Biden campaign to launch ad targeting former Nikki Haley voters


President Joe Biden’s campaign, flush with cash after Thursday’s $26 million fundraiser in New York, is putting some of that advantage into a new ad that will directly aim to sway supporters of Nikki Haley to support the Democrat’s re-election.

Senior members of the Biden campaign played the planned ad during a meeting of the National Finance Committee in New York on Friday, two sources in attendance told NBC News. The Biden campaign later posted a version of it to X.

The ad features former President Donald Trump, in his own words, calling the former South Carolina governor “Birdbrain” and saying her supporters were not welcome in his campaign.

In a January post on his Truth Social website, Trump said: “Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. We don’t want them, and will not accept them.”

Trump walked back that threat after Haley exited the race, saying in a post that he “would further like to invite all of the Haley supporters to join the greatest movement in the history of our Nation.”

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to comment about the new ad, including how widely it would air on paid television. 

Trump never lost a Republican nominating contest this year, securing his party’s nomination for the third consecutive presidential election earlier this month to set up the longest general election campaign in the nation’s history. 

Biden advisers, though, have been closely tracking the level of support, both in earlier, contested Republican primaries and caucuses as well as those that followed Haley’s decision to end her campaign for indicators of where Democrats can potentially pick up support from independent and even Republican voters who voted against Trump.

Moderate and anti-Trump Republicans contributed to Biden’s victory in 2020. Some political observers told NBC News in March that former Haley voters could make a difference in some battleground states, including Pennsylvania, which Biden narrowly won in 2020.

“Donald Trump made it clear he doesn’t want Nikki Haley’s supporters. I want to be clear: There is a place for them in my campaign,” Biden said in a statement after the South Carolina Republican ended her bid. Biden also praised Haley for having the “courage” to challenge the former president.

The Trump campaign is pushing back on the Biden campaign’s efforts. A Trump campaign senior official said a “good chunk of the people who voted for Nikki in some states” were “Democrats.” 

“We’ve made it clear that the door is always open” to Republican Haley supporters, the official added. “We have no doubt that we’re going to get them back because they’re facing a choice between continued slide downhill from an economic standpoint, from a security standpoint, from a border security standpoint, and more of the same.”





Source link

Bills targeting book bans raise concerns about the penalties libraries could face



Bills against book bans are gaining traction in state legislatures around the country — and with them have come worries about the potentially negative impact on libraries themselves.

The number of banned books across the country saw an almost two-thirds increase in 2023 from the previous year, to more than 4,200 titles, according to a new report from the American Library Association. The free speech advocacy group PEN America found that last school year, about 30% of the book titles being challenged in schools included characters of color or discussed race and racism, while another 30% presented LGBTQ characters or themes. In addition, almost half the banned books featured themes or instances of violence or physical abuse, and a third contained writing on sexual experiences between characters.

The rise in book bans has prompted lawmakers to push back with bills in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. They follow Illinois and California, where such legislation has been signed into law.

Experts are raising concerns, however, as some of the legislation would fine school districts or withhold library funding if their provisions are not followed, such as in Illinois and California. The enforcement measures could especially be a threat to public schools and libraries that are underfunded and understaffed, they say.

“It always is a concern when you put funding on the line for any reason,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

“We would not want to see bills that are overly prescriptive that make it difficult for smaller communities or rural communities to receive their funding.”

She added, “Our big concern is not creating a system that would make it so onerous to comply with the bill that it makes it difficult for libraries with fewer resources.”

Budgetary constraints also can give rise to circumstances that could be misread as violations of state laws, experts say. For example, titles may be removed or go missing from the shelves of schools or public libraries when the books are damaged or lost or there’s no money in the budget to purchase them. Personnel shortages also can prevent libraries from staffing panels that review books or instructional materials for approval or disapproval. Some experts argued that such problems could be unfairly weaponized against schools or public libraries, which have experienced increased criticism and scrutiny as part of the growing movement to ban books.

Illinois’ new law requires that state libraries adopt the American Library Association’s long-standing Library Bill of Rights, which says that reading materials cannot be banned, removed or restricted due to “partisan or doctrinal disapproval,” or, alternatively, a similar statement prohibiting the banning of books. If public libraries don’t adopt such guidelines, they become ineligible for state grant money, which makes up a substantial part of their budgets.

When asked about the concerns over the law, Illinois state Sen. Laura Murphy, a Democrat who co-sponsored the measure, said in a statement to NBC News that by adding the threat to funding to the legislation, lawmakers were “intentional in establishing a mechanism to hold libraries accountable and sending a clear message that there would be a recourse for those who seek to ban books.”

