Friday, July 28, 2023

The Mysterious Dark Money Group Connecting Trump, Christie, and DeSantis

Story by Roger Sollenberger •
The Daily Beast

Photo Illustration by Luis G. Rendon/The Daily Beast/Getty


In the early stages of the 2024 race, no other candidate—not even Donald Trump—has pushed the bounds of campaign finance laws as much as Ron DeSantis.

But the DeSantis campaign’s finances have suffered despite those hard-charging efforts. Or, perhaps, because of the people behind them.

Immediately after DeSantis officially declared his inevitable candidacy, he was challenging fundraising laws. That’s when his state-level PAC pledged to transfer more than $80 million to a pro-DeSantis super PAC, just weeks after DeSantis officially cut ties with the old group—a move Florida lawmakers changed the rules to accommodate and which quickly drew a federal complaint.

But Florida campaign finance statements show even closer ties between these three groups than previously reported—and they go to the top of the DeSantis operation.

Even with all the PAC money, the DeSantis campaign has been marred by financial trouble. Extravagant spending and an overreliance on large-dollar donors—71 percent of his total fundraising has come from people donating more than $2,000—prompted the campaign to cut more than a third of its staff earlier this week. And one person who has taken a lot of the blame for DeSantis’ questionable financial footing is a largely unknown figure with undeniable experience in the shadowy GOP circles of dark money: Generra Peck.

But in the months leading up to DeSantis’ pro forma campaign announcement, his top advisers, including Peck, were busy raising money in the background.

Brendan Fischer, deputy director of government watchdog Documented, told The Daily Beast that Peck’s involvement with that high-dollar fundraising is “further evidence that there is little distinction” between the groups backing DeSantis, which are not allowed to coordinate with each other.

“It is another example of how DeSantis has been circumventing the federal campaign finance rules designed to prevent corruption and protect voters’ right to know,” Fischer said.

Peck, a widely respected Republican strategist who prefers to operate in the wings, is DeSantis’ 2024 campaign manager, having quietly steered him to victory in 2022. But before she took the top job, she helmed a battery of low-profile conservative advocacy groups—where the funding is largely untraceable and the spending is exceedingly difficult to unravel, often by design.

Peck’s present, however, is distinctly different from her past. A presidential operation tasked with taking down the most powerful force in the Republican Party has to reckon with far more public scrutiny than Peck has dealt with previously. And the transparency demanded of federal campaigns is entirely different from the occult financials of the comparatively obscure dark money groups and consulting firms where she cut her political teeth.

Peck’s approach, and the complications she faces today, are captured in the story of one of those groups—a dark money nonprofit that Chris Christie started to support then-President Trump, but which in hindsight looks more like an incubator for a future DeSantis presidency.

“Right Direction America” was created in late 2019 to fight back against Democratic attempts to impeach Trump.

“I was tired of sitting around and waiting for someone else to do it,” Christie said at the time, promising seven-figure ad buys to combat impeachment.

He would leave the group a year later, long after the Senate had acquitted Trump of those impeachment charges. But RDA was far from finished.


Kevin Wurm/Reuters© Provided by The Daily Beast

In retrospect, RDA had strong ties to DeSantis from the beginning. Aside from Peck and Christie, one of the key forces behind the group was veteran GOP operative Phil Cox—a trusted DeSantis adviser and top deputy for his super PAC. The group also featured Catherine Chestnut Linkul, another senior DeSantis 2022 aide and the former director of Casey DeSantis’ Office of the First Lady.

The DeSantis campaign and Peck did not respond to detailed questions for this article.

But after Trump was acquitted and Christie was gone, the group assumed what seems like its true purpose all along: a nozzle to spray anonymous cash to a broad range of conservative groups, issues, and politicians.

RDA’s filings don’t appear in IRS searches, nor in any other public database that compiles those records. The Daily Beast previously obtained the group’s 2020 filing, which shows it doled out $700,000 in grants. Those funds went to two other secretive entities, both of which, like RDA, are classified as 501(c)(4) “dark money” groups—and both of which are directly tied to Peck.

When one of those groups, “Building a Better America,” emptied its coffers in 2021—the year Peck moved to Tallahassee to take over DeSantis’ 2022 campaign—the group poured almost all of its bank account into reforming a federal environmental policy of deep interest to DeSantis: a Florida mining project. BBA didn’t similarly explain the nature of any of its $2.1 million in grants on its previous year’s tax filing.

RDA—whose board also has ties to the GOP’s biggest megadonor, Dick Uihlein—took in three donations in 2020, for a total $2.12 million, the filing shows. All three were anonymous, with the largest being $2 million.

While Christie promised to spend big money fighting Trump’s impeachment, RDA dropped only about $35,000 on ads toward that endeavor, according to the Facebook advertising database. The group returned to the political fold that August with a contribution more than twice that amount to a super PAC backing the unsuccessful congressional campaign of a Christie ally.

A few months later, Christie dropped out of RDA. The reason is unclear, and Christie declined The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

His departure, however, came weeks before the most curious event in RDA’s curious life: a $100,000 gift in early 2021 from the campaign belonging to Rep. Matt Gaetz, for a time one of DeSantis’ closest allies.

