Monday, September 2, 2019

FROM PHILADELPHIA TO OREGON, THE INSURGENCY IS MAKING WAVES IN MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS








August 29 2019, 6:00 a.m.






ON MONDAY, PHILADELPHIA City Council Member Helen Gym, a Democrat, endorsed Kendra Brooks, who is backed by the progressive Working Families Party in her campaign for City Council. The local Democratic Party was incensed by the endorsement, which Bob Brady, chair of the Democratic City Committee, said was “stupid,” reasoning that it would hurt Democrats by taking votes away from their slate of candidates. 
There are 32 candidates running in the November election for City Council, a 17-person body with 14 Democrats and 3 Republicans. Brooks is running as an independent for one of two open at-large seats reserved for minority or unaffiliated candidates, which have long been held by the GOP. The Working Families Party — which operates as a progressive electoral organizing body in some states, and an official third party in others — is also backing Nicolas O’Rourke, another independent candidate and longtime community organizer, in hopes of one day building a progressive majority on the City Council. 
Gym has company in her alleged stupidity. Brooks has been endorsed by Democratic Pennsylvania state Reps. Chris Rabb, Elizabeth Fiedler, and Malcolm Kenyatta, all of whom entered office in the last three years with the backing of the Working Families Party. (They have all endorsed O’Rourke as well.)
Following Gym’s endorsement of Brooks, Brady, a former U.S. representative for Pennsylvania, “half-jokingly suggested” that the Philadelphia Democratic Party might reciprocate by replacing Gym’s name with Brooks’s on the sample ballot it distributes to voters, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported
The Working Families Party’s attempts to expand its influence on the Philadelphia City Council, and in Pennsylvania more broadly, is a microcosm of a strategy it has been testing out across the country in recent years: work with — and, in many cases, seek out — progressive candidates who can excite voters and capture the spirit of pro-working class politics. The WFP helps provide them with the tools they need to go up against the Democratic establishment, often with the collaboration of insurgent Democrats like Gym — an inside-outside strategy that infuriates party leaders.

The Working Families Party started its political experiment more than 20 years ago in New York, with the goal of pushing the Democratic Party further left by pairing pro-labor policies with aggressive outreach to working class voters. In Albany, where the WFP is an actual political party, it recently helped put the nail in the coffin of the now-defunct Independent Democratic Conference, a group of state legislators who for seven years orchestrated a power-sharing arrangement with Republicans. The IDC broke up in 2018 under pressure from progressives, only to have six WFP-backed candidates replace their former members. 
The WFP has also been heightening its profile outside of New York —  it made its first national political endorsement for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in 2015 — and it has ballooned in size over the last several years, now with chapters in 18 states and the District of Columbia. As part of a 2020 endorsement process, the party interviewed Sanders and Sen. Cory Booker this month using questions submitted by WFP members. The group has an annual budget of $10 million between its state and national committees.
Its expansion has come with growing pains, including the very public exit of several important unions that at one point made up the bulk of its base. At the same time, the WFP has developed a more deliberate strategy of trying to retake state and local governments, which Democrats largely controlled throughout the 1960s and ’70s but have now become the GOP’s domain. 
In 2017, nearly two-thirds of the over 1,000 candidates the Working Families Party endorsed won their elections, including Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner and Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba. Just last year, the party helped install 457 candidates in local and statewide offices, out of the 820 candidates it endorsed across 38 states. The electoral successes the party shared in 2018’s blue wave have continued into 2019: Over the course of five months, their chosen candidates were elected into more than 50 offices at local and municipal levels, including on city councils and school boards, in nine states. 
The organization in some ways serves as a complement to at least a wing of the Democratic Party: by focusing on nonpartisan positions in local politics, the group has been able to install progressive officials on city councils and school boards, while also helping increase voter turnout for both partisan and nonpartisan elections. As Bob Brady’s reaction to Kendra Brooks demonstrates, however, Democrats don’t always see it that way.
“We should be seen as a welcoming force to build the Democratic Party toward 2020,” Brooks, a small business owner and mother of five, said in an interview last month. “It doesn’t have to be ‘either or,’” she continued. “It should be ‘this and.’ Like, yes, the Democratic Party is the largest party here in Philadelphia. And why can’t we have a strong independent base as well? So we, together — Democrats and independents — can have a stronger base toward 2020.”

