#StrongerTogether ! "How Putin's oligarchs funneled millions into GOP campaigns" in Text & Graphics!

"Graphics by Michael Hogue/Staff Artist"

Focused Read: You really have to hit the link on this one and read it in full to get the benefit of the graphics provided ~
 5-6 minute easy read...

"By Ruth May, contributor 

(May is a business professor at the University of Dallas and an expert on the economies of Russia and Ukraine.

Editor's note April 5, 2018: This column originally published December 15, 2017. Now, new revelations about Robert Mueller's team questioning Russian oligarchs has put this column back in the news.)

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team probes deeper into potential collusion between Trump officials and representatives of the Russian government, investigators are taking a closer look at political contributions made by U.S. citizens with close ties to Russia.

Buried in the campaign finance reports available to the public are some troubling connections between a group of wealthy donors with ties to Russia and their political contributions to President Donald Trump and a number of top Republican leaders.

And thanks to changes in campaign finance laws, the political contributions are legal. We have allowed our campaign finance laws to become a strategic threat to our country.

(Emphasis is mine.)

An example is Len Blavatnik, a dual U.S.-U.K. citizen and one of the largest donors to GOP political action committees in the 2015-16 election cycle. 

Blavatnik's family emigrated to the U.S. in the late '70s from the U.S.S.R. and he returned to Russia when the Soviet Union began to collapse in the late '80s.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that Blavatnik's campaign contributions dating back to 2009-10 were fairly balanced across party lines and relatively modest for a billionaire. During that season he contributed $53,400. 

His contributions increased to $135,552 in 2011-12 and to $273,600 in 2013-14, still bipartisan.

In 2015-16, everything changed. Blavatnik's political contributions soared and made a hard right turn as he pumped $6.35 million into GOP political action committees, with millions of dollars going to top Republican leaders including Sens. Mitch McConnell, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham.

In 2017, donations continued, with $41,000 going to both Republican and Democrat candidates, along with $1 million to McConnell's Senate Leadership Fund.

So is this legal?

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking Democratic leader on the House Intelligence Committee, told ABC News in September: 

"Unless the contributions were directed by a foreigner, they would be legal, but could still be of interest to investigators examining allegations of Russian influence on the 2016 campaign. 

Obviously, if there were those that had associations with the Kremlin that were contributing, that would be of keen concern."

Under federal law, foreigner nationals are barred from contributing directly or indirectly to political campaigns in local, state and federal elections.

Should Blavatnik's contributions concern Mueller's team of investigators? Take a look at his long-time business associates in Russia. ... "

Categories to be found in the full article of "his long-time business associates in Russia" are as follows"

The Oligarchs

The Americans

The Supreme Court

You can read more here

Focused Thought in 30 seconds

Focused Action in 30 seconds

You can share Credo's Tweet here

You can read Congressman op-ed here

.

.

.

→ Direct sources for Democrats:

* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )

The Democratic Party Website

The Democratic Party on Facebook

The Democratic Party on Twitter

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Website

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Website

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Website

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee 

Also

C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))

→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists 

in alphabetical order...

FactCheck.org

FlackCheck.org

PolitFact 

Snopes

Washington Post Fact Checker

( You can read more on fact checking here )

→  Some of my favorite, most informative

 follows on Twitter include:

Malcolm Nance   

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC

Kurt Eichenwald

⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author

Ari Berman

⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones 

⭐⭐⭐⭐ You can find Verrit:"Media for the 65.8M" here

→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:

📰📰📰 Mother Jones

📰📰📰 The Washington Post

📰📰📰 The New York Times

💻💻💻 News And Guts on Facebook

→  Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:

📺📺📺📺 Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

📺📺📺📺📺 AM w/Joy Reid on MSNBC

📺📺 Chris Cuomo on CNN

📺📺📺 The Beat With Ari on MSNBC

📺📺 Velshi & Ruhle on MSNBC

📺📺📺 Nicolle Wallace On MSNBC

( 📎 Interesting to note: Wallace, a former Republican (or an inactive Republican I believe she calls herself) is new to the job but for right now she has clearly put country over party and  her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO... )

...for Networking for Democrats today!

g. (Unapologetic Democrat)

📎 Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area. And, unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees winning in general elections. 

.

.

.

(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.

It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."