The donation was double the amount of the Gaetz campaign’s second-largest contribution ever, and $22,000 more than its combined political gifts to DeSantis.

The campaign cut the $100,000 check when the congressman was on particularly shaky ground, and the Gaetz campaign’s explanation appears to defy belief, The Daily Beast previously reported. The contribution came about half a year after the Justice Department opened its investigation into whether the Florida congressman paid for sex with a 17-year-old girl, and weeks after Trump returned to civilian life at Mar-a-Lago, denying Gaetz the blanket pardon he had reportedly sought.

But there’s unsurprisingly scant publicly available information about RDA’s activities after Christie left. The group’s website was taken down sometime after The Daily Beast reached out for comment for this article; it was archived as recently as March 21.

RDA’s publicly available financial data is almost exclusively accessible through Federal Election Filings, which show a $250,000 injection from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. One year later, a super PAC called “Right Direction Women”—whose branding is strikingly similar to that of RDA’s now defunct website—made a similar donation to yet another nonprofit, called “Right Direction Women Maryland.”

RDA Women’s lineup is also studded with close associates of Peck and her former consulting firm, P2 Public Affairs. The super PAC supports conservative women running for office, notably Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is now the central pillar supporting DeSantis’ primary efforts in that critical state.

But the force behind them all appears to be Peck. While the strategist rarely engages the media—who seem to have rarely engaged with her before she took over the 2022 DeSantis campaign—she took a major step into public life in September 2021, when DeSantis tapped her to run his upcoming re-election effort.

While Peck has long been close with both Ron and Casey DeSantis, her hiring was reportedly the work of yet another ghost from Right Direction’s past: Cox, who first took a shine to Peck while they worked together on former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s 2009 campaign.

Over the next decade-plus, Peck took on increasingly senior roles in the GOP national apparatus, building political bridges through the Republican Governors Association, where Cox served as a top official and which Christie chaired. (As if it’s not complicated enough, that organization also has its own “RGA Right Direction” PAC.)

However, Florida state filings don’t show 2022 DeSantis campaign payments to Peck personally or a number of known entities associated with her. They do, however, reveal $1.7 million going to Cox’s Ascent Media from the Republican Party of Florida, with that company clocking another roughly $207,000 directly from the DeSantis campaign.

Then, just two days after DeSantis won, Ascent Media was listed as one of a slate of firms forming a brand new consulting mega-conglomerate, GP3 Partners, LLC. The consortium features a number of DeSantis-world operatives, and its name—GP3—is shared by Peck’s personal firm, GP3 Strategies, LLC. Peck’s own name, however, was characteristically absent from the conglomerate’s press release, as was any mention of GP3 Strategies.

This January, DeSantis, Peck, and Cox began ramping up his predicted presidential bid in earnest. And the money began moving, too.

Early that month, Cox’s firm kicked about $562,000 back to the Florida GOP, state filings show, with the DeSantis 2022 campaign paying the company roughly $591,000 weeks later.

Notably, over the next five months Ascent Media hauled in another $151,500 from the Friends of DeSantis PAC—the group at the center of the disputed $82 million transfer. That PAC also sent $95,500 to Peck’s GP3 Strategies via a series of monthly installments beginning the last day of February.

Between March 1 and April 30, as DeSantis’ not-so-subtle shadow campaign carried him around the country and abroad, that PAC raised a staggering $3.8 million. Then, on May 5, DeSantis declared in a state filing that he would no longer fundraise through the group. That same day, the PAC, which paid GP3 Strategies its last installment the previous day, cut Ascent Media its final check. It rebranded 10 days later as “Empower Parents PAC.”

The contours of that fundraising effort are at the center of Campaign Legal Center’s federal complaint. The complaint, filed May 31, alleges that the PAC illegally coordinated with DeSantis to raise money in amounts exponentially higher than his campaign would have been able to.

Undeterred, the PAC made good on its $82 million promise the next month, announcing the unprecedented transfer to the pro-DeSantis super PAC “Never Back Down.” That group, of course, features Cox as a top official, alongside Jeff Roe, a longtime Republican campaign veteran who reportedly had his eyes set on the campaign manager slot—only to take a backseat to Peck.

Today, however, Peck’s cover has been blown. GOP insiders and megadonors have increasingly expressed frustration with the campaign’s flagging performance and runaway spending, and they’re hungry for a scalp.

According to multiple recent reports, they’ve set their sights on Peck, whose limited campaign experience has, through no fault of her own, made her vulnerable to those attacks.

When the campaign cut about a third of its workforce earlier this week—more than three dozen jobs—Peck took considerable heat.

A statement attributed to Peck said the layoffs were the result of a “top-to-bottom review,” but it’s unclear how effective the move will be. The campaign spent about $630,000 on payroll over its first six weeks, FEC records show, about 8 percent of its total expenses.

