Wednesday, August 14, 2024

Texas likely undercounting heat-related deaths
Martha Pskowski, Inside Climate News
August 14, 2024 

Thermometer © Damien MEYER / AFP


"Texas likely undercounting heat-related deaths" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

This story is published in partnership with Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, independent news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for the ICN newsletter here.

On a scorching May 2020 day that topped out at 95 degrees, Austin resident José Mario Calles reported to his landscaping job.

A lawsuit later filed by Calles’ family recounted what happened next: The 51-year-old, who financially supported his wife and kids in El Salvador, fainted. He was rushed to the hospital and spent two nights being treated for a heart condition and diabetes, both known to make people more vulnerable to heat.

The lawsuit claims that his employer did not report the incident to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration or to its worker’s compensation insurance carrier as required by law. The father of six returned to work without the necessary medical clearance, according to the lawsuit, hefting 40-pound bags of mulch. Twelve days after his initial collapse, he suffered a heart attack at a job site and didn’t wake up.
ADVERTISEMENT


The Travis County Medical Examiner found the cause of death was myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle. The autopsy did not mention heat.

Last year was the hottest year on record for the state.And the heat was particularly deadly: State records report that 365 people died directly from heat, the most heat-caused deaths on record. The count rises to 562 when including deaths where heat was a contributing cause


Climate change is causing hotter days and nights, which put extra stress on the human body. The problem is likely to only get worse.


Yet deaths related to heat are almost certainly undercounted in Texas and nationwide, according to experts. Accounting for heat’s role in a death is notoriously difficult because of the subjectivity and complexity of the process. For example, doctors or local officials who fill out records listing the cause of death might not consider the weather on the day a person died or if a person routinely worked in the heat.

“The health impacts (of heat) are a little bit more subtle,” said Sameed Khatana, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a cardiologist. “They can be delayed. And trying to tease apart whether a death or an adverse health effect occurred due to the temperature is quite challenging.”

During a recent visit to Austin, Douglas Parker, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, called heat “the most dangerous weather phenomenon that workers face.”


Failing to accurately count how many people are dying from heat-related causes leaves officials unable to grasp the scope of the problem and work more directly to fix it, said Andrew Dessler, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

“A lot of the argument over climate change is: Why should we care if temperature goes up a degree?” Dessler said. “And this is one of the reasons why we should care.”

Community organizers, scientists and academics say the lack of public information and understanding about heat deaths makes it hard to mount an effective local response to what they consider a public health crisis.


“How do you tackle a problem if you don't know the size of the problem, if you don't understand the breadth and the depth of the problem?” said Gregory Wellenius, an environmental epidemiologist and professor on environmental health at Boston University.

A data analysis by The Texas Tribune found that Texas likely failed to account for many heat-related deaths between 2013 and 2019. During those years, the state recorded 777 heat-related deaths. The Tribune’s estimate — calculated by comparing how many people died on abnormally hot days with how many people would have been expected to die during more average weather — found that 998 deaths were associated with heat during that period in the 41 most populous of Texas’ 254 counties.



Texas counties with medical examiners take varying approaches for how they document heat-related deaths. For example, Dallas County reports all deaths in which heat was suspected to be the cause of death or a contributing factor. In Nueces County, which includes Corpus Christi, an official said they don’t track heat-related deaths at all.


“Deaths are investigated differently depending on where people die. We don't really have a federal death investigation system, every state runs a different death investigation system. And so the whole thing is pretty fragmented," said Gregory L. Hess, a chief medical examiner at Pima County in Arizona, which includes Tucson.

That means cases like Calles’ can fall through the cracks because heat wasn’t cited by the medical examiner as a possible contributor to his death. It’s not clear whether the medical examiner considered heat as a factor. In Travis County, only deaths that are directly caused by heat are recorded as heat-related.

John Escamilla, an Austin attorney who sued Calles’ employer on behalf of the family and specializes in workplace accidents and injuries, said more people are coming to him seeking legal help for cases involving workers who have suffered heat-related injuries. The landscaping company BrightView, which purchased the company where Calles worked, declined to comment.


“I don't think employers consciously put their workers at risk. I think they're ignorant or they don't really care,” Escamilla said. “But these summers are getting more and more intense for longer periods of time.”
A silent killer that’s difficult to diagnose

For some deaths, the role heat played is clear: In June 2023, a 68-year-old man was found dead on the couch in his Fort Worth home. A death investigator found that the air conditioning was broken and the temperature inside the house was 91 degrees.


The same month, a 28-year-old man was found having "seizure-like activity" in a Fort Worth strip mall parking lot. His core body temperature was measured at 108 degrees at the hospital. His muscles broke down, his brain swelled and there was evidence of liver failure, according to an autopsy.

On Aug. 25, 2023, a 48-year-old woman was admitted to a suburban Houston hospital with a body temperature of 108.1 degrees. She’d sat outside for an hour, according to an autopsy.

Heat kills people when the body cannot cool itself and a person doesn’t take action soon enough to cool their body. In hot weather, the body redistributes warm blood to the skin to protect internal organs. Sweat evaporates, cooling the skin and lowering the temperature of the blood beneath.

But if it’s too hot, a person is exerting themselves physically or remains in the heat too long, the body can heat up faster than it’s able to handle. The heart races as it goes on overdrive to circulate blood throughout the body. Blood pressure drops.

If the person doesn’t drink water and escape from the heat, the next phase is heat exhaustion, marked by weakness, profuse sweating, headaches or dizziness. Without adequate treatment, the situation can progress to heat stroke, when body temperature can spike to 103 degrees or more and vital organs like kidneys, heart and brain become starved for oxygen — a potentially deadly situation.

“People often are unaware that heat is starting to cause [health] problems, and, by the time they're aware of it, it can be too late,” said Kristie Ebi, a professor and expert on heat’s health risks at the University of Washington Center for Health and the Global Environment.

[How to stay safe in the Texas heat]

But often, figuring out the role heat played is more difficult. Experts refer to heat as a silent killer because the harm it causes isn’t necessarily clear or sudden.

Teasing out whether heat contributed to a death becomes subjective. Experts who fill out death forms — including physicians, medical examiners and local justices of the peace, who all have varying levels of training — have different thresholds for when they feel they have enough information to list heat as a direct or contributing factor to a death.

It also takes time and effort to track down information about the circumstances that preceded someone’s death to look for clues that may point to heat as a contributor. Was the person suffering in a hot home? Living under an overpass? Playing tennis in the heat?

“It also depends on peoples’ need for a level of precision,” said Scott Sheridan, a geography professor at Kent State University in Ohio who obtained a Ph.D. in climatology. “And that's where I think heat tends to be one of the most difficult to convey. … We all think about the runner that collapses in the heat, or some very obvious case, but the vast majority of cases just aren't that obvious.”

And even with an autopsy, the picture might still be murky, said Bob Anderson, a branch chief in the division of vital statistics at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which assigns codes to the state’s death data so it can be analyzed.

Say an elderly person with heart disease who gardens frequently is found dead outside — did heat play a role?

“So it can vary according to the quality of the death investigation that's done, and how much information is gleaned,” Anderson said. “But even the best death investigation won't always tell you whether heat played a role or not.”
In Arizona, medical examiners hunt for heat deaths

Experts say the model for how to more thoroughly investigate and count heat deaths is Maricopa County, Arizona, in the Sonoran Desert, which is home to around 4.6 million people, including in Phoenix, and regularly reaches temperatures of 110 in the summer. The county medical examiner’s office has been working since 2006 to catch every death that could have been related to heat, Chief Medical Examiner Jeff Johnston said.

Their reviews are thorough: When pathologists receive a case, they do an autopsy and they consider medical history, information from the place the person died and recent events to determine if heat contributed to the death, Johnston said.

“The devil’s in the details really with these,” Johnston said.

Johnston knows his office isn’t catching every case — that would require investigating every single death, even when heat isn’t suspected, which is cost-prohibitive. But he argues they have one of the most robust systems in the country for detecting heat-related deaths. In 2018, they even coined a category for them: environmental heat exposures.

Assistant Medical Director for the Maricopa County Department of Public Health Nick Staab said local officials use this data to inform their strategies for how to help Maricopa County residents stay cool.

Maricopa County used the data to support doubling the county’s network of cooling centers operated by local groups and cities to more than 100 and extending the hours at some of them to include weekends. Arizona 2-1-1 coordinates free transportation to the centers.

They’ve also partnered with community health workers, or promotoras, to supply information on how to beat the heat and find cooling centers in English and Spanish.

Officials map where deaths occur and gather demographic and behavioral data to understand who is dying and why they were at risk.

“We strongly believe in public health that all of these deaths are preventable,” Staab said, adding, “We’re trying to tell this story. We’re trying to define extreme heat as a public health emergency so that we can get additional funding, additional resources to bring to our high risk population.”

In Texas, most of the biggest urban areas have medical examiners to investigate deaths. But those offices don’t investigate every death: Texas law requires an investigation in circumstances such as a suspected suicide or homicide, or when a person dies within 24 hours of being admitted to a hospital.

Dr. Jessica Dwyer, a medical examiner for Dallas County, said tracking heat-related deaths is inherently complex because no single method fits all cases. A death involving drug ingestion on a hot day might be classified differently depending on the medical examiner’s judgment. Dwyer said this variability stems from differences in training, office protocols, and personal experience.

“Standardizing it becomes a little difficult because not every case is the same," Dwyer said.