She added that the law’s enforcement gave it more of a backbone and was a way to “further demonstrate our support for librarians” who back efforts to keep an inclusive range of book titles available.

Emily Knox, an associate professor in the School of Information Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said that she believes connecting funding to Illinois’ bill is necessary for its effectiveness.

“That’s what gives the bill any teeth at all,” she said. “Libraries and schools need more money, but because funding is so precious to public institutions, you don’t want to do things that jeopardize the possibility of getting funding from a source like the state. So it does make a big difference.”

Knox said claims that the funding could be weaponized against libraries in the state if they are targeted for not having certain titles on the shelf are inaccurate based on the wording of the legislation.

“The bill says that [libraries] have to support the ALA Bill of Rights and have a process in place for reconsidering books. It doesn’t say what the outcome of that process is,” she said.

Since the Illinois bill just mandates the policy to taken up by libraries, rather than specifying what specific books should or shouldn’t be on the shelves, libraries can’t be targeted for lacking book titles, Knox said.

And the law is already proving effective, she said, noting that the director of the public library in Metropolis, Illinois, was dismissed last month in part for challenging the library board’s decision to conform to the state’s law and adopt the ALA Bill of Rights, which the board said was necessary to do in order to receive state grants that the library needs.

California’s law focuses on penalizing school districts if books are determined to have been rejected from their library shelves for discriminatory reasons, which would result in financial penalties from the state Education Department. Gov. Gavin Newsom said the law aims to protect access to books which “reflect the diverse experiences and perspectives of Californians.”

Caldwell-Stone warned that in a national environment in which librarians face growing criticism about the types of books they provide, laws against book bans must consider the potential pitfalls and burdens on library staff.

Some state lawmakers have reconsidered the inclusion of financial penalties for libraries in their bills amid the fears of unintended consequences. In New Jersey, legislators dropped that language from their bill after librarians expressed concerns.

State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said that he grew concerned about the potential impact of such penalties after hearing from several librarians about the criticism and scrutiny they’ve received amid the increasing challenges to various book titles.

Washington and Oregon have advanced legislation against book bans that focus on school districts, but neither includes fines like California’s law. Washington’s bill is waiting for Gov. Jay Inslee’s expected signature, and Oregon’s measure has been passed by the state Senate.

Both bills would prohibit the exclusion of instructional materials for including information on the role or contributions of individuals and groups protected from discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation and other characteristics.

Washington state Rep. Monica Stonier and Oregon state Sen. Lew Frederick, Democrats who introduced their respective bills, explained that their measures would simply enact vetting processes for books that are already being used in school districts across the state, unifying those district protocols while adding anti-discriminatory protections.

Lawmakers in support of the laws in Washington and Oregon say that they plan to see how California’s enforcement provisions play out before considering adding a fine to their bills.

“We already have a way to do this, there doesn’t seem to be a need to set up another one,” Frederick said. “I think this is a simple approach because it just says you can’t discriminate.”



Source link

Targeting Americans | Sunday on 60 Minutes


Targeting Americans | Sunday on 60 Minutes – CBS News

Watch CBS News


For the first time, sources tell 60 Minutes they have evidence that a U.S. adversary may be involved in attacks on American government officials and a condition known as Havana Syndrome. Scott Pelley reports, Sunday.

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Source link

Ukraine accuses Russia of targeting rescue workers with consecutive missile strikes


KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukrainian officials on Tuesday accused the Kremlin’s forces of targeting rescue workers by hitting residential buildings with two consecutive missiles — the first one to draw crews to the scene and the second one to wound or kill them.

The strikes Monday evening in the downtown district of the city of Pokrovsk killed nine people and wounded more than 80 others, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. According to Ukrainian authorities, one of those killed was an emergency official, and most of those wounded were police officers, emergency workers and soldiers who rushed to assist residents.

The Russian missiles slammed into the center of Pokrovsk in the eastern Donetsk region, which is partially occupied by Russia. Emergency crews were still removing rubble on Tuesday. The Iskander missiles, which have an advanced guidance system that increases their accuracy, hit within 40 minutes of each other, according to Donetsk Gov. Pavlo Kyrylenko said.

Since the start of the war, Russia has used artillery and missiles to hit targets and then struck the exact same spot around 30 minutes later, often hitting emergency teams responding to the first blast. The tactic is called a “double tap” in military jargon. Russians used the same method in Syria’s civil war.