Fittingly enough, Peck’s own compensation with the campaign is its own mystery. Federal Election Commission filings show only about $10,000 going to her on the DeSantis campaign payroll over the campaign’s first six weeks. She received just the fifth-largest single payroll payment, and her total stands at about $5,000 less than the governor’s longtime communications guru, Christina Pushaw.

While it may seem like Peck is just doing the job on the cheap, she actually appears to have scored a hefty payday in the weeks before the campaign launched. Between late February and early May, Peck saw nearly $100,000 in combined regular payments from a high-rolling DeSantis state PAC, paid through her personal consulting firm, GP3 Strategies, LLC.

The Daily Beast.

RIP

B.C. musician recalls collaboration with 'timeless' Sinead O'Connor, spanning 8,000km

 The Canadian Press




British Columbia musician Rhys Fulber doesn't remember every recording session in a career stretching back to the 1980s, but a day in the studio in 2001 sticks in his mind. 

He recalled the privilege of working with the "transcendent" Sinead O'Connor. They were connected over more than 8,000 kilometres, he in Los Angeles and she in Dublin, as she recorded vocals for a track on Fulber's debut solo album.

"You hear them through the speakers, you're using the talkback microphone to communicate, so it's a recording session, but they're just not anywhere near you, they're somewhere on the other side of the world, so just hearing her demeanour, a very soft-spoken, very sweet-sounding person," Fulber said.

O'Connor, the Irish singer-songwriter who became a superstar in her mid-20s, with hits including “Nothing Compares 2 U,” died Wednesday at the age of 56.

In 2001, Fulber, who now lives in Gibsons, B.C., had been working with respected producer Rick Nowels and big-name songwriter Billy Steinberg as he hashed out solo material under the name Conjure One. 

Steinberg had a tune he wanted Fulber's unique take on after a version by a Belgian group didn't do it justice.

"So I kind of did my version of the song and then they had said, we'd like to get like, you know, a really special singer for the song, and they came back to me and said 'what about Sinead O'Connor?'" Fulber said. 

"And I'm like, wow, yeah, great, and they made it happen and next thing I know we're sitting in the studio."

O'Connor was a continent and an ocean away. Remote work might be the norm these days, but in 2001, recording studios had their own cutting-edge system connecting distant musicians.

"That was my brief experience with this timeless, special, transcendent artist."

Fulber said the electronic song made a splash in eastern Europe and Russia, with several remixes over the years including one released just last year. 

"A good vocal is forever, you know? It's like any great piece of art is forever," he said. "And her voice and everything she sang on is forever, and to be part of something like that is not something I take for granted."

News of O'Connor's death hit Fulber with a wave a sadness, the singer only a few years older than him.

O'Connor was found unresponsive in a home in southeast London and pronounced dead at the scene, police said. They did not say how she died but said her death was not considered suspicious.

She was public about her mental illness, saying that she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

The volatile and emotional nature of the music business takes a toll on many artists, Fulber said. 

"It's a hard world to navigate emotionally sometimes and I'm pretty sure she had some struggles," he said. 

Fulber, who is still releasing music under his own name, looks back on that time in his career fondly, getting to play in the big leagues with major names before the shift from physical album sales to online streaming. 

He said he may lament that era being over, but he feels lucky to have had the opportunity to work with people including O'Connor, even briefly. 

"It's always special artists that die too soon," he said. "It's always people that had more to offer that are gone too soon. It's always a sad, sad day." 

— With files from The Associated Press

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2023. 

Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press


SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/07/rip-sinead-oconnors-voice-was-ireland.html

Conservation group releases its wards from caribou maternity pens

Story by The Canadian Press • Yesterday

Village of Nakusp[1]
Nakusp is located in British Columbia
Nakusp
Nakusp
Location of Nakusp in British Columbia
Coordinates: 50°14′36″N 117°48′1″W

group working to restore a near-extinct caribou herd near Nakusp has released its second group of animals born and raised in protective custody.

But this year’s cohort, released on Friday, July 21, won’t be doing a lot to help increase the Central Selkirk Caribou herd numbers in the long term.

Fourteen animals were captured in late March by an operation sponsored by the Arrow Lakes Caribou Society (ALCS), and taken to the fenced maternity pen the group has built above the Nakusp Hot Springs. Eight of the 10 cows in the group turned out to be pregnant. Those gave birth to eight healthy calves – but there were seven males and only one female. So while that’s a roughly 35% increase in overall herd numbers, the paucity of females won’t help grow the herd in the future.

“We were hopeful for more females,” says ALCS communications specialist Skye Cunningham. “But regardless, it’s good to have them in the census.”

Cunningham says the large numbers makes planning next year’s capture a bit of a challenge, as yearlings are usually brought along with their mothers to the pen. Biologists will spend the next few months debating the pen’s capacity and how many animals the organization can provide care and shelter for.

Officials built the maternity pen two years ago with hopes that providing a safe space for the cows to give birth, and raising them on a high-quality diet for several months, will give them a better chance of survival. 

The animals were monitored by maternity pen shepherds from a specialty-built observation blind during their four-month stay at the six-hectare, heavily wooded facility. Shepherds have included various stakeholder groups, including some ʔaq'am First Nations community members from the Cranbrook area.