THE WFP IS known for running independent progressive candidates that challenge corporate-friendly Democratic politics. Their vision is to not only win races but organize around local and municipal elections, building capacity for the left to make gains beyond Election Day. Their policy priorities include expanding workers’ rights, opposing right-to-work laws, raising the minimum wage, reforming drug scheduling and misdemeanor sentencing, and establishing paid family medical leave. 
In local elections in nine states so far this year, dozens of candidates were elected running on that policy platform, boosted by WFP, alongside other groups they work with, like the Democratic Socialists of America and Run for Something, a political group founded after the 2016 election to support young progressives running for office at local and state levels. 
In Chicago, the United Working Families, a Chicago affiliate of the WFP, helped reelect two incumbents and install seven new aldermen — including five democratic socialists, who were also backed by the Chicago DSA — to City Council, unseating corporate Democrats with close ties to the Chicago machine. They knocked on more than 500,000 doors and sent 230,000 texts to voters between September and the runoff in April. The upsets were a solid repudiation of former Mayor Rahm Emanuel and spoke to the group’s success in not only establishing and maintaining an active base in the city, but expanding it after helping push Emanuel into the city’s first mayoral runoff since it started holding nonpartisan elections in 2015.  
In Wisconsin, a state largely considered the birthplace of voucher and charter schools in the U.S., WFP helped elect five new pro-public school candidates to the nine-member Milwaukee Public School Board. The party recruited four of those candidates to run. They joined incumbent Tony Baez, who WFP backed in 2017, in building a crucial base of support for Tony Evers, a first-term, pro-public school Democratic governor, in the state’s largest city. 
In Phoenix, Arizona, community organizer and migrant rights leader Carlos Garcia, who co-founded the WFP’s Maricopa County chapter, won a competitive City Council race to beat former council member and lobbyist Mike Johnson. Previously, Garcia helped lead the human rights organization Puente Arizona, which was instrumental in the takedown of former sheriff Joe Arpaio and led opposition to the state’s controversial SB 1070, the “show me your papers” law that endorsed racial profiling. There, the WFP helped to contact more than 15,000 working-class voters. 
In Morgantown, West Virginia, where WFP launched its chapter just two years ago, every member of the party’s seven-candidate slate — which included five incumbents, one write-in candidate, and a newcomer against a former council member — was elected to City Council in April. 
The party’s Texas chapter helped elect former City Council Member Stephen Mason as mayor of Cedar Hill; Mason is the city’s first black mayor. The WFP also backed three successful candidates for city councils in LancasterDeSoto, and Balch Springs
In Pennsylvania, the state’s WFP chapter backed Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney’s reelection bid, and supported Gym, the Democratic City Council member who endorsed Brooks, and insurgent Democratic candidate Isaiah Thomas, who is running for City Council, in their primary races. Monica Taylor, who the party backed in a May primary, will head to the general election for Delaware County Council in November.
The Oregon WFP helped elect a total of 28 candidates across five counties in Oregon. They include 24 pro-public school officials who are now serving on school and community college boards, as well as four Parks and Recreation board members in Willamalane and Tualatin Hills. Ahead of the May municipal election, the state chapter conducted candidate training and helped coordinate staff and volunteers who knocked on 1,500 doors and sent 2,500 text messages. 
In Denver, Colorado, five of six people who ran on the WFP slate in June were elected to City Council. Among them is Candi CdeBaca, the Council’s first ever democratic socialist, who was also backed by the DSA. The social worker and activist, who was connected to WFP through one of their weekend candidate trainings, defeated a two-term incumbent who was previously the top fundraiser in one of the city’s most expensive districts. She has already made an impact: This summer, she led the Council in opposing a total of $10.6 million in contracts from two private prison companies seeking to run halfway houses for the city. 
What WFP is demonstrating through its chosen candidates, said Maurice Mitchell, the group’s national director, is that “in every single region of the country, we’re running on a brazenly, unapologetic, progressive agenda, with grassroots folks who represent their communities, and are running grassroots volunteer-focused and volunteer-powered campaigns. And they’re winning.”

THROUGH CANDIDATE TRAININGS and workshops, WFP works hand in hand with established and upcoming leaders in communities that already have strong organizing roots but might lack the resources to effectively translate that power into office.
This type of work couldn’t be done without the trust WFP has cultivated in communities where it has chapters, said Abdullah Younus, DSA National Political Committee member and former co-chair of NYC-DSA. The party “has a lot of institutional knowledge, holds a lot of relationships, and can provide infrastructure and rigor that was otherwise unattainable for local grassroots groups previously — or maybe not attainable at the same level as it can be,” he said. 
They work in conjunction with local grassroots groups as well as national political and activist organizations, like DSA; Run For Something; Sister District, which provides services like fundraising, canvassing, and phone banking for candidates running in state legislatures controlling redistricting in 2021; and Forward Majority, which focuses on flipping state legislatures in areas with heavy gerrymandering and evidence of voter suppression. 
In Phoenix, for example, WFP worked with the Campaign for Better Neighborhoods, a group that organizes around local races on issues like education and government accountability, to contact 15,000 voters before Garcia’s May runoff election. The candidate, who came to the U.S. from Mexico at age 5, already had deep ties in the community. He had a reputation as a respected and effective activist through his work with Puente, the grassroots human rights organization that challenged Arpaio’s policing. 
The goal, in some ways, is to fill in for a Democratic Party that now more or less ignores state and local elections, and even more so municipal elections, which are largely nonpartisan and therefore off-limits for the national party. “What we’re doing is stuff that at one time the Democratic Party did,” Andy Cockburn, who chairs the party’s West Virginia chapter, said. “Over the last 20 years or so, that has completely disappeared here. The state party in the November election — the only campaign they did was a series of mailers all for Joe Manchin for Senate.” 
But the objective, also, is to make room in politics for people who are often neglected by a political system that is too often beholden to corporate dollars. 
“We’re interested in building institutions and building infrastructure, before, during, and after,” Mitchell said. “So after an election, even in a scenario where there’s a loss, because of the way that we conducted the election, we surfaced grassroots leaders who otherwise wouldn’t be involved in politics.” 