You can read the Platform here

→ Focused Monthly Inspiration 

Eleanor Roosevelt with female reporters

 at her first White House press conference 

on March 6, 1933 

“ … At first Eleanor Roosevelt adhered to her own...political topics. She told about her daily schedules, discussed the prints on the White House Walls, and shared low-cost menus for Depression-era households. But reporters pressed the First Lady for more news on public policy, and the press conference sessions soon broadened their scope. As early as April 1933 Eleanor Roosevelt provided a political scoop; she announced that beer would be served in the White House once Prohibition ended. By the end of 1933, according to UP reporter Ruby Black, the First Lady had defended low cost housing, the subsistence homestead program, equal pay for equal work, old age pensions, and the minimum wage. “Tea Pouring Items Give Way to Big News,” Black declared. “No newspaperwoman could have asked for better luck,” reporter Bess Furman recalled. The First Lady, she wrote, “conducts classes on scores of subjects, always seeing beyond her immediate hearers to ‘the women of the country.’” … “ ( You can read more here ) 

( #its2018now )

   

 *

Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also, perhaps, take an action on its behalf as it is provided!

( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )

  *

See the League of Women Voters website:

 Vote411 here 

*

Thank you for Focusing!

g., aka Focused Democrat

✊ Resisting "Fake News"

#StrongerTogether ! "Do Crisis Pregnancy Centers Have A Right To Mislead Women?" / i.e. Truth in Advertising / "SCOTUS Will Decide"!

Focused Read in 3-4 minutes

⬇

" Do Crisis Pregnancy Centers Have a Right to Mislead Women?

The Supreme Court Will decide

(By  Amelia Harnish)

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning (March 20th) in yet another tricky abortion-related legal challenge, 

but this time, the central issue in the case is not the right to make private healthcare decisions but the First Amendment.

The case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) V. Becerra, is a challenge to a 2015 California law brought by a network of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

These are centers founded by anti-choice organizations to provide ultrasounds, pregnancy tests and counsel women against abortion;

 they often open up across the street or right next door to abortion clinics, 

and some have been found to engage in deceptive marketing tactics, provide medically inaccurate information to pregnant women, and perform medically unnecessary and invasive ultrasounds.

(Emphasis is mine.)

The California law at the center of the challenge is an effort to police these “clinics.”

Known as the FACT act, 

(Emphasis is mine.)

the law requires CPCs that are licensed as medical providers to post signs about free or low-cost abortion and family planning services provided by the state.

If the organization is unlicensed (many are primarily “counseling” operations without health professionals on staff), they have to post a sign saying that they are not a licensed medical provider.

(Emphasis, i.e. the underlined words, is mine.)

NIFLA sued in response to the law shortly after it’s passage, arguing it violates their rights to free speech. “They’re forcing us to use our walls as a billboard to promote abortion,” Josh McClure, executive director of Pregnancy Care Clinic said in an interview with Reuters.

The state of California is arguing that people have a right to know about the full range of services available to them, as well as the truth about the facility they are in.

At the heart of the debate is the balance between a state government’s right to protect consumers by regulating what’s known as “professional speech,” versus the right of individuals to say (or not say) whatever they want.

(Emphasis, i.e. the underlined word, is mine.)

If you were paying attention in history class, you know that there are some limits to your First Amendment rights. 

While the government cannot restrict or compel people’s political or religious speech,

 it can regulate other types of speech, such as making sure lawyers disclose certain information about their services in advertising or that doctors disclose information about a procedure’s risks, explains Clay Calvert, PhD, director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida.

“This is a very interesting case because the Court can clarify several things here,” Calvert says. “It can clarify the scope of the First Amendment right not to be compelled to speak.

It can also clarify the scope of this emerging professional speech doctrine where professional speech can be regulated more, under less scrutiny.

(Emphasis is mine.)

And it can also clarify the First Amendment right to receive information, the right of the women entering these clinics to clearly receive certain information.”

(Emphasis is mine.)

Two lower courts have already reviewed the case, and both sided with the state.

However, the professional speech doctrine is a relatively new legal concept, and something the Supreme Court has not weighed in on yet, Calvert adds. 

In other states, similar laws have been struck down, with judges ruling women can clearly find out about abortion services in other ways.

Amy Myrick, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of 50-plus reproductive rights and justice organizations in support of the law, says it would be a loss for women’s rights if the law is struck down because that would effectively “create a precedent that free speech trumps women’s health.”

“But there’s a flip side,” Myrick adds. “If they support this anti-choice argument, it would create a huge double standard for abortion providers, who are forced to say all sorts of things.”

Abortion rights’ advocates could then possibly challenge laws requiring providers to provide state-mandated counseling they disagree with.

... Research suggests that few people fall for CPCs’ misleading tactics, and most women are not likely to be swayed by anti-abortion counseling because they are highly likely to be sure about their decision by the time they seek care, says Lauren Ralph, PhD, an epidemiologist at Advancing New Standards In Reproductive Health.