Some people are left more vulnerable to the heat than others. This includes older residents, children, and people with chronic diseases. People experiencing homelessness and migrants trying to cross vast stretches of brushland on foot also contend with the dangers of heat more than people who spend much of their time indoors.

On the outskirts of El Paso, 12 people died from heat during the summer of 2023 while trying to immigrate through the blazing Chihuahuan Desert. Many more died in neighboring Sunland Park, New Mexico.

“Every summer, we've really tried to shoot for zero deaths,” said Graciela Ortiz, who coordinates the Extreme Weather Task Force in El Paso. “I am going to tell you, though, we blew the record out of the water last year. I was shocked.”

In Dallas last year, Rose Jones, a public health professional, said she was shocked to hear stories from friends who worked in an emergency room about homeless patients arriving with third-degree burns from falling asleep on the pavement. It unsettled her so much that she decided to quit her job with an urban forestry group to start a consulting practice focused on protecting people from extreme heat. She knew people such as undocumented workers and prisoners would suffer first.

“These are all marginalized groups so in general it’s not going to get a lot of attention. People will just go into their air conditioned homes,” Jones said.

In San Antonio, Lotus Rios saw the heat’s danger grow. The 45-year-old community leader, indigenous activist and mother of two runs a small food pantry where needy neighbors can eat for free. Over the years, life has become more difficult as the city’s tree cover gave way to more concrete, and summer temperatures grew warmer.

“People used to be able to survive with a box fan in the window, that’s not the case anymore,” Rios said. “Fans are not helpful when it’s 104.”

She sees a lot of suffering in her line of work. But nothing was as hard to bear as the story of Albert Garcia.

Garcia lost both legs to frostbite while living outside when Winter Storm Uri plunged Texas into subfreezing weather for a week in February 2021. Later, Rios and others helped secure shelter for Garcia. But he suffered incontinence and felt abused by shelter workers. A year later, he was back under an Interstate 35 overpass.

Garcia used drugs. He liked to preach from the Bible and make jokes. He often made Rios laugh.

In August 2023, after more than 50 consecutive days of triple-digit weather, Garcia died beneath the overpass where he slept. The local news website Deceleration told his story in a series of articles.

When journalist Greg Harman, founder of Deceleration, went to the site of Garcia’s death, several days later, he measured the temperature at 114 degrees.

Garcia’s autopsy report, obtained by Deceleration, said he died of a drug overdose. He had heroin in his system. But it also noted his last known use was on the morning of Aug. 11, nearly a day before his death — and overdose deaths typically happen soon after someone uses drugs.

“He was somebody,” Rios said. “He didn’t have to die the way he did.”

Last week, Harman and 500 other signatories filed a petition to the San Antonio City Council, asking it to produce a count of heat fatalities in the area.

On Monday, after repeated correspondence with the Tribune, the public information officer for Bexar County provided a count of hyperthermia fatalities. It showed 12 deaths in 2023, five times the annual average for the 10 prior years (not counting heat-related mass casualty events in 2017 and 2022 when dozens of migrants died locked in hot tractor-trailers).

Disclosure: Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
OUR METHODOLOGY

We conducted our analysis of excess deaths largely following a similar analysis published by the Los Angeles Times in 2021, with guidance from Ariel Karlinsky, an economist and statistician at Hebrew University. The methods were reviewed by other experts, including an epidemiologist and a climate scientist.

We built a model that predicted how many people would be expected to die under normal circumstances and used it to estimate the number of excess deaths on summer days where abnormally high heat indexes were recorded. For this analysis, we looked at the 41 most populous counties in Texas, which covers about 85% of the state’s population. We found 998 excess deaths on abnormally hot days between 2013 and 2019. We excluded 2020, 2021 and 2022 from this analysis because of a high number of excess deaths caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2023 mortality data was not yet available at the time of this analysis.

This analysis helped us calculate the number of deaths attributable to heat, but also has its limitations. First, the mortality data we used includes deaths by any cause, except mass shooting deaths. We subtracted those after seeing unusual spikes in deaths in counties on days when a mass shooting happened. But it is difficult to control for every factor, which could result in overcounts in our estimates. Additionally, the model only accounts for deaths on the days where the heat index was abnormally high — even though in some cases heat victims die days or weeks after heat exposure. This would contribute to undercounts in our estimates.

To calculate abnormally hot days, we looked at maximum heat indexes recorded on each day in every county from 1981-2010. We classified days as abnormally hot if the heat index was in the top 10% for that day at that location during the 30-year span.

Because the number of excess heat deaths is relatively small compared to overall deaths, the estimates come with a wide margin of error, Karlinsky said.

Mortality data was obtained from the Texas Department of State Health Services. The heat-related official counts were current as of July 16. The meteorological data is from CDC's Heat & Health Tracker. Read our more detailed methodology here.


This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/14/texas-heat-deaths-undercount/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org

Property owners profiting as Maui residents are forced from their homes
August 14, 2024 

Burned palm trees and destroyed cars and buildings in the aftermath of a wildfire in Lahaina, western Maui, Hawaii(AFP)

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. 

Reporting HighlightsTempting Offers: State and federal officials looking to house victims of the Maui wildfires offered lucrative rates to convince property owners to sign up.
“FEMA Fever”: Tenants, housing advocates, government officials and even landlords say those high prices have encouraged property owners to chase the money.
Soaring Prices: People who have been pushed from their homes are contending with a housing market where the median rent has jumped 44%. Some said they haven’t found permanent homes.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

A year ago, after a deadly wildfire displaced thousands of residents of Lahaina, Hawaii’s governor and lieutenant governor invoked a state law blocking most evictions and prohibiting price gouging. The emergency order soon became a tool to prevent widespread displacement of all Maui residents, including people struggling to pay rent because they had lost work due to the fire.

Despite that order, some Maui property owners have capitalized on the crisis by pushing out tenants and housing wildfire survivors for more money. Among those displaced: a couple and their two young children who, according to court records, were evicted so their landlord’s son could move in while renting his own home to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s housing program for $8,000 a month.

Some property owners have brought in more than twice the going rate for a long-term rental by signing up with FEMA or another aid program. They have received lucrative property tax breaks for housing wildfire survivors, in some cases worth more than $10,000 a year.

Other landlords have forced out tenants and sought people who will pay more. Over the course of several months, one landlord tried to evict his tenants for different reasons, even claiming that Maui’s mayor needed to use the house as a “command center to rebuild Lahaina.” (A spokesperson for the mayor said that claim was false.) After the tenants moved out, two of them saw their ocean-view apartment listed online for $6,800 a month rather than the $4,200 they had paid. Asked about the higher price, the landlord told Civil Beat and ProPublica that the apartment has been cleaned up and is now furnished.

Complaints about evictions and rent increases have circulated for months. Housing advocates say Gov. Josh Green’s administration hasn’t moved aggressively enough to tighten the rules and that the Hawaii attorney general has overlooked abuses.

Even before the fires swept across Maui, rental housing on the island was among the most expensive in the country. The loss of so many homes was bound to increase prices. But tenants, housing advocates, government officials and even landlords say high prices offered by FEMA, the state and private aid organizations have encouraged property owners to chase the money. State Sen. Angus McKelvey, who lost his own home in Lahaina, called it “FEMA fever.”

Jo Wessel, a Colorado landlord, said she tried to sign up with FEMA after her tenants fell behind on their rent and electricity bills. She said a property management company working for FEMA offered her $6,500 a month, which according to court records was more than twice what she charged for the two-bedroom condominium in Kahului. Although the governor’s order bars evictions for nonpayment of rent or utilities, Wessel told Lea and David Vitello and their two children on Jan. 6 that they had five days to pay up or leave, according to documents reviewed by Civil Beat and ProPublica. Two weeks later, FEMA inspectors knocked on the Vitellos’ door to see if their home was suitable for wildfire survivors. “We didn’t see it coming,” Lea Vitello said.

The Vitellos refused to leave when their lease expired at the end of January, and Wessel eventually took them to court. It took until April for the Vitellos to find a new place and move out. Wessel said the delay caused her to miss out on the FEMA contract, but she was able to sign up with a nonprofit housing program willing to pay about $400 more per month than what she was charging the Vitellos. Wessel said she thought the Vitellos had taken advantage of the governor’s order and that they still owe her money. Although the Vitellos left a few months ago, Wessel’s court case against them continued until this week, when a judge dismissed it.

Those who have been forced out are contending with a housing market where the median rent has jumped 44% since before the fires, according to an Argonne National Laboratory study released last week. Some people who’ve been pushed out since the fires told Civil Beat and ProPublica that they haven’t yet found a permanent home.

Peter Sunday, whose family was evicted so their landlord’s son could move in, said he paid just $1,900 a month for their three-bedroom cottage and that the cheapest place he has found since is twice as much. He, his wife and their two young children have moved from place to place while they search for something stable.

Malcolm Vincent, the landlord’s son, said in a court filing that he lived in a garage on family property after he rented his home to FEMA and while he was waiting for the Sundays to leave. When called by Civil Beat and ProPublica, Vincent said he was busy and hung up. In response to a text message, he wrote, “Stop.” Ann Siciak, the Sundays’ former landlord, did not respond to interview requests.

State and federal officials said they didn’t intend for their housing programs to encourage landlords to kick people out to make room for wildfire survivors, but they had to offer lucrative rates in order to secure housing quickly. “We’re not incentivizing,” FEMA Region 9 Administrator Bob Fenton said in an interview. “What we’re doing is being competitive.”