The Central Selkirk caribou herd is critically endangered, with fewer than 30 animals remaining. One female – the last surviving member of the Revelstoke-area Columbia South herd – was also captured and taken to the site. 

Officials will monitor the progress and survival of this year’s cohort using tracking collars and other monitoring techniques.

John Boivin, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Valley Voice

Canada says it is disappointed by US decision to maintain lumber duties

Story by Reuters • Yesterday
 
A worker unloads logs at the Murray Brothers Lumber Company in Madawaska

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada is "very disappointed" by the latest U.S. decision to maintain duties on exports of Canadian softwood lumber and wants Washington to engage in meaningful talks to settle the matter, Trade Minister Mary Ng said in a statement on Thursday.

The U.S. Commerce Department ruled earlier in the day that most Canadian softwood lumber would be subject to a 7.99% tax.

The two countries have been arguing for decades about the exports, which U.S. producers say are unfairly subsidized.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Chris Reese)

Bipartisan bill designates space as critical infrastructure sector

Provided by The Hill



Abipartisan group of House members introduced a bill Thursday to designate space as a critical infrastructure sector, a move aimed at ensuring the rapidly evolving industry gets adequate resources and future security protections.

The Space Infrastructure Act would direct the Homeland Security secretary to designate space systems, services and technology as a sector of critical infrastructure. The bill was introduced by Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), co-chairs of the California Aerospace Caucus, along with Reps. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

The government currently recognizes 16 infrastructure sectors as critical, such as water, energy, communications and financial services. The space industry, consequently, has had to “rely on collecting threat and security information from a patchwork of the 16 existing sectors,” a press release from the lawmakers’ offices stated.

The bipartisan bill is meant to ensure that space gets its own “cogent security analyses of the space-based assets upon which our society relies,” the announcement added.

The bill follows a recommendation earlier this year from the Cyberspace Solarium Commission 2.0 that called for space systems to be designated as a critical infrastructure sector.

Members of the commission, which is rooted in helping the U.S. defend against cyberattacks, wrote in a report in April that such a move “would close current gaps and signal both at home and abroad that space security and resilience is a top priority.”

The House lawmakers stressed the designation would strengthen national security, especially as the economy increasingly relies on technology support in space.

“Space is infrastructure. So many things we rely on, such as navigation systems, banking, and communications systems, function with the help of technology in space,” Lieu said in a statement. “Designating space as a critical infrastructure sector would help ensure the industry receives the attention and resources it needs, thereby strengthening our national security.”

Calvert said the legislation “takes appropriate measures to protect” space systems, adding, “As our economy becomes increasingly reliant on the support of space-based systems and services, we must act accordingly to increase the safeguards that shield them from any potential threats.”

 The Hill

GRAIN DUST IS EXPLOSIVE
Silo blast in southern Brazil kills at least eight, one missing

Story by By Leonardo Benassatto and Ana Mano • Yesterday 

General view after a series of explosions at grain silos owned by agro-industrial cooperative C. Vale in the city of Palotina© Thomson Reuters


SAO PAULO (Reuters) -At least eight people have died, one was missing and nearly a dozen others wounded after a grain silo explosion on Wednesday at an agricultural co-operative in southern Brazil, the government of Parana state said in a statement on Thursday.



The blast occurred at the C.Vale co-operative in the small town of Palotina, about 600 kilometers (373 miles) from the state's capital Curitiba. Parana is one of Brazil's top grain producing states.

Experts say grain dust particles are highly combustible and can cause fires or explosions. The particles can be from wheat, oats, barley, or other types of grain that form layers or become airborne in an inclosed space.




For a grain dust explosion to occur, they say that four elements have to be present: fuel, oxygen, confinement and a source of ignition.

C.Vale did not immediately respond to questions about the circumstances of the incident or explain what the stored product was that exploded.

C.Vale, which stores grains in 125 units across five Brazilian states and in Paraguay, said in a separate statement that rescue workers were still scouring the rubble in search of the missing person on Thursday.

It noted that nearly a dozen people had been hospitalized, excluding the fatalities.

"I'm deeply saddened by what happened at C.Vale," Agriculture Minister Carlos Favaro wrote on messaging platform X, formerly known as Twitter. "I express my condolences to the families of the victims."

Acting Parana Governor Darci Piana headed to Palotina, a city of some 35,000 people, alongside state secretaries to follow the rescue operations and provide support to the families, the government said.

(Reporting by Leonardo Benassatto and Ana Mano; Writing by Gabriel Araujo; Editing by Christina Fincher and Bernadette Baum)

Deep dive into Meta's algorithms shows that America's political polarization has no easy fix


WASHINGTON (AP) — The powerful algorithms used by Facebook and Instagram to deliver content to users have increasingly been blamed for amplifying misinformation and political polarization. But a series of groundbreaking studies published Thursday suggest addressing these challenges is not as simple as tweaking the platforms' software.

