United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Should Biden Bow Out, as David Axelrod Urged?

      by

      More from our inbox:Mike Johnson’s LamentSkip the Drive-Through, for the Sake of the Environment and Mental HealthThe Threat to New Orleans Drinking Water Jonathan Ernst/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “The Axe Is Sharp,” by Maureen Dowd (column, Nov. 19):While reading Ms. Dowd’s column on whether President Biden should run for a second term, I was struck by a historical parallel. Like Mr. Biden, President Lyndon B. Johnson had served a deeply charismatic president and used his extensive senatorial experience to seal that president’s vision with legislation.But facing health concerns and declining popularity because of the Vietnam War, as well as surprisingly strong opposition by Robert F. Kennedy, Johnson decided that his moment had passed.As David Axelrod has noted, it is time to consider allowing other Democratic leaders to step forward. Mr. Biden has served the nation honorably for longer than most Americans have been alive, guiding the country through dark times and leaving a clear legislative mark.For his swan song, he can try to hold on to power until he is 86. Or he can choose to guide the nation peacefully through the turbulence of the coming electoral storm — not from the campaign trail, but as a steady presence in the Oval Office. I can think of no higher service.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      A Troubling Trump Pardon and a Link to the Kushners

      by

      A commutation for a drug smuggler named Jonathan Braun had broader implications than previously known. It puts new focus on how Donald Trump would use his clemency powers in a second term.Even amid the uproar over President Donald J. Trump’s freewheeling use of his pardon powers at the end of his term, one commutation stood out.Jonathan Braun of New York had served just two and a half years of a decade-long sentence for running a massive marijuana ring, when Mr. Trump, at 12:51 a.m. on his last day in office, announced he would be freed.Mr. Braun was, to say the least, an unusual candidate for clemency.A Staten Islander with a history of violent threats, Mr. Braun had told a rabbi who owed him money: “I am going to make you bleed.” Mr. Braun’s family had told confidants they were willing to spend millions of dollars to get him out of prison.At the time, Mr. Trump’s own Justice Department and federal regulators, as well as New York state authorities, were still after him for his role in an entirely separate matter: his work as a predatory lender, making what judges later found were fraudulent and usurious loans to cash-strapped small businesses.Nearly three years later, the consequences of Mr. Braun’s commutation are becoming clearer, raising new questions about how Mr. Trump intervened in criminal justice decisions and what he could do in a second term, when he would have the power to make good on his suggestions that he would free supporters convicted of storming the Capitol and possibly even to pardon himself if convicted of the federal charges he faces.Just months after Mr. Trump freed him, Mr. Braun returned to working as a predatory lender, according to New York State’s attorney general. Two months ago, a New York state judge barred him from working in the industry. Weeks later, a federal judge, acting on a complaint from the Federal Trade Commission, imposed a nationwide ban on him.A New York Times investigation, drawing on documents and interviews with current and former officials, and others familiar with Mr. Braun’s case, found there were even greater ramifications stemming from the commutation than previously known and revealed new details about Mr. Braun’s history and how the commutation came about.The commutation dealt a substantial blow to an ambitious criminal investigation being led by the Justice Department’s U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan aimed at punishing members of the predatory lending industry who hurt small businesses. Mr. Braun and prosecutors were in negotiations over a cooperation deal in which he would be let out of prison in exchange for flipping on industry insiders and potentially even wearing a wire. But the commutation instantly destroyed the government’s leverage on Mr. Braun.The investigation into the industry, and Mr. Braun’s conduct, remains open but hampered by the lack of an insider.At multiple levels, up to the president, the justice system appeared to fail more than once to take full account of Mr. Braun’s activities. After pleading guilty to drug charges in 2011, Mr. Braun agreed to cooperate in a continuing investigation, allowing him to stay out of prison but under supervision for nine years — a period he used to establish himself as a predatory lender, making violent threats to those who owed him money, court filings show.Since returning to predatory lending after being freed, Mr. Braun is still engaging in deceptive business tactics, regulators and customers say.In working to secure his release, Mr. Braun’s family used a connection to Charles Kushner, the father of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser, to try to get the matter before Mr. Trump. Jared Kushner’s White House office drafted the language used in the news release to announce commutations for Mr. Braun and others.In a telephone interview, Mr. Braun said he did not know how his commutation came about.“I believe God made it happen for me because I’m a good person and I was treated unfairly,” he said, adding that his supporters tried “multiple paths” to get him out of prison but he had no idea which one succeeded.He said the 10-year sentence he received for marijuana trafficking was excessive and made him a victim of the criminal justice system. He denied any wrongdoing as a lender, and insisted that he had never talked to prosecutors about cooperating in the criminal predatory lending investigation.He said he had never met Jared Kushner. And he said a picture from April 2022, showing him and his wife on a golf course with the former president, had nothing to do with the commutation but was a chance three-minute encounter during a visit to a Trump property in Florida for a Passover event.“I didn’t meet him because of what happened, I just happened to be there the same time,” Mr. Braun said.Mr. Braun’s commutation highlights what former administration officials say were major problems at the Trump White House as it considered clemency applications: the lack of rigorous vetting of applications and the sidelining of the Justice Department, which has traditionally screened candidates.Mr. Kushner took a major role in the less structured vetting process that resulted in Mr. Braun’s commutation. The Justice Department investigators from Manhattan involved in the cooperation negotiations with Mr. Braun were never consulted.As other convicts seeking clemency did, Mr. Braun’s family retained Alan Dershowitz, the prominent lawyer and Trump ally who worked with Jewish organizations pushing for pardons, at least one of which had received financial support from the Kushner family.Mr. Dershowitz, who represented Mr. Trump in his first impeachment, had a direct line into Mr. Kushner’s office, and succeeded in helping win clemency from Mr. Trump for a number of other people. Mr. Dershowitz said he did not remember what steps he took to help Mr. Braun but said they were minimal.Jared Kushner declined to comment, and Charles Kushner hung up when called by a reporter, as did Jacob Braun, Mr. Braun’s father. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan did not respond to messages seeking comment.A spokesman for Mr. Trump said all pardon applications “went through a vigorous vetting and review process,” but he did not address specific questions about Mr. Braun’s commutation.William P. Barr, a Trump attorney general who had left by the time of the Braun commutation, said when he took over the Justice Department he discovered that “there were pardons being given without any vetting by the department.”Mr. Barr added that he told Trump aides they should at least send over names of those being considered so the department could thoroughly examine their records. While the White House Counsel’s Office tried to do so, the effort fell apart under the crush of pardon requests that poured in during the final weeks before Mr. Trump left office, according to people with direct knowledge of the process.Mr. Trump boarding Air Force One for the last time on Jan. 20, 2021. He pardoned Mr. Braun in the final hours of his presidency.