Google ad costs, not its alleged monopoly, irks businesses
By JOYCE M. ROSENBERG

FILE - In this file photo dated Monday, Dec. 17, 2018, a man using a mobile phone walks past Google offices in New York. Monopoly or not, small business owners’ biggest complaint about Google is that its advertising policies favor companies with big marketing budgets. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — When asked about Google, Bryan Clayton voices a familiar lament among small business owners.

“You keep getting squeezed further and further down the search results page,” says Clayton, CEO of GreenPal, a company that operates an app to help homeowners find lawn care. “As a startup, you don’t have a million-dollar advertising budget.”

The Justice Department sued Google on Oct. 20 for anticompetitive behavior, saying the company’s dominance in online search and advertising harms rivals and consumers.

Owners such as Clayton have a different beef. What’s unfair about Google, they say, is the way it gives the greatest prominence in search results to the companies that spend the most on advertising.
ADVERTISEMENT



Companies covet the top spots in Google search results — the first page of rankings, and the top of subsequent pages. But if too many companies vie for one of these spots, the cost can jump out of reach for a small business, just like the price for prime time TV commercials.

Google controls about 90% of global internet searches. The Justice Department sued Google Tuesday, alleging it uses monopoly power in search to squelch competition. Business owners’ concerns about the cost of advertising aren’t directly related to the government’s lawsuit, although the company’s dominance of the search market has been alleged to be a factor in driving up the price to buy ads in its vast digital marketing network.

But even if prices were lower than they are now, larger companies with more money to spend, in theory, could always outbid smaller businesses vying for the prime advertising spots on Google.

Businesses have two main ways of trying to get their listings high in Google rankings. One is to buy an ad that’s seen at the top of the search result pages; the cost for the ads depends on how often a computer user clicks on the ad and how much a company is willing to pay per click. The more a company can pay, the more likely it will get a prized spot in search results. Google has different types of ads, and whether an ad appears locally or nationally can also affect pricing. So can the time of day an ad appears.

There’s also what’s called paid search, where companies bid on keywords to get a higher ranking. For example, a sporting goods store might bid on words like “baseball” and “hockey” in hopes of landing higher in search results and being more easily seen by customers looking for equipment for those sports. The problem businesses face is they can be outbid by companies with deeper pockets. So the sporting goods store that can only afford to pay $2 a word can lose out to stores able to pay $10.

Mark Aselstine has spent as much as $30,000 a year on Google advertising, but he’s not sure his wine gift basket company will be able to afford Google ads this holiday season. He expects an already competitive time of year to be even more intense as more wine retailers seek customers over the internet due to the coronavirus outbreak and use Google advertising to make themselves more visible.

“I don’t think we’ll run a single Google ad this year. I suspect it will be well out of our price range,” says Aselstine, owner of Uncorked Ventures, based in El Cerrito, California.

If Aselstine can’t afford Google, he has alternatives. Microsoft’s Bing search engine, cheaper but not as popular among computer users, is one. Aselstine can also increase his use of Google’s unpaid search. Like the paid version, he’d seek to use keywords in his ads that prospective customers are likely to search for; depending on the words he chooses, he might get a good ranking, although it will still fall below ads and paid listings.

R.J. Huebert, who buys Google ads on behalf of the law firms, manufacturers and a credit union that are his clients, also sees prices going up because of the competition among advertisers, but the owner of HBT Digital Consulting says, “I think it’s the cost of doing business.”

Huebert, whose company is based in Pittsburgh, sees Google as an important tool for small businesses because of its reach. And when people begin a search on Google, they’re already interested in a product or service; they have what’s known as high intent, a high likelihood that they’re going to make a purchase. And they’re more likely to buy than someone who happens on an ad as they scroll through Facebook.

Aselstine says he’ll advertise on Facebook and Instagram if he can’t afford Google, although he’s likely to get more sales from people who search on Google.

“Those people are more ready to buy that day,” he says.

Clayton, the GreenPal CEO, spends about $100,000 a year on Google advertising. That’s a big number for a small company — GreenPal has 23 employees —but Clayton lists giants Angie’s List and HomeAdviser among his competitors that have much bigger advertising budgets. GreenPal, based in Nashville, Tennessee, and serving homeowners in most of the states, spends about $3 or $4 per click for ads.

But, Clayton says, “it’s getting harder to advertise — the price keeps going up and up.”

Tommy Fang tried Google to advertise his year-old market research company, but the cost far outweighed the business he hoped it would bring in.

“We ran a couple of ads and the economics just didn’t work out for us,” says Fang, co-founder of New York-based Eureka Surveys. The company runs a website where people can take part in surveys.

Fang is looking at other possibilities, such as the advertising Apple sells for mobile devices. However, Fang’s business, which involves finding participants for corporate surveys, is focused on PCs, where he says people prefer to answer survey questions.

Yet some small businesses don’t flinch at the higher prices. Advertising on Google makes sense even for some of Huebert’s law firm clients who often spend between $8 and $12 a click and as much as $35 because they can make the money back from a single case.

But “it you’re selling $5 socks, it doesn’t make sense to pay $35,” he says.

Trump admin funds plasma company based in owner’s condo
By RICHARD LARDNER and JASON DEAREN

This photo shows the outside of a Charleston, S.C., condominium belonging to Eugene Zurlo on Monday, Oct. 19, 2020. The Trump administration recently gave the longtime Republican political donor seed money to test a possible COVID-19-fighting blood plasma technology, noting Zurlo's "manufacturing facilities" in Charleston. An AP investigation found no manufacturing facilities. The company operates out of Zurlo's condo. He and his partners may now be in line for as much as $65 million in taxpayer money. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Trump administration gave a well-connected Republican donor seed money to test a possible COVID-19-fighting blood plasma technology, it noted the company’s “manufacturing facilities” in Charleston, South Carolina.

Plasma Technologies LLC is indeed based in the stately waterfront city. But there are no manufacturing facilities. Instead, the company exists within the luxury condo of its majority owner, Eugene Zurlo.

Zurlo’s company may be in line for as much as $65 million in taxpayer dollars; enough to start building an actual production plant, according to internal government records and other documents obtained by The Associated Press.


The story of how a tiny business that exists only on paper has managed to snare attention from the highest reaches of the U.S. military and government is emblematic of the Trump administration’s frenetic response to the coronavirus pandemic.

It’s also another in a series of contracts awarded to people with close political ties to key officials despite concerns voiced by government scientists. Among the others: an ill-conceived $21 million study of Pepcid as a COVID therapy and more than a half billion dollars to ApiJect Systems America, a startup with an unapproved medicine injection technology and no factory to manufacture the devices.