The four research papers, published in Science and Nature, also reveal the extent of political echo chambers on Facebook, where conservatives and liberals rely on divergent sources of information, interact with opposing groups and consume distinctly different amounts of misinformation.

Algorithms are the automated systems that social media platforms use to suggest content for users by making assumptions based on the groups, friends, topics and headlines a user has clicked on in the past. While they excel at keeping users engaged, algorithms have been criticized for amplifying misinformation and ideological content that has worsened the country's political divisions.

Proposals to regulate these systems are among the most discussed ideas for addressing social media's role in spreading misinformation and encouraging polarization. But when the researchers changed the algorithms for some users during the 2020 election, they saw little difference.

“We find that algorithms are extremely influential in people's on-platform experiences and there is significant ideological segregation in political news exposure,” said Talia Jomini Stroud, director of the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the leaders of the studies. "We also find that popular proposals to change social media algorithms did not sway political attitudes."

While political differences are a function of any healthy democracy, polarization occurs when those differences begin to pull citizens apart from each other and the societal bonds they share. It can undermine faith in democratic institutions and the free press.

Significant division can undermine confidence in democracy or democratic institutions and lead to “affective polarization,” when citizens begin to view each other more as enemies than legitimate opposition. It's a situation that can lead to violence, as it did when supporters of then-President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

To conduct the analysis, researchers obtained unprecedented access to Facebook and Instagram data from the 2020 election through a collaboration with Meta, the platforms' owners. The researchers say Meta exerted no control over their findings.

When they replaced the algorithm with a simple chronological listing of posts from friends — an option Facebook recently made available to users — it had no measurable impact on polarization. When they turned off Facebook's reshare option, which allows users to quickly share viral posts, users saw significantly less news from untrustworthy sources and less political news overall, but there were no significant changes to their political attitudes.

Likewise, reducing the content that Facebook users get from accounts with the same ideological alignment had no significant effect on polarization, susceptibility to misinformation or extremist views.

Together, the findings suggest that Facebook users seek out content that aligns with their views and that the algorithms help by “making it easier for people to do what they're inclined to do," according to David Lazer, a Northeastern University professor who worked on all four papers.

Eliminating the algorithm altogether drastically reduced the time users spent on either Facebook or Instagram while increasing their time on TikTok, YouTube or other sites, showing just how important these systems are to Meta in the increasingly crowded social media landscape.

In response to the papers, Meta's president for global affairs, Nick Clegg, said the findings showed “there is little evidence that key features of Meta's platforms alone cause harmful 'affective’ polarization or has any meaningful impact on key political attitudes, beliefs or behaviors.”

Katie Harbath, Facebook's former director of public policy, said they showed the need for greater research on social media and challenged assumptions about the role social media plays in American democracy. Harbath was not involved in the research.

“People want a simple solution and what these studies show is that it’s not simple,” said Harbath, a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center and the CEO of the tech and politics firm Anchor Change. “To me, it reinforces that when it comes to polarization, or people’s political beliefs, there’s a lot more that goes into this than social media.”

The work also revealed the extent of the ideological differences of Facebook users and the different ways that conservatives and liberals use the platform to get news and information about politics.

Conservative Facebook users are more likely to consume content that has been labeled misinformation by fact-checkers. They also have more sources to choose from. The analysis found that among the websites included in political Facebook posts, far more cater to conservatives than liberals.

Overall, 97% of the political news sources on Facebook identified by fact-checkers as having spread misinformation were more popular with conservatives than liberals.

The authors of the papers acknowledged some limitations to their work. While they found that changing Facebook's algorithms had little impact on polarization, they note that the study only covered a few months during the 2020 election, and therefore cannot assess the long-term impact that algorithms have had since their use began years ago.

They also noted that most people get their news and information from a variety of sources — television, radio, the internet and word-of-mouth — and that those interactions could affect people's opinions, too. Many in the United States blame the news media for worsening polarization.

To complete their analyses, the researchers pored over data from millions of users of Facebook and Instagram and surveyed specific users who agreed to participate. All identifying information about specific users was stripped out for privacy reasons.

Lazer, the Northeastern professor, said he was at first skeptical that Meta would give the researchers the access they needed, but was pleasantly surprised. He said the conditions imposed by the company were related to reasonable legal and privacy concerns. More studies from the collaboration will be released in coming months.

“There is no study like this,” he said of the research published Thursday. “There's been a lot of rhetoric about this, but in many ways the research has been quite limited.”

David Klepper, The Associated Press

Murray Mandryk: COVID-19 inquiry may explain why we can't pull together

Opinion by Murray Mandryk • Yesterday 

Did Saskatchewan bail on the COVID-19 crisis too early? 
A national pandemic inquiry might tell us that.
 Provided by Leader Post

We used to be pretty good in this country at coming together in a crisis … or so it seemed.

Every small Saskatchewan town or big Ontario city has a testimonial to this — usually, a First or Second World War memorial built by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

Such symbols remind us of our struggles, but mostly they proudly remind us of who we are and what we do so well.

We are modestly proud people. We may be more apologetic people than boastful, but we know how we have always defied distance, weather and inhospitable landscapes and have come together in times of crisis.