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesMarc Short, the chief of staff to Mr. Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, said when the vice president’s office was approached by Mr. Trump’s aides about clemency applications, it opted not to participate.“The pardon process at the end of the administration was so unseemly it would make the Clintons blush,” Mr. Short said, referring to the final-days pardons issued by President Bill Clinton — including one to the fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife donated $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s presidential library.Threats and a 10-Year SentenceMr. Braun’s path to receiving a last-minute commutation began in 2009, when the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, working with the Drug Enforcement Administration, raided what prosecutors said was a stash house for a marijuana smuggling ring run by Mr. Braun.When Mr. Braun found out about the raid, he rented a car and drove 25 hours straight from Florida to an Indian reservation in upstate New York where, dressed in all black, he was smuggled into Canada, according to court filings. He then fled to Israel.The Justice Department placed him on a special Interpol list that asked Israel to apprehend him. By 2010, he was back in New York, the Justice Department had charged him and he was behind bars.In the days after his arrest, prosecutors asked a federal judge to keep him in jail until he went on trial. The prosecutors said Mr. Braun could not be deterred and was violent or willing to use the specter of violence against those who owed him money or might turn on him. Mr. Braun, the prosecutors said, had access to millions of dollars in untraceable cash, and was willing to do anything to stay out of prison.The judge ordered that Mr. Braun be held pending trial. After nearly a year and a half in custody, Mr. Braun agreed to plead guilty. As part of the plea deal, he began cooperating secretly with the government’s investigations into other drug smugglers, particularly higher profile ones abroad, according to a former law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the internal workings of an investigation.In exchange, the prosecutors agreed to release Mr. Braun from jail, putting him on house arrest and delaying his sentencing on the drug charges while they pursued new cases with his help. It is unclear what information Mr. Braun provided the authorities or whether it led to convictions.Often, a cooperator can remain free for a few months by providing investigators with useful information. Sometimes, a court will hold off sentencing for a year or two as the cooperation continues. Throughout the process, federal authorities are supposed to monitor cooperators to ensure they do not break the law.For reasons that remain unexplained, Mr. Braun was permitted by the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn to live relatively freely for nearly the next decade, and he was able to turn his focus to an enterprise rife with cash and threats: providing loans to struggling small businesses that often had nowhere else to turn.Former prosecutors and defense lawyers said they had never heard of a defendant being allowed to delay sentencing for such a long period or using his freedom to engage in the conduct he did. A spokesman for the Brooklyn federal prosecutor’s office declined to comment on Mr. Braun’s case.The business Mr. Braun entered is known by many names: the merchant cash advance industry, predatory lending or, in the view of some law enforcement officials, loan sharking.Small businesses — like restaurants and contractors — have long faced a problem: They need cash on a daily basis to buy ingredients and supplies, and pay employees so they can operate while awaiting customer payments.Banks often won’t lend to them, especially small firms with troubled credit histories, providing an opening for the merchant cash advance business to offer them financing on strict, sometimes usurious, terms that include high-interest rates and exorbitant fees. (Technically, they provide cash in exchange for a percentage of future revenues, an arrangement that typically gives them access to the borrower’s books and sometimes the borrower’s bank accounts.)An examination of court records by The Times found that between when the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn first let him out of prison in 2011 and when he reported to prison in 2020, Mr. Braun was accused of violently threatening eight people who owed him money. Another man accused Mr. Braun in a lawsuit of shoving him from the deck of a house in Staten Island in 2018.Mr. Braun eventually reported to the federal prison in Otisville, N.Y., in 2020.Mike Segar/ReutersAmong those threatened was a real estate developer, who said Mr. Braun told him: “I will take your daughters from you,” according to court documents.Another borrower said in an affidavit Mr. Braun told him, “Be thankful you’re not in New York, because your family would find you floating in the Hudson.”Over that time, companies connected to Mr. Braun made 1,900 fraudulent and illegal loans, some with interest rates greater than 1,000 percent, according to the New York State attorney general.Even as Mr. Braun was starting to become a threatening presence, the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn actually gave him more freedom. In May 2017, prosecutors and probation officers approved Mr. Braun being removed from house arrest.Five months later, Mr. Braun threatened the rabbi of a synagogue that had borrowed money from him, according to New York’s attorney general. Mr. Braun told the rabbi he would beat and “publicly embarrass him,” adding: “I am going to make you bleed” and “I will make you suffer for every penny.”Nearly a decade after he was first charged in the drug case, prosecutors scheduled his sentencing. Anonymous letters accusing him of violent threats were then filed on the docket of the judge overseeing his case.Despite his cooperation with the ongoing drug investigations, the judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison. Mr. Braun tried to appeal, but weeks before the pandemic hit in early 2020, he reported to the federal penitentiary in Otisville, N.Y.In prison, Mr. Braun’s legal troubles actually worsened. In June 2020, New York’s attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission, which was run by a Trump appointee at the time, sued him for his role as a predatory lender. The New York attorney general credited reporting by Bloomberg News — which in 2018 first documented Mr. Braun’s business practices and revealed last year that he had returned to predatory lending — as the impetus for the suit.At the same time, a dogged New York Police Department detective named Joseph Nicolosi, who was assigned to work as an investigator for the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, was trying to build a wide-ranging criminal case focused on predatory lenders.The inquiry faced a big challenge. Unlike many financial fraud cases, where the government relies on documents to prove charges, federal prosecutors concluded they needed something more in this case: a turncoat to flip on higher-ups, explain the intricacies of lending agreements, say they knew what they were doing was wrong and serve as a narrator on the witness stand.Finding that witness was proving difficult, but investigators believed they had a strong candidate sitting behind bars.So in the fall of 2020, Mr. Nicolosi drove to Otisville to meet with Mr. Braun. Mr. Nicolosi had previously tried to flip Mr. Braun when he was free, but now Mr. Nicolosi — armed with a possible get-out-of-jail card in exchange for cooperation — had leverage over him as he sat marinating in the misery of federal prison.At the meeting, which Mr. Braun’s lawyer attended, both sides discussed what a deal could look like.Mr. Braun made clear he would do anything the government asked of him — including wearing a wire to record calls with his former