The Green administration acknowledged that “some bad actors have not complied” with the governor’s order. Officials urged tenants to report unscrupulous landlords to the state attorney general.

Green said in an interview that he, too, has heard about landlords who have kicked out tenants to make more money, but he said they “represent the extreme minority.” Much more common, he said, are stories of people who did the right thing and provided shelter to thousands of people.

“I was very clear that we didn’t want to displace anybody, but there are a million different forces at play here,” Green said. “Every moment, every week, you just had to try to prevent predatory behavior. There’s a lot of that. That’s one of the lessons I learned from this crisis.”

State officials pointed to a sharp drop in eviction cases filed in court since the fire as evidence that the governor’s order is “doing what it was designed to do: stop unlawful evictions and keep families and survivors housed.”

But tenants’ rights groups and lawyers said court cases, the only public paper trail of evictions, don’t show the complete picture. It’s time-consuming and risky for a tenant to fight an eviction in court; if they lose, they’ll have a record that could make it harder to rent another place. Many tenants simply move out after getting a notice to vacate the property, even when they think their landlord is breaking the law.

“We know this is happening,” said Jade Moreno, a researcher and policy analyst for the Maui Housing Hui, a tenants’ rights organization. “We hear the stories all the time.”
“The Greed Is Sickening”

Although most people refer to FEMA when they complain that emergency housing programs have skewed the market, the state of Hawaii pays similar rates for its own program. And in November, in an effort to entice property owners, the governor revealed just how much money could be made housing people who were homeless after the fire.

Thousands of wildfire survivors were living in hotel rooms at the time, costing the state at least $1 million a day; meanwhile, vacation rental homes that would have been cheaper sat vacant. So Green announced that the state would pay a premium to anyone who housed survivors.

For landlords who typically rented to locals, the numbers offered by the state were stunning: $5,000 a month for a studio or one-bedroom home; $7,000 for a two-bedroom; $9,000 for a three-bedroom; and $11,000 for a four-bedroom.

Early on, FEMA also concluded that it would have to pay vacation rental rates. FEMA won’t publicize what it pays, saying it varies by property. But contracts reviewed by Civil Beat and ProPublica show the agency has paid $5,000 to $9,050 for a one- or two-bedroom unit. For three- and four-bedroom homes, it has paid $9,000 to $11,400, according to two landlords who spoke to Civil Beat and ProPublica.

Once people knew what they could get, Maui-based property manager Claudia Garcia started getting calls. Property owners, many of whom lived on the mainland, asked if Garcia could help them lease to FEMA or raise their rents to keep pace. She said she refused because she didn't want to help them take advantage of the crisis. “The greed is sickening,” said Garcia, whose firm manages more than 100 rentals on the island. “It’s just not right what they’re doing.”

The Legal Aid Society of Hawaii got calls, too, but from tenants. In the first seven months after the fire, the number of Maui residents who sought help with evictions grew by 50% compared with the seven months before the fire, according to the organization.

The high prices offered by the state and FEMA forced at least one nonprofit that was sheltering victims of the fire to bump up its offers to property owners. “Short-term rental owners did shop us,” said Skye Kolealani Razon-Olds, who oversees the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement’s emergency housing and recovery programs. “They provided us with FEMA rental rates and asked if we could match it.”

Razon-Olds said the nonprofit has received 19 complaints from tenants who said they were being forced out of their homes so their landlords could rent to FEMA. She said her organization convinced FEMA to stop dealing with those owners.

In February, six months after the fire, FEMA announced that it would reject properties if it learned tenants had been illegally forced out “so landlords could gain higher rents from the FEMA program.” Officials told Civil Beat and ProPublica that FEMA has found fewer than 10 cases in which a landlord wrongfully ended a lease in order to participate in the housing program. In all those cases, FEMA removed the properties from the program.

State and federal officials characterized their rates as a compromise between vacation rental and long-term rates. The rates publicized by the state are maximums, state officials said; in practice, Hawaii is paying significantly less — about $228 per night rather than $267. That works out to about $6,800 per month rather than $8,000.

After state and local officials raised concerns, FEMA asked the Argonne National Laboratory to study whether housing programs had caused property owners to increase rents or displace residents.

Researchers concluded that the loss of housing in the fires was the biggest factor in the rapid increase in rental prices and that there wasn’t enough data to know how much housing programs had contributed. However, they noted that the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection received about 700 housing-related complaints from August 2023 to April, most related to lease terminations or rent increases. Those complaints and subsequent investigations, researchers wrote, indicate that the “behavior of some landlords may have changed leading to secondary displacement or increased costs for some renter households outside of the burn area.”

One landlord, however, said it wasn’t until she was approached by a property management company working for FEMA that she decided to house wildfire survivors. The company offered Mara Lockwood $7,000 a month — about $2,300 more than what she had collected for her two-bedroom condo overlooking Maalaea Bay.

Lockwood took the deal, not just for the extra income, but because she would be exempt from property taxes for at least a year, which she said will save her about $12,000 annually. But she was conflicted. As the owner of a Maui real estate company, she saw the asking prices for rentals rise, and she kept hearing stories of people getting pushed out of their homes so that their landlords could earn more money.

“Kicking somebody out to rent to FEMA to make more money is a horrible thing to do to people,” Lockwood said. “But when you’re given an opportunity and money is involved — and you have to follow the money — then some people are going to do that.”
“That’s What The Law Allowed”

For every case in which it’s clear a tenant is being kicked out so their landlord can make more money, there are many more that aren’t as obvious, said Nick Severson, the lead housing attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii. “Sometimes we’ll have emails or texts or statements from the landlord that say, ‘I need you out of here so I can rent this for $8,000 a month to FEMA,’” he said. “But usually it’s not that lucky. It’s a little bit more covert, which makes it hard to push back on.”

That’s partly because the state law prohibiting price gouging during an emergency provides landlords with some wiggle room. Renters can be evicted if a landlord or family member is moving in or if the renter has violated the terms of their lease, as long as it’s not related to nonpayment of rent, utilities or similar charges. And landlords can push people out at the end of a fixed-term lease without providing any reason. In several cases reviewed by Civil Beat and ProPublica, landlords have cited those exceptions in evicting tenants and have gone on to rent their properties to wildfire survivors for more money.

Property owners acknowledge that they’re bringing in more money through housing programs than they did before the fire. According to the Hawaii attorney general, the governor’s emergency proclamation prevents landlords from raising their rent unless it was agreed to before Aug. 9 or the landlord can show their costs have increased.

And yet the attorney general has held property owners accountable in relatively few cases. The office has concluded that landlords violated the governor’s order in just 28 of the 200 complaints of illegal evictions and rent increases it had received as of June 3. (Another 30 were still under investigation.) Fenton, the FEMA administrator, said the attorney general’s office concluded that just one of the cases FEMA referred had violated the proclamation. The attorney general’s office can levy civil penalties of up to $10,000 a day, but it hasn’t.

“We have the emergency proclamation, but it doesn’t prevent anyone from evicting tenants and raising rent,” said Anne Barber, a Maui real estate broker who works with Garcia in her property management firm. “There is no accountability.”

The attorney general’s office said in a written statement that it “provides people with opportunities to do the right thing and correct their actions. If individuals continue to choose not to comply, then the Attorney General can and will seek legal remedies.”

The Green administration said it has revised the emergency proclamation to address the needs of the community; at one point, the governor added language barring unsolicited offers to buy property in areas affected by the fires. But, administration officials said, the governor’s power is limited. For example, they said he has no authority to force landlords to extend leases. Green’s staff said lawmakers must look at the price-gouging law and make needed changes.

In one case, Maui landlord Gregory Lussier filed an eviction case against six people living in a four-bedroom home in Kahului. He told Civil Beat and ProPublica that he wanted the tenants out because some of them had left and the remaining ones had stopped paying the full rent, which was about $4,000, but he knew the governor’s order prohibited him from evicting them for not paying. In his Jan. 5 notice to the tenants and the eviction case he filed in court against them a week and a half later, he cited several violations of the lease, including prohibitions on pets, smoking, illegal activity, expired vehicle registrations, and obscene or loud language. Before the case went to trial, the tenants moved out.

Although Lussier rented the property to FEMA’s housing program for $11,000 a month, he said that’s not why he filed eviction proceedings. “There was no premeditated scheme to force the tenant to leave so we could get a FEMA rental agency lease,” he said in an email. However, court records call into question his version of events. Lussier said the lease with FEMA’s outside property manager started Feb. 1 and he believes he signed the rental agreement the day before. He said he didn’t explore renting to the housing program until after the property was vacant and that the process of signing up took “several weeks.” But video of a hearing shows that Lussier and three of his tenants appeared in court on Jan. 29, where the tenants denied his allegations that they had violated the lease. Lussier declined to explain the discrepancy to Civil Beat and ProPublica.

Maui attorney Jack Naiditch said he’s gotten several phone calls from property owners who want to exploit loopholes in the emergency proclamation so they can take advantage of FEMA’s prices. He said he’s turned them away: “I’m not going to put my name on the line for somebody who’s fibbing.”

But he has represented a number of property owners in court, including Sunday’s landlord; some of them have later rented their homes to house wildfire survivors. He declined to discuss specifics of their cases.

When Sunday appeared in court in April, he pleaded with the judge to let his family stay in their home. “Frankly, this is cold, your honor,” Sunday said. “A single man wants to evict a family of four to move into a home which he has admitted is for his own financial benefit and gain.”

“There’s nothing I can do about that,” the judge said. “That is what the law allows. So that needs to be taken on with the governor, our mayor or Legislature, because there are people who very likely take advantage of that.”