In addition, a government whistleblower claimed that a $1.6 billion vaccine contract to Novavax Inc. was made over objections of scientific staff.

At the center of these deals is Dr. Robert Kadlec, a senior Trump appointee at the Department of the Health and Human Services who backed the Pepcid, Novavax and ApiJect projects. Records obtained by the AP also describe Kadlec as a key supporter of Zurlo’s company.

In one government email obtained by the AP, an official said Kadlec, whose job as assistant secretary for preparedness and response is to help guide the nation through public health emergencies, was “all in” on Plasma Technologies.

This was the case despite misgivings from the scientists he oversees. One of them said the company would be just another “mouth to feed” that would distract from other important work on the pandemic. An HHS spokesperson said Kadlec “does not have a role in technical review of proposals nor in negotiating contracts.”

Kadlec has come under pressure from the White House to act with more urgency and not be bound by lower-level officials whom Trump has castigated as the “deep state” and accused of politically motivated delays in fielding COVID-19 vaccines and remedies. This pressure has led to investments in numerous untested companies.

The AP reached out to more than a dozen blood plasma industry leaders and medical experts. Few had heard of Zurlo’s company or its technology, and would not comment.

Zurlo, the company’s founder and a former pharmaceutical industry executive, told the AP in an email that the renewed interest in his company is being driven by COVID and other diseases.

“It is increasingly clear that the collection of adequate supplies of plasma is not possible; the answer being the adoption of new process technology that fully utilizes the scarce plasma currently available,” he said.

But whether Zurlo’s technology, which claims to increase the amount of disease-fighting plasma harvested from human blood, will be an improvement over other methods is still anyone’s guess.

___

A FORMER SENATOR ON BOARD

Top government officials began to take notice of Plasma Technologies after Rick Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania and two-time presidential candidate, became part-owner, according to the records and AP interviews.

After Congress supplied hundreds of billions of dollars to combat the pandemic, Santorum stepped up his sales pitch for the company’s method of turning human plasma into a therapeutic product — a process the company has described as a game changer. In mid-August, the federal government awarded Plasma Technologies a $750,000 grant to demonstrate that it could deliver on its promises.

Santorum, who’s held no elective office since 2007, remains influential among social conservatives, a key part of President Donald Trump’s political base. Santorum has extolled the president’s handling of the pandemic on national television in his job as a CNN commentator, arguing that the nation’s response would have been worse under a Democratic administration.

Trump “didn’t botch it,” Santorum said recently in response to charges that the president had done a poor job leading the country through COVID-19. “I mean you guys keep blaming Trump. This is a local decision.”

HHS would not comment when asked whether Santorum’s public backing of the president led to a company he has a financial stake in getting a government contract.

Zurlo has deep ties to the Republican Party. He has contributed thousands of dollars to Santorum’s campaigns and to other GOP campaigns and political action committees. He entertained Santorum and his family at the mansion Zurlo used to own on Kiawah Island, an exclusive golf resort in South Carolina. They would play golf during the day and enjoy evenings overlooking the Atlantic, according to Michel “Mitch” LaPlante, a former business associate of Zurlo’s who attended several dinners with Santorum and Zurlo.

The business relationship between Zurlo and LaPlante turned ugly after those days of hobnobbing on Kiawah. A real estate deal they had invested in together fell into foreclosure, leading to a suit seeking more than $700 million by their mortgage lender. Each man sued the other for fraud and severed their business ties acrimoniously.

Zurlo founded Plasma Technologies in 2003, according to articles of organization and other records filed with South Carolina’s secretary of state. The company’s most recently listed address is Zurlo’s condominium in Charleston’s French Quarter.

The company has no other presence in South Carolina — or any other state — even though a U.S. government spokeswoman told the AP that Plasma Technologies has “manufacturing facilities” in Charleston.

“Fairy tale,” LaPlante said when asked if Plasma Technologies operates any commercial space in South Carolina’s most populous city.

___

OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN

Granting tens of millions of dollars to Plasma Technologies would track with Trump’s support for treating COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma. Plasma, the yellowish liquid part of blood, harbors various antibodies, the soldiers of the body’s immune response that can target specific intruders such as viruses. Studies are underway to see if plasma taken from people who have recently recovered from COVID-19 can help those newly diagnosed fight the infection.

Zurlo has spent years trying to break into a sector of the pharmaceutical industry that manufactures therapies using antibodies called immunoglobulins, which are taken from healthy people to treat immune disorders. But routine immunoglobulin treatments are only one part of the field.

During the pandemic, many plasma companies are focusing on “hyperimmune globulin,” a therapy that pools and purifies plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients. The result is a powerful “potential global treatment for people at risk for serious complications from COVID-19,” according to the CoVIg-19 Plasma Alliance, an industry group that includes the world’s largest plasma companies. Hyperimmune globulin produced by several companies is being tested in new COVID-19 patients.

The process for making these plasma-based therapies is called fractionation, and Plasma Technologies markets its approach as a “disruptive and transformative” technology that makes for a more potent product, according to the records. A document prepared by Plasma Technologies in late May that outlines the company’s business strategy is focused on how much better its method is than a World War II-era process named for its developer, Edwin Cohn.

Dr. Jeff Henderson, an infectious disease specialist at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said it is very likely that many companies have already developed improvements over the decades-old “Cohn” method. They just don’t discuss them publicly because they are trade secrets.

“There may be 50 technologies in use that are an improvement over Cohn fractionation,” Henderson said.

But Santorum described the plasma fractionation industry as more interested in keeping shareholders happy than adopting new technologies that would require expensive modifications to their manufacturing lines.

“You’ve got companies that are doing really well and don’t want to change anything,” Santorum said in an interview with the AP.

“We’re the little guy trying to fight City Hall.”

Plasma Technologies seemed to be on its way in 2014. The company had licensed its system to Dallas-based Access Pharmaceuticals, according to financial records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

One filing described Zurlo as a trailblazer whose technology would “fundamentally change the economics of plasma fractionation.” Under the terms of the licensing agreement, Plasma Technologies was to be paid $1 million in cash with an additional $4 million in cash or stock to come.

But three years later, the agreement ended abruptly, according to the SEC records.

Now named Abeona Therapeutics, the company was grappling with crushing deficits — $346 million in June 2017. It’s unclear whether any of that red ink was due to the deal with Plasma Technologies. But by the end of 2017, “the agreement was terminated and the technology was returned” to Zurlo’s company, according to an Abeona SEC filing.

A spokesman for Abeona Therapeutics declined to comment on the licensing agreement with Plasma Technologies.

Santorum blamed the deal’s demise on onerous regulatory hurdles imposed by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure patient safety.