business partners — if the government would agree not to prosecute him for his role in the lending business, according to a person familiar with the matter.Ties to the KushnersNegotiations between Mr. Braun and prosecutors stretched into the final days of Mr. Trump’s presidency. But what the prosecutors did not know was that Mr. Braun, his family and allies were pursuing an entirely different effort to help him regain his freedom through the White House’s clemency process. And among the channels they were exploiting was a tie to the Kushner family.Mr. Braun had ties to the family of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and a former White House senior adviser.Doug Mills/The New York TimesMr. Braun, The Times found, was in the inaugural class of the Kushner Yeshiva High School in Livingston, N.J., which was heavily funded by Jared Kushner’s family. Mr. Braun enrolled in its first freshman class, alongside Jared Kushner’s youngest sister, Nicole.In an interview, a merchant cash advance dealer recounted how a cousin of Mr. Braun — whom Mr. Braun put in charge of his business when he went to prison and who took on a major role in trying to get him out — had told him in the wake of the commutation that Mr. Braun’s father, Jacob Braun, had sought help from Jared Kushner’s father, Charles Kushner, about getting their pleas for a commutation before Mr. Trump.The cousin, Isaac Wolf, was said to have recounted that Charles Kushner and Jacob Braun had known each other for many years. Mr. Wolf credited the Kushner family with coming through for Mr. Braun, the merchant cash advance dealer said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to be publicly associated with Mr. Braun.Others who dealt with Mr. Braun also later relayed to investigators that they had been told that the Braun family helped secure the commutation by relying on their connections to the Kushner family.The Brauns also retained Mr. Dershowitz, a Trump ally who developed such a strong relationship with Jared Kushner that he nominated Mr. Kushner for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on Middle East peace 10 days after Mr. Trump left office.Mr. Dershowitz said Jacob Braun would call him regularly.“Every single Friday by 3 o’clock in the afternoon: ‘Hi this is Jacob Braun, I’m so upset my son is still in prison, what can you do? It’s unfair, he’s a good boy,’” Mr. Dershowitz recounted.Mr. Dershowitz said he handled so many clemency requests that he could not recall what he did for Mr. Braun, whom he might have talked to at the White House about his case or how much he was paid. But he said his involvement was minimal, perhaps just a phone call.In the chaotic final weeks of the Trump presidency, the volume of clemency requests overwhelmed the White House Counsel’s Office. Requests were being fielded by numerous White House officials — and many came in through Mr. Kushner’s office.It is unclear what type of due diligence, if any, the White House did on Mr. Braun. The New York attorney general and the F.T.C. had put out news releases about their civil actions against him in June 2020, and the suits they filed were a matter of public record. An inquiry to the Justice Department could have revealed the plea deal discussions.Jacob Braun, Mr. Braun’s father, made contact with and retained Alan Dershowitz, seen in a 2015 photo, the prominent lawyer and Trump ally who was active in seeking clemency for convicts.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesJust hours before Mr. Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021, the White House sent out the news release, written by Mr. Kushner’s office, announcing Mr. Braun’s commutation, along with similar summaries for the 143 convicts who received pardons and commutations in the final batch, according to a person familiar with the matter. Mr. Kushner thought it was important to honor each person granted clemency with a personalized write-up, the person said.The release misspelled Mr. Braun’s first name. And it overstated the time he had served in prison.“Upon his release, Mr. Braun will seek employment to support his wife and children,” the release said.The federal investigators in Manhattan learned of the commutation early that morning, immediately calling Mr. Braun’s lawyer to express their fury over how the president had undercut his own department’s investigation by removing all the leverage prosecutors had over Mr. Braun.In the weeks that followed, investigators made another attempt to reach a cooperation deal with Mr. Braun, meeting with him in person. But no longer needing help getting out of prison, Mr. Braun essentially called their bluff, signaling that if they thought they had a case against him they should indict him. Since then, the prosecutors have brought no charges against Mr. Braun or anyone else with ties to him in the industry.Back in BusinessJust a few months after his release, Mr. Braun returned to working in the merchant cash advance business.Amid the ongoing suits against him by state and federal regulators, he remained in a relatively behind-the-scenes role. While he would make major decisions, he would use an email account that did not include his name, his name was left off business documents and his interactions with customers were limited, according to court documents and a former merchant cash advance dealer.But in the experience of at least one borrower who dealt with him, his business practices remained unchanged.Dr. Robert Clinton is a North Carolina physician who during the pandemic turned his urgent care facility into a Covid testing center. He turned to merchant cash advance dealers because it took months for insurance companies and the federal government to reimburse him.Mr. Braun’s companies made arrangements with Dr. Robert Clinton for loans and eventually pushed him to the brink of financial ruin.Kate Medley for The New York TimesRelying on similar tactics to what he was accused of employing before he went to prison, the companies affiliated with Mr. Braun withheld some of the financing they had agreed to provide Dr. Clinton but charged him interest on the full amount, imposed heavy fees with little or no warning and unilaterally withdrew money from Dr. Clinton’s bank accounts, according to court documents.At one point, another merchant cash advance dealer who had lent money to Dr. Clinton called him in a panic to warn about Mr. Braun.“You gotta get away from him and pay him off — we are all afraid of him — anytime Jon Braun is involved he could seize your assets, block your bank accounts,” the other merchant cash advance dealer told Dr. Clinton, in the doctor’s recounting of the conversation.As Dr. Clinton’s finances deteriorated, he got a call from a man who claimed his name was Mike Wilson and that he was working for one of the Braun-affiliated lenders. The man told Dr. Clinton that he would send a private jet down to pick him up so he could bring expensive watches he had to New York to use as collateral for the money he owed, Dr. Clinton said.In an apparent slip-up during conversations with Dr. Clinton at the time, the man said: Refer to me as Jon.Dr. Clinton rejected the idea and, with help from a lawyer, Shane Heskin, sued the Braun-affiliated companies, saying they had fleeced him for over a million dollars.A major portion of the suit was dismissed because North Carolina usury laws provided no protection for Dr. Clinton. Now, Dr. Clinton — who still owes other merchant cash advance dealers several million dollars — spends his days doing some telemedicine and the rest of his time trying to get money back from insurance companies and the federal government.In a filing this summer, the New York attorney general said Mr. Braun, through his companies, “continues to commit usury.”Mr. Braun continues to portray himself as a victim of an unfair criminal justice system.“What is so bad about me?” he said in the interview with The Times. “I never hurt anybody, never did anything wrong to anybody.”Mr. Braun and his companies put liens on Dr. Clinton’s business, leading to cascading financial problems that Dr. Clinton said cost him $1.6 million.Kate Medley for The New York TimesMatthew Cullen More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      3 Takeaways From the Investigation Into Trump’s Pardon of Jonathan Braun