We have done so, regardless of whether the crisis was a natural or manmade one.

Wars. Economic collapse. Natural disasters beyond our power. Even our willingness to provide public health care that was as tough a fight as most.

We’ve always demonstrated a remarkable capacity to pull together in a crisis.

So why is it that we can’t seem to come together now as we face two of the biggest crises of our lifetime: COVID-19 and climate change?

In a series of editorials, including in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), some of the country’s top medical experts are calling on the federal government to hold a national inquiry into this country’s “major pandemic failures” that would examine our high pandemic death rates — especially in lower-income communities and nursing homes.

It could even address why none of the life-saving vaccine was developed and manufactured in Canada — a pertinent question, given that we should have had a leg up with the work of the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) attached to the University of Saskatchewan.

All such issues are especially important here in Saskatchewan, where we suffered horribly from COVID-19 outbreaks in isolated and impoverished northern communities like La Loche and from the devastation in long-term care homes that required the government to step in.

Did decisions like Premier Scott Moe’s eagerness to be the first in the country to lift COVID-19 restrictions — the direct outcome of succumbing to anti-vaccine lobbyists who gained his ear — contribute to higher-than-reasonable deaths here? How did our handling of the crisis compare with elsewhere?

“We wouldn’t know because no pandemic inquiry has been established by (Canada’s) federal government,” an editorial stated. “This is a mistake.”

Sadly, we can’t even say with any certainty how many actual deaths there were in Saskatchewan, because we were also among the first to stop collecting detailed data on COVID-19 cases.

Conservative politicians here — federal, provincial, retired, active — were also among the biggest supporters of those who trucked to Ottawa in the so-called “Freedom Convoy” to wreak as much havoc as possible on the federal government, the people of that city and even international border crossings, where they blocked trade and travel.

Such protesters wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag — about the most un-Canadian thing imaginable.

It seemed the opposite of what we have always done so well, which is to pull together in times of crisis.

But one of the big problems right now is that we can’t say with certainty what went wrong during the pandemic. Worse, today’s politicians really don’t seem to want to find out.

As much as such an inquiry would likely be a major source of embarrassment for a federal Liberal government in constant election mode, it would not make the federal Conservative opposition or their allies running governments like the one in Saskatchewan look especially good, either.

This is becoming a sadly familiar story.

Like much of the climate change debate, the first calculation in today’s political discourse is the political advance.

We need to find out what we did wrong because we will very likely have a pandemic crisis again.

But, also like climate change, the first calculation should be how we all can get through a crisis together.

We’re not good at this anymore. We used to be great at it.

Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

Related
Georgia Judge gives deadline extension to organizers trying to stop 'Cop City' with signature campaign



ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday significantly extended the deadline for Atlanta organizers who have been trying to gather more than 70,000 signatures to force a vote on the construction of a police and firefighter training center that critics call “ Cop City.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen ruled that the city had imposed an unlawful requirement that those collecting signatures have to be residents of Atlanta. A group of people who live in DeKalb County just outside the city had sued — saying they should be allowed to join in the canvassing effort and noting that the planned site for the training center itself is in unincorporated DeKalb County, outside the city limits.

“Requiring signature gatherers to be residents of the city imposes a severe burden on core political speech and does little to protect the city’s interest in self-governance,” Cohen wrote, adding: “The city has offered no specifics as to why permitting nonresident plaintiffs to gather signatures ... will cause any disruption to the political process.”

Cohen said that the 60-day period for gathering signatures, which had put the deadline in mid-August, should be restarted. That means organizers will have until late September to gather the tens of thousands of signatures still needed for the proposed referendum to get on the ballot.

The effort is meant to allow voters to choose whether they want to repeal the ordinance that authorized the lease of the city-owned land upon which the project is set to be built.

As of Tuesday, organizers had gotten more than 30,000 residents to sign on to the effort, according to Paul Glaze, a spokesperson for the Vote to Stop Cop City Coalition.

Attorneys for the city and state had urged the judge to toss the entire referendum campaign, calling it “futile,” and “invalid,” but Cohen declined to rule on its legality, saying it was not up to him to decide that separate dispute.

“We are thrilled by Judge Cohen’s ruling, and the expansion of democracy to include our DeKalb neighbors, and levels the playing field for our coalition,” said Mary Hooks, a lead organizer for the coalition. “Cop City has been marred time and time again by the silencing of democratic input and repression of community participation, and since the launch of this campaign, we have been playing on a field tilted in the city of Atlanta’s favor."

Organizers have said they need to collect the signatures by Aug. 14 in order to make it onto the November ballot. If the signatures take longer to gather, that would push the referendum to March's ballot and potentially risk the city moving forward with constructing the facility in the meantime, though activists could seek a court order to prevent that from happening.

“We are focused on getting on the ballot, period,” Glaze told the Associated Press.

Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens and others say the $90 million facility would replace inadequate training facilities, and would help address difficulties in hiring and retaining police officers that worsened after nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice three years ago.