“They basically killed the product,” he said.

Santorum rejected any suggestion that Zurlo’s innovation is unproven, even though his company has never made an FDA-approved product. Plasma Technologies, he declared, is on the verge of transforming the industry, and for a fraction of the cost to develop a coronavirus vaccine.

“I’m just telling you, it’s gonna happen,” Santorum said.

___

A LINE IN

Zurlo brought Santorum aboard after the agreement with Abeona fell through. “We’ve got an FDA problem. Can you help me?” Santorum recalled Zurlo telling him.

Zurlo’s close relationship to Santorum offered a direct line into the FDA. The former senator had built a connection with Dr. Peter Marks, a senior FDA official, according to the documents obtained by AP.

In September 2019, Marks introduced Santorum at an FDA workshop held to explore the development of therapies for a rare disease. Santorum told the group about his youngest child, who was born with a life-threatening condition known as Trisomy 18, according to a transcript. Immunoglobulin treatments had saved her life, he told the audience.

Santorum’s personal story about his child’s illness was intertwined with a promotion of Plasma Technologies. Santorum said Zurlo, whom he called “a good friend,” had invented a groundbreaking technology for better plasma-based therapies to help his child and others.

Santorum credited Marks, director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, for pledging to remove barriers that have kept Plasma Technologies on the outside, looking in. “All I’m saying is, we have an opportunity because of Dr. Marks and what he has laid forward,” Santorum said at the workshop.

The former senator told the AP it would have been a “crime” if he hadn’t used his influence to get Plasma Technologies recognized.

“Shame on me if I hadn’t,” he said.

___

A SMALL SHAREHOLDER

In mid-April, a few weeks after Trump declared the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency, Santorum described Marks as an enthusiastic backer of Plasma Technologies, according to an email routed to multiple officials in the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, an HHS office Kadlec oversees.

Calling himself a “small shareholder” in Plasma Technologies, Santorum wrote, “Dr. Marks said I should communicate to you that he is ‘excited about this process and looks forward to working with us to get our process adopted by the industry.’”

The FDA declined a request to interview Marks and also declined to answer questions about whether he’s been helping Plasma Technologies secure a commercial foothold.

“Dr. Marks’ enthusiastic nature should not be mistaken for support for any specific product or technology,” FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Caccomo said.

Federal ethics rules ban government employees from giving preferential treatment to any private organization or individual, according to Scott Amey, general counsel at the nonprofit Project on Government Oversight.

“Public trust in government decisions and a level playing field is essential to good government, so this situation deserves a look,” Amey said.

Santorum confirmed that he communicated directly with Kadlec, whom he described as “very supportive” of Plasma Technologies.

But Santorum’s initial pitch at HHS failed to gain traction among the agency’s scientists, who didn’t see Zurlo’s technology as worthy of millions in emergency pandemic funding, according to the emails and Rick Bright, the former BARDA director. They were focused on COVID-19 vaccines and treatments that could be delivered quickly, and saw the Plasma Technologies project as a longer-term effort.

“They were not excited,” recalled Bright, a vaccine expert who’s been sharply critical of Kadlec’s tenure at HHS. “They did not jump all over this and say, ‘We’ve got to get this going right away.’”

Bright filed a whistleblower complaint in May that alleges the Trump administration failed to prepare for the onslaught of the coronavirus.

With HHS scientists unconvinced, Plasma Technologies submitted a proposal dated May 28 to the Defense Department, which also is heavily engaged in the government’s COVID-19 response.

The detailed proposal, obtained by the AP, sought $51.6 million to build a plasma fractionation facility in Atlanta or Raleigh, North Carolina.

With a military audience in mind, the proposal emphasizes the national security implications of the coronavirus pandemic, stressing the need to churn out sufficient doses of antibody-rich hyperimmune globulin “to bolster force health protection for members of our military who are at especially high risk of infection, or whose performance is critical to national security and safety.” The proposal adds these plasma-derived proteins can be used as a treatment for viral infections until a vaccine is available.

The pitch fell flat. At first.

___

ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED

In a June 12 email to HHS scientists, Army Lt. Col. Kara Schmid wrote that the price tag for Plasma Technologies was too high, even for the Pentagon, and that key parts of the company’s proposal were too vague.

“I’m just unclear if it has $50M worth of value,” Schmid wrote, adding she was “lukewarm at this point.”

Brian Tse, a BARDA health scientist, told Schmid that his office had passed on Plasma Technologies. With no production facility, Zurlo’s company intended to get COVID-19 patient plasma from blood donation centers that were already under heavy stress because of the pandemic.

“I believe that adding one additional ‘mouth to feed’ to the same source is more likely to induce delays to the projects already underway than it is to solve problems,” Tse wrote.

Despite the doubts, Kadlec didn’t lose interest in Plasma Technologies, according to the emails. “Dr. Kadlec has specifically asked us to take a closer look,” an early July message read.

Over the rest of July, the messages among his staff expressed misgivings about Zurlo’s technology, yet the company remained in play.

Several days later, an HHS contracting officer rejected the idea that Plasma Technologies might partner with one of the plasma companies that the government was already working with.

“The connection is not viable from a contractual standpoint,” the officer wrote in a July 16 email.

Still, a week later, Plasma Technologies had a champion at the Pentagon.

Santorum said he was contacted by Steven Morani, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for materiel readiness. Defense Department officials were drawn to the idea of a U.S.-owned and operated fractionation facility, according to Santorum.

It’s not clear what changed, but messages from late July show Morani and other defense officials had conferred and would support the Plasma Technologies project. An initial $750,000 in emergency coronavirus spending would be used to prove the concept, a move backed by HHS, with as much as $65 million in government money to come later to build a commercial facility and to purchase plasma and other materials, according to the emails. That’s more even than Plasma Technologies requested.

The messages don’t say where that money would come from or why the additional $13.4 million is required.

Morani referred AP’s emailed questions about the company and the contract to a Defense Department spokeswoman, Jessica Maxwell, who declined to discuss future funding for Plasma Technologies.

“The $750,000 is currently the total amount of government funding planned for the effort,” Maxwell said.

Santorum, who criticized a reporter for writing what he termed a “political hit piece,” said Zurlo intends to donate any profits Plasma Technologies generates to charities that support the mission of the Catholic Church.

But Santorum had different plans for any returns on his investment.

“I have made no such claims as a father of seven who has three weddings this year,” he said. “If any money were to come, I would welcome that money to help pay my bills.”

___

Dearen reported from New York. Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Charleston, South Carolina, contributed to this report.