“All of (the police) were there because they were needed, putting their efforts into rescuing people after the first strike,” Ivan Vyhivskyi, chief of Ukraine’s National Police, said Tuesday. “They knew that under the rubble were the injured — they needed to react, to dig, to retrieve, to save. And the enemy deliberately struck the second time.”

Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed it hit a Ukrainian army command post in Pokrovsk. Neither side’s claims could be independently verified.

Among those injured was Volodymyr Nikulin, a police officer originally from the now Russian-occupied port city of Mariupol.

Arriving at the scene after the first missile strike, Nikulin was wounded in the second strike when shrapnel pierced his left lung and left hand.

“Today is not my happy day because Russian criminals committed another awful crime in Pokrovsk,” he said in a video he sent to The Associated Press from a hospital ward.

In the video, he is seen lying on a bed shirtless, with dried blood on his side and covering his left hand. He moves with pain to show his wounds.

Pointing his camera to show other wounded security forces in the ward, he says: “Look, these are Ukrainian heroes who helped (injured) people.”

He told the National Police in a video that he feared a second strike but went to help anyway.

There were so many injured at the hospital that Nikulin was still waiting for surgery on Tuesday morning. He was later transported to a hospital in Dnipro, where he was to have the shrapnel removed.

Nikulin had already witnessed some of the war’s horrors. He helped an AP team escape after Russian troops that besieged Mariupol entered the downtown area and searched for them.

He was featured in the award-winning documentary “20 Days in Mariupol,” a joint project between The Associated Press and PBS “Frontline” about the earliest phase of the invasion of Mariupol.

In a statement, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Ukraine, Denise Brown, described the latest attack as “absolutely ruthless” and said it was “a serious breach” of international law and violated “any principle of humanity.”

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, 78 employees of Ukraine’s State Emergency Service have been killed and 280 have been wounded while responding to Russian missile strikes, according to agency spokesperson Col. Oleksandr Khorunzhyi.

Ukrainian officials say rescuers are protected by international conventions as they are providing humanitarian assistance and are not engaged in combat operations.

The head of the Pokrovsk city administration, Serhii Dobriak, described the attacks as “a typical Russian scenario,” with 30 to 40 minutes between missiles.

“When rescuers come to save people’s lives, another rocket arrives. And the number of casualties increases,” he said in a video comment to local media.

Kyrylenko, the regional governor, said that 12 multistory buildings were damaged in Pokrovsk, as well as a hotel, a pharmacy, two stores and two cafes.

The roof of one building was partially demolished, and rubble filled the sidewalk outside. Across the road, a children’s playground was wrecked.

Russian missiles, drones and artillery have repeatedly struck civilian areas in the war. The Kremlin says its forces target only military assets and claims other damage is caused by debris from Ukrainian air defenses.

Meanwhile, an overnight attack on the town of Kruhliakivka, in the northeastern Kharkiv region, killed three people and injured nine others, Gov. Oleh Syniehubov said.

Russia also dropped four guided bombs on a village near Kupiansk, in the Kharkiv region, killing two civilians, Ukraine’s presidential office said.

Rescuers later came under fire, and two of them were wounded, it said.

Also on Tuesday, Russian-installed authorities of the Donetsk region accused Kyiv’s forces of shelling the region’s namesake capital and killing three people. The Moscow-appointed leader of the Donetsk region, Denis Pushilin, said Ukrainian shelling of the Russian-held city of Donetsk also wounded 11.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine



Source link

Targeting abortion access, Ohio Republicans are trying to make it harder to amend the state’s constitution


Ohio voters are heading to the polls on Tuesday, Aug. 8, to vote on Issue 1. The following story was first published on June 21.


For more than a century, Ohio voters could amend the state constitution with a simple majority of more than 50% of the vote. 

That could change in August, when Ohio voters head to the polls in a special election to decide whether future amendments will instead need the approval of 60% of the electorate.

The change, known as Issue 1, would almost certainly determine the fate of abortion access in the state if approved. 

For months, Ohio Republicans have been pushing to make it more difficult for voters to approve constitutional amendments — the next front in the state-led battle over abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

The August election comes at a pivotal moment — ahead of a separate November vote on a measure that would write abortion protections into the state’s constitution.

A CBS News investigation found the GOP effort in Ohio is one flank in a coordinated nationwide campaign, heavily funded by Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein, to raise the threshold to pass any citizen-initiated constitutional amendment.

The move by Ohio Republicans — who already control both chambers of the legislature — has sparked controversy throughout the state. In May, protesters flooded the statehouse in Columbus when the measure setting up the August election passed.