Four days after the Sundays received their eviction order, Green responded to residents’ complaints and made it harder to claim the exception that Sunday’s landlord had cited. Now, a landlord or family member who claims they need to move into a property must provide a sworn statement saying they’re not accepting money from an aid program to house survivors.

That same day, Sunday said, his family packed the last of their belongings as a process server threatened to call the sheriff if they lingered too long. They put most of their belongings in a storage unit and gave away all of their pets and backyard farm animals — 18 chickens, nine ducks, two dogs and a pair of cats. They have to relocate again this week.

Sunday doesn’t know what to tell his kids about the constant shuffling and when they’ll see their pets again. “I can’t give them any kind of peace,” he said, “without lying to them.”
A Wisconsin tribe built a lending empire by charging 600% annual rates to borrowers

Megan O'Matz, ProPublica
Joel Jacobs, Propublica
August 14, 2024 7:27AM ET

Stacks of money (Shutterstock)

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. 

Reporting Highlights600% Online Loans: A Wisconsin tribe built a lending empire on high-interest lending, relying on its sovereign rights to avoid state interest rate caps.
Bankruptcies and Complaints: A ProPublica analysis found that the tribe’s companies are mentioned frequently in personal bankruptcies and consumer complaints.
Groundbreaking Settlement: A proposed class-action settlement involving the tribe’s officials promises to deliver extraordinary relief to borrowers, erasing over $1 billion in debt.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

In bankruptcy filings and consumer complaints, thousands of people across the country make pleas for relief from high-interest loans with punishing annual rates that often exceed 600%.

Although they borrowed small sums online from a slew of businesses with catchy names — such as Loan at Last or Sky Trail Cash — their loans stemmed from the same massive operation owned by a small Native American tribe in a remote part of Wisconsin.

Over the past decade, the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians has grown to become a prominent player in the tribal lending industry, generating far-reaching impact and leaving a legacy of economic despair. A ProPublica analysis found companies owned by the LDF tribe showed up as a creditor in roughly 1 out of every 100 bankruptcy cases sampled nationwide.

That’s the highest frequency associated with any of the tribes doing business in this sector of the payday loan industry. And it translates to an estimated 4,800 bankruptcy cases, on average, per year.

ProPublica also found that LDF’s various companies have racked up more than 2,200 consumer complaints that were routed to the Federal Trade Commission since 2019 — more than any other tribe in recent years.

“THIS IS THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION ON LOANSHARKING,” one Californian with an LDF loan complained in all caps in June 2023 to federal regulators. The person, whose name is redacted, argued that “no one should be expected to pay over $11,000 for a $1,200 loan,” calling the 790% rate “beyond predatory.”

In a separate complaint, a Massachusetts customer wrote, “I thought this kind of predatory lending was against the law.”

Such confusion is understandable. Loans like these are illegal under most state statutes. But tribal-related businesses, including LDF, claim that their sovereign rights exempt them from state usury laws and licensing requirements aimed at protecting consumers. And so these businesses operate widely, facing little pushback from regulators and relying on the small print in their loan agreements.

As LDF climbed in the industry, it kept a low profile, garnering little publicity. For years it operated from a call center above a smoke shop in the community’s small downtown, before moving to a sprawling vocational training building, built in part with federal money, off a less visible, two-lane road.

But staying under the radar just got harder. Court filings show that LDF tribal leaders and some of their nontribal business partners have come to an agreement with consumers in a 2020 federal class-action lawsuit filed in Virginia. Nearly 1 million borrowers could finally get relief.

The deal calls for the cancellation of $1.4 billion in outstanding loans. Tribal officials and their associates would also pay $37.4 million to consumers and the lawyers who brought the suit. Although they settled, LDF leaders have denied wrongdoing in the case, and its president told ProPublica it adheres to high industry standards in its lending operations.

A final resolution of the case will take months. If approved, the total settlement would be the largest ever secured against participants in the tribal lending industry, lawyers told the court.

“This is a big one,” said Irv Ackelsberg, a Philadelphia attorney who has faced off in court against other tribal lenders and followed this suit closely. “Is it going to stop tribal lending? Probably not because it’s just a fraction of what’s out there.”

The LDF tribe is central to the suit but is not named. Nor is LDF Holdings, the corporate umbrella over the various lending subsidiaries.

Knowing that both those entities likely would have been entitled to sovereign immunity, lawyers for the borrowers chose a different approach. Instead, they brought the case against members of the tribe’s governing council; high-level employees of LDF’s lending operations; and a nontribal business partner, Skytrail Servicing Group, and its owner, William Cheney Pruett.

Pruett also denied wrongdoing in the case. He did not respond to requests for comment from ProPublica.

The proposed settlement notes that the tribal leaders and their partners understood that continuing to defend the case “would require them to expend significant time and money.” LDF, under the settlement, can continue its loan operations.

In emails to ProPublica, LDF President John Johnson Sr. defended the tribe’s lending business as legal and beneficial to both borrowers and the tribal members. He said the loans help people “without access to traditional financial services,” such as those with bad credit histories and people facing financial crises. Many borrowers, he said, have had positive experiences.

He also emphasized the economic benefits to the tribe, including jobs and revenue for vital services. “Please make no mistake: the programs and infrastructure developed through LDF Holdings’ revenue contributions have saved lives in our community and are helping preserve our culture and way of life,” he wrote in an email.

Johnson, who is a named defendant in the suit, and other tribal leaders declined requests to be interviewed.

Partnerships Fuel Lending

Historically, some financial services firms formed alliances with tribes, gaining an advantage from the tribes’ sovereign immunity. For years, consumer lawyers and even federal prosecutors have raised questions about whether some tribal lending operations were just fronts for outsiders that received most of the profits and conducted all the key operations — from running call centers to underwriting and collecting.

The LDF tribe is one of only a few dozen of the nation’s 574 federally recognized tribes that have turned to the lending business as an economic lifeline. Typically those tribes are in isolated areas far from large population centers needed to support major industries or hugely profitable casinos. Online lending, or e-commerce, opened opportunities.

“If you look at the tribes who do it, they tend to be rural and they tend to be poor,” said Lance Morgan, CEO of a tribal economic development corporation owned by the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska. “Because they don’t really have any other options to pursue from an economic development standpoint. They just don’t. That’s why this appeals to some tribes.”

He said his tribe considered getting into the lending industry but decided against it.

Tribes in the U.S. still suffer from the legacy of racism and betrayal that saw the U.S. government steal land from Native Americans and destroy cultures. Now, with limited economic resources and taxing options, tribal governments draw upon federal grants and subsidies to help fund essential community services — support promised in long-ago treaties, laws and policies in exchange for land. But these programs have proven to be “chronically underfunded and sometimes inefficiently structured,” according to a 2018 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

On the LDF reservation, which is home to about 3,600 people, the median household income is under $52,000, and 20% of the population lives below the federal poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. On lands that are chock-full of lakes, streams and wetlands, the LDF people operate a fish hatchery, hunt deer and cultivate wild rice. The tribe also has a casino, hotel and convention center.

LDF entered the loan business in 2012 and has set up at least two dozen lending companies and websites on its way to massive expansion, a ProPublica examination found. LDF owns the companies and works with outside firms to operate its businesses, which offer short-term installment loans.

Unlike traditional payday loans, these are not due by the next pay period but have longer terms. Borrowers show proof of income and typically authorize the company to make automatic withdrawals from their bank accounts.

Details of the tribe’s business operations are not public. A July 2014 tribal newsletter reported that LDF had three lending companies employing four tribal members. By 2022, an LDF attorney told the Virginia judge that LDF Holdings, the lending parent company, employed about 50 people on the reservation. Johnson told ProPublica it currently employs 170 people “who live on or near the reservation,” of which 70% are tribally enrolled.

Each year, on reservation land, LDF now hosts the Tribal Lending Summit, a gathering of staff, vendors and prospective partners. Attendee lists posted online show dozens of representatives of software companies, call centers, marketing firms, customer acquisition businesses and debt collection agencies.

After this year’s event, in June, the LDF business hosts posted a congratulation message on social media: ”Here’s to another year of growth, learning, and collaboration! We look forward to continuing this journey together and seeing you all at next year’s summit."
Business Practices Under Fire

Like many operators in this corner of the lending industry, LDF has been forced to defend its business practices in court. It has been subject to at least 40 civil suits filed by consumers since 2019, ProPublica found.

The suits typically allege violations of state usury laws and federal racketeering or fair credit reporting statutes. Johnson, in his statements to ProPublica, said LDF follows tribal and federal regulations, and he cited LDF’s sovereign status as the primary reason state laws on lending don’t apply to its business practices.

“Expecting a Tribe to opine on and/or submit to State regulatory oversight is akin to expecting Canada to submit to or speak on the laws of France,” he wrote.

Most suits against LDF’s lending companies settle quickly with the terms kept confidential. Consumers can be at a disadvantage because of the arbitration agreements in the fine print of their loan contracts, which attempt to restrict their ability to sue.

Karen Brostek, a registered nurse in Florida, borrowed $550 in 2017 from LDF’s Loan at Last at an annual percentage rate of 682%. The contract required her to pay back $2,783 over nine months.

It wasn’t her first foray into short-term borrowing. She said her salary did not cover her expenses and she had “to borrow from Peter to pay Paul.”

Loan at Last tried numerous times to collect the debt, even threatening in one phone call to have her jailed, she said. Finally, in August 2019, she satisfied the obligation.

