web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Presidential Election of 2020 (Page 30)

Biden Retains Lead in Iowa Poll, but Warren and Buttigieg Gain

CRESCO, Iowa — Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. retains a lead among likely Iowa caucusgoers, but both he and Senator Bernie Sanders have lost ground over the past three months while Senator Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., have made clear gains, according to a new poll from The Des Moines Register and CNN.

The poll showed that Mr. Biden is the first choice for 24 percent of would-be Democratic caucusgoers, compared with 16 percent for Mr. Sanders of Vermont, 15 percent for Ms. Warren of Massachusetts and 14 percent for Mr. Buttigieg.

In March, before Mr. Biden formally entered the race, he and Mr. Sanders held a commanding lead, with 27 percent and 25 percent support according to The Register’s polling, which has long been judged by campaigns as the best in the state. At the time, Ms. Warren was polling at 9 percent and Mr. Buttigieg at 1 percent.

Senator Kamala Harris of California was at 7 percent support in both surveys. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, both at 2 percent, were the only other candidates above 1 percent in the new poll.

[Check out our tracker of the 2020 Democratic candidate field.]

The latest poll results reflect an enormous and unsettled field in which just a handful of candidates seem to be breaking through to voters. Just five of the 23 candidates in the race registered more than 2 percent support while nine candidates — including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City — registered zero percent support.

Mr. Buttigieg, speaking before an event for northeastern Iowa Democrats in Cresco, said the poll validated his campaign strategy to date.

“It shows that campaigning works,” he said. “We’ve invested a lot of time and a lot of effort, not just nationally but getting to be known in Iowa, and obviously that’s led to some growth.”

The poll comes on the eve of Iowa’s first major political event of the summer campaign season — a state Democratic Party gathering Sunday in Cedar Rapids that 19 of the candidates are expected to attend.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_156162225_615b9775-1b70-49c5-aa42-0cf3afbf3cf4-articleLarge Biden Retains Lead in Iowa Poll, but Warren and Buttigieg Gain Warren, Elizabeth Sanders, Bernard Presidential Election of 2020 Polls and Public Opinion Iowa Harris, Kamala D Democratic Party Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Biden, Joseph R Jr

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in Des Moines on Saturday, has lost some support in Iowa, according to the poll. The state’s caucuses are as wide open and unsettled as any Democratic presidential contest in decades.CreditBrian Frank/Reuters

Mr. Biden is skipping the event, electing to remain in Washington before a two-day Iowa swing beginning Tuesday, when President Trump will also be in the state. Mr. Biden’s campaign is emerging from a rocky stretch in which he reversed a long-held position against federal funding for abortions after facing intense pressure from fellow Democrats and within his own campaign.

For months, Democratic officials in Iowa have said Mr. Biden’s support in polls overrepresents the level of organization or excitement for his candidacy among the party’s most committed activists.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Behind Biden’s Reversal on Hyde Amendment: Lobbying, Backlash and an Ally’s Call

Westlake Legal Group 07biden-facebookJumbo Behind Biden’s Reversal on Hyde Amendment: Lobbying, Backlash and an Ally’s Call United States Politics and Government Presidential Election of 2020 Politics and Government Hyde Amendment democratic national committee Blacks Biden, Joseph R Jr Abortion

ATLANTA — When Joseph R. Biden Jr. took the stage at a fund-raiser that drew many African-American Democrats Thursday night, he was under siege over his support for a measure that prohibits federal funding for most abortions.

Black women, including on his own campaign staff, were urging him to reverse his position, pointing to restrictive abortion laws passed in Georgia and in other Southern states. He was facing a chorus of blistering-if-implicit criticism from his Democratic rivals, and abortion rights groups like Planned Parenthood were intensely lobbying his staff. And he feared that his coming health care proposal could be overshadowed by questions of why he supported limiting abortion access for poor women and women of color who rely on Medicaid.

Then there were pleas from longtime allies, like Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, who conveyed to Mr. Biden’s campaign that in this fraught moment he should reconsider his decades-long support of the measure, known as the Hyde Amendment.

And he did.

Mr. Biden told the attendees at a gala dinner hosted by the Democratic National Committee in Atlanta that he could no longer support Hyde — a reversal from his position the day before when he instructed his staff to say he backed the measure.

“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” he said at the dinner.

His sudden turnaround illustrates his larger challenge as he runs for president for a third time: With his long legislative record, and instinct for moderation and consensus, he is running headlong into an energized base that has grown far more liberal in the decade since he became vice-president.

And his initial reluctance and then hasty acquiescence on Hyde also underscored the degree to which his own impulses are driving the campaign as he grapples with how to retain what he and his advisers believe is his biggest asset — his reputation for authenticity — amid the scrutiny and pressures he faces as the front-runner.

A Roman Catholic, Mr. Biden has spent decades straddling the issue of abortion, asserting his support for individual abortion rights and the codification of Roe v. Wade, while also backing the Hyde Amendment, arguing that it was an inappropriate use of taxpayer money.

But Mr. Biden, his allies acknowledge, had plainly misread what activists on the left would accept on an extraordinarily sensitive issue. For all his reluctance to abandon his long-held position on federal funding for abortion, Mr. Biden ultimately shifted in order to meet the mood of emergency within his party’s electoral base.

“He came to this decision on his own, nobody pushed him,” said Representative Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, his campaign co-chairman who went on CNN Wednesday night to defend Mr. Biden’s support for barring federal funds for abortion services.

A senior campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, confirmed that it was Mr. Biden himself who first reaffirmed his support for the Hyde Amendment and then decided to flip his view. His staff laid out the challenge he would face retaining his position, particularly with the first debate looming later this month.

Mr. Biden initially believed his party would offer him forbearance on such a complex, difficult issue. But by Thursday afternoon, it had become clear that his position on the Hyde Amendment was not tenable.

As abortion rights groups expressed their displeasure publicly, officials at organizations such as Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America — as well as senior Biden campaign staff members — were privately lobbying him to change his stance.

“Our commitment to economic justice, racial justice, is all tied into dawning awareness that Hyde has to be repealed,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of Naral. “The salience of the issues has been obvious over the last 48 hours, but I think that’s only going to grow.”

Organizations that support abortion rights say the issue of access to abortion has come into sharper focus for voters — especially for Democratic women and women of color, crucial constituencies in the 2020 presidential primary — amid Republican efforts to enact far-reaching anti-abortion laws across the country.

“With the attacks we’re seeing, there’s no way that this election won’t be about access to health care,” said Kelley Robinson, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “Biden’s actions show us that even the top candidates are seeing the same.”

Those state measures seemed to be on Mr. Biden’s mind Thursday afternoon when he held a private round-table discussion with African-American community leaders and elected officials at The Gathering Spot, a co-working space and private club prominent in Atlanta’s black community.

He didn’t discuss the Hyde Amendment explicitly, several attendees said. But as conversation turned to the 2018 election for governor in Georgia — which many Democrats say was affected by voter suppression tactics — Mr. Biden suggested that the election of a Republican governor led to the state’s passage of a stringent anti-abortion measure, last month.

“He didn’t say, ‘And that’s why we had an abortion law,’ but everyone knew what he was talking about,” said one attendee, Frank Ski, host of the V-103 morning radio show in Atlanta.

Around three hours later, Mr. Biden stood at a gala that capped a daylong African-American leadership summit and walked back his support for Hyde, pointing to “extreme laws” in states including Georgia.

After his appearance he spoke on the phone to Mr. Coons, who repeated what he had conveyed to Mr. Biden’s campaign earlier in the day: “With these state laws moving quickly and these anti-choice judges being named it’s important for us to articulate that we oppose the Hyde Amendment,” he told him.

In an interview Friday, Mr. Coons said “the environment nationally and in the states has changed,” and that Mr. Biden “understands that.”

