantis: Florida Democrats would love to defeat Gov. Ron DeSantis in November. But first they must nominate a candidate who can win in a state where they seem to perpetually fall short.Uniting Around Mastriano: Doug Mastriano, the far-right G.O.P. nominee for Pennsylvania governor, has managed to win over party officials who feared he would squander a winnable race.O’Rourke’s Widening Campaign: Locked in an unexpectedly close race against Gov. Greg Abbott, Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic candidate, has ventured into deeply conservative corners of rural Texas in search of votes.The ‘Impeachment 10’: After Liz Cheney’s primary defeat in Wyoming, only two of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump remain.The Marble Freedom Trust’s formation in May 2020, the donation of Tripp Lite shares by Mr. Seid, and Mr. Leo’s role have not been previously reported.The funds are difficult to trace through public records. Tripp Lite is a private company that is not subject to corporate disclosure rules for public companies. On its tax filing, Marble indicated that the $1.6 billion came from the “sale of gifted company and subsidiaries,” but indicated that it withheld identifying information “to protect donor confidentiality.”And Eaton, the publicly traded Irish company that bought Tripp Lite, does not refer to Marble in statements related to the sale.The person with knowledge of the matter said that the Tripp Lite shares were donated to Marble months before the deal with Eaton was announced in January 2021. The sale was completed in March 2021.Katy Brasser, a spokeswoman for Eaton, said in a statement, “We have no additional information to share regarding the acquisition that was announced last year.”Ray D. Madoff, a professor of tax law at Boston College who is the director of the school’s Forum on Philanthropy and the Public Good, said the structure of the transaction was most likely legal but did appear to allow a donor to avoid federal tax obligations from the sale of the company.Here is how it works: Marble Freedom Trust is registered under a section of the tax code — 501(c)4 — for organizations that focus primarily on what the Internal Revenue Service calls “social welfare” and as a result are exempt from paying taxes. Such groups are allowed to engage in political advocacy, but their supporters are not entitled to deduct donations from their income taxes. Supporters can, however, donate assets that a nonprofit can sell and avoid capital gains taxes on the sale. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Outside Money Floods New York Congressional Races

      by

      In a feverish House race across Manhattan, a dark-money super PAC has spent more than $200,000 reminding voters that an incumbent congresswoman, Carolyn Maloney, once indulged doubts about vaccines.Out east in Suffolk County, cryptocurrency interests have spent more than $1 million on ads disparaging a former Navy officer in a Republican primary for Congress and supporting his opponent, a cryptocurrency booster, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm.And in the city’s northern suburbs, a police union PAC has spent more than $200,000 on ads calling a Democratic candidate a “radical extremist” who “left her community crime-ridden.” Those grim warnings, delivered over a soundtrack of gunshots, breaking glass and crackling fire, target a state senator, Alessandra Biaggi, and benefit her opponent in the 17th Congressional District, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.A rising tide of lightly regulated outside money is pouring into New York State: As of Thursday, with the Aug. 23 primary date looming, outside entities have spent about $9 million in state congressional primaries, according to data maintained by Open Secrets, a government transparency group. In 2018, outside entities spent roughly $2.6 million.Some of the players are familiar, including real estate and police groups. Others, like the super PAC targeting Ms. Maloney in the 12th District, have yet to identify their donors. The treasurer for that PAC, Brandon Philipczyk, did not respond to requests for comment. Berlin Rosen, a New York consultancy, is also involved.The thrust of the ad campaign taking aim at Ms. Maloney mirrors the messaging that her chief primary opponent, Representative Jerrold Nadler, has put in his campaign website’s so-called red box. Campaigns use language hidden in such boxes on their websites to communicate indirectly with super PACs that might support them.A spokesman for the Nadler campaign declined to comment.“I am disappointed that my colleague and friend, Congressman Nadler, has resorted to using dark-money funded attack ads against me to mislead voters in a desperate attempt to win this election,” Ms. Maloney said in a statement that also apologized for her past remarks on vaccines. “Voters are used to seeing these kinds of dirty campaign tactics from Republicans, but I expected more of Congressman Nadler.”In New York City’s other marquee House primary contest, for the 10th Congressional District encompassing parts of Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan, money also looms as a factor, but much of it is coming directly from one of the leading candidates, Daniel Goldman.Mr. Goldman, the heir to the Levi Strauss fortune who prosecuted the first impeachment case against Donald J. Trump, has put at least $4 million of his own money into the race.Daniel Goldman has put at least $4 million of his own money into the race for Congress in the 10th District.Anna Moneymaker/The New York TimesBut super PAC money is also playing a role in the race. A new super PAC called New York Progressive, Inc. has begun distributing literature targeting Yuh-Line Niou, a left-leaning state assemblywoman, for opposing an affordable housing development for seniors — part of a $225,000 expenditure. The treasurer of the PAC, Jeffrey Leb, typically raises money for such efforts from real estate interests. He declined to comment.And on Thursday, a super PAC called Nuestro PAC announced it would spend half a million dollars on behalf of one of Ms. Niou’s rivals, Carlina Rivera.North of the city, Mr. Maloney is benefiting from expenditures by the Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, which endorsed Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Senate G.O.P. Campaign Arm Slashes TV Ad Buys in Three States