Brostek sued LDF Holdings in small claims court in Pasco County in 2021. The suit cited Florida laws that make it a third-degree felony to issue loans with APRs over 45%.

The parties settled within weeks. Brostek recalls receiving about $750. LDF’s Johnson did not comment on Brostek’s case in his response to ProPublica.

She said she does not begrudge the tribe making money but said, “We need to find another way to help them so they don’t feel they’re backed into a corner and this is their only alternative.”
A Groundbreaking Settlement

The Virginia class-action suit claimed that LDF’s governing council delegated the daily operations of the lending businesses “to non-tribal members.” Mirroring allegations in other civil actions, the suit claims that LDF’s partnerships were exploiting sovereign immunity to make loans that otherwise would be illegal.

According to the plaintiffs, LDF Holdings entered into agreements that allow nontribal outsiders to handle and control most aspects of the lending businesses. That includes “marketing, underwriting, risk assessment, compliance, accounting, lead generation, collections, and website management for the businesses,” the suit said. For years, the president of LDF Holdings was a woman who lived in Tampa, Florida. She is a named defendant in the suit, which says she is not a member of the tribe.

Johnson told ProPublica that early on the tribe lacked expertise in the industry and that its partnerships were simply an example of outsourcing, “a standard practice in many American business sectors.”

His statement added, “Recruiting outside talent and capital to Indian country is a mission-critical skill in Tribal economic development.”

The amount of revenue that comes to the tribe is undisclosed, but the class-action suit says the contract with one of its partners, Skytrail Servicing, resulted in only “a nominal flat fee” for LDF.

The 2014 servicing agreement between Skytrail Servicing and LDF is sealed in the court record, and details about the arrangement are largely redacted. In one filing, Skytrail Servicing denies an allegation from the plaintiffs that the tribe received only $3.50 per originated loan.

In a separate filing in the suit, Johnson, the tribal president, said LDF’s lending profits are distributed to the tribe’s general fund, which helps pay for the tribal government, including essential services such as police, education and health care.

The legal strategy crafted by the Virginia consumer protection firm Kelly Guzzo PLC relied heavily on a 2021 federal appeals court decision that concluded that tribal lending was off-reservation conduct to which state law applied. The court found that while a tribe itself cannot be sued for its commercial activities, its members and officers can be.

The class-action suit alleges that tribal officials and their associates conspired to violate state lending laws, collecting millions of dollars in unlawful debts. “In sum, we allege that they are the upper level management of a purely unlawful business that makes illegal loans in Virginia, Georgia, and elsewhere throughout the country,” lawyer Andrew Guzzo said in a September 2022 hearing, referring to LDF officials.

“What I’m trying to say, in other words, is this isn’t a case that involves a lawful business, such as a real estate brokerage firm, that happens to have a secret side scheme involving a few rogue employees,” he said. “The people that are overseeing this are overseeing a business that makes unlawful loans and nothing else.”

The most consequential aspect of the settlement plan is the debt relief it would offer an estimated 980,000 people who were LDF customers over seven years — from July 24, 2016, through Oct. 1, 2023. Those who had obtained loans during that period and still owed money would not be subject to any further collection efforts, canceling an estimated $1.4 billion in outstanding debt.

Eligibility for cash awards is dependent on the state where borrowers live and how much they paid in interest. Nevada and Utah have no interest rate restrictions, so borrowers there aren’t entitled to any money back.

The tribal officials who are listed as defendants have agreed to pay $2 million of the $37.4 million cash settlement. The remaining amount would come from nontribal partners involved in five of the tribe’s lending subsidiaries.

That includes $6.5 million from Skytrail Servicing Group and Pruett, a Texas businessman who has been involved in the payday loan industry for more than two decades.

The largest portion of the settlement — $20 million — would come from unnamed “non-tribal individuals and entities” involved with LDF’s Loan at Last, the company that gave Brostek her loan.

The consumer attorneys are not done. They noted in a memorandum in the case that other LDF affiliates who did not settle in this instance “will be sued in a new case.”

How We Estimated the Size and Impact of the Tribal Lending Industry

Because tribal lenders are not licensed by states, there is very little public information about the size of the industry.

Bankruptcies give a rare window into the prevalence of the industry because when people file for bankruptcy, they must list all the creditors they owe money to. Bankruptcies are filed in federal court and are tracked in PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system. But PACER charges a fee for every document viewed and cannot be comprehensively searched by creditor list, making it impractical to identify every bankruptcy case with a tribal lender.

Instead, we selected a random sample of 10,000 bankruptcy cases using the Federal Judicial Center’s bankruptcy database, which lists every case filed nationwide (but does not include creditor information). We looked at Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases — the types used by individuals — filed from October 2020 to September 2023. We then scraped the creditor list for each of these cases from PACER and identified which cases involved tribal lenders.

We ultimately identified 119 cases with LDF companies as creditors — 1.19% of our total sample, the most of any tribe. Extrapolating these figures across all 1.2 million Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases during these three years gave an estimated 15,000 cases involving LDF loans during this period (with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2,600). That comes out to an estimated 4,800 cases per year, on average. Many factors can contribute to bankruptcy, and LDF loans were not the only debts these bankruptcy filers faced. Still, these figures showed that LDF stood out among other tribal lenders and had a substantial presence across bankruptcies nationwide.

We also looked at consumer complaint data that we acquired through public records requests to the Federal Trade Commission, which collects complaints made to various sources including the Better Business Bureau, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the FTC itself. We focused our requests on several categories we found to be related to lending products, such as payday loans and finance company lending. Our tallies are likely an undercount: Complaints against tribal lenders may have fallen under other categories, such as debt collection, though our explorations found this to be less common. We found more than 2,200 complaints about LDF companies since 2019, the most of any tribal lending operation.

We compiled hundreds of tribal lending company and website names that we used to search through the creditor and complaint data. However, due to the ever-shifting industry landscape in which websites often go offline while new ones pop up, it is possible that we did not identify every complaint and bankruptcy involving tribal lenders.Mariam Elba contributed research.
There was an overseas trade supplying horses for sacrifices during the late Viking age

The Conversation
August 14, 2024

Horses (Shutterstock)

Prehistoric communities from Iceland to the Eurasian Steppe sacrificed horses as part of their funeral rites. These Baltic tribes, known as the Balts, sacrificed horses longer than anywhere else in Europe, up until the 14th century. Christians despised this practice, however, and it quickly fell out of favor once a community converted to Christianity.

Archaeologists have studied Baltic sacrificial deposits for nearly 200 years. Two characteristics had seemed settled – that stallions were exclusively sacrificed, and that the Balts sourced their horses from the local tarpan horse population, commonly known as “forest” or “wild” horses.

However, our team’s latest research challenges these “facts” about the last horse sacrifices in Europe. It shows that about a third of sacrificial horses were, in fact, mares – and surprisingly, that some horses began their life in Christian Scandinavia and ended up across the Baltic Sea as sacrificial victims.

The Balts were a loose group of tribes that spoke a language related to modern Lithuanian and Latvian. The Romans called them Aestii, and traded with them for amber. The Balts were illiterate, but we have snippets written about them by outsiders such as the travellers and traders Wulfstan of Hedeby and Ohthere of HÃ¥logaland.

The Balts were proficient horse riders who used equipment like bridles, saddles and stirrups. The 11th-century German historian Adam of Bremen wrote that Balt elites drank fermented mare’s milk and ate horse flesh.

The horse sacrifices were always public rituals that involved the whole community. Offering pits may have included multiple or single complete horses or partial animals, with or without their riding equipment. While the horses were commonly put in a crouched position or laid down on one side, in one noteworthy case in what is now northern Poland, a horse was buried standing upright. We also know from archaeological analysis that some were buried alive with their legs tied, or covered with heavy stones to stop them bucking out of the offering pit.

The deposition of partial animals would have been a particularly bloody, macabre public spectacle, involving decapitation, flaying, and halving or quartering of horses. While horses were often buried separately from humans, some were buried underneath a spread of cremated human bone and ash.
Why horses, though?

It’s important to note that other animals weren’t spared when it came to Baltic sacrifices. We have bone fragments from cows, sheep and goats, dogs, birds, fish and even a domesticated cat excavated from these tribal cemeteries.


But horse sacrifices were the most common and seemingly the most important, probably due to their spiritual, social and economic significance to the Balts.

Medieval travelers who visited these people wrote that horses were an important part of funeral ceremonies for elite members of society. In the late ninth century, Wulfstan detailed elaborate, daylong horse races in which the winners received the deceased’s property. The 14th-century chronicler Peter von Dusburg described horses being run to the point of no longer being able to stand and dying.

To learn more about why specific horses were chosen to be sacrificed, we sampled teeth from 80 horses buried in eastern Baltic cemeteries from around AD100 to 1300 for strontium isotope and genetic analysis. Strontium isotope analysis can tell us whether horses were raised in the same general area as where they were buried, because the adage “you are what you eat” is true on a molecular level.


The chemical element strontium varies from place to place based on local geology, and plants incorporate soil strontium. When horses eat plants, that strontium is incorporated into their bones and teeth.

Tooth enamel mineralizes just once while teeth develop, and does not change. So, by measuring strontium isotope ratios in teeth and comparing them with the burial environment, archaeologists can tell if horses were raised locally or brought from elsewhere.

For genetic sex determination, horses are just like humans. Males have an X and Y chromosome, whereas females have two X chromosomes. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis tests which sex chromosomes are present in each sample.