Coloring Mr. Biden’s approach to the abortion issue has been a larger concern, held by the former vice president and his closest advisers, about the implications of the former vice president spending too much time reversing or expressing remorse for his past policy stances. Before entering the race, Mr. Biden and his inner circle resolved that while he would have to take steps to assuage liberal reservations about his record, he could not afford to make the first few months of the campaign an extended apology tour.

During his speech in Atlanta, Mr. Biden took pains to state explicitly that he was not repudiating his previous stance on abortion funding and would make “no apologies” for it.

“This is about health care, not politics,’’ a Biden spokesman, TJ Ducklo, said in a statement Friday. “We’re in an unprecedented moment of crisis for choice in this country, and Vice President Biden believes he can no longer support an amendment that blocks access to health care that women need.’’

Mr. Biden’s aides believe that he’s broadly acceptable with the party’s rank-and-file, no matter what the loudest critics on Twitter may say, but even they concede that he must move on some issues to accommodate where Democrats are today.

Indeed, his reversal on Hyde is the second time his campaign has signaled a preference for caution but quickly realized how difficult that is in this political environment. After an adviser indicated last month that Mr. Biden would seek a “middle ground” on climate change, he was excoriated on the left, prompting him to unveil his green energy proposal earlier this week to demonstrate he is serious about the issue.

Yet even though Mr. Biden is at odds with his party’s liberal wing, he still notches high poll numbers, is poised to raise as much as any of his rivals this quarter and continues to rack up endorsements.

The debate over Mr. Biden’s position on the Hyde Amendment, a Biden adviser said, had been underway inside the campaign for some weeks as his team works on a proposal that aims to expand health care access. Some in the campaign had been arguing that support for the amendment was antithetical to that goal, arguments that intensified on Wednesday and Thursday.

Other supporters of the former vice-president, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, were frustrated that he shifted on an issue in which polls show most general election voters agree with him. One high-level Biden backer predicted the reversal would be a negative for him in crucial Midwestern states, should he become the nominee.

Separately, Michael Wear, an anti-abortion Democrat who served in the Obama-Biden administration, expressed exasperation that his party was not attempting to seize the mantle of moderation on abortion at a time when Republicans in states like Alabama are seeking to ban the procedure, even in cases of rape and incest.

“Given the extremism of the Republican Party right now on this issue, are pro-choice women really going to stay home because we support the Hyde Amendment?” Mr. Wear asked. He pointed to polling from the 2016 presidential race indicating that only 36 percent of likely voters said they supported allowing Medicaid to cover abortion.

But just as Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia — like Mr. Biden a practicing Catholic — dropped his support for the Hyde Amendment after Hillary Clinton put him on the ticket three years ago, Mr. Biden had little choice now, his supporters said.

Mr. Trump’s presidency and the prospect that legalized abortion could effectively be on the ballot in 2020 has further reduced tolerance for deviations from orthodoxy among abortion rights leaders. As one Biden adviser noted, he is a realist about the politics of the issue now within his party.

“There’s more sensitivity because of the all-out assault on a woman’s right to choose from every direction,” said Representative Karen Bass of California, who heads the Congressional Black Caucus, citing state legislatures, the courts and the Trump administration. “And if you’re talking about the Hyde Amendment, what you’re talking about is limiting poor women.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden Denounces Hyde Amendment, Reversing His Position

Westlake Legal Group 07DemSummit1-sub-facebookJumbo Joe Biden Denounces Hyde Amendment, Reversing His Position Presidential Election of 2020 Biden, Joseph R Jr Abortion

ATLANTA — After two days of intense criticism, Joseph R. Biden Jr. reversed himself Thursday night on one of the issues most important to Democratic voters, saying he no longer supports a measure that bans federal funding for most abortions.

As recently as Wednesday, Mr. Biden’s campaign had said he supported the measure, known as the Hyde Amendment. His decision to change positions illustrates the intense pressure he faces as the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.

[What is the Hyde Amendment? Here’s a look at what it does, and why the politics have shifted.]

His turnaround was abrupt, particularly because Mr. Biden has grappled for decades with his views on abortion rights. While he has said he supports Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal nationwide, he has opposed members of his own party on a number of abortion measures, ascribing his reluctance to his Roman Catholic faith.

In a speech at a gala hosted by the Democratic National Committee in Atlanta on Thursday night, Mr. Biden credited the change, in part, to recent efforts by Republicans to roll back abortion access in states including Georgia and across the country — especially in the South — calling them “extreme laws.”

“If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s ZIP code,” Mr. Biden said.

The former vice president, who generally resists expressing contrition for the views he held in the past, noted that he made “no apologies for the last position.”

Mr. Biden has been criticized for other pieces of his long political record. As a senator from Delaware he led the Judiciary Committee that subjected Anita Hill to harsh questioning when she accused Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment in 1991, and he was a sponsor of the 1994 crime bill, which many Democrats now say increased mass incarceration.

[Democratic candidates are already going after Mr. Biden, but not by name.]

“I’ve been working through the finer details of my health care plan like others in this race, and I’ve been struggling with the problems that Hyde now presents,” Mr. Biden said.

He suggested that the amendment stands in the way of his goals of “universal coverage” and providing the “full range of health services women need,” when in many states the ability to gain access to abortion coverage through other means — Planned Parenthood clinics, for example — is being curtailed.

“Folks, times have changed,” he said. “I don’t think these guys are going to let up.”

The Hyde Amendment, named for former Representative Henry Hyde, a Republican from Illinois, was first passed in 1976 and is renewed every year, with occasional changes to the list of exceptions. It bans federal funding of abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, and it affects Medicaid funding of abortion, leading critics to argue that the measure puts a disproportionate burden on poor women and women of color.

Mr. Biden’s appearance on Thursday was part of a Democratic Party gathering in Atlanta that also drew three of Mr. Biden’s opponents: Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas. A speech by Stacey Abrams, Georgia’s Democratic candidate for governor last year — who had been discussed by some as a potential running mate for Mr. Biden, though both camps have disputed talk of a joint ticket — capped the evening.

In her remarks, Ms. Abrams, who delivered an impassioned call for protecting voter rights, also warned against allowing the primary contest to turn too bitter.

“If we are so divided by our primary that we can’t beat our adversary, then we are lost for a generation,” said Ms. Abrams, who has not closed the door on the possibility of her own presidential bid.

Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion rights group Naral Pro-Choice America, said Thursday that she was glad to see that Mr. Biden had changed his position.

“At a time where the fundamental freedoms enshrined in Roe are under attack, we need full-throated allies in our leaders,” she said. “We’re pleased that Joe Biden has joined the rest of the 2020 Democratic field in coalescing around the Party’s core values — support for abortion rights, and the basic truth that reproductive freedom is fundamental to the pursuit of equality and economic security in this country.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What Is the Hyde Amendment? A Look at Its Impact and History

Westlake Legal Group 07hyde-explainer-facebookJumbo What Is the Hyde Amendment? A Look at Its Impact and History Women and Girls United States Politics and Government Presidential Election of 2020 medicaid Law and Legislation Income Inequality Hyde, Henry J Abortion

As a slew of highly restrictive state laws have thrust abortion to the forefront of the 2020 campaign, the Hyde Amendment has drawn new scrutiny.

Several presidential candidates had already come out against the amendment before Wednesday, when former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. prompted a wave of criticism by saying he supported it. By Thursday, almost all of the other 22 candidates in the Democratic race were on the record calling for repeal. Less than 48 hours after his initial statement, Mr. Biden changed his mind.

Here’s an overview of what the amendment does and how the debate has evolved.

The broad answer is that it’s a measure banning federal funding for abortion. More precisely, it states that Medicaid will not pay for an abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

The amendment — named for former Representative Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois — was first passed in 1976 as part of the appropriations bill for what is now the Department of Health and Human Services, and it is renewed every year, with occasional changes to the list of exceptions.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, and states can cover abortions with their share of the funds. But most don’t.