Over the past couple of years, the party has had success with that playbook in Wisconsin. Following the election of three progressive candidates to the Milwaukee school board in 2017, “we kind of saw an appetite for more,” spurring the WFP to get more involved in that city, said Priscilla Bort, who managed the WFP’s 2019 slate for the board. In 2018, working with local partners like the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association to oust former governor and anti-public education stalwart Scott Walker, they helped elect former educator Tony Evers as governor. That election cycle laid the groundwork for the election of pro-public school candidates in Milwaukee in 2019; their platforms include a commitment to fighting back against the interests that pushed to expand private education, voucher systems, and charter schools in the state. 
“I think we carried the momentum from Governor Evers’s election too, in that, ‘Hey, somebody who cares about public education is in a statewide office,’” Bort said. “To have people who have been in our schools be in statewide office, and have taught in our schools be in statewide office, we used our momentum.” They pulled it off with help from teachers who would work all day and go out to knock on doors at night.

WITH A NATIONAL political conversation focused heavily on the 2020 presidential election, WFP and its partners remain focused on what they see as the bigger picture: wresting control of state governments, even as they organize in battleground states, like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that decided President Donald Trump’s 2016 win. The group believes that supporting candidates for down-ballot races can in some ways be more important than focusing on federal offices or even the White House. How well they’re able to do that alongside Democrats remains to be seen. 
“Who is the president is going to matter a lot less if we don’t take back state chambers ahead of redistricting,” Ross Morales Rocketto, co-founder of Run for Something, told The Intercept. “I think it’s bigger than most people understand. A lot of people get the idea that we could lose Congress for another 10 years,” he explained. “If we aren’t able to flip some chambers or, at the very least, win back some of the seats that we’ve lost over the years, we might win or at least fight to a stalemate at the federal level. But we’re gonna lose these state legislative battles.” 
The ultimate goal, even when it comes to nonpartisan races dealing with bland topics like garbage collection and street maintenance, Cockburn said, is that “down the road, some of these people may run for higher office.” 
“The Republicans have been very, very good about putting up candidates for all these sort of — city council races, school board races, county commission races, just so that people get experience running elections, get their name recognition up, and then they can run for state legislature and it’s easier to make the jump up,” he explained. “We see Republicans running for multiple races. One will run for sheriff and then run for school board — things that make no sense at all in terms of expertise. … So we’re trying to do the same thing: to build our bench.”











BRAZIL: SELECTIVE LEAK ...













Part 9
The top Car Wash prosecutor leaked sensitive information to a Brazilian reporter with motives that could jeopardize the task force’s convictions.
 EXPAND ALL PARTS

BRAZIL’S CHIEF PROSECUTOR overseeing its sweeping anti-corruption probe, Deltan Dallagnol, lied to the public when he vehemently denied in a 2017 interview with BBC Brasil that his prosecutorial task force leaked secret information about investigations to achieve its ends.
In fact, in the months preceding his false claim, Dallagnol was a participant in secret chats exclusively obtained by The Intercept, in which prosecutors plotted to leak information to the media with the goal of manipulating suspects by making them believe that their indictment was imminent even when it was not, in order to intimidate them into signing confessions that implicated other targets of the investigation.

Critics of the so-called Car Wash investigation — which imprisoned dozens of Brazilian elites including, most significantly, the center-left ex-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva when he was leading all polls to win the 2018 presidential election (ultimately won by Jair Bolsonaro after Lula was barred) — long suspected that the prosecutorial team was responsible for numerous media reports that revealed sensitive details about suspects targeted by the investigations.
Dallagnol and his team always publicly, even angrily, denied this. Yet the Secret Brazil Archive obtained by The Intercept, which we began reporting on June 9, contains numerous instances of the prosecutorial team planting exactly the sorts of leaks they repeatedly denied involvement in — often with motives that rendered the outcome legally questionably, if not outright illegal.
One illustrative example came relatively early in the investigation. On June 21, 2015, in a Telegram group for task force members, the Car Wash prosecutor Orlando Martello Júnior asked one of his colleagues, Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima: “what is the strategy for revealing the next steps in the cases of Electrobras, etc.?” Santos Lima replied that while he did not know what specifically his colleague was referring to, “my leaks are always designed to cause them to think that investigations are inevitable and thus incentivize them to collaborate.”
According to Brazilian law of criminal prosecutions (which provides rules governing confessions as part of plea bargains), a plea bargain can be accepted only if it has been offered “voluntarily.” But the prosecutor admitted to his colleagues that he used media leaks to forge an intimidating environment and, with that, could obtain confessions through manipulative means. These actions are squarely at odds with what are required to be the voluntary nature of confessions and plea bargains.