_

Trump rejects Cubans and Venezuelans fleeing dictatorships. Does it hurt him with voters?
2020/10/31 
©Miami Herald

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden speaks during a drive-in campaign rally at Northwestern High School in Flint, Michigan, on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2020.

 - Drew Angerer/Getty Images North America/TNS

MIAMI — Andres and Miguel left Cuba, the only home they had ever known, in spring 2019. Cuban police had told Andres, a factory employee, and Miguel, a farmer, that they would be “disappeared” and jailed if they didn’t support the government or participate in political activities.

So they flew to Central America, and walked and bused and swam their way up to Mexico. The pair lived for two months in the state of Chihuahua, until they were able to seek asylum at an American port of entry at the Ciudad Juarez/El Paso border two months later. Since then, they have cycled through detention centers across the southern United States for almost 18 months.

Although Andres and Miguel were found to have a credible fear of political persecution, neither of their asylum cases were granted. Instead, they were slated for deportation over six months ago, but have not been returned to Cuba.

“We entered legally, we did not violate anything. We entered through a process controlled by the United States,” said Andres.

At the request of their lawyers, The Miami Herald is withholding their real names.

The pair does not know when or where they will be released from U.S. custody, and are among the 1,800 Cuban nationals who are serving years in confinement as they await deportation. They describe conditions in the Louisiana detention center as difficult. Rainwater can flood the facilities, becoming “like a river.” The food is “bad.” The beds are too close together to practice social distancing.

“Everyone is infected,” said Miguel, who has a respiratory condition and was in solitary confinement after contracting COVID-19. Meanwhile, Andrés has lost over 20 pounds in almost two months, and told the Herald he hadn’t received adequate medical treatment.

“I came to seek freedom from a dictatorship and look what I have found here,” said Andres.

While President Donald Trump’s hard-line stance against repressive, Latin American governments has included harsh condemnations and sanctions, his administration’s immigration system has turned away or detained thousands of people fleeing them. Critics say his denouncement of socialism and communism abroad on the campaign trail and throughout his presidency stands in sharp contrast to his asylum and immigration policies, and could harm him at the polls.

Throughout the course of his administration, Trump has presented himself as a leader committed to bringing democracy to Latin America and ousting strongmen leaders. His administration has imposed a slew of financial and travel-related sanctions on state-run companies and high ranking officials as well as state-affiliated individuals across Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. The president has led a so far unsuccessful campaign to oust Nicolas Maduro from power in Venezuela, and signed a 2018 bill to reduce the ability of Nicaragua to take out loans through international financial institutions and banking companies.

But for Nicaraguan, Venezuelan, and Cuban citizens seeking asylum in the United States, the panorama has become more challenging in the last few years. According to previous Herald reporting, between October 2019 and March 2020, over half of the asylum petitions filed by Cuban and Nicaraguan asylum seekers were denied, and 45% of asylum claims made by Venezuelans were not granted.

The “wet foot, dry foot” policy, which allowed Cubans who made it to U.S. soil to become permanent residents, was terminated at the end of the Obama administration. Trump has not to this date reversed the move, and also suspended the Cuban family reunification program.

The Trump administration also opened deportation proceedings against 25,044 Cubans in fiscal year 2019, mostly seeking asylum, at the U.S. border, according to data from immigration courts obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, at Syracuse University. And at 1,353 people, more Cubans have been removed through February of the 2020 ICE fiscal year than in 2019 or in each of the last 17 years.

In addition, news reports surfaced recently that since October 2019, at least 180 Venezuelans have been removed from the country via third-party countries through “stealth deportations.” The Washington Post reported this could potentially be a violation of American law. The administration also hasn’t granted Temporary Protected Status to more than 200,000 Venezuelans. TPS temporarily offers people fleeing political unrest, disasters or other difficult circumstances the right to work and live in the United States. While House and Senate Democrats have pushed for a bipartisan bill granting Venezuelans the special status, the move has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has attempted to terminate TPS in federal court for around 400,000 migrants, including 5,300 Nicaraguans, and has deported dissidents back to the Central American nation, ruled by an increasingly authoritarian government.

Democrats, immigration lawyers and advocates, and Trump critics say that conditions in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua might be worse off now than they were before this administration. They have also been vocal on what many perceive as inconsistencies between the Trump administration’s asylum practices and his policies towards repressive governments in Latin America.

A September letter from four Democratic senators — Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Ben Cardin, D-Md — denounced asylum practices toward citizens of Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba.

“The administration’s policies to expel and endanger refugees and asylum seekers from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries sends a message of callousness, cruelty, and disregard,” they wrote, “that feeds our adversaries’ agenda to cast doubt on the United States’ exceptional role as a beacon of freedom and democracy.”

While the majority of Cubans in Miami favor President Trump in the upcoming election, according to polls, some are distressed and angry about the president’s asylum and immigration policies towards their home country.

Manny Diaz, former City of Miami mayor and former lawyer of Elian Gonzalez’s relatives, is part of a group of prominent Cuban business leaders who want to mobilize fellow Latinos to punish Trump with their vote for his administration’s treatment of Venezuelan, Cuban, Nicaraguan and other asylum seekers.

“In the 60 years that we have been here, we have never seen Cubans who are denied entry, denied asylum, who are sent to Cuba,” Diaz told the Herald. “They put them in detention centers … and when (Trump) comes here everyone comes out with cars and honks their horns in caravans. I mean, come on.”

Diaz also said that Trump’s policies had not materialized into any concrete government changes in the island-nation.

“Cuba is not any closer to being free or seeing a democracy,” said Diaz. “What has he done for the Cubans, here in the United States or in Cuba? Absolutely nothing. A lot of blah, blah, blah because now he’s looking for Cuban votes. And I am not lending myself for that.”

Members of South Florida’s large Venezuelan community have also advocated for changes to how the Trump administration manages asylum seekers and refugees. Helen Villalonga, a Venezuelan community leader, has been advocating for TPS for Venezuelans for almost a decade.

“It is hypocritical. On the one hand, they talk about looking for a correction to the situation. On the other, they are not giving solutions to the problems of Venezuelans within the United States,” said Villalonga, whose son, a political activist, was separated from his family and deported back to his home country, where he feared for his life. He was eventually able to come back and become an American citizen.

Like Diaz, she sees some of the administration’s initiatives as a way to garner votes among Venezuelans, a Florida population that the Trump campaign has been aggressively courting.

“What hurts us the most is to use the pain of the Venezuelan people as political proselytism … . We see these leaders look for the vote and say they are going to carry out a military campaign (in Venezuela), and that all the options are on the table,” said Villalonga. “But they really aren’t giving the humane treatment and human protection that Venezuelans deserve in the United States.”

