United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Reintroduce Legislation to Legalize Marijuana

      by

      The bill, which reflects growing support for legalization, would end the federal prohibition on cannabis. But it is unlikely to pass in an election year and a divided government.Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support, but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.The bill, which amounts to a Democratic wish list for federal cannabis policy, would end the federal prohibition on marijuana by removing it from a controlled substances list. The government currently classifies the drug as among the most dangerous and addictive substances.The legislation would create a new framework regulating cannabis and taxing the burgeoning cannabis industry, expunge certain federal marijuana-related offenses from criminal records, expand research into marijuana’s health impacts and devote federal money to helping communities and individuals affected by the war on drugs.The measure, which was first introduced in 2022, was led by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Fifteen other Senate Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors.“Over the decades, millions of Americans, most often Americans of color, have had their lives derailed and destroyed by our country’s failed war on drugs,” Mr. Schumer, the first majority leader to call for federal legalization, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “In place of the war on drugs, our bill would lay the foundation for something very different: a just and responsible and common-sense approach to cannabis regulation.”He reintroduced the measure one day after the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading it to a lower classification on the controlled substances list. That move did not go as far as some advocates and many Democrats have urged, but it was a significant shift reflecting the Biden administration’s efforts to liberalize marijuana policy.“Reclassifying cannabis is a necessary and long-overdue step, but it is not at all the end of the story,” Mr. Schumer said. “It’s time for Congress to wake up to the times and do its part by passing the cannabis reform that most Americans have long called for. It’s past time for Congress to catch up with public opinion and to catch up with the science.”But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations, warned about the dangers of legalization and argued that such a bill would “commercialize” the marijuana industry and create “Big Tobacco 2.0.”“Let’s not commercialize marijuana in the name of social justice,” said Mr. Sabet, now the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group. While he supported certain elements of the bill, such as expunging criminal records and removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, he said legalization was ultimately about “supersizing a commercial industry.”“And we really have to think long and hard after our horrible experience with Big Tobacco in our country,” he said, “whether that’s going to be good for us or not.”Still, the legislation reflects growing support among Democrats and across the country in both Republican- and Democratic-leaning states for legalizing access to marijuana, in addition to the issue’s potential political value ahead of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.Legalization, in some form, is broadly popular across the country, with 88 percent of Americans saying marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center. Twenty-four states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for adult recreational use, and 38 states have approved it for medicinal purposes. And where marijuana legalization has appeared on state ballots, it has won easily, often outperforming candidates in either party.Advocates of legalization have emphasized the issue’s political potency in trying to convince elected officials.“If anybody was looking at the political tea leaves, they would have to realize that obstructing cannabis policy reform — it is a losing proposition as a politician,” said Morgan Fox, the political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “This is really a rallying point for people that care about cannabis policy reform.”At least one Democrat, Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a leading cannabis advocate in Congress, has urged the Biden administration to embrace full legalization and make it a more prominent part of Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign. He has argued that the issue could help the president engage young people, whose support for him has faltered, but who could be crucial to victory in November.The Biden administration’s move to downgrade cannabis on the controlled substances list also reflects the president’s evolution on the issue. Mr. Biden has pardoned thousands of people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses in an effort to remedy racial disparities in the justice system. And Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, has emphasized that Mr. Biden had been “very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana.”Mr. Trump’s record on legalization is more mixed. In 2018, his administration freed prosecutors to aggressively enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had eased prohibitions on the drug. Mr. Trump later appeared to break with his administration, saying he was likely to support a legislative proposal to leave legalization to states, and he pardoned several nonviolent drug offenders.“This has not been an issue that is really coming up in conversation, at rallies or in media appearances and whatnot,” Mr. Fox said. “It’s kind of an unknown, how a future Trump administration would deal with cannabis.”Congress is considering more incremental bills that would ease restrictions on marijuana — such as by allowing legal cannabis businesses to access financial services — several of which have bipartisan support. But most are not expected to move during this Congress, given Republican opposition. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Call on NPR’s Chief, Katherine Maher, to Testify on Bias