It is hard to put an exact number on how many abortions the Hyde Amendment prevents, but supporters and opponents agree that it is substantial.

According to a 2009 literature review by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, “approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.” In a 2016 report, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which opposes abortion, cited studies showing a 13 percent increase in births among Medicaid recipients after the amendment was enacted, and estimated that it prevented more than 60,000 abortions per year.

Because Medicaid is primarily a program for low-income Americans, the amendment mostly affects low-income women. People of color are also disproportionately likely to rely on Medicaid.

For opponents of abortion, the Hyde Amendment is an obvious corollary: If abortion is wrong, then so is government funding for it. Anti-abortion activists began pursuing the amendment soon after the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

But some people who generally support abortion rights also support the amendment because they don’t believe providing access to abortion is an appropriate use of government funds, or because they are “uncomfortable with being complicit in the procedure through their taxpayer dollars,” said Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was not unusual for Democratic politicians to make this argument.

Mr. Biden, as a senator from Delaware, made a similar case in 1986, telling U.P.I., “If it’s not government’s business, then you have to accept the whole of that concept, which means you don’t proscribe your right to have an abortion and you don’t take your money to assist someone else to have an abortion.”

Because the Hyde Amendment disproportionately affects low-income women and women of color, many opponents see repealing it as a matter of economic and racial justice. In a town-hall event on Wednesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts described the amendment as an attack on those “who are most vulnerable.”

Women with enough resources can get abortions even when they are illegal or difficult to find, many candidates have noted, but under the Hyde Amendment and similar laws, poorer women cannot. “We’ve created two classes of citizens when it comes to abortion access in this country,” said Destiny Lopez, co-director of the advocacy group All* Above All, which opposes the Hyde Amendment.

Opponents also argue that the amendment reinforces income inequality, because women who cannot afford abortions without Medicaid funding will also struggle to afford to raise a child. Ms. Lopez cited a study that found that women who sought an abortion but could not get one were more likely to be living in poverty a year later than women who did get an abortion.

It depends how and whom you ask, but polls tend to show that a slim majority of Americans support it.

A Politico poll in 2016 asked likely voters whether they supported or opposed changing federal policy “in order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortions,” and 58 percent said they would oppose that change — in other words, that they supported the Hyde Amendment, though the question did not name it.

A YouGov poll, also in 2016, told respondents that the Hyde Amendment “prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions, except in the case of incest, rape or to save the life of the mother,” and found that 55 percent of Americans (not just likely voters) supported it.

A Hart Research Associates poll commissioned by All* Above All in 2015 got a different result with a reframed question, informing respondents: “Under current federal policy, if a woman who is enrolled in the Medicaid health program for low-income people becomes pregnant and decides to carry the pregnancy to term, Medicaid will pay for her pregnancy care and childbirth. Congress currently denies Medicaid coverage for the cost of an abortion.” It then found 56 percent support for a hypothetical bill “that would enable a woman enrolled in Medicaid to have all her pregnancy-related healthcare covered by her insurance, including abortion services.”

The shift among top Democrats has been sudden, but among activists, there has been a lot of groundwork.

After the Supreme Court upheld the amendment in 1980 — ruling in Harris v. McRae that while the government could not prohibit abortion, it could use financial incentives to express a preference for childbirth — it became so entrenched in American abortion law that many abortion rights groups stopped trying to repeal it, choosing instead to focus on expanding the exceptions.

It was “a tremendously successful incrementalist anti-abortion strategy,” said Claire McKinney, an assistant professor of government, gender, sexuality and women’s studies at the College of William & Mary who specializes in the history of abortion politics, “because it shifted the terrain of debate to what would and would not be included rather than whether it was legitimate to limit access to Medicaid-funded abortions.”

Conservatives continue to strongly support the Hyde Amendment as part of their own push to further restrict abortion laws now that President Trump has cemented a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Several states, including Alabama, Missouri and Ohio, have passed laws banning most abortions, with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.

The recent shift is partly a response to these anti-abortion efforts. But it also stems from decades of organizing by women of color through less mainstream organizations, like Black Women’s Health Imperative, said Dorothy Roberts, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania who is active in what is known as the reproductive justice movement.

That movement is distinct from the more prominent “choice” movement in that it focuses on social and economic factors that can make things like abortion inaccessible even when they are legal. And as women of color have become more prominent voices in mainstream Democratic politics, their policy demands have become more influential. In 2016, the Democratic Party added repealing the Hyde Amendment to its platform, and the current shift stems from the same forces.

“It may seem like this is a new issue, but it hasn’t been a new issue for many people advocating and organizing for reproductive freedom,” Professor Roberts said. “To me, it reflects a growing understanding and embrace of a justice approach as opposed to a choice approach.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democratic Candidates Woo Silicon Valley for Donations, Then Bash It.

SAN FRANCISCO — Top Democrats in Washington and on the 2020 campaign trail are taking technology giants to task, calling them too big, too powerful and too careless about privacy. “The era of self-regulation is over,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Monday.

But just as Ms. Pelosi’s Democrats were preparing sweeping House hearings into the tech companies’ concentration of power, some of her party’s leading presidential candidates spent the weekend canvassing Silicon Valley to raise money from one of the nation’s wealthiest and most liberal bastions.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg filled his Saturday with no less than four fund-raisers in the Bay Area, with co-hosts that included a former top Facebook executive and Google official. It was at least Mr. Buttigieg’s third fund-raising trip to the region in the last three months. Senator Cory Booker was making his fourth trip to Silicon Valley to raise money since declaring for president in February. And Kamala Harris, California’s junior senator, was on her sixth tour of the Bay Area fund-raising circuit this year.

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join our conversation about the 2020 presidential race.]

The Democratic Party’s intensifying alarms about the technology giants’ monopolistic behavior, social media misinformation and lax privacy protections pose an unexpected dilemma for the 2020 field.

In a contest where purity tests on the left have already propelled leading campaigns to disavow super PACs and reject money from federal lobbyists, is tech money still politically acceptable? And can those who take it still be trusted to rein in the industry’s excesses?

The progressive base has already soured on Wall Street, fossil fuel and pharmaceutical cash. Silicon Valley had been, until recently, one of the last relatively untainted wellsprings from which to draw campaign contributions. Now, some, particularly on the left, say tech money is suspect, too.

“Many of the candidates are trying to have it both ways,” said Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist from the party’s progressive wing, who recently called on Democratic political consultants to stop representing corporate clients, “but it will be hard to be taken seriously as strong on this issue when you’re taking money hand over fist from Big Tech.”

The fraught Democratic balancing act came into sharp relief last weekend.

[Check out our tracker of the 2020 Democratic candidate field.]

House Democrats and Ms. Pelosi announced plans for an antitrust investigation into the largest tech companies and Senator Elizabeth Warren posed in front of a San Francisco billboard calling for breaking up Big Tech. Meanwhile, more than a dozen presidential candidates arrived in the city for the state Democratic convention. That was the public side of their trips; many maintained a busy private itinerary of fund-raisers powered in part by the immense wealth of the tech sector.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155789268_8dff66bb-6c13-4c98-acea-cbaa1d28a079-articleLarge Democratic Candidates Woo Silicon Valley for Donations, Then Bash It. Silicon Valley (Calif) Presidential Election of 2020 Harris, Kamala D Google Inc Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Amazon.com Inc

Senator Elizabeth Warren has aggressively gone after Big Tech, accusing companies like Amazon of overly controlling the online marketplace and the items sold in it.CreditMason Trinca for The New York Times

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Ms. Harris all had finance events around the Bay Area on Friday (while Mr. Booker zipped to Seattle to raise money at the office of Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist and early Amazon investor.) Mr. Buttigieg blitzed the region on Saturday, attending an event co-hosted by Chris Cox, Facebook’s former chief product officer and one of its initial engineers, and Scott Kohler, a corporate counsel to Google and former bundler for Hillary Clinton.