In a policy plan for the Latino community released in August, Joe Biden reaffirmed his support for granting temporary legal status to Venezuelan exiles in the U.S., noting that he would, as president, “immediately review every TPS decision made by the Trump administration and … extend TPS to Venezuelans seeking relief from the humanitarian crisis brought on by the Maduro regime.”

Although immigration-related grievances and “build-the-wall” rhetoric were an integral part of Trump’s first run for office, his reelection campaign has mostly avoided the issue — a potential consequence of polling data that shows growing support for increased immigration in the U.S.

An early October FIU survey found that while most Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County supported Trump’s reelection as well as his policies on the economy and healthcare, amongst others subjects, 58% did not agree with the president on immigration policies towards Cubans.

Norlys Alvarez’s story reflects how the president’s immigration track record could emerge as an electoral vulnerability. Alvarez moved from Cuba to Miami in 1995. Five years later, she relocated to Bradenton, became a naturalized citizen and registered to vote as a Republican.

But over the course of the Trump administration, as her own family became ensnared in the country’s immigration detention system, Alvarez has moved farther and farther away from her GOP roots.

In December 2017, Alvarez’s nephew, Pedro, presented himself at a U.S. Border Patrol Station in Laredo, Texas, where he told immigration agents he wanted to apply for asylum. Back in Cuba, Pedro had been briefly detained and then surveilled by police because of his connections to human-rights activists on the island.

To his family’s surprise, Pedro’s interaction with immigration authorities at the border led to a spell in immigrant detention centers that lasted over two and a half years.

According to Alvarez, Pedro was held in “appalling” conditions, and transferred to 13 different detention centers after the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the spring. Frequent transfers are common practice at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, even during the pandemic. Alvarez says that deficient public health measures during those transfers led to Pedro contracting a host of COVID-19-like symptoms, though he was never able to get a test to confirm his status. Pedro was only released in the summer, with his immigration case still pending, on a $20,000 bond.

Her nephew’s experience while in detention is now a prominent reason why Alvarez — a newly registered Independent voter — will break with the majority of the state’s Cuban-American voting bloc and support Biden for president.

She added: “We Cubans come from a country that for years and years has been dealing with dictatorship. When we got here we thought we were going to find peace, understanding and support. We thought human rights were respected here. But we are seeing that that’s not the case at all. The treatment people receive in immigration detention centers is abysmal.”

Could other Latino Florida residents vote like Alvarez, if they are also made aware of Trump’s track record on Cuban and Venezuelan immigrants?

Mario H. Lopez, president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a right-leaning organization, believes it might.

On Oct. 19, HLF launched a digital audio ad campaign that contrasts Trump’s tough-on-socialism rhetoric with his administration’s pattern of turning away asylum seekers fleeing socialist regimes.

“We think that if you are going to talk about socialism, you should also look at the victims of socialism,” Lopez said. “The president is right about socialism, but unfortunately his actions don’t match up with his words.”

In English and Spanish versions of the ads, a narrator states, “Trump says he opposes socialism, but he spurns those of us who escaped it … . our families don’t deserve to be forced back and made to suffer.” HLF’s ads will run through Nov. 3, and are expected to reach more than 750,000 Florida residents.

Potentially dulling the effect of ad campaigns like HLF’s is the fact that immigration doesn’t loom as large for Latino voters in 2020 as it did in previous election cycles.

“When you ask Latinos in Florida what are the issues that concern them the most, immigration is generally not in the top three,” said Eduardo Gamarra, who directs the Latino Public Opinion Forum at Florida International University.

“They’re concerned about healthcare, they’re concerned about jobs and the economy and recently they’ve been concerned about safety, probably as a result of the (Black Lives Matter) demonstrations and the way in which Trump has been talking about them.”

But raising the subjects of asylum seekers in detention or the deportation of Venezuelans could actually hurt the president, since it undercuts the anti-socialism rhetoric that’s come to dominate his campaign’s Latino outreach.

“There is still not a lot of awareness about this particular track record of Trump’s,” said Fernand Amandi, a partner of the Miami-based polling company Bendixen & Amandi International and Hispanic media consultant to former President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

“One can’t denounce oppressive socialist regimes and at the same time not give political asylum to people who try to come to the U.S., or even deport people back to the countries they’ve fled. It’s pure hypocrisy, and I think that, if it is brought up to voters’ attention, it could really damage the Trump campaign.”

———

©2020 Miami Herald

Joe Raedle/Getty Images North America/TNS

ANATOMY OF A MAN-MADE DISASTER: 

830 ways Donald Trump failed to protect Americans from the coronavirus

Published on October 31, 2020 By Roxanne Cooper RAW STORY

Dr. Fauci and Donald Trump AFP


Author Dan Benbow has compiled the most comprehensive overview to date of how President Trump failed in protecting Americans from the coronavirus pandemic. It’s a must read — and we’re giving it away to new Raw Story Investigates subscribers for free.

ANATOMY OF A MAN-MADE DISASTER documents 830 ways the Trump administration was derelict in their duty to protect the American people from the coronavirus. This timeline is, by far, the most detailed history available on the president’s mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis.

Following is a sneak peek at Benbow’s staggering work:


“What do you have to lose?”
-Donald J. Trump, 2016

Crises have a way of sorting the good presidents from the bad. Historians rank Abe Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt among the top three presidents for their handling of the Civil War, the Great Depression, and World War II.

By contrast, the string of catastrophes that trailed George W. Bush, from 9/11 to Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to his obliviousness to warning signs in the housing market before the 2008 crash guarantee that he will have a permanent place in the bottom tier of presidents.

Also certain to be at or near the bottom of that list is Donald Trump.

Trump has been able to maintain 40% approval ratings by effectively manipulating the lizard brains of white Republicans, but even before the coronavirus hit, he was considered one of the worst presidents in the two surveys of scholars done in 2018.

Trump’s increase in attention to the virus for the brief window of time between when he declared a national emergency on March 13 until he shifted his attention back to his re-election campaign (roughly five weeks later) helped mitigate the damage somewhat, but his inaction from January 3 (when the administration claims to have first become aware of the virus) until March 13 made the situation exponentially worse than it should have been. And his failures of governance since March 13 greatly outweigh the handful of positive steps he took in that time in scope and number.

As Anthony Fauci said, numbers don’t lie. Our federal response has been the shame of the first world, as America has posted over 224,000 deaths (5X any other developed country) and 8,300,000 infections (more than 10X any developed country), the latter a significant undercount from the true numbers.