      by

      Katherine Maher, the radio network’s new chief executive, has been in the spotlight since an editor published an essay accusing the organization of leftward-leaning bias.Congressional Republicans on Wednesday said they had asked NPR’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, to address accusations of political bias in the radio network’s journalism during a hearing next week.A trio of Republican lawmakers — Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Bob Latta of Ohio and Morgan Griffith of Virginia — sent a six-page letter to Ms. Maher that notified her of an investigation into the network and requested her appearance on May 8. “As a taxpayer funded, public radio organization, NPR should focus on fair and objective news reporting that both considers and reflects the views of the larger U.S. population and not just a niche audience,” the letter said.The lawmakers, all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the hearing would be held by the panel’s oversight subcommittee. NPR declined to comment, but Ms. Maher may have a scheduling conflict. According to an agenda of NPR’s upcoming board of directors meeting, Ms. Maher is scheduled to convene with NPR’s board all day on May 8.NPR has been scrutinized by conservatives in recent weeks after the publication of an essay by Uri Berliner, a former senior editor at the network, who said that the network had allowed progressive politics to affect its coverage of major stories. Mr. Berliner, who has since resigned, cited the network’s coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Hunter Biden’s laptop as examples of bias.Mr. Berliner’s essay has generated vociferous pushback from many employees at NPR, who say that many of his points were factually inaccurate. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor for standards, has said the network’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the Covid-19 pandemic and the investigation into Russian collusion by Robert S. Mueller III, a special counsel, hewed closely to responsible coverage by other mainstream news organizations. Ms. Maher, who joined the network this year, has personally been targeted by conservative activists who have combed through her social media history and resurfaced posts that promoted progressive causes and critiqued former President Donald J. Trump. In one post, from 2018, Ms. Maher called Mr. Trump a “racist”; another from 2020 showed her wearing a hat with the logo of the Biden campaign.NPR has said that Ms. Maher, the former chief executive of Wikimedia, wasn’t working in news at the time she made the posts, and added that she was exercising her First Amendment right to free expression.Over the years, Republicans have occasionally threatened to pull government money from NPR, which comes from the taxpayer-funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But those threats haven’t resulted in any significant funding reduction for the organization, which generates much of its revenue by selling radio programming to its member stations across the United States. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      New Progressive PAC Targets 8 Key House Races in California

      by

      Democrats nearly pulled off the impossible in the 2022 midterms.In the final weeks of the campaign, with an unpopular president in his first term, polls forecast a red wave that would sweep the country and flip control of the House and the Senate — prompting alarm from Democrats and predictions from Republicans of a decisive victory.But that wave never materialized, a mirage of bad polling and inflated expectations. Democrats came close to maintaining a national trifecta, but Republicans eked out a thin majority in the House — prevailing in a handful of seats in New York and California, each by just a few thousand votes.Now, a new coalition of progressive groups in California has formed a super PAC aiming to bolster Democratic candidates in a state that the party sees as crucial to winning control of the House this fall.The super PAC, Battleground California, says it aims to spend $15 million this year on eight competitive House races, seven with Republican incumbents — in Northern California, Orange County, the Inland Empire east of Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Los Angeles — as well as the seat left open by Representative Katie Porter, a Democrat who is not running for re-election after a failed Senate campaign.It is an ambitious effort, one that seeks to establish a durable progressive machine in California — advised and supported by local activists and community organizations — to lift swing district Democratic candidates through an extensive field operation, including marathon door-knocking campaigns aimed at driving turnout among minority groups.“Trusted messengers from the community are a very critical element,” said Steve Phillips, a co-founder of the California Donor Table, the group leading the Battleground California PAC, adding that those residents are not only more trusted by voters but are better able to provide feedback on what messages work and what messages don’t.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Greene Says She Will Demand Vote Next Week on Removing Johnson