June 21, 2015 – Chat Group: FT MPF Curitiba 2
Orlando Martello – 09:03:04 – CF(leaks) what is the strategy for revealing the next steps of Electrobras, etc?
Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima – 09:10:08 –http://m.politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,na-mira-do-chefe-,1710379
Santos Lima – 09:12:21 – I don’t know what you’re talking about, but my leaks are always designed to cause them to think that investigations are inevitable and thus incentive them to collaborate.
Santos Lima – 09:15:37 – I read the news of Flores on the other list. It’s just reheated news.
Santos Lima – 09:18:16 – Incidentally, Moro told me that he will have to use this week’s Avancini term on Angra
Martello – 09:25:33 – CFleaks, we don’t know want to do BA on Angra e Eletrobrás? Why alert them to this fact in the press conference?
Martello – 09:26:00 – In order not to lose our habit?


The prosecutors were debating strategies to reach a plea bargain agreement with Bernardo Freiburghaus, whom they believed had served as one of the engineers of the bribery scheme used by the construction giant Odebrecht. Freiburghaus had escaped a police operation to arrest him because he had relocated to Switzerland in 2014 and was being pursued with an Interpol alert.
In the chat, Santos Lima boasted, without any embarrassment, that he “leaked” information to the press. In addition, his comment implied that this was a customary practice, since it referred to the plural: “my leaks.” And the prosecutor stated with apparent pride that he did so with well-defined objectives: to use fear of indictments in order to induce suspects to act in the prosecutors’ own interests by “collaborating.”
Notably, the prosecutor’s boast of these types of leaks did not elicit any objections from the other Car Wash prosecutors. Throughout the conversations, the rest of the group remained silent, suggesting that leaks of this type were far from unusual.
On the same day, the task force’s chief prosecutor, Dallagnol, along with Martello, announced in the chat that — in order to pressure the suspect — they had leaked information to a reporter with the right-wing newspaper Estadão that the U.S. government would help investigate Freiburghaus. They were expecting that this media leak would advance their investigation by pressuring Freiburghaus. It was Dallagnol who was personally responsible for the leak, as shown in his secret conversation with the newspaper reporter (The Intercept has translated the Portuguese conversations into English).

June 21, 2015 – Private chat
Deltan Dallagnol – 11:43:49 – The operator of Odebrecht was Bernardo, who is in Switzerland. The U.S. will act on our request, because the transactions passed through the U.S. We have already made a request for US cooperation regarding deposits received by PRC. This is something new. Are you interested in publishing this today or tomorrow, REDACTED, keeping my name off? You can say “source in the MPF.” At the press conference, Igor said there is a red notice to arrest him, and there is. He can be arrested anywhere in the world. Now with the US in action, which is new, let’s see if we can do what was done in the FIFA case to Bernardo, which is what inspired us.
REDACTED – 11:45:44 – Whoa awesome! !!!! I will publish today!!!!!!!

As the conversation progressed, the reporter advised that the story about U.S. aid in the Odebrecht case (which was not formalized at the time) would be the Estadão headline the next day.
Back in the prosecutor’s Telegram chat group, a conversation between June 21 and 22 detailed the task force’s intentions toward Freiburghaus:

June 21, 2015 – Chat Group: FT MPF Curitiba 2
Deltan Dallagnol – 20:33:52 – Tomorrow the cooperation with the US regarding Bernando is the headline in Estadão.
Dallagnol – 20:34:00 – Confirmed
Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima – 20:55:16 – I tried to read, but I couldn’t. Tomorrow I’ll look. Let’s closely control the media. I have space at FSP [Folha], who knows how we can use them if we need.

The information leaked by the Car Wash prosecutorial task force was indeed the newspaper headline, and the methods of pressure imposed on the investigative source were resumed shortly thereafter in the same chat:

June 22, 2015 – Chat Group: FT MPF Curitiba 2
Deltan Dallagnol – 01:56:40 – I think we need to request a freeze of his assets in Switzerland
Dallagnol – 01:56:48 – Bank account, real estate and others
Dallagnol – 01:57:00 – Go and tell him he’ll lose everything
Dallagnol – 01:57:20 – Have him on his knees and then offer redemption. There’s no way he won’t take it


At the end of the day, the strategy failed, as Freiburghaus never provided any plea bargain or cooperation.
Beyond the use of media leaks to intimidate and manipulate confessions, what makes all of this particularly incriminating is that Dallagnol has publicly, and vehemently, denied that Car Wash prosecutors have ever used any leaks, claiming that all the leaks about Car Wash came instead from defense attorneys and their clients. In the interview with BBC Brasil following a speech he gave at Harvard Law School in April 2017, Dallagnol said that “public officials do not leak information — the loophole is inevitable access to secret data by defendants and their clients.” When asked directly if the task force had leaked, the chief prosecutor replied, “In cases where only public officials had access to the data, the information did not leak.”
Responding to inquiries from The Intercept about this story, the press spokesperson for the Car Wash task force denied that the prosecutors had ever leaked information to Estadão, insisting that it “never leaked sensitive information to the press, contrary to what the questioning suggests.” To justify this denial, the task force argues that information passed to the press must violate the law or a court order to be characterized as a “leak.” Using this newly created definition of “leak,” the task force argues that the material sent by Dallagnol to Estadão did not, in its view, violate either the law or any court order and therefore, cannot be accurately described as a “leak.”