Our strontium results show that at least three of the horses were from central Sweden or Finland – probably brought in by boat across the Baltic Sea from up to 1,000 miles (1500km) away. All date from the 11th to the 13th centuries, which means this increase in mobility began in the latter part of the Viking age and continued after.

Our second major finding was that genetics confirmed up to a third of the horses sacrificed across all periods were mares, contrary to the previously accepted wisdom that only stallions were sacrificed.

People were well connected during and after the Viking age. Trade between neighbors continued, regardless of religion. One of the imported horses was even buried with a trader’s weight. Scholars always knew that material goods and slaves were transported along vibrant, far-reaching Viking trade routes. Our findings confirm that horses were as well.

While the exact meaning of these rituals remains mysterious, the sex of the horse wasn’t central to the rite nor the reason a horse was chosen. More likely, the determining factor was the high prestige value of an imported animal.

Nonetheless, the fact that these horses were brought from Christian lands and sacrificed in an ostentatiously pagan fashion may represent a powerful act of resistance and resilience by the Balts.


Katherine French, Adjoint Faculty in Anthropology, Washington State University and Richard Madgwick, Lecturer in Archaeological Science, Cardiff University


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is the Democrats’ pick for Jackson Lee seat

Matthew Choi, Texas Tribune
August 14, 2024 

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) speaks during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing in June 2022. Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images

"Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is the Democrats’ pick for Jackson Lee seat in Congress" was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

WASHINGTON — Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is on a glide path to be the next congressman from Houston, after Harris County Democrats selected him Tuesday to be the Democratic candidate for the seat vacated by the late U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

A committee of 88 party officials in the 18th district were invited to vote at a Tuesday night meeting for the next Democratic candidate. Turner won by a slim margin, securing 41 votes. Former Houston City Council member Amanda Edwards came in second with 37. The district is heavily Democratic, and Turner is favored to win the general election in November.

The Harris Democratic Party selected the candidate because Jackson Lee died too close to the general election to hold another primary. Jackson Lee died last month amid a battle with pancreatic cancer. She had won the Democratic primary for the seat in March against Edwards.

Edwards put her name back in the ring for the party’s nomination after Jackson Lee’s death. Robert Slater, a restaurateur, also expressed interest in the party’s nomination after losing the Democratic primary earlier this year. Slater trailed far behind Edwards and Jackson Lee with only 2.7% of the vote in the primary. Jackson Lee secured 60% while Edwards got 37.3%.

Turner and Edwards each failed to secure a majority of the votes in the first round of voting Tuesday, putting the two in a runoff, which took place immediately after the first round. Turner initially secured 35 votes, and Edwards secured 34. They were far ahead of any other candidate, with Houston City Council member Letitia Plummer coming in third with only five votes.

Turner was Houston mayor from 2016 till January after serving as a member of the Texas House from 1989 to 2016. Notably, he won the endorsement of Jackson Lee’s children in his bid to succeed her and pitched his case to the party as the candidate most familiar with the projects in need of federal funding. One of Jackson Lee’s most valued assets was her ability to bring federal money to local priorities. Turner served on the House Appropriations Committee in the Texas Legislature.

As mayor of Texas’ biggest city, Turner oversaw the city’s response to several major disasters, including Hurricane Harvey, the COVID-19 pandemic and Winter Storm Uri. He worked with state and federal officials to secure extra funding for disaster response, including $50 million from Gov. Greg Abbott in 2017 in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Turner also pushed pension reform early in his tenure, lobbying for legislation through the Legislature in 2017.

In one of his closing acts as mayor, Turner lobbied the Republican National Committee to have its 2028 national convention in Houston. The city was officially selected for the convention last year — uncommonly early — after national delegates were “blown away” by the city’s presentation, then-RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said.

Among those in contention to replace Jackson Lee on the ballot, Turner was the oldest major contender at 69. Younger candidates, including Edwards, 42, asserted they were better equipped to build seniority in the U.S. House as Jackson Lee had done. First elected at age 45, Jackson Lee died at 74 as one of the two longest-serving Texans in Congress.

“It is time for people like Sylvester Turner to pass the baton and counsel the next generation of leaders to be able to to lead this district forward,” state Rep. Jarvis Johnson, who was running for the nomination, said in an interview last week.

Turner vowed to serve no more than two terms in Congress, saying he would be a transition candidate. Doing so would also allow a standard Democratic primary process — one with voter input — for the next candidate for the office when he retires. It would also prevent any incumbent from running with vast reserves of cash.

Edwards was an at-large member of the Houston City Council from 2016 to 2020, representing the entire city. She had prioritized protecting small businesses and workers’ rights, creating the Women and Minority-owned Business Task Force.

Edwards initially ran for mayor to replace Turner but dropped out of the race when Jackson Lee announced last year that she would run for the office. Edwards ran for Jackson Lee’s seat in Congress instead, but Jackson Lee lost the mayoral race to former state Sen. John Whitmire, setting her and Edwards up for a faceoff in the congressional Democratic primary.

Edwards also made an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate, running in the 2020 Democratic primary to challenge Sen. John Cornyn. Edwards came in fifth place behind M.J. Hegar.

The election Tuesday was held in a public meeting at Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in the city’s Third Ward. Any candidate who got a nomination and a second by a committee member was subject to a vote to be made the party’s nominee.

Over a dozen candidates contacted party officials to express interest in a nomination. Seven participated in a public forum Saturday, including four current or former elected officials: Turner, Edwards, Johnson and state Rep. Christina Morales. Other candidates included Slater, Harris County Democratic Party staffer Corisha Rogers and Cortlan Wickliff, associate vice provost for academic affairs at Rice University.

Johnson dropped out of the running Tuesday night when it became clear that Edwards would be ahead of him. He asked his supporters to vote for Edwards.

Plummer was openly interested in the nomination but did not participate in the candidate forum. State law would require her to leave her current office to formally run for another office.

Turner appeared favored to win going into the party meeting Tuesday, boosted by the Jackson Lee family endorsement. Former Houston City Council Member Dwight Boykins dropped out of the running after the Jackson Lee family endorsed Turner.

Polling by Texas Victory Consulting had Turner at a slight lead among voters in the district at 34.2%. Edwards was in second at 32.8%. Johnson was in a distant third at 9%. The polling was among voters, not the 88 committee members eligible to make the selection.

Turner will face Republican Lana Centonze in the general election in November. That election is separate from the special election, also taking place on Nov. 5, to fill Jackson Lee’s seat for the remainder of her term, which ends in January. Jackson Lee’s daughter, Erica Lee Carter, said in a statement Monday that she was running for the seat in the special election.

The full program is now LIVE for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations on topics covering education, the economy, Texas and national politics,criminal justice, the border, the 2024 elections and so much more. See the full program.


The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
GOOD NEWS
Rep. Ilhan Omar wins primary election rematch against Don Samuels

Michelle Griffith, Minnesota Reformer
August 14, 2024 

Ilhan Omar. (Lorie Shaull/Flickr

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar staved off another primary election challenge from former Minneapolis City Councilman Don Samuels on Tuesday, according to unofficial primary election results.

Omar’s win is a victory for Minneapolis progressives, as well as opponents of Israel’s war in Gaza. Pro-Israel activists successfully ousted two “Squad” members in Democratic primaries in recent months, but Omar will likely return to Washington for another term given nominal opposition in the November election.

The primary race for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District didn’t feature the extensive outside spending of the other Squad primaries.

Samuels lost to Omar in the 2022 primary election by about 2 percentage points, and this year made the case that her headline-grabbing advocacy is leaving Minneapolis without competent leadership to address problems facing constituents.

Omar’s margin of victory will be larger than 2022, according to preliminary results.

“This campaign has been one of the ugliest, most disgusting (campaigns) against me that I have ever, ever witnessed,” Omar said in a speech at her election night watch party. “We had an opponent that was willing to align with literal Nazis in order to defeat us.”

Omar in 2022 largely ignored Samuels’ campaign and received the political scare of her life when he nearly won. Omar this year campaigned energetically against Samuels. She spent $450,000 on advertising in the runup to the primary, as of a July campaign finance report.

Omar, now in her third term, for years has balanced roles as an influential progressive voice in Washington and an international spokeswoman for justice, with the more mundane aspects of being a member of Congress: helping constituents navigate federal bureaucracy, voting as a member of the House minority on a raft of legislation that will never become law and lifting up local businesses and nonprofits in the 5th District.

Omar hopes a Democratic House majority will mean a return to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, from which she was removed by the GOP House majority over allegations of antisemitism, over unanimous support from her caucus, including Jewish Democratic colleagues.

Katherine Byrn, a 53-year-old teacher at the University of Minnesota, told the Reformer she voted for Omar because she “kicks ass.”

Kerry Newstrom, a 45-year-old high school teacher in northeast Minneapolis, voted for Omar because she said we need women in elective office. She has no kids and called herself “a childless cat lady,” referring to disparaging comments made by Republican vice presidential nominee, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com. Follow Minnesota Reformer on Facebook and X.
Gateway Pundit seeks to further delay defamation case brought by two Georgia poll workers

Paul Wagman, Missouri Independent
August 14, 2024 

Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker, becomes emotional while testifying as her mother Ruby Freeman watches during the fourth hearing held by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol on June 21, 2022 in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)


The dismissal of its bankruptcy case in Florida is not stopping the Gateway Pundit from seeking a continued delay in the defamation case against it by two Georgia poll workers. But the case may be moving ahead soon regardless.