      by

      Mr. Braun was still under investigation by the Justice Department at the time of his pardon. Here are some key points about the case.Two days after Donald J. Trump left the White House, The New York Times published a story about how one of his last acts as president had been to commute the 10-year sentence of Jonathan Braun, a marijuana smuggler who had ongoing legal problems and a reputation for making violent threats.In his final weeks in office, Mr. Trump had used his pardon power on behalf of a parade of loyalists, as well as scores of others who were not big political names. But few of them stood out like Mr. Braun, who was still under investigation by the Justice Department in an entirely different matter: for gouging small businesses through high-interest loans.At the time of the commutation, the New York State attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission were also after Mr. Braun for making predatory loans. Among other things, they accused him of threatening borrowers who owed him money. And his family had told others they were willing to spend millions of dollars to get him out of the prison sentence he had just started to serve on the drug charges.With Mr. Trump running again for president and suggesting that he again intends to make full use of his pardon powers if elected, The Times decided to take a closer look at how the pardon came about and what it said about the Trump White House’s standards for clemency.Here are the main takeaways from our investigation, which is based on documents and interviews with current and former officials and others familiar with Mr. Braun’s case:The Commutation Undercut a Federal Criminal InvestigationMr. Trump’s decision to commute Mr. Braun’s sentence undermined what had been an ambitious Justice Department investigation being led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan into predatory lenders in the merchant cash advance industry by pulling the rug out from under investigators who had been in negotiations with Mr. Braun about cooperating with them.Prosecutors felt they needed an industry insider to flip on others in the business, explain the intricacies of lending agreements and serve as a narrator on the witness stand. In Mr. Braun, who had made clear he was desperate to get out of prison, they thought they had an ideal candidate. They were still going back and forth with his lawyer about a deal that would have freed him from prison when Mr. Trump commuted his sentence.Prosecutors instantly lost their leverage over Mr. Braun. The investigation into the industry, and Mr. Braun’s conduct, remains open but is hampered by the lack of help from an insider.The Case Exposed Shortcomings in the Justice SystemAt multiple levels, right up to the president, the justice system appeared to fail more than once to take full account of all of Mr. Braun’s activities despite longstanding concerns among prosecutors that he was a threat and could not be deterred.A decade and a half ago, he fled the country while the Justice Department was closing in on him in the drug case, but prosecutors later let him out of jail while awaiting sentencing because he agreed to cooperate with their ongoing investigations into drug traffickers. But he used that freedom to establish himself as a predatory lender, leading to a string of accusations that he employed threats and intimidation — a record that the Trump White House seems not to have considered or given any weight in granting him the commutation.In all, he was free for nearly a decade while awaiting sentencing on the drug charges. Former federal prosecutors and defense attorneys said they knew of no other case in which a defendant was allowed to be free for so long and engaged in the conduct of which Mr. Braun is accused.Once Mr. Trump let him out of prison in early 2021, Mr. Braun returned to working in the merchant cash advance business, with regulators and some customers again accusing him of using intimidating tactics.The Kushners Had a Role in the Pardon ProcessMr. Braun’s family used ties to the family of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, to open doors at the White House. Mr. Braun had attended Kushner Yeshiva High School in Livingston, N.J., which was funded by Jared Kushner’s family. Mr. Braun enrolled in its first freshman class, alongside Jared Kushner’s youngest sister, Nicole.In seeking the commutation, Mr. Braun’s family reached out to Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner’s father. Jared Kushner’s White House office drafted the language used in the news release to announce commutations for Mr. Braun and others.Mr. Braun’s cousin, in conversations with others, has credited the Kushners with helping Mr. Braun secure the commutation.The Braun family also hired Alan Dershowitz, the pro-Trump lawyer who had ties to Jared Kushner, to promote Mr. Braun’s request. Others who dealt with Mr. Braun later relayed to investigators that they had been told that the Braun family helped secure the commutation by relying on their connections to the Kushner family. More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Here Are the Members of Congress Giving Up Their Seats, Setting Up a 2024 Fight