      by

      Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the right-wing Republican from Georgia, excoriated the House speaker for working with Democrats to push through major bills. She said she would move ahead despite all but certain defeat.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said on Wednesday that she would demand a vote next week on a motion to remove Speaker Mike Johnson, moving forward in the face of all but certain defeat with a second attempt during this Congress to depose a Republican speaker.In a morning news conference at the Capitol, Ms. Greene excoriated Mr. Johnson for working with Democrats to push through major legislation and said it was time for lawmakers to go on the record about where they stood on his speakership.“I think every member of Congress needs to take that vote and let the chips fall where they may,” Ms. Greene said. “And so next week, I am going to be calling this motion to vacate.”The move comes just over a week after Mr. Johnson pushed through a long-stalled $95 billion package to aid Israel, Ukraine and other U.S. allies over the objections of Ms. Greene and other right-wing Republicans who staunchly opposed sending additional aid to Kyiv.And it came one day after House Democratic leaders said they would vote to block the effort to remove Mr. Johnson, which would give Republicans more than enough backing to kill Ms. Greene’s motion before it could be considered.Still, House rules allow any one lawmaker to raise the challenge and force a vote on it within two legislative days, the same mechanism that right-wing Republicans used last fall to make Kevin McCarthy of California the first speaker in history to be removed from the post.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Law Firm Defending Trump Seeks to Withdraw From a Long-Running Case

      by

      The firm, LaRocca Hornik, has represented Donald Trump’s political operation in numerous suits dating to his first presidential run, including a pregnancy discrimination case in New York.A law firm that has long defended Donald J. Trump’s campaign and businesses from employment lawsuits has abruptly asked to withdraw from a yearslong case over what it calls an “irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.”The firm — LaRocca, Hornik, Greenberg, Rosen, Kittridge, Carlin and McPartland — has represented Mr. Trump’s political operation in numerous suits dating to his first presidential run, helping secure several settlements and dismissals and billing nearly $3 million in the process.But late on Friday, it asked a federal magistrate judge to allow it to withdraw from a suit filed by a former campaign surrogate, A.J. Delgado, who says she was sidelined by the campaign in 2016 after revealing she was pregnant. The timing of the motion was notable, just two days after the same federal court had ordered the campaign to turn over in discovery all complaints of sexual harassment and gender or pregnancy discrimination from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns — materials that the defendants have long resisted handing over.A.J. Delgado in 2016.via YouTubeIn the request, filed in federal court in Manhattan, the lead lawyer, Jared Blumetti, did not provide any details about the dispute, asking permission to “explain” the matter privately with the judge. Mr. Blumetti did not respond to a request for comment.The apparent rupture with a long-trusted firm comes at a busy time, legally speaking, for the former president.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Timothy Kennedy, a Democrat, Wins New York Special House Election

      by

      The victory by Timothy Kennedy, a Democratic state senator, was not a surprise. But it will make Republicans’ lives more difficult in Washington.Timothy M. Kennedy, a Democratic New York State senator, easily won a special House election on Tuesday to replace a retiring congressman in western New York, according to The Associated Press.The victory was hardly a surprise. Democrats have controlled the Buffalo-area district for decades. And Mr. Kennedy outspent his Republican opponent, Gary Dickson, by an eye-popping 47 to 1.But his victory will have an immediate impact on the House at a time when Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana is laboring to hold onto a narrow Republican majority and fend off a rebellion on his right flank.Once Mr. Kennedy is seated, Mr. Johnson’s margin will effectively shrink to just a single, tenuous vote on partisan issues. A handful of special elections in Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado and California are expected to offer Republicans reinforcements, but not until this summer.In the meantime, Mr. Kennedy, 47, is expected to provide a reliably liberal vote. He campaigned on a familiar Democratic platform, promising to fight for federal infrastructure dollars for a region that has struggled economically, for federal abortion rights and against former President Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face President Biden this fall.Mr. Dickson, a former F.B.I. agent and local town supervisor, ran a relatively moderate campaign for a Republican in the Trump era. He had endorsed the former president, but called the Jan. 6 Capitol riot “a travesty.” He supported Ukraine’s war against Russia and federal investment in transportation projects, spending priorities that more conservative Republicans forcefully oppose.But it was not enough to win over a district that counts more than twice as many Democrats as Republicans. With 62 percent of the votes counted, Mr. Kennedy was beating Mr. Dickson by 34 percentage points, 67 to 33.The seat was vacated in February by the retirement of Brian Higgins, a moderate Democrat who had represented the Buffalo area for 19 years.Mr. Higgins, who left the job early to lead Shea’s Performing Arts Center in Buffalo, was part of a wave of seasoned lawmakers from both parties heading toward the exits this year. Like many others, Mr. Higgins, 64, cited an increasingly toxic and unproductive environment on Capitol Hill.Mr. Kennedy is a former occupational therapist who has served in the New York State Senate since 2011. In Albany, he led an important legislative committee on transportation and supported a tough package of gun safety measures after a racist shooter killed 10 people at a Buffalo supermarket in 2022. He also earned a reputation as a prolific fund-raiser.He was selected directly by party leaders as the Democratic nominee to serve the remainder of Mr. Higgins’s term. Mr. Kennedy will likely remain in campaign mode this year, with a Democratic primary in June and November’s general election still ahead.The district sweeps north from Buffalo, including the city, many of its suburbs and Niagara Falls. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Prevalence of Standing Ovations