In a motion filed Aug. 5 in the St. Louis Circuit Court, lawyers for the Gateway Pundit and for its owner, James Hoft, and his twin brother, Joe, said the stay in the defamation case that was issued when they filed for bankruptcy last April should remain in place because they plan to appeal the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

Restarting the defamation case in St. Louis before the resolution of the appeal, the lawyers argued, could result in the case “proceeding through fits and starts, with the bankruptcy stay being in effect, then likely in effect again … prudence and judicial economy would favor a stay by this court.”

The Hofts’ lawyers filed their formal notice in the Florida bankruptcy court of their intention to appeal three days later, on Aug. 8.

But on Aug. 7, Peter Dunne — the court-appointed special master in the St. Louis case — set a new deadline for completion of discovery in the case in light of the dismissal of the bankruptcy and the fact that no appeal had been filed at that time. The new deadline is Nov. 10, two months later than the one that had been in place before the bankruptcy filing in late April derailed the schedule.

Dunne also noted that the case remains on the docket for jury trial in the week of March 10, 2025.

Missouri lawsuit isn’t the only defamation case against far-right site Gateway Pundit

Now it appears it will be up to the St. Louis Circuit Court whether to accept Dunne’s proposed recommendation. That could be encouraging for the plaintiffs, because the court has to this point shown considerable deference to Dunne’s recommendations.


Lawyers for the two Georgia poll workers — Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss — have argued that the bankruptcy filing itself was a stall tactic in a case where delay has been the strategy from the beginning. The two women sued the Hofts and TGP Communications LLC, which does business as Gateway Pundit, in December 2021. They said Gateway Pundit’s repeated false accusations that they committed ballot fraud led to death threats and other harassment.

In December 2021, the two women also filed a defamation suit against former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who made the same accusations against them. But in that case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, it took only two years for a jury verdict to be rendered — awarding the two women compensatory and punitive damages of more than $148 million.

In St. Louis, however, the Hofts have thus far been able to avoid any resolution by seeking a change in venue, resisting discovery orders, counter-suing the attorneys for the plaintiffs and other means. The same strategy has also worked thus far in dragging out a defamation case filed in Denver against Hoft and Donald Trump’s campaign by Eric Coomer, a former executive of Dominion Voting Systems.


That case was filed a year before the one in St. Louis.

In dismissing the Gateway Pundit bankruptcy case, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mindy A. Mora wrote that the company “remains both balance sheet and cash flow solvent. There is no present financial distress, no looming foreclosure sale, no prospect of a market crash. There is only the State Court Litigation in which TGP must defend itself. That’s not a basis for bankruptcy relief; it’s the justice system in operation. … TGP filed bankruptcy purely as a litigation strategy… The Court will dismiss this bankruptcy case as a bad faith filing.”

This story was originally appeared in the Gateway Journalism Review and is being republished with permission.


Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on Facebook and X.
Historic gun lawsuit survives serious legal threat engineered by Indiana Republicans

Vernal Coleman, ProPublica
August 14, 2024 

Man holds gun in front of US flag (Shutterstock.com)


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. 

Series: Under the Gun:How Gun Violence Is Impacting the Nation

As America emerged from the pandemic, communities continued to experience a rising tide of gun violence. School shootings and the rate of children and teens killed by gunfire both reached all-time highs since at least 1999. ProPublica’s coverage of gun violence reveals how first responders, policymakers and those directly affected are coping with the bloodshed.

Republicans in Indiana’s legislature passed a bill this year intended as the final blow to a long-running lawsuit filed by the city of Gary against gun manufacturers seeking to hold them accountable for local illegal gun sales.

The lawmakers even included language making the bill retroactive to ensure that it would apply to the Gary suit, which was filed nearly a quarter century ago.

On Monday, that effort failed.

Indiana Superior Court Judge John Sedia ruled that while the law barring cities from pursuing lawsuits against the gun industry is constitutional, applying it retroactively would “violate years of vested rights and constitutional guarantees.” It was a rare courtroom setback for makers of firearms in the U.S.

On Tuesday, Gary Mayor Eddie Melton applauded the judge. “This ruling reinforces the importance of the independence of each branch of government,” he said in a written statement. The ruling, he added, ensures that the city’s rights are “protected and upheld.”

State Rep. Ragen Hatcher, whose father served as Gary’s first Black mayor, was similarly pleased. “This is a major win that our community deserves,” the Democratic legislator said in a statement.

Gary’s case is the last of a generation of civil suits that made similar claims against the gun industry. Attorneys for gun manufacturers and retailers filed for the case to be dismissed based on the new Indiana law, which placed the power to sue solely with the state’s attorney general.

The bill’s backers made no secret that the Gary case was the bill’s target. It included language to make it retroactive to Aug. 27, 1999 — three days before the city filed its lawsuit. But that decision appears to have doomed the industry’s challenge.

The defendants, which include Glock, Smith & Wesson and several other of the nation’s largest gunmakers, argued in a hearing before Sedia last week that the city no longer has the authority to pursue its claims that gunmakers have failed to address an epidemic of illegal gun sales associated with violence in and around Gary.

Philip Bangle, arguing for Gary, countered that, in practical terms, the bill was “special” — specifically aiming at Gary’s suit — and not allowed under the state constitution.

Bangle, an attorney from the Brady center, a nonprofit centered on gun violence prevention, told the judge that similar suits from other towns were not an issue. “There’s none being contemplated; there’s none being threatened; and frankly, looking at what Gary has had to endure these last 25 years, I doubt that any of these bodies would want to,” he added.

In siding with Gary, Sedia cited a 2003 Indiana Supreme Court decision that says a state law cannot be applied retroactively if it violates constitutionally protected rights.

The General Assembly can bar cities from bringing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, but it cannot end this lawsuit, Sedia wrote. “To avoid manifest injustice, the substance of this lawsuit must be taken to its conclusion.”

A representative for the gunmakers said an appeal is coming. “Respectfully, the Superior Court got it wrong,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing several of the defendant gunmakers. “The defendants will immediately appeal to the appellate court to correct this error.”

State Rep. Chris Jeter, author of the bill aimed at disrupting the lawsuit, disagreed with Sedia’s assertion that applying the law retroactively would violate the state constitution. “Municipalities are a creature of state law,” he said. “They aren’t people; they have no rights.”

But Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University and critic of legislators’ efforts to kill the lawsuit, was thrilled by the judge’s ruling. The main takeaway is clear, she said: State lawmakers “cannot use legislative hoodwinking” to disrupt the lawsuit and Gary will get its day in court.

For now, the ruling thwarts the latest attempt by the gun industry and its allies to disrupt the case. Filed in 1999, the suit was one of several that decade from major cities against the nation’s most successful gunmakers.

Recognizing the threat the flood of lawsuits posed, the gun industry gathered its political influence to lobby federal lawmakers. They supported federal legislation strong enough to effectively immunize the industry from civil suits. Once passed, the suits fell one by one. All except Gary’s.

The case had notably approached a significant milestone that similar lawsuits had not. As the year began, it was nearing the end of the discovery phase, where the two sides would continue an exchange of thousands of records, providing plaintiffs a chance to glimpse inside the internal decisions and policies of gun manufacturers. It is unclear when or if that process will resume.



Golden years or golden scam? Inside the Republican battle to annihilate your retirement

Thom Hartmann
August 14, 2024 


Photo by Gus Moretta on Unsplash


Recently, a retired woman seeking advice wrote into MarketWatch’s financial advisor, saying:

“I was ‘financially set’ after my husband died. But my current adviser lost $500,000 over the last few years, and then a new adviser said my portfolio was ‘a mess’ and wants 1.25% to fix it. What’s my move?”

She was the victim of an unethical financial advisor hustling decades of churning commission-based products that essentially transferred her money into his pocket. As she told MarketWatch, “The adviser was paid per trade.”

President Biden wants to do something about this.
“This is about basic fairness,” Biden said when announcing a new rule to protect people like her. “People are tired of being played for suckers.”

He added:
“Bad financial advice by unscrupulous financial advisers driven by their own self-interest can cost a retiree up to 1.2% per year in lost investment. That doesn’t sound like much but if you’re living long, it’s a lot of money. Over a lifetime, it can add up to 20% less money when they retire. For a middle-class household, that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars over time.”

But Republicans have declared war on Biden and middle class people who want to save for retirement.

Odds are you’ve never heard of their shock troops: Judge Jeremy Kernodle or Judge Reed O’Connor, both federal judges appointed to Texas districts by Donald Trump and George W. Bush respectively.

For reference, both are hard-core rightwingers: Kernodle was one of the 13 federal judges who pledged not to hire clerks from Columbia University after the student demonstrations there against Israel’s destruction of Gaza; O’Connor struck down the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tried to take down Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

But even if you’ve never heard of them, they’re trying their best to have a huge impact on your ability to comfortably retire when the time comes, or on how you can live off your retirement funds if you’re already past 65.

Millions of Americans use investment advisors to manage their retirement funds; the total that could be affected by these judges’ actions is, according to The Washington Postyesterday, more than $770 billion.

While there’s a wide variety of companies and financial products (insurance, annuities, 401Ks, simple investment accounts, etc.) people use to invest their retirement funds, the advisors and brokers who handle them on your behalf basically fall into two categories: those who’re looking out first and foremost for your interests and those who’re looking out first and foremost for ways they can siphon off your funds into their own pockets.

Those advisors and brokers who are looking out for you are called “fiduciaries,” an industry and legal term that requires them to put your interests ahead of their own. Typically, this means they don’t sell products that pay them a commission, but instead work on a simple and transparent fee basis. It also means they won’t churn your account just to earn per-trade fees.