On Sunday, Mr. Booker returned for an event at the home of Jeff Jordan, a tech investor who had previously served as president of PayPal and OpenTable.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was not in California over the weekend. But his finance team is tentatively planning a Silicon Valley swing at the end of June. In May, one of his Southern California event co-hosts was Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive.

Democrats mostly appear to be banking that the cash raised at such events outweighs any risk of backlash.

Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who advised Bernie Sanders in 2016 but is unaligned in 2020, said one reason is that most people still view tech giants “in a favorable light,” even if attitudes are shifting.

“They do not see these companies like Big Oil and the pharmaceutical companies,” he said. “There’s a distinction there.”

But as the Trump administration forges ahead with its own antitrust investigations into Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook, the Democratic reliance on tech money could provide President Trump a political opening to depict Democrats as beholden to the technology giants.

At a forum in San Francisco, the 2020 candidate Beto O’Rourke linked the industry’s money to a law signed by Mr. Trump allowing internet providers access to sell browsing data without explicit consumer consent. “If you follow the dollars, who paid for that access, that influence, and those outcomes, you begin to understand what’s at play,” he said.

Most of the 2020 Democrats are aligned on stiffening regulations and tech industry scrutiny.

But Ms. Warren, in particular, has gone much further, accusing companies like Amazon of improperly controlling the online marketplace and the items sold in it. She has shunned holding fund-raisers as a presidential candidate, though she has raised money from Silicon Valley in the past.

Ms. Warren has surpassed Senator Bernie Sanders as tech’s most insistent critic (he recently embraced breaking up Facebook, and he has hammered Amazon for its low wages).

Senator Cory Booker attended Stanford and once was an investor in an internet start-up.CreditSarahbeth Maney for The New York Times

Ro Khanna, a California congressman who represents and has raised money heavily from Silicon Valley, serves as national co-chair of Mr. Sanders’s campaign, though he is not fully aligned with Mr. Sanders on tech matters. Mr. Khanna said “calling for a sledgehammer approach” to breaking up Big Tech was “bad policy” when a “scalpel” is needed.

“People should, in my view, be proud of having support from technology leaders,” Mr. Khanna said.

Silicon Valley is not monolithic. Some companies profit from user data. Some make money selling hardware. Others hope to break into markets now dominated by the giants. While Ms. Warren’s unyielding rhetoric has alienated some tech leaders, political donors and executives in Silicon Valley said that there is a surprising sympathy for broader calls to increase oversight of the industry’s biggest players.

“It’s my sense that a lot of people in Silicon Valley think tech has gotten too big, that there’s overreach,” said Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder who recently called for the company’s breakup.

“There’s a sense that people know that mistakes were made, and there’s a search for solutions,” Mr. Hughes added.

Mr. Hughes has contributed to four Democratic candidates this year: Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Harris.

Three of the most aggressive candidates chasing Silicon Valley money have been Mr. Booker, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Harris, according to interviews with donors and event invitations obtained by The New York Times.

All three have ties to the Valley. Mr. Booker attended Stanford and once was an investor in an internet start-up (another investor, the billionaire LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, recently hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Booker).

Mr. Booker also worked closely with Mark Zuckerberg when the Facebook founder donated $100 million to revamp Newark schools, an undertaking that got mixed reviews.

Mr. Buttigieg, who as a Harvard undergraduate was one of Facebook’s first several hundred users, attended the university at the same time as Facebook’s founders and has quickly cultivated relationships across the Valley.

Pete Buttigieg was one of Facebook’s first several hundred users and attended Harvard at the same time as Facebook’s founders.CreditMason Trinca for The New York Times

Yet all have expressed concerns about Big Tech’s dominance.

Mr. Buttigieg recently went on record in support of Mr. Hughes’s call to break up Facebook, saying his old schoolmate had “made a very convincing case” about “these tech companies as monopoly giants.”

“There needs to be tools to deal with that, up to and including preventing or reversing mergers,” Mr. Buttigieg said in a recent podcast.

Going back several years, Mr. Booker has questioned the dominance of companies including Google and Amazon. In a recent interview with The Times, Mr. Booker said he was planning to roll out an internet security platform and has deepening concerns about companies “able to use your data for your profit.” But when asked about Ms. Warren’s demand that big tech firms be broken up, he replied in a recent television appearance, “That sounds more like a Donald Trump thing to say.”

In the Senate, Ms. Harris aggressively questioned Facebook executives last year, and this year she said on CNN that government officials “need to take a serious look at breaking up Facebook.”

Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Market Institute, who previously worked for the Senate Budget Committee under Mr. Sanders and is a critic of the consolidation of power in the tech industry, said there were differences in the deference that candidates gave to Silicon Valley leaders.

“Buttigieg and Harris treat them like they’re special,” Mr. Stoller said. “Warren treats them as they’re just citizens. Booker goes back and forth.”

Ali Partovi, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Booker, said he sees no evidence that donors are dissuaded by talk about a crackdown on Big Tech.

“I find that people vote and donate in service of their principles and beliefs about what they think is right, not just their self-interest,” Mr. Partovi said.

The tech economy remains a crucial source of funds for congressional Democrats, too.

Later this month, Ms. Pelosi will collect checks at a San Francisco law firm that has represented tech companies, asking for as much as $19,600 to help seven of her vulnerable California colleagues. That same day, her political committee is holding an event at the home of John Thompson, the current chairman of Microsoft and the former chief executive of Symantec.

The price to chair the luncheon: $50,000.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Election Rules Are an Obstacle to Cybersecurity of Presidential Campaigns

One year out from the 2020 elections, presidential candidates face legal roadblocks to acquiring the tools and assistance necessary to defend against the cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns that plagued the 2016 presidential campaign.

Federal laws prohibit corporations from offering free or discounted cybersecurity services to federal candidates. The same law also blocks political parties from offering candidates cybersecurity assistance because it is considered an “in-kind donation.”

The issue took on added urgency this week after lawyers for the Federal Election Commission advised the commission to block a request by a Silicon Valley company, Area 1 Security, which sought to provide services to 2020 presidential candidates at a discount. The commission questioned Area 1 about its request at a public meeting on Thursday, and asked the company to refile the request with a simpler explanation of how it would determine what campaigns qualified for discounted services.

Cybersecurity and election experts say time is running out for campaigns to develop tough protections.

Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, warned in April that Russian election interference continued to pose a “significant counterintelligence threat” and that Russian efforts in the 2016 and 2018 elections were “a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.”

A bill introduced last month by Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, would have allowed political parties to provide greater cybersecurity assistance to candidates. But it stalled in the Senate after the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said he would not bring any election security bills to the floor for a vote.

The 2020 campaigns themselves are unlikely to have the expertise to track disinformation campaigns or to build sophisticated defenses needed to ward off hackers. In most cases, they cannot afford to pay outside experts market rates for such services, as required by federal election laws.

To thwart digital threats and phishing attacks, multinational corporations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, at minimum, on security. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, has said the bank spends nearly $600 million a year on security. Bank of America’s chief executive has said the bank has a “blank check” when it comes to cybersecurity. Security experts note that — despite significantly smaller head counts — presidential candidates and their campaigns are among the most targeted organizations in the world.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_154844226_bc524d1f-a439-4ddc-8d87-23b084cdd2a5-articleLarge Election Rules Are an Obstacle to Cybersecurity of Presidential Campaigns Wray, Christopher A Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 Podesta, John D Mueller, Robert S III federal election commission Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Cyberwarfare and Defense Clinton, Hillary Rodham

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, proposed a measure to give election campaigns more support to fend off cyberattacks.CreditAmr Alfiky for The New York Times

[Get the Bits newsletter for the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.]

“Expecting campaigns to do this on their own is asking for failure,” said Laura Rosenberger, the director of the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Ms. Rosenberger knows the risks faced by campaigns. As a foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton in 2016, she saw firsthand the real-world effects of these attacks. In what’s called a spearphishing attack, Russian hackers compromised emails belonging to John Podesta, then Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, and employees at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“If we’re putting campaigns on the front lines alone, and they’re having to defend themselves alone, then we’ve lost,” she said.