      by

      The fight for control of Congress could be heavily influenced by the already large number of members retiring or seeking higher office.More than three dozen members of Congress have already said they are planning to leave their seats, setting the stage for major turnover in the 2024 election.Few of the departures that have been announced are expected to alter the balance of power in the closely divided House, where the vast majority of seats are gerrymandered to be safe for one of the two political parties, or in the Senate. But a handful are already putting crucial seats up for grabs.Many of those who are leaving are expressing frustration about the polarization and paralysis that has gripped the institution particularly this year, as House Republicans, dominated by their far-right flank, have struggled to do the basic business of governing and feuded over who should lead them.Here’s a look at the retirements that have been announced so far. A bolded name indicates a departure that could alter the balance of power in Congress, or lead to a competitive or potentially competitive race.Members of Congress retiring from officeSenateSenator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of DelawareSenator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of MarylandSenator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of MichiganSenator Mitt Romney, Republican of UtahSenator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West VirginiaHouseRepresentative Debbie Lesko, Republican of ArizonaRepresentative Tony Cardenas, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Grace F. Napolitano, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Ken Buck, Republican of ColoradoRepresentative Victoria Spartz, Republican of IndianaRepresentative John Sarbanes, Democrat of MarylandRepresentative Dan Kildee, Democrat of MichiganRepresentative Brian Higgins, Democrat of New YorkRepresentative George Santos, Republican of New YorkRepresentative Bill Johnson, Republican of OhioRepresentative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of OhioRepresentative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of OregonRepresentative Kay Granger, Republican of TexasRepresentative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of TexasRepresentative Chris Stewart, Republican of UtahRepresentative Jennifer Wexton, Democrat of VirginiaRepresentative Derek Kilmer, Democrat of WashingtonLawmakers seeking other officePresidentRepresentative Dean Phillips, Democrat of MinnesotaSenateRepresentative Ruben Gallego, Democrat of ArizonaRepresentative Katie Porter, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Barbara Lee, Democrat of CaliforniaRepresentative Lisa Blunt Rochester, Democrat of DelawareRepresentative Jim Banks, Republican of IndianaRepresentative David Trone, Democrat of MarylandRepresentative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of MichiganRepresentative Andy Kim, Democrat of New JerseyRepresentative Colin Allred, Democrat of TexasRepresentative Alex X. Mooney, Republican of West VirginiaGovernorSenator Mike Braun, Republican of IndianaRepresentative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of VirginiaState Attorney GeneralRepresentative Dan Bishop, Republican of North CarolinaRepresentative Jeff Jackson, Democrat of North CarolinaMayorRepresentative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      More Members of Congress Are Retiring, Many Citing Dysfunction

      by

      More than three dozen incumbents have announced they will not seek re-election next year. Some are running for other offices, while others intend to leave Congress altogether.Eleven are running for the Senate. Five for state or local office. One for president of the United States. Another is resigning to become a university president. And more and more say they are hanging up their hats in public office altogether.More than three dozen members of Congress have announced they will not seek re-election next year, some to pursue other offices and many others simply to get out of Washington. Twelve have announced their plans just this month.The wave of lawmakers across chambers and parties announcing they intend to leave Congress comes at a time of breathtaking dysfunction on Capitol Hill, primarily instigated by House Republicans. The House G.O.P. majority spent the past few months deposing its leader, waging a weekslong internal war to select a new speaker and struggling to keep federal funding flowing. Right-wing members have rejected any spending legislation that could become law and railed against their new leader for turning to Democrats, as his predecessor did, to avert a government shutdown.The chaos has Republicans increasingly worried that they could lose their slim House majority next year, a concern that typically prompts a rash of retirements from the party in control. But it is not only G.O.P. lawmakers who are opting to leave; Democrats, too, are rushing for the exits, with retirements across parties this year outpacing those of the past three election cycles.And while most of the departures announced so far do not involve competitive seats, given the slim margins of control in both chambers, the handful that provide pickup opportunities for Republicans or Democrats could help determine who controls Congress come 2025.“I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said in an interview. He announced his retirement last month after more than a quarter-century in the House.“I think I can have more impact on a number of things I care about if I’m not going to be bogged down for re-election,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, is retiring after more than 25 years in the House. “I like the work, but the politics just no longer made it worth it,” he said.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesAs lawmakers consider their futures in Congress, they are weighing the personal sacrifice required to be away from loved ones for much of the year against the potential to legislate and advance their political and policy agendas. In this chaotic and bitter environment, many are deciding the trade-off is unappealing.This session, said Representative Dan Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, has been the “most unsatisfying period in my time in Congress because of the absolute chaos and the lack of any serious commitment to effective governance.”Mr. Kildee, who has served in Congress for a decade, said he decided not to seek re-election after recovering from a cancerous tumor he had removed earlier this year. It made him re-evaluate the time he was willing to spend in Washington, away from his family in Michigan.The dysfunction in the House majority only made the calculation easier.“That has contributed to the sense of frustration,” he said, “and this feeling that the sacrifice we’re all making in order to be in Washington, to be witness to this chaos, is pretty difficult to make.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end her three-decade career in Congress at the close of her current term. One of her closest friends in Congress, Representative Zoe Lofgren, another California Democrat, told her hometown news site, San Jose Spotlight, that there was speculation that Ms. Eshoo was leaving “because the majority we have now is nuts — and they are.” But Ms. Lofgren added that “that’s not the reason; she felt it was her time to do this.”Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, also announced she would end a three-decade career in Congress.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSome House Republicans have reached the limits of their frustration with their own party.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, announced he would not seek re-election after his dissatisfaction and sense of disconnect with the G.O.P. had grown too great. Mr. Buck, who voted to oust Representative Kevin McCarthy from the speakership, has denounced his party’s election denialism and many members’ refusal to condemn the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.“We lost our way,” Mr. Buck told The New York Times this month. “We have an identity crisis in the Republican Party. If we can’t address the election denier issue and we continue down that path, we won’t have credibility with the American people that we are going to solve problems.”Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement during the speaker fight last month that she would not run again.“Right now, Washington, D.C., is broken; it is hard to get anything done,” she said.The trend extends even to the most influential members of Congress; Representative Kay Granger, the 80-year-old Texas Republican who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee, announced she would retire at the end of her 14th term. Even if her party manages to keep control of the House, Ms. Granger, the longest-serving G.O.P. congresswoman, faced term limits that would have forced her from the helm of the spending panel.Few of the retirements thus far appear likely to alter the balance of power in Congress, where the vast majority of House seats are gerrymandered to be safe for one party or the other. Prime exceptions include Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, whose retirement will almost certainly mean that Republicans can claim the state’s Senate seat and get a leg up to win control of that chamber.The decision of Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, to leave her seat in a competitive Virginia district to seek the governorship also gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity.Representative Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat leaving her Virginia seat to seek the governorship, gives Republicans a prime pickup opportunity. But most retiring lawmakers are in safe seats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesAnd Representative George Santos, Republican of New York, announced he would not seek re-election after a House Ethics Committee report found “substantial evidence” that he had violated federal law. His exit will give Democrats a chance to reclaim the suburban Long Island seat he flipped to the G.O.P. last year.Many others are likely to be succeeded by members of their own party.Representative Dean Phillips, Democrat of Minnesota, who last month announced a long-shot bid to challenge President Biden for his party’s nomination, said this week that he would step aside to focus on that race. Mr. Biden won his district by 21 percentage points in 2020, according to data compiled by Daily Kos, making it all but certain that Democrats will hold the seat.Representative Bill Johnson, Republican of Ohio, said he would accept a job as president of Youngstown State University. His seat, too, is all but sure to be held by the G.O.P.; former President Donald J. Trump won the district by more than 28 percentage points in 2020.Some members not seeking re-election have determined they can affect more change from outside Congress, where they do not have to contend with the same infighting, gridlock and attention-seeking that now frequently drive the place.“I think I will have as much or more impact as a civilian as I would as a member of Congress, especially having to be involved in a pretty toxic political environment,” Mr. Blumenauer said.Lawmakers typically do not choose to leave office when their party looks poised to regain power in the next election cycle, and Democrats see an opening to regain the House majority next year. But Mr. Blumenauer, who would be a senior member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee should his party win the House, said he would rather not sacrifice time with his family.“It’s tempting,” said Mr. Blumenauer. “I’m going to continue working on the things I care about, but with a renewed commitment to family, friends and fun.”Robert Jimison More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mike Johnson’s Rise to Speaker Cements Far-Right Takeover of GOP