This story starts, as many tales of Republican incompetence do, with sheer ignorance and lack of curiosity. Ronald Reagan was able to ignore the AIDS crisis for years because it was “a gay disease” and didn’t impact anyone close to him until his old Hollywood acquaintance Rock Hudson asked for—but did not receive—his help in 1985. Despite having spent months manipulating post-9/11 public fear with an orchestrated campaign of lies about fictitious WMDs, George W. Bush still didn’t understand the historical friction between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq when he invited Iraqi guests of mixed faiths to a super bowl party two months before the invasion.

History repeated itself with Donald Trump, like Reagan and Bush a P.R.-centric empty suit lacking intellectual curiosity, policy chops, or any interest in the mechanics of governing. Addressing his lack of qualifications for the job on the campaign trail in 2016, Trump asked voters “what do you have to lose?” America would find out the hard way.

A wave of reports expose Trumpworld corruption 

as the president’s allies point fingers

Published on October 31, 2020 By Meaghan Ellis, AlterNet- Commentary

Bill Barr and Donald Trump (AFP)

It’s been a long, difficult week in Trumpworld with all of the incriminating reports of corruption surrounding President Donald Trump and his administration. With Election Day less than five days away, Trump is likely feeling the pressure as the opposing forces work overtime to state their case and prove that he is unfit for the office of the presidency.

Many of the stories raise more questions about Trump’s leadership and the hidden agendas of his White House officials and other members of his administration.

Here’s a breakdown of the stories circulating this week:

1. Trump, Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the Turkish Bank 

A new report by the New York Times has uncovered details about Trump and U.S. Attorney Bill Barr questionable handling of possible violations of U.S. sanctions involving billions of dollars worth of gold and cash that was funneled to Iran.

When Geoffrey S. Berman, a top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, traveled to the White House to speak with Barr and some of his top administrative officials about the criminal investigation into the state-owned Turkish bank, Halkbank, Barr suggested that the bank be allowed to avoid indictment by paying only a fine and admitting that some wrong was done. Barr’s sentiments also echoed Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s words as he had reportedly asked Trump repeatedly to stop the investigation. Trump’s presumed eagerness to please Erdogan has also raised questions about where the president truly stands. For Berman, Barr’s request raised red flags and questions about whether or not Barr was colluding with foreign operatives.

“This is completely wrong,” Berman later told lawyers in the U.S. Department of Justice, according to people who received intel about the proposal and Barr’s reaction. “You don’t grant immunity to individuals unless you are getting something from them — and we wouldn’t be here.”

This report is yet another cloud over Trump and his administration regarding where their loyalty lies.

2. Pompeo Family Email Scandal 

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was caught in the middle of an email scandal when it was revealed that he and his wife, Susan Pompeo had conducted official White House business using personal email addresses. Now, the couple is being investigated by both Congress and the State Department’s inspector generals for “potential misuse of government resources.” On multiple occasions, Susan Pompeo is said to have regularly utilized her personal email address for business matters, according to email correspondence.

“The emails show that Susan Pompeo routinely gives instructions to State Department officials from her personal email address about everything from travel plans and restaurant reservations to the elite Madison Dinners,” according to NBC News.

Below is an example of the types of messages Susan Pompeo sent to a State Department official. The message captures a conversation between her and a State Department official whose name was redacted from the record.

“The dryer isn’t hooked up… I think you told me someone was coming to fix that?” Susan Pompeo said via text message to a State Department official. “Ma’am – On it, I was told it was fixed. Let me get you an answer,” the official responded by email hours later.

3. Rick Perry’s Dirty Dealing 

A new report centers on former United States Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and his involvement in an attempted scheme to help some of his friends profit off a massive gas deal. Although Perry has denied the allegations, there are multiple details that highlight Perry’s ties to Ukraine, according to Pro Republica.

During a six-month investigation, reporters from Time magazine, WNYC and ProPublica discovered that “Perry and his staff at the Energy Department worked to advance energy deals that were potentially worth billions of dollars to Perry’s friends and political donors.”

Two of these deals seemed set to benefit Energy Transfer, the Texas company on whose board Perry served immediately before and after his stint in Washington. The biggest was worth an estimated $20 billion, according to U.S. and Ukrainian energy executives involved in negotiating them.

4. Wilbur Ross’ Chinese Conflict of Interest 

Like Perry, Ross found himself at the center of controversy when he failed to separate from his business ties while serving as the U.S. Commerce Secretary. According to ForeignPolicy.com, documents appear to suggest that Ross’ potential conflicts of interest surrounding Chinese business are much more evident than previously thought.

Here is a breakdown of the conflicts surrounding Perry, his business ties, and government affiliation.

In Chinese corporate documents obtained by Foreign Policy, Ross is listed as serving on the board of a Chinese joint venture until January 2019—nearly two years into his term as commerce secretary. That joint venture, now called Huaneng Invesco WLR (Beijing) Investment Fund Management Co., is an investment partnership formed in September 2008 between Huaneng Capital Services, the U.S. management company Invesco, and a firm Ross founded, WL Ross & Co. Huaneng Capital Services is an arm of China Huaneng Group, a major state-owned power producer.

As Election Day approaches, more incriminating reports are circulating and raising more questions about the integrity of the Trump administration.

America’s crimes against humanity aren’t on the ballot this year — but they should be


Published on October 31, 2020
By Dave Masciotra, Salon- Commentary

US President Donald Trump, pictured on July 8, has assailed Britain's US ambassador as a "pompous fool" and slammed outgoing premier Theresa May's "foolish" policies following a leak of unflattering diplomatic cables. (AFP/File / NICHOLAS KAMM)

The 2020 presidential election is a life-and-death decision for thousands of people vulnerable to COVID-19, for a globe under the assault from the climate crisis, and for the future of American democracy. And yet for all the urgency, the political campaign still suffers under the weight and stench of bullshit.

This article first appeared in Salon.

Philosopher Harry Frankfurt warns in his bestselling pamphlet “On Bullshit” that “bullshit” is more injurious than the blatant lie. One reason among many is that bullshit blurs the line between reality and fiction, offering a manipulative incorporation of truth to strengthen its own capacity to persuade. Absolute falsity, in contrast, is obvious to anyone with minimal awareness of the facts. When the Trump administration recently declared that one of its grand achievements was “ending the pandemic,” most people laughed in disbelief. This is a lie fit for consumption only from inhabitants of a collective similar to the Rev. Jim Jones’ notorious People’s Temple settlement in Guyana.




One of the most effective forms of bullshit in a political context is the smarmy euphemism. In his classic essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell attributes the explosion of euphemism in political debate and journalism to the morally contemptible project of “defending the indefensible.” Bombing helpless villagers is not “murder,” to recall one of his illustrative examples, but “pacification.” Vague and bland language also serves the purpose of “naming things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

The late comedian George Carlin found the euphemism particularly prevalent and poisonous in the United States, arguing that “Americans have trouble facing the truth. So they invent kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it.”