But guarding against Russia is just one of the challenges, officials and experts said.

“Russia drafted a playbook that other international actors can use,” said Nathaniel Persily, co-director of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center and a law professor at Stanford Law School. “We should not be surprised if other nation-states and stateless entities try to take a page from the Russian playbook in the next election.”

There are also concerns that domestic players could do the same thing.

Last month, the F.E.C. ruled that a nonprofit organization, Defending Digital Campaigns, could provide free cybersecurity services to political campaigns. But the ruling was narrow, and applied only to nonpartisan, nonprofit groups that offer the same services to all campaigns. Defending Digital Campaigns was founded by Robbie Mook, who ran Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and Matt Rhoades, who managed Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012.

But nonprofits can only do so much, experts said, and in many cases there are private companies with better technology for fending off hackers.

The case heard this week by the F.E.C. involves Area 1, which says it has developed tools to block spearphishing attacks.

In anticipation of future attacks, a number of candidates running for office in 2020 contacted Area 1 to ask for its anti-phishing services, said Oren Falkowitz, a former analyst at the National Security Agency who helped found the company.

Area 1 works with a number of large corporations and assists smaller firms and nonprofits, charging a rate lower than what it charges big clients, Mr. Falkowitz said. He noted that the pricing model was fairly standard. Other tech companies like Dropbox and Slack give away many of their services to individuals and smaller organizations, but charge larger businesses to use their products.

The former N.S.A. hackers and Area1 founders Oren Falkowitz, left, and Blake Darche in 2016.CreditLauren Justice for The New York Times

Lawyers for three of the 2020 candidates that contacted Area 1, who could not be named because of confidentiality agreements, told the company that they worried that by using Area 1’s services, the campaigns might run afoul of campaign finance laws.

Area 1 made a formal request to the F.E.C. to ask for an advisory opinion in April. As part of its request, Area 1 asked the commission to grant the company the same exemption the F.E.C. granted to Microsoft last year.

The F.E.C. ruled that Microsoft could offer “enhanced online account security services to its election-sensitive customers at no additional cost” because Microsoft would be shoring up defenses for its existing customers, not seeking to curry favor with political candidates, and would be acting on a nonpartisan basis out of business interests.

But on Monday, lawyers for the F.E.C. said Area 1’s request did not meet the same bar as Microsoft and the company’s services looked too much like a political contribution.

The commission has been sensitive to the influx of so-called dark money into campaigns and maintains a high bar for granting exemptions because of concerns that an exemption could create a loophole for corporations looking to influence an election.

Daniel A. Petalas, outside counsel for Area 1 and a lawyer at the firm Garvey Schubert Barer, said the draft opinion was based on a misunderstanding. In return for helping the candidates, Area 1 could gain valuable research, he said.

“Area 1’s whole purpose, their whole basis for being, is attacking the phishing issue,” Mr. Petalas said. “There’s really nowhere it’s more dramatically presented than in the election context, given what happened in 2016.”

Election security experts said lawmakers must address rules that prohibit cybersecurity firms from providing assistance to campaigns.

“The idea that this is even an issue is just insane,” Mr. Persily said in an interview Tuesday.

For now, campaigns must fend for themselves, and most are vulnerable to more phishing attacks.

“On the cyber side, campaigns obviously have to do a lot to have much, much tougher defenses than they had in ’16, and I see very little of that so far,” said Ms. Rosenberger, the former Clinton worker.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democratic Candidates Go After Joe Biden, but Not by Name

WASHINGTON — The leading Democratic presidential contenders have begun criticizing Joseph R. Biden Jr. for, among other things, being too old, too moderate, too fixated on President Trump and too delusional about the state of the Republican Party. But you’d be forgiven if you missed it, because they almost never mention Mr. Biden by name.

Welcome to the season of the velvet fist.

As the first Democratic debate nears, and Mr. Biden carefully nurtures his lead in the polls, his opponents have begun the delicate footwork of going on the attack without appearing as the aggressor. Turning to euphemisms, translucent critiques and at times all but winking, they are hoping the voters and news media will pick up on their implicit message in a way that doesn’t also sully them in the process.

Even serious firestorms seem to fail to land a direct hit on Mr. Biden, the former vice president. When his campaign confirmed on Wednesday that he still supports the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds for abortions in most cases, a wave of condemnation arose on the Democratic left, and the leading candidates scrambled to state their opposition to the measure. But there was one word missing from nearly all their denunciations: Biden.

For the rest of the field, Mr. Biden is akin to Lord Voldemort, a rival whose name they dare not speak.

[Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.]

Campaigns have their own cyclical rhythm, and, despite the heavy interest from activists, it is still early to turn fully negative against an opponent. Moreover, many in the rank-and-file are consumed with ousting Mr. Trump and may not respond well to intramural hostilities.

“If we can’t get along, we’ll never win the general election,” said Jeremy Dumkrieger, the Democratic Party chairman in Woodbury County, Iowa. Mr. Dumkrieger hosted a cookout Saturday at his Sioux City home for local presidential campaign staffers as part of his effort to foster collegiality.

Perhaps most of all, though, the restraint owes to a fear rooted in campaign precedent: When one candidate attacks another in a multicandidate primary, it usually redounds to the benefit of a third. Just ask John Kerry, who surged in Iowa ahead of the 2004 caucuses there after a pair of his rivals clashed.

The Democratic field is so vast, and the thirst for media attention so immense, that one of the candidates may soon mount a frontal assault against Mr. Biden. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, for one, briefly criticized him by name over trade and foreign policy when Mr. Biden first entered the race.

The bank-shot broadsides on Mr. Biden can be traced as far back as when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went to Iowa in January and recalled that her political awakening began with her opposition to a bankruptcy bill that Mr. Biden helped shepherd through the Senate in 2005.

They have intensified in recent weeks, as it has become clear the former vice president’s advantage in the polls is not dissipating, and reached new heights last weekend at the California Democratic convention, when some of the top candidates used their time on stage to test out implicit lines of attack.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155474418_bd23ce0b-8e83-4ee0-bb45-d35097a96ff5-articleLarge Democratic Candidates Go After Joe Biden, but Not by Name Warren, Elizabeth Presidential Election of 2020 Booker, Cory A Biden, Joseph R Jr

“There’s no going back to normal right now,” said Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., obliquely criticizing Mr. Biden’s campaign message.CreditElizabeth Frantz for The New York Times

“When the future of the planet is at stake, there is no ‘middle ground,’” Mr. Sanders said at the convention. He reprised the “middle ground” language to lay out his progressive agenda on a number of issues — not-so-subtly chiding the Biden adviser who suggested to Reuters last month that the former vice president would seek a “middle ground” on climate issues.

“Some say if we’d all just calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses,” Ms. Warren said when it was her turn at the microphone in San Francisco, an obvious reference to Mr. Biden’s prediction that the Republican Party would have “an epiphany” after Mr. Trump was out of office and agree to work with Democrats. (During a Wednesday night town-hall event on MSNBC, Ms. Warren passed on two chances to name Mr. Biden when discussing her differences with him.)

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey got in a twofer at the convention, warning Democrats that “this is not a time for a savior” and that defeating Mr. Trump should be “a floor, not a ceiling.” The first allusion was to the party’s hopes that Mr. Biden is the safe choice to defeat Mr. Trump, and the second was to the former vice president’s overriding focus on ousting the president.

And Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., trod the same beating-Trump-isn’t-enough ground, though with the generational twist. “There’s no going back to normal right now,” said Mr. Buttigieg, who, at 37 years old, is nearly four decades younger than Mr. Biden. “Democrats can no more promise to take us back to the 2000s or 1990s than conservatives can take us back to the 1950s.”