      by

      After their party was decimated in the 2008 elections, mainstream Republican leaders believed they could harness rising far-right populist forces. Instead, they were overrun by them.The roots of the Republican crackup this fall that paralyzed the House, fueled the unexpected rise of Speaker Mike Johnson and now threatens to force a government shutdown crisis early next year lie in a fateful choice the party made more than a decade ago that has come back to haunt its leaders.In early 2009, congressional Republicans were staring down a long exile in the political wilderness. Barack Obama was about to assume the presidency, and Democrats were within reach of a filibuster-proof, 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and the largest House majority in more than 20 years after the economic crisis of 2008.But Republicans saw a glimmer of hope in the energized far-right populist movement that emerged out of a backlash to Mr. Obama — the first Black president — and his party’s aggressive economic and social agenda, which included a federal health care plan. Republicans seized on the Tea Party and associated groups, with their nativist leanings and vehemently anti-establishment impulses, as their ticket back to power.“We benefited from the anger that was generated against the one-way legislation of the Obama years,” said Eric Cantor, the former House leader from Virginia who became the No. 2 Republican after the 2010 midterm elections catapulted the party back into the majority. “It was my way or the highway.”Mr. Cantor and his fairly conventional leadership team of anti-tax, pro-business Republicans set out to harness that rage to achieve their party’s longstanding aims. But instead, the movement consumed them.Within four years, Mr. Cantor was knocked out in a shocking primary upset by a Tea Party-backed candidate who had campaigned as an anti-immigration hard-liner bent on toppling the political establishment. It was a sign of what was to come for more mainstream Republicans.“We decided the anger was going to be about fiscal discipline and transforming Medicare into a defined contribution program,” Mr. Cantor said recently. “But it turned out it was really just anger — anger toward Washington — and it wasn’t so policy-based.”The forces that toppled Mr. Cantor — and three successive Republican speakers — reached their inexorable conclusion last month with the election of Mr. Johnson as speaker, cementing a far-right takeover that began in those first months after Mr. Obama took office.Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia and House majority leader, was defeated in a 2015 primary by David Brat, a member of the Tea Party.Gabriella Demczuk/The New York TimesMr. Johnson, who identifies as an archconservative, is the natural heir to the political tumult that began with the Tea Party before evolving into Trumpism. It is now embodied in its purest form by the Freedom Caucus, the uncompromising group of conservatives who have tied up the House with their demands for steep spending cuts. And the situation won’t get any easier when Congress returns from its Thanksgiving respite to confront its unsettled spending issues and what to do about assistance to Israel and Ukraine.The ranks of more traditional Republicans have been significantly thinned after the far right turned on them in successive election cycles. They have been driven out of Congress in frustration or knocked out in primaries, which have become the decisive contests in the nation’s heavily gerrymandered House districts.“They thought they could control it,” Michael Podhorzer, the former political director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. who has studied the House’s far-right progression, said of G.O.P. leaders. “But once you agree essentially that Democrats are satanic, there is no room in the party for someone who says we need to compromise with Democrats to accomplish what we need to get done.”The result, Mr. Podhorzer said, is a Republican majority that his research shows across various data points to be more extreme, more evangelical Christian and less experienced in governing than in the past. Those characteristics have been evident as House Republicans have spent much of the year in chaos.“It isn’t that they are really clever at how they crash the institution,” Mr. Podhorzer said. “They just don’t know how to drive.”From the start, members who were more rooted in the traditional G.O.P., which had managed to win back the House majority in 1994 after 40 years, struggled to mesh with the Tea Party movement, which was driven to upend the status quo. Many top Republicans had voted for the bank bailout of 2008, a disqualifying capital crime in the eyes of the far-right activists.Leading congressional Republicans were leery of the Tea Party’s thinly veiled racism, illustrated by insulting references to Mr. Obama and the questioning of his birthplace, though they said they saw the activists as mainly motivated by an anti-tax, anti-government fervor.Traditional Republicans appeared at Tea Party rallies where they were barely tolerated, while the far-right Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Steve King of Iowa, then outliers in the party, were the stars. They tried to mollify activists with tough talk on taxes and beating back the Obama agenda, but saw mixed results.The Republican National Committee also sought to align itself with the Tea Party, encouraging angry voters to send virtual tea bags to Congress in a 2009 Tax Day protest. Tea Party activists rebuked the national party, saying it hadn’t earned the right to the tea bag message.But the Tea Party paid huge electoral benefits to the House G.O.P. in 2010, as it swept out Democrats and swept in scores of relatively unknown far-right conservatives, some of whom would scorn their own leaders as much as the Democrats. The steady march to the modern House Republican Conference had begun.“It truly was bottom up,” said Doug Heye, a Republican strategist who was then the spokesman for the R.N.C. “Then how do you have control over that? When you have that big a win, you are going to have people who just aren’t on your radar screen, but if they were, you would have tried to prevent them from winning their primary.”In the Senate, the Tea Party was having a different effect. Far-right conservatives such as Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware managed to prevail in their primaries, only to lose in the general election. That cost Senate Republicans a chance to win a majority in that chamber. The extreme right has had less influence in the Senate than the House ever since.Speaker John A. Boehner resigned in 2015 amid opposition from hard-line conservatives.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe ramifications of the far-right bargain for congressional Republicans quickly became clear. Mr. Cantor was defeated in 2014, and Speaker John A. Boehner, dogged by hard-line conservatives he branded “knuckleheads,” resigned in 2015. In 2018, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Mr. Boehner’s successor and the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012, had his fill of clashes with President Donald J. Trump — who aligned himself with the Tea Party in its early days — and chose not to run for re-election.Then Representative Kevin McCarthy — the last of a trio called the “Young Guns,” with Mr. Cantor and Mr. Ryan, that once seemed to be the future of the party — fell from the speakership in October. That ended the reign of House Republican speakers who had tried unsuccessfully to weaponize the ultraconservatives in their ranks while holding them at arm’s length.Mr. McCarthy’s ouster cleared the way for Mr. Johnson, who was chosen only after House Republicans rejected more established leaders, Representatives Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Tom Emmer of Minnesota, who would have easily ascended in the previous era.Despite his unquestioned conservative bona fides, Mr. Johnson is already encountering difficulties in managing the most extreme element within his ranks.Last week, Freedom Caucus members blocked a spending measure in protest of Mr. Johnson’s decision to team with Democrats to push through a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown.The move underscored the far-right’s antipathy to compromise and the dominance it now enjoys in the House, and raised the prospect that Mr. Johnson could face another rebellion if he strays again. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Debates Over Words Amid War: ‘Antisemitism,’ ‘Anti-Zionism,’ ‘Apartheid’