... The Court seemed skeptical of the California law as the justices heard arguments this morning, with even liberal justices seeming to be receptive to NIFLA’s free speech claim, according to the New York Times.

 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has cast the decisive swing vote in favor of abortion rights in recent cases, seemed “hostile” to the law.

The decision is expected in June."

You can read more here

Focused Thought in 1 minute 

Personally, I am a Baby Boomer who gave birth to 2 Generation X daughters and an Xennial son. I'm also a grandmother to 1 Millennial granddaughter and 2 iGen/Gen Z grandsons... 

For fun...

📎 Note 1: "These are Western Cultural Generations. Japan and Asia and portions of Europe will have their own generational definitions based on major cultural, political, and economic influences."

📎 Note 2: "Dates are approximate and there is some overlap because there are no standard definitions for when a generation begins and ends. See the section below about why this overlap."

( You can read more here )

Focused Action, 

3 of my favorite "day after," still shareable #MarchForOurLives Tweets in 90 seconds

1.

You can share The New York Times Tweet here

2.

You can share Rose's Tweet here

3. 

You can share PerSisters Tweet here

.

.

.

→ Direct sources for Democrats:

* ( Personal favored and most informative follows are shared here with the understanding that readers will always apply their own critical thinking to any information provided anywhere by anyone. #StrongerTogether does not share sources of information lightly but -- no one is perfect! -- so always #DistrustAndVerify I am using a star rating that is strictly based on my situational experience with the work of the media personality specifically in relation to issues of interest to me. )

The Democratic Party Website

The Democratic Party on Facebook

The Democratic Party on Twitter

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Website

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Website

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee Website

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee 

Also

C-SPAN (a good place for speeches & hearings direct source (s))

→ Fact checking organizations courtesy of the Society of Professional Journalists 

in alphabetical order...

FactCheck.org

FlackCheck.org

PolitFact 

Snopes

Washington Post Fact Checker

( You can read more on fact checking here )

→ Some of my favorite, most informative

 follows on Twitter include:

Malcolm Nance   

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ US Intelligence | Author | Navy Senior Chief | NBC/MSNBC

Kurt Eichenwald

⭐⭐⭐ Federal Government Operations | Vanity Fair | Newsweek | MSNBC Contributor | Author

Ari Berman

⭐⭐⭐⭐ Voting Rights/Voter Suppression | Author | Mother Jones 

⭐⭐⭐⭐ You can find Verrit:"Media for the 65.8M" here

→ Some of the most credible media -- at the moment:

📰📰📰 Mother Jones

📰📰📰 The Washington Post

📰📰📰 The New York Times

💻💻💻 News And Guts on Facebook

→  Some of the most credible Talking Heads -- at the moment -- and their Twitter handles:

📺📺📺📺 Rachel Maddow on MSNBC

📺📺📺📺📺 AM w/Joy Reid on MSNBC

📺📺 Chris Cuomo on CNN

📺📺📺 The Beat With Ari on MSNBC

📺📺 Velshi & Ruhle on MSNBC

📺📺📺 Nicolle Wallace On MSNBC

( 📎 Interesting to note: Wallace, a former Republican (or an inactive Republican I believe she calls herself) is new to the job but for right now she has clearly put country over party and  her work on Trump GOP has been credible, IMO... )

...for Networking for Democrats today!

g. (Unapologetic Democrat)

📎 Note: I rarely get involved in primary races -- outside of those in my own area. And, unless there is a glaring reason that can not be ignored, I support Democratic Party nominees winning in general elections. 

.

.

.

(Linked) "...is our 2016 platform...a declaration of how we plan to move America forward. Democrats believe that cooperation is better than conflict, unity is better than division, empowerment is better than resentment, and bridges are better than walls.

It’s a simple but powerful idea: We are stronger together."

You can read the Platform here

Focused Monthly Inspiration 

Defender of the Everglades ~ you can read

 more about Marjory Stoneman Douglas here

( #its2018now )

   

 *

Curated by Gail Mountain, with occasional personal commentary, Network For #StrongerTogether ! is not affiliated with The Democratic Party in any capacity. This is an independent blog and the hope is you will, at a glance, learn more about the Party and you will, with a click or two, also take action on its behalf as it is provided!

( You can also find me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/GKMTNtwits )

  *

See the League of Women Voters website:

 Vote411 here 

Thank you for focusing!

g., aka Focused Democrat

✊ Resisting "Fake News"