      by

      The Republicans’ Senate campaign committee has slashed its television ad reservations in three critical battleground states for the fall, a likely sign of financial troubles headed into the peak of the 2022 midterm election season.The National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut more than $5 million in Pennsylvania, including its reservations in the Philadelphia media market, according to two media-tracking sources.Reservations in Wisconsin, in the Madison and Green Bay markets, have also been curtailed, by more than $2 million. And in Arizona, all reservations after Sept. 30 have been cut in Phoenix and Tucson, the state’s only two major media markets, amounting to roughly $2 million more.So far around $10 million had been canceled as of midday Monday, though more changes to the fall reservations were in progress. The states where ad reservations have been canceled are home to three of the nation’s most competitive Senate contests.In a statement, Chris Hartline, the communications director for the N.R.S.C., said, “Nothing has changed about our commitment to winning in all of our target states.”Mr. Hartline added that the committee had “been spending earlier than ever before to help our candidates get their message out and define the Democrats for their radical agenda. We’ve been creative in how we’re spending our money and will continue to make sure that every dollar spent by the N.R.S.C. is done in the most efficient and effective way possible.”After this article was published online, Mr. Hartline called it “false” on Twitter and said that “there is money being moved from the I.E. side” — independent expenditures that cannot be coordinated with campaigns — “back to the N.R.S.C. side of the wall.”He declined to say how much was being rebooked.In Wisconsin, some ads were being reserved in Milwaukee, for instance, though significantly less than what had been canceled in Madison and Green Bay, as of Monday afternoon.In Pennsylvania, the Senate Republican super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, recently announced it was adding $9.5 million to its fall reservation in the closely watched race between Mehmet Oz, the Republican, and Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democrat. The super PAC moved up the beginning of its ad buy by three weeks, to Aug. 19, a decision that may have eased pressure on the party committee to keep its reservation.As online fund-raising has slowed for Republicans in recent months, affecting both candidates and party committees, the party is increasingly dependent on major super PACs in the battle for the Senate. Entering July, the Senate Republican super PAC had nearly $40 million more cash on hand than the Democratic Senate super PAC.The Senate party committee said it had already helped fund $17 million in “coordinated” and “hybrid” ads with Republican senators and Senate candidates in Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin, according to the committee, and had spent $36 million on television overall.The N.R.S.C. entered July with $28.5 million in the bank and has millions of dollars reserved in other battleground states.A person familiar with the committee’s planning said some of the money saved by canceling reservations now would eventually be used to rebook advertising time in coordination with the Senate campaigns, which would help stretch the group’s dollars further because candidates are entitled to lower ad prices. Some of the new reservations were already being made on Monday. More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Campaign Tactic by Democrats: Smart? Risky? Unethical?