Few candidates in the race have gone so far to draw an unsubtle contrast with Mr. Biden as Mr. Buttigieg. He often talks about how he’ll reach Mr. Trump’s current age, 72, in 2054 (without mentioning that Mr. Biden is, at the moment, 76) and sells “Win The Era” campaign merchandise.

But when these candidates are pressed about whether they’re confronting Mr. Biden, they only elevate their gamesmanship.

By Monday night, when Mr. Buttigieg reached for his return-to-normalcy critique during an otherwise friendly MSNBC town hall-style interview, the moderator, Chris Matthews, cut him off.

“That’s what Biden wants,” Mr. Matthews said. “You’re suggesting Biden would do that.”

“I’m not going to talk to anybody else’s campaign strategy,” Mr. Buttigieg replied.

Mr. Booker similarly avoided specifics last month in Iowa after testing out his line about not seeking “a savior” and criticizing the 1994 crime bill that Mr. Biden sponsored.

“I’ve got nothing to say negative about Vice President Biden,” Mr. Booker said in a brief interview.

While the Democratic candidates tread lightly around their Biden critiques, a less polite offensive against the former vice president is being mounted online by committed activists from the party’s left wing.

Senator Elizabeth Warren recalled that her political awakening began with her opposition to the 2005 bankruptcy bill that then-Senator Biden helped shepherd. CreditBrittany Greeson for The New York Times

“People will take every opportunity to share any meme that is anti-Biden,” said Sara Riley, a lawyer from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who is volunteering for Mr. Biden’s campaign. “They are not sharing memes that denigrate Seth Moulton.”

It is easy to understand both the temptation and the caution.

Mr. Biden is a useful foil to Mr. Sanders on ideology; to Ms. Warren on ideology and on some of the process issues that animate liberal activists; and to Mr. Buttigieg on age.

For many of the other candidates, taking on Mr. Biden represents an opportunity to break through a field of nearly two dozen candidates.

And as a bonus, Mr. Biden has pledged not to fire back at fellow Democrats, leaving the attacks unanswered.

But to be the first Democrat who unambiguously lights into Mr. Biden is to invite considerable risk. Just ask the aides who were on both ends of some of the most memorable attacks in presidential primary history — attacks that ended with political murder-suicide.

Three years ago, in the Republican primary, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida came out of the Iowa caucuses with a solid third-place finish and hopes of emerging in New Hampshire as the establishment-aligned alternative to Mr. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.

Then former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey used a nationally broadcast debate to savage Mr. Rubio as a mediocrity who simply mouthed the rehearsed lines his staff fed him — to which Mr. Rubio responded by repeating the same lines.

The back-and-forth dominated the final days of the New Hampshire primary, which Mr. Trump handily won. And it all but ended any hopes Mr. Rubio (who came in fifth) and Mr. Christie (who came in sixth) had in the state.

“You expose voters to negative information about an opponent, but the problem is that voters also tend to punish the attacker,” said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist who worked for Mr. Rubio.

Being viewed as a candidate on the attack is a particularly dangerous attribute in Iowa, where Democrats still feel reverberations from the 2004 and 2016 contests.

In 2004, Mr. Kerry won Iowa after the early favorite in the state, Richard A. Gephardt, and a liberal insurgent, former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, spent the final weeks blasting each other.

“The potential problem is people throw up their hands and say, ‘Of the two people who are attacking each other, I don’t like either one of them,’” said Steve Elmendorf, who was chief of staff for the Gephardt campaign. “They go to a third option.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Take Aim at Silicon Valley. They Take Its Cash, Too.

SAN FRANCISCO — Top Democrats in Washington and on the 2020 campaign trail are taking technology giants to task, calling them too big, too powerful and too careless about privacy. “The era of self-regulation is over,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared on Monday.

But just as Ms. Pelosi was preparing to start an antitrust investigation, some of her party’s leading presidential candidates spent the weekend canvassing Silicon Valley to raise money from one of the nation’s wealthiest and most liberal bastions.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg filled his Saturday with no less than four fund-raisers in the Bay Area, with co-hosts that included a former top Facebook executive and Google official. It was at least Mr. Buttigieg’s third fund-raising trip to the region in the last three months. Senator Cory Booker was making his fourth trip to Silicon Valley to raise money since declaring for president in February. And Kamala Harris, California’s junior senator, was on her sixth tour of the Bay Area fund-raising circuit this year.

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join our conversation about the 2020 presidential race.]

The Democratic Party’s intensifying alarms about the technology giants’ monopolistic behavior, social media misinformation and lax privacy protections pose an unexpected dilemma for the 2020 field.

In a contest where purity tests on the left have already propelled leading campaigns to disavow super PACs and reject money from federal lobbyists, is tech money still politically acceptable? And can those who take it still be trusted to rein in the industry’s excesses?

The progressive base has already soured on Wall Street, fossil fuel and pharmaceutical cash. Silicon Valley had been, until recently, one of the last relatively untainted wellsprings from which to draw campaign contributions. Now, some particularly on the left say, tech money is suspect, too.

“Many of the candidates are trying to have it both ways,” said Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist from the party’s progressive wing, who recently called for campaign advisers to stop taking on corporate clients, “but it will be hard to be taken seriously as strong on this issue when you’re taking money hand over fist from Big Tech.”

The fraught Democratic balancing act came into sharp relief last weekend.

[Check out our tracker of the 2020 Democratic candidate field.]

House Democrats and Ms. Pelosi announced plans for an antitrust investigation into the largest tech companies and Senator Elizabeth Warren posed in front of a San Francisco billboard calling for breaking up Big Tech. Meanwhile, more than a dozen presidential candidates arrived in the city for the state Democratic convention. That was the public side of their trips; many maintained a busy private itinerary of fund-raisers powered in part by the immense wealth of the tech sector.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155789268_8dff66bb-6c13-4c98-acea-cbaa1d28a079-articleLarge Democrats Take Aim at Silicon Valley. They Take Its Cash, Too. Silicon Valley (Calif) Presidential Election of 2020 Harris, Kamala D Google Inc Campaign Finance Buttigieg, Pete (1982- ) Booker, Cory A Amazon.com Inc

Senator Elizabeth Warren has aggressively gone after Big Tech, accusing companies like Amazon of overly controlling the online marketplace and the items sold in it.CreditMason Trinca for The New York Times

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Ms. Harris all had finance events around the Bay Area on Friday (while Mr. Booker zipped to Seattle to raise money at the office of Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist and early Amazon investor.) Mr. Buttigieg blitzed the region on Saturday, attending an event co-hosted by Chris Cox, Facebook’s former chief product officer and one of its initial engineers, and Scott Kohler, a corporate counsel to Google and former bundler for Hillary Clinton.

On Sunday, Gov. John Hickenlooper raised money in the heart of Silicon Valley as Mr. Booker returned for an event at the home of Jeff Jordan, a tech investor who had previously served as president of PayPal and OpenTable.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. was not in California over the weekend. But his finance team is tentatively planning a Silicon Valley swing at the end of June. In May, one of his Southern California event co-hosts was Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive.

Democrats mostly appear to be banking that the cash raised at such events outweighs any risk of backlash.

Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who advised Bernie Sanders in 2016 but is unaligned in 2020, said one reason is that most people still view tech giants “in a favorable light,” even if attitudes are shifting.

“They do not see these companies like Big Oil and the pharmaceutical companies,” he said. “There’s a distinction there.”

But as the Trump administration forges ahead with its own antitrust investigations into Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, the Democratic reliance on tech money could provide President Trump a political opening to depict the Democrats as beholden to the technology giants.

At a forum in San Francisco, the 2020 candidate Beto O’Rourke linked the industry’s money to a law signed by Mr. Trump allowing internet providers access to sell browsing data without explicit consumer consent. “If you follow the dollars, who paid for that access, that influence, and those outcomes, you begin to understand what’s at play,” he said.

Most of the 2020 Democrats are aligned on stiffening regulations and tech industry scrutiny.