Former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who retired in December, criticized Republican lawmakers for what she said is a “strategic” effort to thwart the will of the people. 

“It’s misleading, it’s deceptive, and if it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable,” O’Connor said in an interview that the process Ohio uses to allow citizens to amend its constitution has been in place since 1912. “When you keep changing the rules and moving the goalposts, you are intentionally silencing the vote of the people.”

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who first proposed raising the threshold to 60% last year, said changing the state constitution should be rare and require a broader consensus.

“I’ve been consistent all along, this is about good government,” he said. 

Ohio’s abortion politics

Access to abortion remains legal in Ohio up to about 22 weeks. In 2019, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill banning abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at approximately six weeks. The bill took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, but has been put on hold by a state court since last September.

Abortion rights groups in Ohio are raising funds nationally and working to get an amendment on the November ballot that would circumvent this legislation and enshrine protections in the state’s constitution. 

In a poll last year conducted by the Associated Press, 59% of Ohio voters said they believed abortion should generally be legal. Last year, voters in Kansas and Michigan chose to preserve abortion access in their state constitution with just under 60% approval.

O’Connor said she believes those numbers caught the eye of Republicans in Ohio when they decided to push their measure requiring amendments to pass with 60% approval. 

“That’s why they chose the 60%,” O’Connor said.

In a memo last December to his Republican colleagues, state Rep. Brian Stewart, who first introduced the measure in the Ohio House, did not hide the role the abortion issue was playing in motivating his efforts.

“After decades of Republicans’ work to make Ohio a pro-life state, the Left intends to write abortion on demand into Ohio’s Constitution,” Stewart wrote. “If they succeed, all the work accomplished by multiple Republican majorities will be undone, and we will return to 19,000+ babies being aborted each and every year.”

LaRose has also cited abortion as one of his motivating factors.

“I know that for fellow pro-life Ohioans like myself, of course, we don’t want to see a really radical abortion amendment put in our state constitution,” he told CBS News. 

Out-of-state interests

LaRose denied Ohio Republicans were “stacking the deck” in their favor, and said a potential change to the constitutional amendment process was part of “an ongoing public conversation about public policy.”

He cited the need to protect Ohio’s constitution from “out-of-state special interests.”

A CBS News investigation discovered out-of-state interests promoting LaRose’s proposal. 

In a 2021 memo, a Florida-based nonprofit called the Foundation for Government Accountability, touted the “sixty percent supermajority requirement” as a legally sound approach to mitigate attempts to “bypass … state legislatures” by bringing issues “directly to the people for a vote.”

A lobbyist for the organization was the only person to testify on behalf of the 60% measure when it was first introduced in the Ohio House. The group’s lobbying arm, the Opportunities Solutions Project, also testified this year in support of a similar measure in Missouri. 

“The playbook being executed in Ohio, was also executed in South Dakota and Arkansas,” said Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance expert with Documented, which describes itself as a political finance watchdog.

In a separate pamphlet obtained by CBS News, the Foundation for Government Accountability says it gives state lawmakers “a menu featuring more than 150 reforms,” including those targeting “election and ballot initiative integrity.” 

“We continue to expand our impact and increase the return on our donors’ investment,” the organization’s literature states.

The Foundation for Government Accountability declined to comment, but wrote in the pamphlet, “our policy victories are creating many different types of opportunities for Americans, but they all work toward one goal: improving lives.” 

Fischer traced much of the organization’s support to Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein, a shipping supplies magnate and major supporter of Republican causes, including millions in donations to anti-abortion groups. Financial disclosures show a foundation controlled by Uihlein has given nearly $18 million to the Foundation for Government Accountability since 2014.

In April, when the 60% measure appeared to falter in the Ohio House, Uihlein gave $1.1 million to a political committee that had launched a pressure campaign targeting Republican lawmakers on the fence. The donation was first reported by the Columbus Dispatch, and confirmed to CBS News by the committee. 

Uihlein did not respond to requests for comment, but his campaign was successful. The measure passed the Ohio House on May 10. 

When asked about the role of out-of-state interest groups, LaRose pointed to “massive amounts of money being spent on both sides,” adding the donations amount to “free speech” and “are done transparently.” 

On Aug. 8, Ohio voters will get the final say on whether to raise the threshold to amend the state’s constitution to 60%. O’Connor said she hopes Ohioans stick with the majority rules process that’s been in place since 1912. 

“It’s worked well, so it’s not broken and there’s no need to fix it,” she said. 



Source link