“Is there any chance to release the news to GOL?”
But The Intercept’s reporting here does not claim or suggest that Dallagnol or Santos Lima committed a crime or violated court orders by leaking information that was not known to the public. The point of the reporting is that the prosecutors did exactly what Dallagnol told the BBC they never did: namely, leaked inside information about investigations of which the public and the media were unaware in order to advance their investigative goals.
To defend Dallagnol from this clear evidence that he lied, the task force is trying to invent a new definition of “leak,” a meaning that only considers an act to be a “leak” if it entails a violation of the law or a court order. But that, to put it generously, is not a commonly recognized understanding of what leaking means. Indeed, in his interview with the BBC, Dallagnol did not deny that the task force illegally leaked. He denied that the task force used leaks of any kind — “public officials do not leak information,” he said, adding: “In cases where only public agents had access to the data, the information did not leak.”
The task force’s insistence that it never used leaks is especially bizarre given that Santos Lima himself boasted that he did just that, using the word “leak” to describe his own actions: “my leaks are always designed to cause them to think that investigations are inevitable and thus incentive them to collaborate,” he wrote, demonstrating that even the prosecutors themselves do not understand leaks to have the definition they are now trying to impose on it. Moreover, in his conversation with the Estadão reporter, Dallagnol himself described the information he was sending about the proposed collaboration with the U.S. as “new” and for this reason, insisted that the information he sent could only be published if they keep “my name off” the record.” If the information published was already public, as the Car Wash task force is now claiming through its spokesperson, why would Dallagnol insist on anonymity?

Thus, the task force’s denial that prosecutors did exactly what Dallagnol falsely insisted they never did — leaking information that was not known to the public — is contradicted by the prosecutors’ own words, as posted in the chat above, in which they themselves describe their actions as “leaks.” It is also negated by Dallagnol’s insistence to the Estadão reporter that information passed to the paper should not be attributed to him. It is further refuted by other repeated episodes in which prosecutors admit to leaking information about investigations to the media, often using specifically the word “leaks” that they now seek to redefine.

Selective Leak
These leaks were not isolated cases. In 2016, Car Wash prosecutors spoke explicitly about their use of “selective leaking” to the media intended to influence and manipulate a rumored petition for habeas corpus from former Speaker of the House Eduardo Cunha, to be filed in the Supreme Court:

December 12, 2016 – Chat Group: Filhos do Januario 1
Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima – 18:45:31 – I received from the Russian: off the record I received news, I don’t know if it’s true, that there would be an order from the Supreme Court that would release Cunha tomorrow
Roberson Pozzobon – 18:51:49 – This info is circulating here at the federal prosecutor’s office also
Paulo Roberto Galvão – 18:57:24 – The Supreme Court would be drained. I don’t believe it.
Athayde Ribeiro Costa – 18:57:40 –toffi, lewa and gm. I don’t doubt it.
Santos Lima – 18:58:37 – It’s necessary to see who goes to the hearing.
Jerusa Viecili – 18:58:39 – Pqp
Santos Lima –19:00:58 – Is there any chance to release the news to GOL?
Costa – 19:01:35 – selective leak … 

These dialogues prove that Dallagnol lied to the BBC when he denied the use of leaks. That denial came after Dallagnol participated in several conversations in which his task force colleagues explicitly discussed doing what he publicly denied: namely, promoting leaks and using the media for their own interests. Ironically, Dallagnol himself pointed out to the BBC how complex the task of proving leaks was because, according to him, those involved always deny it.
“It is very difficult to identify the point (source of the leak), because if you listen to these people, they will deny it,” he said. Indeed they do. That’s precisely what Dallagnol and his colleagues spent years doing falsely — until the truth was finally revealed through the publication of their own words.




João Felipe Linhares has contributed research to this article.










BEFORE KAMALA HARRIS SOURED ON BERNIE SANDERS’S MEDICARE FOR ALL BILL, SHE GREW HER EMAIL LIST FROM IT










August 26 2019, 12:23 p.m.