But Ms. Warren, in particular, has gone much further, accusing companies like Amazon of improperly controlling the online marketplace and the items sold in it. She has shunned holding fund-raisers as a presidential candidate, though she has raised money from Silicon Valley in the past.

Ms. Warren has surpassed Senator Bernie Sanders as tech’s most insistent critic (he recently embraced breaking up Facebook and he has hammered Amazon for its low wages).

Senator Cory Booker attended Stanford and once was an investor in an internet start-up.CreditSarahbeth Maney for The New York Times

Ro Khanna, a California congressman who represents and has raised money heavily from Silicon Valley, serves as national co-chair of Mr. Sanders’s campaign, though he is not fully aligned with Mr. Sanders on tech matters. Mr. Khanna said “calling for a sledgehammer approach” to breaking up Big Tech was “bad policy” when a “scalpel” is needed.

“People should, in my view, be proud of having support from technology leaders,” Mr. Khanna said. “I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.”

Silicon Valley is not monolithic. Some companies profit from user data. Some make money selling hardware. Others hope to break into markets now dominated by the giants. While Ms. Warren’s unyielding rhetoric has alienated some tech leaders, political donors and executives in Silicon Valley said that there is a surprising sympathy for broader calls to increase oversight of the industry’s biggest players.

“It’s my sense that a lot of people in Silicon Valley think tech has gotten too big, that there’s overreach,” said Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder who has recently called for the company’s breakup, adding that the conversation on Big Tech has reached “a turning point.”

“There’s a sense that people know that mistakes were made and there’s a search for solutions,” Mr. Hughes added. “And there are some folks that are trying to patch things up, and there are some who are questioning the structural foundations of the way the internet has evolved.”

Mr. Hughes and his husband, Sean Eldridge, have contributed to four Democratic candidates this year: Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Harris.

Three of the most aggressive candidates chasing Silicon Valley money have been Mr. Booker, Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Harris, according to interviews with donors and event invitations obtained by The New York Times.

All three have substantial ties to the Valley. Mr. Booker attended Stanford and once was an investor in an internet start-up (another investor, the billionaire LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, recently hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Booker).

Mr. Booker also worked closely with Mark Zuckerberg when the Facebook founder donated $100 million to revamp Newark schools, an undertaking that got mixed reviews.

Mr. Buttigieg, who as a Harvard undergraduate was one of Facebook’s first several hundred users, attended the university at the same time as Facebook’s founders and has quickly cultivated relationships across the Valley.

Pete Buttigieg was one of Facebook’s first several hundred users and attended Harvard at the same time as Facebook’s founders.CreditMason Trinca for The New York Times

Ms. Harris, a Bay Area native, has raised the most of any 2020 candidate in the first quarter from employees of companies in the Internet Association, a lobbying arm of the tech industry in Washington D.C., according to an analysis of federal records.

Yet all have expressed concerns about Big Tech’s dominance.

Mr. Buttigieg recently went on record in support of Mr. Hughes’s call to break up Facebook, saying his old schoolmate had “made a very convincing case” about “these tech companies as monopoly giants.”

“There needs to be tools to deal with that, up to and including preventing or reversing mergers,” Mr. Buttigieg said in a recent podcast.

Going back several years, Mr. Booker has questioned the dominance of companies including Google and Amazon. In a recent interview with The Times, Mr. Booker said he was planning to roll out an internet security platform and has deepening concerns about companies “able to use your data for your profit.” But when asked about Ms. Warren’s demand that big tech firms be broken up, he replied in a recent television appearance, “That sounds more like a Donald Trump thing to say.”

In the Senate, Ms. Harris aggressively questioned Facebook executives last year, and this year she said on CNN that government officials “need to take a serious look at breaking up Facebook.”

Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Market Institute and an outspoken critic of the consolidation of power in the tech industry, said there were clear differences in the deference that candidates gave to Silicon Valley leaders.

“Buttigieg and Harris treat them like they’re special,” Mr. Stoller said. “Warren treats them as they’re just citizens. Booker goes back and forth.”

Ali Partovi, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Booker this year, said he hasn’t seen evidence that donors are dissuaded by talk about a crackdown on Big Tech.

“I find that people vote and donate in service of their principles and beliefs about what they think is right, not just their self-interest,” Mr. Partovi said. “What I like about Booker in general is that he doesn’t pander to donors.”

The tech economy remains a crucial source of funds for congressional Democrats, too.

Later this month, Ms. Pelosi will collect checks at a San Francisco law firm that has represented tech companies, asking for as much as $19,600 to help seven of her vulnerable California colleagues. That same day, her political committee is holding an event at the home of John Thompson, the current chairman of Microsoft and the former chief executive of Symantec.

The price to chair the luncheon: $50,000.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden Still Backs Hyde Amendment, Which Bans Federal Funds for Abortions

Westlake Legal Group merlin_155956908_b6a1bf74-fedb-4139-bd73-7572f0e1b7ba-facebookJumbo Joe Biden Still Backs Hyde Amendment, Which Bans Federal Funds for Abortions Presidential Election of 2020 Naral Pro-Choice America Hyde Amendment Biden, Joseph R Jr Abortion

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has shunned today’s Democratic Party orthodoxy on issues from crime to compromising with Republicans, again broke with his party’s base and many of his campaign rivals on Wednesday when his campaign confirmed that he still backs the Hyde Amendment, a measure that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion with exceptions for cases involving rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger.

The backlash to Mr. Biden, who despite leading early presidential polls faces skepticism from his party’s progressive wing, came swiftly from lawmakers and activists who support abortion rights, with many noting that the Hyde Amendment disproportionately affects economically disadvantaged women and women of color.

“The problem is, the Hyde Amendment affects poor women, women of color, black women, Hispanic women,” said Patti Solis Doyle, who served as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 and has also worked for Mr. Biden. “And women of color will elect the next president of the United States.”

Several of Mr. Biden’s primary opponents moved quickly Wednesday to highlight their own opposition to the Hyde Amendment, underscoring how sharply Mr. Biden’s position differs from many in the Democratic field. The measure, which dates back to the 1970s, pertains to Medicaid funding of abortion, which is why opponents say the restrictions impact poor women most directly.

“Repealing the Hyde Amendment is critical so that low-income women in particular can have access to the reproductive care they need and deserve,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York tweeted. “Reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats.”

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont took a thinly veiled swipe as well. “There is #NoMiddleGround on women’s rights,” Mr. Sanders wrote. “Abortion is a constitutional right. Under my Medicare for All plan, we will repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

Speaking with reporters after a rally in Indiana, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts emphasized her opposition to the measure.

“This isn’t about politics, this is about what’s right,” she said. “The Hyde Amendment should not be American law.”

And Senator Kamala Harris of California tweeted, “No woman’s access to reproductive health care should be based on how much money she has. We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

Mr. Biden’s current position on the issue was first reported by NBC News and confirmed by his campaign. It is at odds with the current Democratic Party platform, which calls for a repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

In a statement, Planned Parenthood Action Fund cast his view as out of step with the rest of his party.

“The Democratic Party platform is crystal clear in supporting the right to safe, legal abortion and repealing the Hyde Amendment, a position held by the majority of voters,” said Kelley Robinson, the executive director of the organization. “We strongly encourage Joe Biden to speak to the people whose lives are impacted by this discriminatory policy and reevaluate his position.”

[Inside the battle between Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, two of Mr. Biden’s rivals, for liberal voters and donors.]

The scrutiny of Mr. Biden’s position comes as numerous states have moved to enact far-reaching restrictions on abortion.

“There’s no political or ideological excuse for Joe Biden’s support for the Hyde Amendment, which translates into discrimination against poor women and women of color,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion rights organization Naral Pro-Choice America. “Differentiating himself from the field this way will not earn Joe Biden any political points and will bring harm to women who are already most vulnerable.”