But opponents, who have been joined by activists from around the country, say they fear it will lead to greater militarization of the police and that its construction will exacerbate environmental damage in a poor, majority-Black area. The “Stop Cop City” effort has gone on for more than two years and at times has veered into vandalism and violence.

Organizers have modeled the referendum campaign after a successful effort in coastal Georgia, where Camden County residents voted overwhelmingly last year to block county officials from building a launchpad for blasting commercial rockets into space.

The Georgia Supreme Court in February unanimously upheld the legality of the Camden County referendum, though it remains an open question whether citizens can veto decisions of city governments.

R.j. Rico, The Associated Press

Inside The Battle For A New Streaming Residuals Model: Data, Transparency & “A Fight For Power”

 Deadline


It’s been 87 days since the writers hit the picket lines and 14 days since the actors joined them, yet the divisions between the guilds and the studios remain as deep as ever. 

One of the biggest fights that remains is how performers and writers should be compensated for work they create for streaming services.

“The question is: Are you or are you not willing to share some of the revenue you generate from actors, and also from writers, directors and crew, with them or not? The answer needs to be yes. It is not okay anymore for companies to just bring in huge amounts of revenue from people’s work and not share it with them,” SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director Duncan Crabtree-Ireland told Deadline.

Writers and actors do receive fixed residuals for their work on streaming services, but they are not tied directly to the success of a show, and even the most high-profile creatives have been known to receive pennies for some of their work.

But now, both guilds agree that a fixed residual is not enough to properly reflect their members’ contributions to the streaming services. In its proposal to the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, the WGA suggested a “viewership-based” residual model, in addition to the fixed residual already in place. That was rejected, according to the union. SAG-AFTRA took that suggestion one step further, proposing that performers receive a 2% share of the revenue generated from streaming content. That proposal was also flat-out rejected, according to the guild.

“We had this proposal on the table on day one of negotiations on June 7. To this very day, throughout that entire 35 days of bargaining and even since, the companies have never come back to us with any substantive response,” Crabtree-Ireland said. “Their answer was, ‘We aren’t interested in talking about it.’ So it’s going to be very hard to reach an agreement on something when the companies won’t even discuss it with you.”

The AMPTP tells a different story, saying that the 2% revenue share had come up “numerous times” and the studios expressed “fundamental objections” to the proposal. While they are willing to increase residuals made from streaming content, a blanket revenue share “creates a one-size-fits-all approach” that studio insiders say is “unworkable.”

It’s clear that both sides are far from an agreement on how to fairly compensate writers and actors on the backend. But the discourse has begged the question: Is a direct revenue share possible in the current streaming landscape and, if so, what could that look like?

Data Dogfight

Several experts stressed to Deadline that the central argument isn’t about whether there is infrastructure to support such a deal. It’s about getting the major studios, as well as the guilds, to agree on a measure of success that would make everyone happy. Which, it seems, might be an impossible exercise.

Any concession from the studios on this front would likely require some sort of data transparency. Thus far, streamers have kept all audience data close to the chest, occasionally self-reporting metrics as they see fit. Netflix is the only service that consistently self-reports viewership data, but does not provide full data transparency.

“Data transparency is related to power. This is a fight about power. Because right now, the streamers have power, and they don’t want to give it up,” David Offenberg, an associate professor of entertainment finance at Loyola Marymount University, told Deadline. “They have the data about how valuable things are and they’re exploiting it by not paying the creators as much as they’re worth for seasons two and three and four, because creators don’t know how much the show’s worth, because they don’t have the data.”

SAG-AFTRA has suggested using Parrot Analytics’ content valuation tool to determine the revenue generated by each piece of streaming content. The guild proposed that each quarter, producers would pay 2% of the quarterly “Revenue Contribution” for each series or film, and this would be divided pro rata among the principal cast “based on time and salary units or ratable distribution,” on top of the existing Streaming Revenue Sharing payment.

Unlike Nielsen or self-reported metrics from some of the studios, which use viewing time as their primary measurement, Parrot Analytics, a data analysis firm for the entertainment industry run by Wared Seger, which works with companies such as Sony, Lionsgate and Starz, uses other metrics such as Google searches and social media engagement. The goal is not to determine viewership but rather to understand the impact of a piece of content on a studio’s revenue. It uses quarterly earnings data as well as subscriptions and ad revenue to estimate that impact for each series or film on a platform.

The AMPTP, however, rejected this proposal, calling these metrics “opaque” and highlighted the fact that they are not available to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to Parrot. They also “lack any demonstrable link to the actual revenue received by the service in the form of new or retained subscribers.”

Crabtree-Ireland told Deadline that the guild thought Parrot’s approach “reflected a more broad-based and objective approach to evaluating that without the kind of insight data that the companies have been unwilling to share so far.”

Building A Metric

When it comes to success on streaming, there are two types of series or films — those that attract subscribers and those that retain them. For each title, a studio gathers a whole host of data including global/U.S. hours viewed, number of unique accounts that viewed a title, and completion rate for each account. They also seek to determine how much engagement a show drives and to what degree it was successful at reducing churn. 