BEFORE DISTANCING HERSELF from Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All campaign, Kamala Harris repeatedly boasted her support for the legislation in Facebook ads, in an effort to grow her list of supporters. Earlier this month, Harris backed away from Medicare for All during a private event in the Hamptons, telling a crowd of large-dollar donors that she had “not been comfortable with Bernie’s plan,” Bloomberg reported. 
“I was proud to be the first Senate Democrat to come out in support of Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill,” the ad, which ran from August 2 to August 7, 2018, and prompted Facebook users to share their email addresses with the campaign, read. “It is absurd that we are the only major industrialized nation in the world not to guarantee health care to all people. Add your name if you agree it’s time for Medicare for All.”
Harris told attendees at the fundraiser that her plan would preserve private insurance, distancing herself from Sanders’s plan, which she was the first senator to co-sponsor in 2017
In April 2019, her campaign ran a flurry of ads saying she was “proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Medicare for All bill in the Senate.”
In January, she ran a sponsored campaign via Daily Kos asking the site’s readers to sign a petition — one that would have them join her own email list — calling for Medicare for All. “Every single person living in our country should have access to high-quality, meaningful, affordable health care, from birth on up. That’s why I’m proud to co-sponsor the Medicare for All Act in the Senate,” she wrote in an email to the site’s users, linking to a petition that has since been removed and putting her support of Sanders’s bill in bold. “Not only is it smart for taxpayers — it’s morally the right thing to do. We have the power to make Medicare for All a reality in our country, but only if we come together and make our voices heard.”
In September 2017, in a similar petition, she named Sanders specifically while asking people to back her decision to co-sponsor his bill. She said that the U.S. “is stronger when everyone has access to affordable health care at every stage of their life, from birth on up. It’s for that reason I announced this week at our town hall that I intend to co-sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders’ Medicare–for–All legislation. I’m Senator Kamala Harris and I’m asking for your support…Sign here to join me as a citizen co-sponsor of Bernie Sanders’ Medicare–for–All legislation today.” It, too, is no longer up.
In August 2018, the campaign for the former prosecutor and junior senator from California ran at least six sponsored ads that reached Facebook users in states across the country. At least half of those were specifically targeted to California. The ads reached about 6,000 Facebook users, according to data available from Facebook. The ad called for Facebook users to add their names and email addresses to a petitionsupporting Medicare for All, expanding the campaign’s email list — a key fundraising tool.
In 2018, Harris’s Senate campaign ran ads with fundraising pitches linked to her support for Medicare for All. “Every donation you make keeps me off the phones and focused on fighting for things like Medicare for All, DACA, and bail reform in the U.S. Senate,” one ad read.
DESPITE HER STATEMENT at the donor event — which was hosted by movie executive Jamie Patricof and his wife Kelly — Harris remains a sponsor of Sanders’s bill, the Medicare for All Act of 2017. She has also spoken directly in support of single payer in recent years.

The recent comments, however, marked at least the second time that Harris walked back her support for universal health care since she launched her presidential campaign in January. During the first round of Democratic debates in June, Harris raised her hand when NBC moderators asked the candidates if they would eliminate private insurance. The next day, however, Harris told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that she didn’t think private insurance should be eliminated and that she had misunderstood the question. 
Ahead of the second round of presidential debates in July, Harris rolled out her own plan, “KamalaCare.” The plan seeks to achieve universal health care over the next 10 years by expanding Medicare with the help of private insurers, a strategy for which the Trump administration has also expressed support. Though Harris’s plan uses the term “Medicare for All” throughout, it preserves and promotes the role of private insurers, a stark contrast from Sanders’s bill, which provides for an entirely publicly funded system. 
After news of her comments at the Hamptons fundraiser were reported last week, Sanders and members of his team swiped back at Harris on Twitter. “Promises to big donors in the Hamptons don’t stay in the Hamptons,” Sanders speechwriter David Sirota wrote. Harris’s campaign spokesperson Ian Sams responded, “She has her own health care plan. So yeah, not a secret she isn’t running on Bernie’s plan anymore. Sorry, David.” 
Later in the day, Sanders posted a tweet taking a stab at his opponent. 


I don't go to the Hamptons to raise money from billionaires. If I ever visited there, I would tell them the same thing I have said for the last 30 years: We must pass a Medicare for All system to guarantee affordable health care for all, not just for those who can afford it.

The Harris campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Earlier this month, Sams told the Daily Beast, “There’s a difference between signing onto a good idea and running on a plan,” in reference to the contrast between Harris’s 2017 support for single payer and the comments she made to donors.


















A TOP FINANCIER OF TRUMP AND MCCONNELL IS A DRIVING FORCE BEHIND AMAZON DEFORESTATION










August 27 2019, 10:53 a.m.