The recent revelation that 545 children whom the Trump administration “separated” from their families may never reunite with their parents — because the government doesn’t even know where their parents are — provoked widespread condemnation from Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden, and a stunning display of cold-bloodedness from Donald Trump. When Biden challenged him on the issue during the second presidential debate, Trump attempted to deflect from his cruelty by claiming that the detention facilities where the children were kept were “clean” and that the children were generally “well taken care of.”

Reality’s relationship of to Trump’s bloviation is typically uncooperative and disturbing, and the detention of immigrants and refugees is no exception. Thousands of them say they have endured abuse at the hands of ICE employees while in custody.

Biden deserves support and praise for his promise to form a task force to reunite the missing children with their families, pledging to sign an executive order to that effect on “day one” of his presidency. Election forecasters say that promise is popular with key constituencies in swing-state suburbia.

Regardless of what the polls indicate, the very existence of this “debate” in our national politics demonstrates the thorough extent of our own moral degradation. If a friend and I have a serious and sustained argument over whether or not we should knock an elderly woman to the ground and steal the money she has in her pocketbook after cashing her Social Security check, we have debased ourselves even if we decide not to do it.

In the case of the United States, we have not only discussed the moral offense, but committed it with systematic efficiency.

The word “separated” exposes the U.S. government as guilty of Orwell and Carlin’s accusation — hiding, denying and dodging the hideous truth. A more accurate word would be “abducted.” “Kidnapped” would also work.

Benjamin Ferencz, the last living Nuremburg prosecutor, rejected euphemism, and called the “family separation” policy a “crime against humanity.” A sane but naïve observer might have expect Ferencz’s charge to dominate the headlines, but it received little coverage from the mainstream press.

Furthermore, the mainstream press refuses to conduct the five minutes of research necessary to learn the criteria for calling a policy “genocidal.” It would be untrue to claim that the Trump administration is actively attempting to destroy Latin Americans or immigrants as a group, but in plain language, both the UN and the International Criminal Court list “forcibly transferring the children of a group to another group” as a policy of genocide.




Another genocidal policy, according to the same international bodies, is the imposition of “measures intended to prevent births within the group.” In September, a nurse who became a whistleblower, along with several victims, came forward to testify that medical staff at an ICE facility in Georgia performed unnecessary hysterectomies on many women. To her credit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted by saying, “If true, this is a staggering abuse of human rights.”

That story did receive widespread coverage, but went unmentioned by any candidate or moderator during the presidential or vice presidential debates. Charges that our government has practiced genocidal policies have all but disappeared from political discussion, making room for analysis of Hunter Biden’s laptop, rapper Ice Cube’s meeting with Trump officials, and the incoherent ravings of Trump’s Twitter feed.

What does it say about a country that it can overlook policies that approach or resemble genocide? Or about a people who can learn that their government is creating orphans and routinely abusing the weak and vulnerable, and either react with boredom or make it fodder for a partisan political quarrel, as if that were morally similar to disputes over tax cuts or regulatory procedure?

The “staggering abuse of human rights” and “crimes against humanity” of the Trump administration should guarantee this president’s removal from office, and most likely his prosecution and imprisonment. Instead, they have fallen into the memory hole of a chaotic and intensely contested election campaign. Even when fully revealed, the extent of Trump’s barbarity toward children is not enough to defeat him at the polls.

One could make the same condemnation of American culture based upon the report that Trump’s slumlord son-in-law, Jared Kushner, convinced the White House to drop a national testing program because he believed the coronavirus would be most harmful to “blue states.” Setting aside the egregious political miscalculation, there are terms that aptly describe this behavior, which might range from “depraved indifference” to “murder.”

Despite the accumulation of damning evidence against the sociopaths in the federal government, there is no mass protest movement in the streets demanding their immediate resignation or prosecution. The absence of any popular response other than voting demonstrates that the problems in American political culture run deep, and cannot be solved in one election.

The only humane outcome to this election — the resounding victory of Biden over Trump, and Democrats winning a majority in the Senate — is critical in the larger effort of addressing American pathologies. But it is equally important, if not more so, that Americans start telling the truth: about our government, about our country and about ourselves.

No reckoning: History shows polite, liberal society will sanitize, ignore and absolve the crimes of the Trump administration


Published on November 1, 2020 By Tasnim Motala, Salon- Commentary

US President Donald Trump (right) alongside his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner during a meeting at the White House, February 23, 2017. (AFP Photo/Saul Loeb).

“If I’m asked to serve, I’ll serve,” the senior partner said coyly. We were at one of Washington, D.C.’s Michelin-starred restaurants, treated to a multi-course dinner as a thank-you to me and another associate for our hard work on a recent case. The other junior associate, who, like me, was a self-professed liberal woman in her late 20s, beamed at him. We both knew he was talking about a coveted position in the Trump administration’s Department of Justice. It was late spring of 2017. The administration had already imposed its “Muslim ban” and was beginning to gut protections for asylum seekers. Family separations would begin later that summer. No one asked him what “serving” in a Department of Justice led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions meant to him.

I think about that moment often. When I read that former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein purposefully pursued a policy of separating mothers from their infant children, or read about whatever fresh atrocities this administration has enacted, I picture the feigned humility of the partner. It was a smug kind of glee that I saw on his face that night, barely disguised, conjured up by the idea of having a role in the highest levels of government. He was a senior partner at one of the largest international law firms, where he easily made a few million dollars a year. This move was not about money. It was about prestige and power. It was a feather in his hat. It is that desire to amass accolades, at any cost, that underlies so much violence and harm in our world.

In “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,” Hannah Arendt attributes Adolf Eichmann’s involvement in the Holocaust to a pedestrian careerism, devoid of the hatefulness that we attribute to Nazism. According to Arendt, Eichmann was haunted by the desire never to return to the humdrum life of a traveling salesman for the Vacuum Oil Company that he once occupied before joining the German government. He sought to live a life of significance and consequence and make some sort of mark on history.

“And if he did not always like what he had to do (for example, dispatching people to their death by the trainload instead of forcing them to emigrate),” Arendt writes, “he never forgot what the alternative would have been…” The forgettable life of an inconsequential traveling salesman. Even though history would show that Arendt was mistaken in her assessment of Eichmann’s character, her message remains — evil has a varsity league, but much is done by amateurs.