      by

      More from our inbox:Expanding Advanced Placement Classes: Harmful or More Equitable?Election LessonsAmericans’ Love of Outlaws Stefani Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Question of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism,” by Charles M. Blow (column, Nov. 16):The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, adopted by dozens of countries around the world, indeed does define anti-Zionism as antisemitism. It cites as an example of antisemitism: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”That the Jewish people deserve the right of self-determination, after the Holocaust and the persecution throughout Arab lands for centuries, was resolved in 1948. To debate Zionism is precisely the problem facing the Jews today and most especially Israelis who live in an absurd world in which the nature of their birthright is called into question, as every single Israeli is born of Zionism.How ironic that in this day and age in the United States, where every minority is protected and words matter more than ever, it is somehow acceptable to define oneself as anti-Zionist, even if Jewish. It is offensive, absurd and deeply antisemitic.As an American Israeli, I cannot stress enough how toxic this concept is to Israelis and how it does nothing to help the cause of peace today.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Could Nikki Haley Really Beat Trump? Big Donors Are Daring to Dream.

      by

      Powerful players in the business world have gravitated toward Nikki Haley, aware that she remains an underdog but beginning to believe she has a chance.Late last month, Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, got an unexpected call from Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Dimon said he was impressed by Ms. Haley’s knowledge of policy details and her open-minded approach to complex issues raised in the Republican presidential race, according to a person familiar with what they discussed. Keep it up, he told her.He wasn’t the only business heavyweight to say so.In recent weeks, a group of chief executives, hedge fund investors and corporate deal makers from both parties have begun gravitating toward Ms. Haley and, in some cases, digging deeper into their pockets to help her.Her ascent in the polls and strong debate performances have raised hopes among Republicans hungering to end the dominance of former President Donald J. Trump that maybe, just maybe, they have found a candidate who can do so.“I’m a long way from making my mind up — something could change — but I’m very impressed with her,” said Kenneth G. Langone, the billionaire Home Depot co-founder, who has donated to Ms. Haley’s campaign and is considering giving more. “I think she’s a viable candidate. I would certainly like her over Trump.”Kenneth G. Langone, a co-founder of Home Depot, is part of a bipartisan group of chief executives, hedge-fund investors and corporate deal makers who have shown new interest in Ms. Haley. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesMs. Haley’s fresh appeal to the moneyed crowd is coming at a critical juncture in the race, when positive buzz and steady cash flow are vital to a candidate’s survival. With less than eight weeks before the Iowa caucuses, Ms. Haley’s campaign and allied political committees need money to pay for travel, advertising, staff and a ground game to draw out potential voters.Some business leaders say they appreciate her focus on cutting taxes and government spending. Others praise her foreign-policy chops and her search for a winning Republican message on abortion rights, on which she has sought a moderate path but recently tacked to the right by saying she would have signed a six-week ban as governor of South Carolina.Most say they see her as a welcome alternative to Mr. Trump, whom they blame for inciting the violence of Jan. 6, 2021, for costing Republicans a Senate majority in last year’s midterm elections and for being too volatile as a commander in chief. They also prefer her to President Biden, whose economic policies and age many cited as a concern.“It’s invigorating to be truly excited by a candidate again,” said Jonathan Bush, the chief executive of a health-data startup and a cousin of former President George W. Bush. He hosted a virtual fund-raiser for Ms. Haley in early November.Mr. Bush, a Republican who voted for Mr. Biden in 2020 and for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, in 2016, said he had been struck by her knowledge and poise.“The topic that everyone is on is, ‘How do you beat Donald Trump?’” Mr. Bush said, “and she was careful to say, ‘Look, people will decide about him, but this is where I am on certain issues.’ And she rattled off some issues, related to our debt, related to our role in the world. But what you picked up was an electric energy,” he added, “that I think got this crowd really excited.”But even with Ms. Haley’s momentum, halting Mr. Trump’s seemingly inexorable march to the Republican nomination promises to be a slog. With a wide edge in national and early-state polls, the former president is running effectively as an incumbent, with legions of supporters prepared to vote solely for him.Several donors and advisers described two groups taking shape among the major, top-dollar donors:First, those who have yielded to the likelihood that Mr. Trump, however they may feel about him, will probably be the nominee, and have decided to stop funding potential alternatives. Second, those who believe that with enough financial resources and a savvy field operation, Ms. Haley could unseat him.Despite the long odds, her financial supporters say they see a path to victory.