While all of these could theoretically be used to determine the success of a show monetarily, they would likely all yield a different answer. Each studio is likely to value one more than the other, which would hinder any agreement on a single metric. 

It’s not just about getting the studios to agree, either. It’s also about finding a metric with which the guilds would be satisfied. Because data, while undeniable, can be used to tell any story.

“The challenge with the data is I don’t know which story you want to be told. … Do you want to know that you didn’t make a difference, that the algorithm was the difference maker?” Andrew Rosen, a former Viacom executive and the founder of streaming newsletter PARQOR, told Deadline. “If actors are open to being quantified for how they help with engagement and churn, if that’s true at all, that’s the conversation to have.”

That’s a “different business logic” than simply identifying which shows are hits and which are not, Rosen said. 

For what it’s worth, Crabtree-Ireland has repeatedly stressed that SAG-AFTRA is willing to at least discuss any metric the AMPTP is willing put forth. The guild simply wants its members to be fairly compensated for their work in streaming.

Ostensibly, the guild is harking to the days of broadcast television, where the creators and casts of shows such as Friends, Seinfeld, Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and a Half Men would make tens of millions of dollars a year in residuals thanks to reruns and syndication (and, ironically, streaming). In fact, the last time writers and actors were on strike together, in 1960, residuals were a key part of those negotiations and led to a long-term payment structure that allowed creatives to share in a show’s success.

“What this is really about is recognizing how streaming has become such a central part of the platform for our members’ work, and these streaming platforms have been built on our members’ voices. The fact is, there’s not a percentage of that revenue that the streaming platforms are gaining that is shared with us or with directors or writers or any other creatives in that form,” Crabtree-Ireland added. “We’re not wedded to that aspect of the proposal. We’re wedded to the concept of — you’re bringing in a bunch of money [and] our members are the reason why it’s coming in and they ought to have at least a tiny little piece of that pie shared with them.”

Regardless of the metric, it will need to be translated into a hard dollar amount — which is where things get even more tricky.

“That is such a can of worms that [the studios and actors] don’t even want to open. I get [the actors’] motivation, but to do that math in a way that makes everybody happy is absolutely impossible. That would cause so much infighting within any union, because you have to make assumptions,” Offenberg said. “You have to build mathematical models that are estimating — not determining, just estimating — the amount of revenue each streaming show makes… there’s no way to make that work in a way that everybody thinks is fair.”

To be clear, the infrastructure is there to support a revenue share, especially with the introduction of ad tiers, because advertisers need audience data in order to be able to justify their ad spend. 

“It’s all in a paradigm that is broadly executed on the internet today, and the metrics and the underlying measurement capability does exist to support that kind of a deal,” said Jason Fairchild, co-founder and CEO of advertising platform tvScientific. “It’s a new concept for the studios. It’s not a new concept for content syndication.”

While the studios have bristled at the idea of using third-party data to try to quantify success, Fairchild argues that “if the streaming service, or whoever it is, is grading their own homework, that’s going to lead to some friction.”

“If you have a third party to validate, it’s a solution. That’s time tested across multiple industries,” he said. “It’s not an outrageous thought to have a third party verify.”

The question still remains how much to share with the creatives. While SAG-AFTRA has proposed 2%, experts said that any number will likely ruffle feathers, since streaming has drastically changed the way content is valued and will continue to do so as the industry leans more towards the medium.

“The problem is that the nature of the streaming model really makes it difficult to estimate what actors are entitled to from a show or a movie,” Rosen said. “The value of content has been changed so radically by this medium that it’s really unfortunate and sad to watch. An actor’s output is just very different and is valued very differently, both by the medium in which the content is distributed and by the audiences.”

The “Dirty Secret”

For Rosen, this key fight in the contract negotiations has illuminated an essential truth about streaming. When Netflix accelerated the race away from linear television, every studio followed suit in an attempt to keep up with the times. But the shift was too fast, and the studios’ business models couldn’t keep up. With the introduction of Apple and Amazon in the streaming wars, it puts the legacy studios like Disney, Warner Bros Discovery and NBCUniversal at even more of a disadvantage.

“The dirty secret of streaming is nobody’s profitable, except for Netflix,” he said. “The problem with the guilds’ asks is that they’re saying, ‘Hey, you unprofitable business, one day, you’re going to be profitable. And you should share profits with us.’ Studios are saying, ‘Well, we’re unprofitable and based on what you’re asking, it’s going to be harder to become profitable. The less likely it is we’re going to become profitable, the less likely it is we want to stay in this business.’”

Although, it seems the studios are betting on streaming more and more by the day. If anything is clear, it’s that this new era will continue to be less lucrative for all involved. 

“None of these businesses are going to look like what linear used to look like. None of these businesses are going to deliver the types of revenue that syndication used to deliver to directors and actors,” Rosen said. “The difficult question for Hollywood right now is whether the leadership that’s in place, the guys who are really competent in managing studios and linear networks and theme parks, are the right people to solve that problem. I think that the uncomfortable truth that’s emerging from this standoff between the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild and the studios is that they may not be.”