TWO BRAZILIAN FIRMS owned by a top donor to President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are significantly responsible for the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rainforest, carnage that has developed into raging fires that have captivated global attention. 
The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans. The shipping terminal at Miritituba, deep in the Amazon in the Brazilian state of Pará, allows growers to load soybeans on barges, which will then sail to a larger port before the cargo is shipped around the world. 
The Amazon terminal is run by Hidrovias do Brasil, a company that is owned in large part by Blackstone, a major U.S. investment firm. Another Blackstone company, Pátria Investimentos, owns more than 50 percent of Hidrovias, while Blackstone itself directly owns an additional roughly 10 percent stake. Blackstone co-founder and CEO Stephen Schwarzman is a close ally of Trump and has donated millions of dollars to McConnell in recent years. 
“Blackstone is committed to responsible environmental stewardship,” the company said in a statement. “This focus and dedication is embedded in every investment decision we make and guides how we conduct ourselves as operators. In this instance, while we do not have operating control, we know the company has made a significant reduction in overall carbon emissions through lower congestion and allowed the more efficient flow of agricultural goods by Brazilian farmers.”
The port and the highway have been deeply controversial in Brazil, and were subjects of a 2016 investigation by The Intercept Brasil. Hidrovias announced in early 2016 that it would soon begin exporting soybeans trucked from the state of Mato Grosso along the B.R.-163 highway. The road was largely unpaved at the time, but the company said it planned to continue improving and developing it. In the spring of 2019, the government of Jair Bolsonaro, elected in fall 2018, announced that Hidrovias would partner in the privatization and development of hundreds of miles of the B.R.-163. Developing the roadway itself causes deforestation, but, more importantly, it helps make possible the broader transformation of the Amazon from jungle to farmland.
The roadway, B.R. 163, has had a marked effect on deforestation. After the devastation that began under the military dictatorship and accelerated through the 1970s and ’80s, the rate of deforestation slowed, as a coalition of Indigenous communities and other advocates of sustaining the forest fought back against the encroachment. The progress began turning back in 2014, as political tides shifted right and global commodity prices climbed. Deforestation began to truly spike again after the soft coup that ousted President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers’ Party in 2016. The right-wing government that seized power named soy mogul Blairo Maggi, a former governor of Mato Grosso, as minister of agriculture.
Yet even as deforestation had been slowing prior to the coup, the area around the highway was being destroyed. “Every year between 2004 and 2013 — except 2005 — while deforestation in Amazonia as a whole fell, it increased in the region around the B.R.-163,” the Financial Times reported in September 2017. That sparked pushback from Indigenous defenders of the Amazon. In March, Hidrovias admitted that its business had been slowed by increasing blockades on B.R. 163, as people put their bodies in front of the destruction. Still, the company is pushing forward. Hidrovios recently said that, thanks to heavy investment, it planned to double its grain shipping capacity to 13 million tons.

The Amazon, where a record number of fires have been raging, is the world’s largest rainforest. It absorbs a significant amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to the climate crisis. The Amazon is so dense in vegetation that it produces something like a fifth of the world’s oxygen supply. The moisture that evaporates from the Amazon is important form farmlands not just in South America, but also in the U.S. Midwest, where it falls to the earth as rain. Protection of the Amazon, 60 percent of which is in Brazil, is crucial to the continued existence of civilization as we know it. 

The effort to transform the Amazon from a rainforest into a source of agribusiness revenue is central to the conflict, and linked to the fires raging out of control today. The leading edge of the invasion of the jungle is being cut by grileiros, or “land-grabbers,” who operate outside the law with chainsaws. The grileiros then sell the newly cleared land to agribusiness concerns, whose harvest is driven on the highway to the terminal, before being exported. Bolsonaro has long called for the Amazon to be turned over to agribusiness, and has rapidly defanged agencies responsible for protecting it, and empowered agribusiness leaders intent on clearing the forest. The land-grabbers have become emboldened.
“With Bolsonaro, the invasions are worse and will continue to get worse,” Francisco Umanari, a 42-year-old Apurinã chief, told Alexander Zaitchik,for a recent story in The Intercept. “His project for the Amazon is agribusiness. Unless he is stopped, he’ll run over our rights and allow a giant invasion of the forest. The land grabs are not new, but it’s become a question of life and death.”
Fires in the Amazon have been producing devastation described as unprecedented, many of them lit by farmers and others looking to clear land for cultivation or grazing. Bolsonaro initially dismissed the fires as unworthy of serious attention. Several weeks ago, Bolsonaro fired a chief government scientist for a report on the rapid escalation of deforestation under Bolsonaro’s administration, claiming that the numbers were fabricated. 
Beginning with the military dictatorship in Brazil, when agribusiness was fully empowered, roughly a fifth of the jungle was destroyed by the mid-2000s. If the Amazon loses another fifth of its mass, it is at risk of a phenomenon known as dieback, where the forest becomes so dry that avicious, cascading cycle takes over, and it becomes, as Zaitchik writes,“beyond the reach of any subsequent human intervention or regret.”