      by

      More from our inbox:Covid Priorities, in the Schools and BeyondThe Needs of Ukraine’s StudentsThe Kansas Abortion Vote Trent Bozeman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “A Cynical Low for the Democratic Party” (editorial, Aug. 4):Cynical, indeed! As a moderate Democrat, I find it appalling that Democratic campaign organizations are contributing money to finance the primary campaigns of ultra-right, pro-Trump supporters and election deniers.Money contributed to these Democratic organizations should go to candidates promoting free and fair elections, and who work to combat lies, racism and antisemitism. I want campaign dollars to support and guarantee that women have the right to make decisions about their own health and welfare.To learn now that our campaign dollars are going to promote extreme right-wingers and Trumpers makes me wonder: Why would I ever consider making contributions again to Democratic groups if they give money to the campaigns of the very people I wish to see defeated?Robert D. GreenbergBethesda, Md.To the Editor:I would beg to differ with the editorial board’s view that the Democratic Party’s support for Trump Republican proponents of the Big Lie is a “cynical low.” Your argument is that Democrats, who claim to stand up for the truth, should not be supporting the deniers of truth, and, furthermore, that theirs is a “repugnant and risky strategy.”But can it also be considered a deft political strategy and worth the risk? It is not an illegal action, and it is probably not immoral, but just plain smart politics.Raymond ComeauBelmont, Mass.To the Editor:While Democrats’ efforts to promote far-right candidates, whom they perceive to be easier targets in the general election, may succeed in swaying a few Republican primary voters, they pose the greater risk of alienating large swaths of independent voters like me who simply want politicians to act with a modicum of honesty and integrity.Especially in battleground states like Michigan, where independents have the power to decide races with far-reaching consequences, Democrats would be wise to build the moral high ground on election integrity rather than actively undermining it.John ZaineaAnn Arbor, Mich.To the Editor:Let’s be cleareyed. There no longer is such a thing as a moderate Republican politician. I, too, detest Democratic donations going to nominate election deniers. But Republicans who didn’t get Donald Trump’s endorsement by and large deny climate change, support abortion bans and favor a tax system that tilts toward corporations and the wealthy.Don’t shift the political landscape even farther in that direction by describing those right-wing Republicans as “moderate.” They aren’t.Ken EudyRaleigh, N.C.The writer is a retired senior adviser to Gov. Roy Cooper.Covid Priorities, in the Schools and Beyond Jonathan Kirn/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “A Proposal for School Covid Policies This Year,” by Joseph G. Allen (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 6):While I appreciate the critical thought and expertise that Dr. Allen brought to the discourse on Covid policies in our education system, I’m concerned that the scope too frequently narrowed on children’s resilience.Children may be far less likely to be hospitalized or experience severe symptoms, but they are just as likely to pass symptoms to adult family members who could be at high risk.The guidelines from Britain’s education system referred to in the article suggest that children go to school unmasked if symptoms are only minor (a runny nose, a slight cough, etc). Those children may easily pass those minor symptoms to their classmates, who may just as easily pass them to an adult (a family member or staff at the school) who experiences Covid more seriously.Yes, the alternative is damaging: children missing school. But our educators and families could pay a larger price if we let children pass it among themselves and to adults.Alexandra DavisBrooklynTo the Editor:Joseph G. Allen says he is writing in these capacities: “As a public health scientist. As someone who has spent nearly 20 years doing risk assessments of indoor environmental hazards. As a dad of three school-age kids, and an uncle to 15.”But Covid policy in schools affects people schoolchildren interact with outside school. This includes the old and immunocomromised adults who cannot take Paxlovid because it interacts with their other medicines.Writing as an old person, a liberal and a bioethicist, I wonder why a public health expert thinks “the overriding goal for the next school year should be to maximize time in the classroom and make school look and feel much like it did before the pandemic started,” rather than recognizing that the overriding goal of any Covid policy should be to save lives.Felicia Nimue AckermanProvidence, R.I.The Needs of Ukraine’s Students Emile Ducke for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “For Children of War, a Time for Play” (news article and photo essay, Aug. 8):As children, their families and teachers get excited about the new school year throughout the world, it is imperative to continue to publicize the dire education needs of Ukrainian children.In addition to the physical destruction of school infrastructure, there are shortages of supplies from laptops to textbooks. Some teachers have had to physically defend their schools as Russian invaders entered.Professors have been giving lectures from the front lines. Others have been teaching in person from shelters, where air-raid sirens wail. The dedication of the teachers in wartime is heroic.Students are the future of any country. The education of students in Ukraine, as had been taking place before the invasion in February, is essential to the rebuilding of the country. They deserve our support. As do their teachers.Anna NagurneyAmherst, Mass.The writer is the Eugene M. Isenberg chair in integrative studies, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and co-chair of the board of directors of the Kyiv School of Economics.The Kansas Abortion VoteIn its most recent term, in addition to overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court expanded gun rights, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address climate change and expanded the role of religion in public life.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Defying the Supreme Court,” by David Leonhardt (The Morning newsletter, Aug. 4):Those, like me, rejoicing over the overwhelming rejection in Kansas of a measure to allow banning abortion there ought to curb their enthusiasm. The outcome of that referendum could exemplify the adage “Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.”That Kansas voters refused to permit their legislature to roll back women’s reproductive rights plays into the narrative of the Supreme Court’s rationale in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, in which the justices reasoned that decisions on women’s control over their own bodies should be left to each of the states.By demonstrating that this tenet can work to protect individual rights, the Kansas vote could bolster the states’ rights argument underlying the Dobbs decision. It may be invoked to justify the inclination of the supermajority radicals on the court to reconsider decisions involving contraception and same-sex marriage, among other matters, as advocated in the Dobbs case by Justice Clarence Thomas.Marshall H. TanickMinneapolisThe writer is a lawyer. More