“There were people that don’t like Trump at all but were very skeptical that he could be stopped,” said Eric Levine, a Republican fund-raiser who leads the bankruptcy and litigation practices at Eiseman Levine Lehrhaupt & Kakoyiannis. “They now believe he can be stopped,” he said, pointing to Ms. Haley’s steady climb in the polls.Mr. Levine, who initially backed Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, is co-hosting a Haley fund-raiser on Dec. 4. “His aura of invincibility is just peeled away completely,” he said.A spokeswoman for Ms. Haley’s campaign declined to comment.Polls show that Ms. Haley has gained traction against Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who has held the No. 2 spot in national surveys all year. In Iowa, she has pulled nearly even with Mr. DeSantis, even as he has pursued an all-in strategy for that state. In New Hampshire, where she is in second place, she has been nearing 20 percent in polling averages.Her campaign said she pulled in $1 million in the first 24 hours after the last debate on Nov. 9, where she distinguished herself for her hawkish positions on Ukraine and Gaza and for her scathing dismissal of Vivek Ramaswamy, a rival she called “scum.”And while fund-raising numbers for the fourth quarter have not yet been released, interviews with about 20 financial and corporate executives suggest that more big checks will soon arrive.Ms. Haley’s $11.6 million war chest has already been bolstered by campaign contributions from wealthy Wall Street executives, including the fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller and the private-equity investor Barry Sternlicht.“I’m supporting Nikki because I think the nation needs to move on from the divisiveness and fear-mongering of the far left and right,” Mr. Sternlicht said. “I’m also opting in for a fresh face, a younger person who more accurately reflects the nation.”Timothy Draper, a venture capitalist in California, was an early backer, pouring $1.25 million into a super PAC supporting her. In recent weeks, he said, he has fielded interest from Democrats and Republicans and, notably, many women. “I think she can unify the country,” he said.Ms. Haley has mingled with Gary D. Cohn, the onetime Goldman Sachs president who served as Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser at the same time Ms. Haley was U.N. ambassador, and the investment banker Aryeh Bourkoff, who co-hosted a fund-raiser for her in Manhattan on Nov. 14.Her team is discussing policy with representatives for Kenneth C. Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund founder, on topics running the gamut from increasing students’ access to high-quality education to how to ensure a strong national defense, according to a person briefed on their discussions.Mr. Griffin recently told Bloomberg News that he was “actively contemplating” backing her, but he has not made up his mind, this person said.Students at Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, listening to Ms. Haley speak at a campaign event this month. She has risen in polls in Iowa, where Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has invested heavily. Ms. Haley’s backers, as well as some Republican observers, believe that if she can inch closer to Mr. DeSantis in Iowa or even outmaneuver him for second place, she could enter the New Hampshire primary election the next week with real momentum.If she could then reel in support from the state’s independent voters, some of them add, she could have a chance of beating Mr. Trump there.“There’s a possibility in the coming months to win New Hampshire,” said Mr. Bush, who is planning to form a political action committee to promote Ms. Haley to independent voters in the Granite State, not far from where he lives in Maine.Mr. Bush also plans to repeat his virtual fund-raiser to introduce her to new donors without asking her to spend unnecessary time working a cocktail party. (He said that he invited his Bush cousins to the November event, but that none of them attended.)An upset in New Hampshire could also move the needle during the Feb. 24 primary in Ms. Haley’s home state, South Carolina, where she was governor before serving in the Trump administration. She is polling second there, trailing the former president badly.The leanness of Ms. Haley’s campaign has become an asset. In the third quarter, her campaign spent $3.5 million, about 43 cents of every dollar it took in, a far lower rate than candidates like Mr. DeSantis as well as Mr. Scott, who dropped out this month.Some Wall Street executives, many of whom are focused on government spending and debt, note approvingly that Ms. Haley largely flies commercial.For some deep-pocketed donors, the openness to Ms. Haley stems from desperation.“I would take anyone not over 76 or crazy,” said Michael Novogratz, the chief executive of the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital, a past Biden supporter who is now exploring both Ms. Haley and Representative Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat who is mounting a last-ditch bid for his party’s nomination. Mr. Novogratz said that Mr. Trump was too divisive and that Mr. Biden was too old.Ms. Haley is someone he might support, he said, as is former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.“Unfortunately,” he added as a caveat, “I don’t see either beating Trump.” More