SCHWARZMAN, A FOUNDER of Blackstone, owns roughly a fifth of the company, making him one of the world’s richest men. In 2018, he was paid at least $568 million, which was, in fact, a drop from the $786 million he made the year before. He has been generous toward McConnell and Trump with that wealth. In 2016, he gave $2.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC and put Jim Breyer, McConnell’s billionaire brother-in-law, on the board of Blackstone. Two years later, Schwarzman kicked in $8 million to McConnell’s Super PAC. 
Blackstone employees have given well over $10 million to McConnell and his Super PAC over the years, making them the biggest source of direct financing over McConnell’s career. McConnell’s Senate campaign declined to comment.
Schwarzman is a close friend and adviser to Trump, and served as the chair of his Strategic and Policy Forum until it fell apart in the wake of the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, in which Trump famously praised “very fine people, on both sides.” In December 2017, as the final details of the GOP tax cut were being ironed out, Schwarzman hosted a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for Trump. Some of the president’s dinner companions complained about the tax bill, and days later, Trump slashed the top percentage rate in the final package from 39.6 to 37. 
In recent months, the Sackler family, whose members founded and own the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, have become pariahs for their role in facilitating the opioid crisis and the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Schwarzman’s contributions to the destruction of the Amazon, which stands between humanity and an uninhabitable planet, may ultimately render him as socially untouchable as the Sacklers, given the scale of the fallout from the destruction of the rainforest. 
IN DEFENSE OF the project, a Blackstone spokesperson noted that it had been approved by the International Finance Corporation, an affiliate of the World Bank, and that the IFC had determined that the project would, in fact, reduce carbon emissions. Blackstone also forwarded a statement that it credited to Hidrovias, which also emphasized the support of the IFC:
Hidrovias has always worked within the highest Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”)  standards, constantly evaluated by audits from international multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank – IFC (International Finance Corporation). In addition, Hidrovias maintains all the environmental  licenses required by the competent authorities.
The IFC has financed some of the world’s most environmentally destructive projects, so its endorsement in itself is not particularly persuasive. But even on its own terms, the IFC’s study of the Blackstone project calls the project’s sustainability into question. Transporting soy or grain by waterway is indeed a less carbon-intensive method of transport, the IFC correctly noted in its report. But, it went on, that assessment doesn’t take into account the reality that “the construction of the Miritituba port, close to still-intact areas of the Amazon forest, is likely to lower transport costs for farmers and thereby accelerate conversion of natural habitats into agricultural areas, particularly for soy production.”
The project is OK, the bank argued, because Hidrovias and its clients can be trusted to be responsible, and that “the Miritituba port is being purpose-built to handle soy traded only by responsible traders who are sensitive to the preservation of natural habitats.” The bank assured that “100% of the company’s transport capacity in the North System is contracted to large trading companies, which observe high levels of governance and abide by the Amazon Soy Moratorium. The Moratorium, which prohibits purchasing soy produced on illegally deforested lands, was originally negotiated in 2006 between the big traders, Greenpeace, and Brazilian authorities. It has been renewed on a yearly basis since then.”
The moratorium, however, is only as strong as the government’s ability to monitor it. Proving that soy was grown on illegally deforested lands is highly difficult, as land-grabbers move quickly to clear forest and sell the newly cleared land to ranchers or agribusiness operators who quickly put it into cultivation and later claim that they had no way of knowing it was illegally deforested. The scheme also presumes that the government is interested in regulating agribusiness; the Bolsonaro administration has been quite explicit that it is not interested in doing so, putting top agribusiness officials in key posts, while defunding regulatory agencies.
And even if it were somehow true that all of the soy shipped from the Hidrovias port met all the requirements of the moratorium, commodity markets are fluid. A new port for the big traders eases congestion and lowers transportation costs elsewhere for smaller traders, thereby encouraging more development and more cultivation. (The IFC noted that Hidrovias promised to watch its soy clients closely: “HDB will establish and maintain internal procedures to review clients’ compliance with all provisions of Amazon Soy Moratorium or any other relevant legal requirements aimed at preventing trade in soy produced in illegally deforested areas. If the purpose of the port or the mix of HDB’s clients changes, the company will advise IFC of such changes and may be required to undertake further due diligence to ensure that these do not lead to undesirable indirect impacts.”)
The final justification the IFC made for the project comes down to incrementalism. Other development is also happening, the bank noted, so this single port can only cause so much harm. It concluded that “the port’s incremental contribution to the overall reduction of transport costs is judged to be marginal, given the myriad other factors (paving of B.R.-163, installation of other ports in Miritituba district, etc.) that are contributing to development in the region.” Bolsonaro has plans to pave significantly more roads in the Amazon that have otherwise been impassable much of the year, a project made feasible by international financing.

Of course, Hidrovias is also involved in paving B.R.-163 and other development projects in the region. Those projects, such as the paving of the highway, have additional indirect — though entirely predictable — consequences, as they spur side roads that make previously difficult-to-reach areas of the Amazon accessible for mining, logging, or further deforestation.
A Blackstone spokesperson noted that the fund only owns 9.3 percent of Hidrovias. But that ignores the 55.8 percent of Hidrovias that is owned by Pátria Investimentos. On Hidrovias’s website, Pátria is described as a company “in partnership with Blackstone,” and it is known in the financial industry to be a Blackstone company. A November 2018 article in Private Equity News about Bolsonaro’s election was headlined: “Blackstone’s Pátria: Brazilian Democracy is Not in Danger.”
It quoted the company’s chief economist assuring the public that “descent into authoritarianism is exceedingly unlikely.” That prediction has not borne out terribly well, but Blackstone appears to remain a strong supporter of Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president traveled to New York in May to be honored at a gala, which was sponsored by Refinitiv — a company majority-owned by Blackstone.