      by

      More from our inbox:China, America and the Climate ChallengeKids’ Reactions to the ‘Cringe-Worthy’ News TodayDebate Conditions Pablo DelcanTo the Editor:Re “Bravo! Hurray! Wahoo! (Meh.),” by John McWhorter (Opinion, April 16):The currency of the standing ovation is indeed seriously debased. The impulse to stand up during the ovation following a performance may in some cases represent a kind of unconscious one-upmanship. “I’m more sensitized than most people to the sublimity of what we all have just witnessed, and it is imperative that I separate myself from the underappreciative herd.”Needless to say, if other audience members follow suit by rising from their seats, then you can raise the ante by hoisting your clapping hands up from the standard mid-torso level to over your head — signifying that the artistry one is acknowledging is not just merely great, but really most sincerely great.I confess that although I invariably applaud performances, I usually “sit out” the competitive appreciation derby, and haul myself to my feet only if I feel particularly inspired. I avoid the over-the-head clapping mode at all times. Maybe this marks me as a philistine; I’ve been called worse.David EnglishActon, Mass.To the Editor:I admit that I’m often among the first to give a standing ovation. I always wondered why the holdouts would deny something so simple to these hardworking actors.You have to walk out of the theater a few minutes later anyway, so why not stretch your legs and participate with your fellow theatergoers in the shared joy of theater? Perhaps it’s generational, cultural or regional, or maybe it’s a combination.Jumping to my feet in appreciation of the actors’ hard work is my way of giving back, and it feels really good! I’m sure the actors like to feel the good will as well.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Biden y López Obrador prometen una acción conjunta para abordar la migración ilegal

      by

      En una declaración conjunta, los presidentes de EE. UU. y de México se comprometieron a abordar la migración no autorizada, pero no especificaron ninguna acción concreta.El presidente Joe Biden y el mandatario de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, prometieron el lunes una acción combinada para prevenir la migración ilegal. Biden se encuentra bajo una intensa presión política desde todos los bandos para enfrentar el impacto del aumento de los cruces fronterizos antes de las elecciones presidenciales de este año.En una declaración conjunta, Biden y López Obrador afirmaron que habían ordenado a sus asesores de seguridad nacional “trabajar juntos para implementar de inmediato medidas concretas para reducir significativamente los cruces fronterizos irregulares y al mismo tiempo proteger los derechos humanos”.La declaración, que se produjo luego de que ambos líderes conversaron telefónicamente el domingo, no especificó ninguna acción concreta. Un alto funcionario gubernamental se negó a dar detalles sobre lo que Estados Unidos y México podrían “implementar inmediatamente”. Pero el funcionario dijo que, entre las posibilidades que se están analizando, hay medidas coercitivas más estrictas para impedir que se utilicen ferrocarriles, autobuses y aeropuertos para el cruce ilegal de fronteras y más vuelos que regresen a los inmigrantes a sus países de origen.Este tema podría ser decisivo para la permanencia de Biden en la Casa Blanca durante otros cuatro años. Las encuestas realizadas en los últimos meses, tanto a republicanos como a demócratas, indican que la situación en la frontera genera gran preocupación. Incluso algunos de los más fervientes partidarios del presidente en ciudades liberales le están exigiendo que haga algo para frenar el flujo de inmigrantes.El más reciente plan del presidente al respecto —con un proyecto de ley de migración muy restrictivo que contaba con cierto apoyo bipartidista— se estancó en los últimos meses tras ser bloqueado por los republicanos en la Cámara de Representantes. Biden había pedido que la legislación se aprobara junto con la ayuda financiera para Israel, Ucrania y Taiwán, pero cuando el Congreso llegó a un acuerdo sobre la financiación a principios de este mes, la legislación fronteriza no estaba incluida.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More