News of Mr. Biden’s stance was greeted with shock and disbelief among progressives on Capitol Hill, who have been pushing for the amendment’s repeal on the grounds that it harms poor women who cannot afford abortions.

“You can’t tell me that this vice president who has been a champion for women would want to continue a discriminatory policy that is so detrimental to poor women, to women of color, to low income women,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, who is supporting Ms. Harris in the presidential race. “I didn’t see that, but that’s hard to believe.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, conceded that getting rid of the amendment would be difficult, but said it was important for Democrats to oppose it.

“Politically I can understand that that is a challenge, but I don’t think it should be our stance, our belief, to maintain it,” she said. “I know people who lost a baby at 6 months and they had to choose. That’s not a choice that anybody wants to make. Can you just imagine being in that situation and you can’t afford your health care? What are you going to do — just die?”

The former vice president is a Roman Catholic who has long grappled with his position on abortion and once voted to let states overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to the procedure. His campaign confirmed on Wednesday that Mr. Biden “firmly believes that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned.”

[Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.]

Mr. Biden appeared to say that he supported repealing the Hyde Amendment in an exchange last month with a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which captured the conversation on video.

“Will you commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment, which hurts poor women and women of color?” the volunteer said.

“Yes,” Mr. Biden responded. “Yes, and by the way, A.C.L.U. member, I got a near-perfect voting record my entire career.”

“I heard you did, but I’m glad you just said you would commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment,” the volunteer replied.

“No no, right now it has to be — it can’t stay,” Mr. Biden said, before turning to greet another person.

In a statement, his campaign said: “Biden misheard the woman on the ropeline and thought she was referring to the Mexico City rule, which prevents federal aid money from going to organizations overseas that perform abortions. He supports the repeal of the Mexico City rule because it prevents critical aid from going to organizations even if abortion is a very small fraction of the work they are doing. He has not at this point changed his position on the Hyde Amendment.”

The statement went on to say that “given the current draconian attempts to limit access to abortion, if avenues for women to access their protected rights under Roe v. Wade are closed, he would be open to repeal.”

A spokesman for Mr. Biden did not immediately respond when asked why, with state efforts to restrict abortion rights already underway, Mr. Biden was not currently open to repealing the amendment.

Several of Mr. Biden’s opponents in the presidential race have pushed new measures to protect abortion access. Ms. Harris has a plan to require that places with a history of unconstitutionally restricting abortion rights must receive federal approval before putting new abortion laws into effect. And Ms. Gillibrand, Ms. Warren and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey were vocal last month in urging Congress to codify abortion rights, a call Mr. Biden later echoed.

Ms. Solis Doyle warned that Mr. Biden’s position on the Hyde Amendment seemed poised to be a liability in the Democratic primary.

“I’m not sure how sustainable it is for Joe Biden to continue to support the Hyde Amendment,” she said. “Politically, it’s a significant problem for him.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Joe Biden Still Supports Hyde Amendment, Which Bans Federal Funds for Abortions

Westlake Legal Group merlin_155956908_b6a1bf74-fedb-4139-bd73-7572f0e1b7ba-facebookJumbo Joe Biden Still Supports Hyde Amendment, Which Bans Federal Funds for Abortions Presidential Election of 2020 Naral Pro-Choice America Hyde Amendment Biden, Joseph R Jr Abortion

Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has shunned today’s Democratic Party orthodoxy on issues from crime to compromising with Republicans, again broke with his party’s base and many of his campaign rivals on Wednesday when his campaign confirmed that he still backs the Hyde Amendment, a measure that prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion with exceptions for cases involving rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger.

The backlash to Mr. Biden, who despite leading early presidential polls faces skepticism from his party’s progressive wing, came swiftly from progressive lawmakers and activists who support abortion rights, with many noting that the Hyde Amendment disproportionately affects economically disadvantaged women and women of color.

Several of Mr. Biden’s primary opponents moved quickly Wednesday to highlight their own opposition to the Hyde Amendment, underscoring how sharply Mr. Biden’s position differs from many in the Democratic field.

“Repealing the Hyde Amendment is critical so that low-income women in particular can have access to the reproductive care they need and deserve,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York tweeted. “Reproductive rights are human rights, period. They should be nonnegotiable for all Democrats.”

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont took a thinly veiled swipe on Twitter as well. “There is #NoMiddleGround on women’s rights,” Mr. Sanders wrote. “Abortion is a constitutional right. Under my Medicare for All plan, we will repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

Speaking with reporters after a rally in Indiana, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts emphasized her opposition to the measure.

“This isn’t about politics, this is about what’s right,” she said. “The Hyde Amendment should not be American law.”

The Hyde Amendment, which dates back to the 1970s, pertains to Medicaid funding of abortion, which is why opponents of the measure say the restrictions impact poor women most directly.

Mr. Biden’s current position on the issue was first reported by NBC News and confirmed by his campaign. It comes as numerous states have recently moved to enact far-reaching restrictions on abortion.

“There’s no political or ideological excuse for Joe Biden’s support for the Hyde Amendment, which translates into discrimination against poor women and women of color,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of the abortion rights organization Naral Pro-Choice America. “Differentiating himself from the field this way will not earn Joe Biden any political points and will bring harm to women who are already most vulnerable.”

News of Mr. Biden’s stance was greeted with shock and disbelief among progressives on Capitol Hill, who have been pushing for the amendment’s repeal on the grounds that it harms poor women who cannot afford abortions.

“You can’t tell me that this vice president who has been a champion for women would want to continue a discriminatory policy that is so detrimental to poor women, to women of color, to low income women,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, who is supporting Senator Kamala Harris of California in the presidential race. “I didn’t see that, but that’s hard to believe.”

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, conceded that getting rid of the amendment would be difficult, but said it was important for Democrats to oppose it.

“Politically I can understand that that is a challenge, but I don’t think it should be our stance, our belief, to maintain it,” she said. “I know people who lost a baby at 6 months and they had to choose. That’s not a choice that anybody wants to make. Can you just imagine being in that situation and you can’t afford your health care? What are you going to do — just die?”

The former vice president is a Roman Catholic who has long grappled with his position on abortion and once voted to let states overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to the procedure. His campaign confirmed on Wednesday that Mr. Biden “firmly believes that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and should not be overturned.”

Mr. Biden appeared to say that he supported repealing the Hyde Amendment in an exchange last month with a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which captured the conversation on video.

“Will you commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment, which hurts poor women and women of color?” the volunteer said.

“Yes,” Mr. Biden responded. “Yes, and by the way, A.C.L.U. member, I got a near-perfect voting record my entire career.”

“I heard you did, but I’m glad you just said you would commit to abolishing the Hyde Amendment,” the volunteer replied.

“No no, right now it has to be — it can’t stay,” Mr. Biden said, before turning to greet another person.

In a statement, his campaign said: “Biden misheard the woman on the ropeline and thought she was referring to the Mexico City rule, which prevents federal aid money from going to organizations overseas that perform abortions. He supports the repeal of the Mexico City rule because it prevents critical aid from going to organizations even if abortion is a very small fraction of the work they are doing. He has not at this point changed his position on the Hyde Amendment.”

The statement went on to say that “given the current draconian attempts to limit access to abortion, if avenues for women to access their protected rights under Roe v. Wade are closed, he would be open to repeal.”

A spokesman for Mr. Biden did not immediately respond when asked why, with state efforts to restrict abortion rights already underway, Mr. Biden was not currently open to repealing the amendment.

“Politically, it’s a significant problem for him,” said Patti Solis Doyle, who served as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 and who has also worked for Mr. Biden. Pointing to the current push across the country to roll back abortion rights, she continued, “I’m not sure how sustainable it is for Joe Biden to continue to support the Hyde Amendment.”

She added: “The problem is, the Hyde Amendment affects poor women, women of color, black women, Hispanic women. And women of color will elect the next president of the United States.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com