Most of those agents and companies that aren’t fiduciaries are working in what could be described as the wild west of finance: they’re constrained by fraud and embezzlement rules but can easily shave off part of your savings with every transaction they make on your behalf simply by putting you into products that pay them a commission.

And those commissions aren’t chicken feed: just for Americans who put their money into annuities, if all brokers and agents selling them were required to act as fiduciaries, the people buying those annuities would save over $32 billion over the next decade.

Commissions on insurance-based products can run as high as 70% of the first year’s payment, and can hit 10% on annuities. Advisors who churn your investments can drain your funds before you realize what’s happened to you, and there’s usually no recourse to get your money back.

It comes down to America having a regulated investment industry where it’s against the law to rip off its customers by hustling high commission products versus being a country where every American is at the mercy of unscrupulous investment advisors who’re getting rich by shaving a few points in commissions off every trade or financial product bought or sold on our behalf.

To deal with this problem and make America a safe place for average citizens to save for retirement, the Biden Labor Department put into place earlier this year a set of rules that would require most investment advisors and insurance brokers to act as fiduciaries and put their customers’ interests first.

The industry immediately sued in the courtrooms of judges Kernodle and O’Connor, who, three weeks ago, put the DOL fiduciary rules on hold pending appeals.

Democrats, of course, are on the side of average American consumers and retirees, which is why the Biden Labor Department put those rules into place requiring a huge chunk of the investment industry to operate as fiduciaries.

Republicans, on the other hand — including the two judges mentioned earlier — claim to believe in a mythical so-called “free market” where giant corporations and sleazy brokers can rob us of our retirement and then make campaign contributions to the GOP with some of that money.

Contributions, for example, to Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), whose top contributor according to opensecrets.org is Apollo Global Management and who’s top two donating industries are “retired” and “securities and investment.” Of the $2,938,046 in cash-on-hand Foxx has for her campaigns, a mere $38,896 came from individual under-$200 donors.

Foxx, in exchange for this retirement industry largesse, has sponsored legislation in the House of Representatives that would permanently bar the Labor Department from putting fiduciary requirements into law.

While shilling for the investment industry, she pretends she’s defending the little guy — a popular Republican scam — saying that requiring investment advisors and brokers to put the customer first and not shave commissions off of their retirement funds would “eliminate options for working-class Americans, reduce their ability to retire and limit their access to financial advice.”

And arguably that’s at least partially true. Fiduciary requirements do “eliminate” the option of buying products that rip you off and also “limit” your access to bad financial advice that will leave you poorer than when you started. But, to Foxx’s concern, they also prevent the industry from extracting that estimated $33 billion in fees and commissions from your pension, annuity, IRA, 401k, etc.

Republicans in the House are also going to try to zero out of the Labor Department’s budget any money that could be used to enforce the rules if they survive in the courts; expect that to be part of the GOP’s threat to shut down our government this fall if they don’t get their way.

Every day, it seems, brings new examples of the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans, this merely being the most recent.

Of course, there won’t be a peep about this on Fox “News” or rightwing hate radio, keeping GOP voters safely and quietly in their ignorant little bubble.

The rest of us, however, can see what’s going on with Republican scams at every level from taxation to climate policy to protecting our retirements.

Pass it on.


How Harris is snatching power from the press

John Stoehr
August 14, 2024 

KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN - JULY 17: US Vice President Kamala Harris (Photo by Chris duMond/Getty Images)

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. 

The first thing you need to know about the vice president’s approach to the Washington press corps is look how well she’s doing as a result. Kamala Harris is now leading Donald Trump in some national polling averages as well as in some swing-state polls. True, her lead is within the margin of error in most cases, but that’s an improvement from where the Democrats were before Joe Biden dropped out of the running and orchestrated instantaneous unification around his No. 2.

I don’t think I’m overstating things. Her current lead, the millions of dollars she’s bringing in, the thousands of volunteers who are signing up to help, the big big mo’ – I think all of it comes directly from her campaign’s decision not to give the press corps too much access too fast. I think that decision comes directly from the fact that Harris saw firsthand what the press corps did to Joe Biden’s campaign.

Some members of the press corps have noticed how well Harris is doing without them, and apparently, it doesn’t sit right. Here’s Chris Cillizza with a representative sampling. The former Post writer said the vice president has been “almost entirely” ignoring the media since she launched her campaign, and that’s bad, he said. It “bypasses the argument that the media is a critical part of our political system and any candidate who wants to be president -- whether they are winning or losing -- should be regularly subjected to scrutiny from the press.”

Even if I agreed that candidates who want to be president should be regularly subjected to media scrutiny, I don’t think this press corps, as it is currently organized, is able to. There are exceptions, of course, but this press corps is generally not equipped to scrutinize candidates on matters of fact and substance. I say this because this press corps has conspicuously traded matters of fact and substance for vibes.

It didn’t matter what Joe Biden did – pull the country out of a pandemic, dodge a recession, tame inflation, grow jobs, grow wages, enforce anti-monopoly laws, revive every single one of the so-called “left behind” counties that voted for Trump in 2016 because of “economic anxiety” – it didn’t matter what he did. The press corps decided nothing was more important than his age, and lo! 2024 became an election about vibes and vibes ended his candidacy.

Vibes are this press corps’ forte, not fact and substance. If fact and substance were its strength, there would have been a different reaction to The Disaster Debate during which Biden talked about policy and issues while Trump didn’t bother. Trump was incoherent and false, but he came off as confident and strong, and he came off as such, because the press corps’ forte isn’t fact and substance.

If fact and substance were important, there would also have been a different reaction to Biden’s NATO press conference last month. He did it after the Disaster Debate to show he still had what it takes. He talked for an hour about foreign affairs, international laws and war. But this press corps didn’t hear any of that after Biden said “Vice President Trump” by mistake. There’s no grace for the old in Washington, nor is there interest in anything but vibes in the Washington press corps.

There was a time when liberals and Democrats would have nodded in agreement with Chris Cillizza on the merit of candidates being regularly subjected to scrutiny. But after this press corps made a fetish of Biden’s age, I don’t see any more room for the benefit of the doubt – and there’s no going back. This press corps made the election about vibes and it’s going to remain an election about vibes, and if those vibes now grind against the instincts of this press corps, tough shit.

You reap what you sow.


In the future, we might look back and see the most important difference between the Biden and Harris campaigns is their level of trust in the press corps. The president believed voters would reward him for the substantial things he has done, and he trusted – indeed, he depended on – the press corps to inform voters, as it’s supposed to.

But where he saw fact and substance, the press corps saw only vibes. And in depending on the press corps to get his message across to voters, Biden effectively handed over power that was rightfully his. He allowed the press corps to be the principal arbiters of his reality, rather than reserving that right for himself. You could say Biden was waiting for power to be given to him and he suffered gravely for it.

By contrast, the Harris campaign is not letting the press corps wedge itself between her and voters. She is not allowing the news media to mediate her message. In effect, she’s preventing the press corps from speaking for her and, as a consequence, she’s preventing it from exercising a de facto veto on her speech. In that, she is taking power – defining her campaign as well as Trump’s. She is turning the narrative about Biden’s age (81) back against Trump’s (78), such that whatever he says in self-defense is seen as proof of the allegations against him.


This decision leaves the press corps on the outside looking in. She’s sustaining a conversation with voters directly, on her own terms, and she’s doing well as a direct consequence of that decision. But being on the outside looking in feels bad to people who crave attention. They have incentive to turn attention back to where they think it belongs.

That’s why some are busy manufacturing a phony moral standard by which to scam Harris into playing by their rules. That phony moral standard goes something like this, courtesy today of Chris Cillizza: “It’s been 23 days since Joe Biden ended his candidacy. It’s been seven days since Kamala Harris was formally named the Democratic presidential nominee. She has yet to sit for an interview with any media outlet. And she has answered less than five total questions from the press.”

He’s being coy but, in essence, he’s saying that Harris is violating some kind of taboo, that she’s doing something wrong, or worse, that she’s hiding something of great importance from voters. This, of course, is favorable to her opponents, but let’s be clear: she’s violating nothing.


There are no rules. There is no lawbook declaring that candidates shall talk to reporters. There is a playbook, if that’s what you mean, but not a lawbook. The vice president could go the whole time without talking to one reporter and she would not have done anything morally wrong.

This is really important and I will repeat myself till I burst. This is a democracy. Harris is obliged to talk to Americans. That’s the end of her moral and democratic obligation. She’s not obliged to talk to the press corps, as if it were a constituency. If she stopped talking to voters, well, that would be disqualifying. Obviously, that’s far from the case.

This is not to say she shouldn’t, but that’s a different question, isn’t it? If Harris decides to talk to the press corps about matters of fact and substance relevant to her, it will be her decision made out of concern for tactics and strategy for her campaign. Reporters like Cillizza have a bad habit of presenting themselves to voters as if they operated in their interest, and we know, after watching reporters make a fetish of Biden’s age, that nothing could be further from the truth. We should not only stop tolerating this bad habit. We should be hostile towards it.


The most powerful thing Harris has done – a game changing decision, if you want to call it that – was to learn from Biden’s fatal error. He tried to meet the press corps’ phony moral standard, only to have it move around, beyond his reach, thus surrendering his rightful power to define himself and his campaign. In the end, his dependence on the press corps made it so he had to ask for permission to campaign.

Harris isn’t asking.