This thirst for proximity to power is familiar to me. I think about so many of my law school classmates who would eagerly have lined up for a position to enact “lesser-evil” forms of violence against minority communities under a Hillary Clinton administration; they are now proud members of the “#Resistance,” declaring, “Black Lives Matter” and “Immigrants are welcome here.” Others, meanwhile, self-consciously adopted markers of conservatism, joining the Federalist Society and tailoring their extracurriculars to appeal to conservative judges, hoping to secure the right federal clerkships, the right high-ranking state government jobs, crafting the right narrative to make their eventual political ascent. And then there is me. Why didn’t I speak up or challenge that partner that night at dinner — ask him what role he planned to play working for Jeff Sessions?

Over the last few months, writers and journalists have weighed in about what sort of “reckoning” will await a possible post-Trump administration. Elie Mystal has suggested a truth and reconciliation commission, Mark Tushnet has proposed a nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry and Jill Lepore has argued that history will be the best judge of the Trump administration’s conduct.

But no commission, no matter how robust, can address the fact that polite, liberal society will sanitize, ignore and absolve the crimes of the Trump administration. We saw this with George W. Bush’s administration — the enablers and enactors of his war crimes and mass atrocities are sitting comfortably in law firms, on law school faculties and even in the current administration. Some even count themselves as part of the #Resistance.

The process of historical amnesia, revisionism and hypocrisy that will whitewash the Trump administration is already underway.



That former senior partner at my old firm recently left the DOJ in what was by all public accounts an amicable separation. During his time there, he actively defended policies that in any other country would be grounds for an inquiry from The Hague. And yet the doors to his old job remained open to him; I have been told that my former firm’s leadership hoped that when his stint at Justice ended, he would return to the firm. He is now a partner at another large law firm, where his “distinguished career” in government is celebrated. (Paradoxically, this firm is liberal-leaning — its website boasts of its robust pro-bono docket challenging the current administration’s immigration policies and voter suppression tactics). He is also engaged to the apparently liberal, junior associate who cried after Trump was elected in 2016 and beamed at the partner during that dinner in 2017. She also left the law firm and now appears on national television and other media outlets criticizing the corruption and misdeeds of the Trump administration. She, too, sees herself as part of the #Resistance, posting Black Lives Matter infographics and calls to action one day, and romantic pictures with her Trump-administration fiancé the next.

Elite lawyers like many of my classmates — with their liberal politesse — are not motivated by their supposed values, but by their ambition. For this reason, they will normalize and in fact celebrate anyone who rises to the highest levels of power. They will cheer on the private and government attorneys who raise the most inhumane arguments, mostly admiring the fact that they brought those arguments to the Supreme Court. They will line up to write opinion pieces in support of judges who will most certainly dismantle civil rights protections — if those judges happen to have employed them. Big law firms will welcome back with open arms the architects of some of the darkest policies in recent U.S. history, rewarding them with salaries many times larger than those of lawyers who choose to let their values guide them.

It is hard for me to imagine the sort of reckoning or even mending that this country needs (and has needed since its dark founding) when proximity to power, rather than any sort of grounding values, motivates elite circles in this country. The cognitive dissonance that we are already seeing among liberal society, which will condemn Trump on one hand and welcome his aiders and abettors with open arms on the other, leaves little hope for a bright new chapter once this administration leaves office.

Tasnim Motala is a civil and human rights attorney at the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard University School of Law. Twitter: @tasnimmotala.

Uber’s Scare Tactics Have Made Vulnerable Gig Workers Worry Things Will Get Worse After Election Day

There is another vital vote taking place on Nov. 3 in California that could decide whether the gig economy can continue in the same format to which we’re all addicted.
Caroline O'Donovan BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on October 31, 2020

Ben Kothe / BuzzFeed News

In July 2019, LaDonna Hamilton was driving four Uber passengers on a highway in Los Angeles when she was rear-ended. Her car was trapped between the truck that hit her and another one in front.

While Uber’s insurance covered the accident and her health insurance covered her hospital bills, Hamilton’s car was totaled. Her injuries required surgery, leaving her without any income for months while she recovered. “All that time I took off, I didn’t get compensation,” she said. “I had to borrow money from friends and family to live.”

Her first surgery happened in February, shortly before the coronavirus pandemic hit and California shut down. She’s been subsisting on unemployment payments ever since. She currently owes her landlord about $4,000.

Now, Hamilton is worried she could face yet another major upheaval after Election Day next week, when the gig economy faces an existential reckoning at the ballot box. California voters will determine whether the same type of low-paid side hustle — and fast, cheap service — to which Uber and Lyft have made us all addicted will continue to exist as we know it.

According to California law, gig workers should be treated as employees with the full benefits and protections that US labor law offers; but if Proposition 22 passes, they will remain independent contractors who must fend for themselves. Hamilton is conflicted about which outcome would better serve her. On the one hand, her accident and the pandemic have made her appreciative of the stability that a regular job might bring. But she also depends on being able to drive for Uber whenever she’s short on cash, and she’s afraid to lose those earnings if the company doesn’t get its way.

“I feel more dependent on them because I wouldn’t be able to go out and find another job right now,” she said. “If it wasn’t for Uber, I would be struggling really bad.”

While that law that made gig workers employees in California has been on the books for over a year, a coalition of companies, including Uber, Lyft, Postmates, and DoorDash, has chosen to focus its considerable energy and capital — spending over $200 million on Prop 22, more than any proposition campaign in state history — on finding a way to overturn it rather than comply.

If it wins, Proposition 22 would allow these companies to continue relying on independent contractor labor to deliver food and drive passengers on the cheap; if it fails, the companies will be required to hire the workers as employees, which puts them on the hook for payroll taxes, overtime pay, and a legal minimum wage. Either way, it could set a precedent for the rest of the country.
BuzzFeed News has journalists around the US bringing you trustworthy stories on the 2020 Elections. To help keep this news free, become a member.

For months now, the campaign for Prop 22 has been pushing the narrative that a win will save “hundreds of thousands of jobs,” while a loss could spell impending doom for gig workers.

Uber, in particular, has threatened that if the measure it paid for fails, it could be forced to upend its business model — raising prices, reducing the frequency of rides, and removing some drivers from the platform altogether.

Asked last week by the Wall Street Journal whether Uber would continue to operate in California — having retreated over unwanted regulations before — CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said, “We are looking at all of our options.”


LaDonna Hamilton

That threat comes at a time when millions of Californians are out of work, with no sign of a renewed federal stimulus package in sight, and as state unemployment benefits, which became available earlier this year as the pandemic cratered the economy, are starting to dry up.

Meanwhile, with big events canceled, travel discouraged, and workplaces and businesses still shuttered, demand for ride-hailing services has remained relatively low — which means that as millions of Americans unable to find stable employment have flooded onto gig economy apps in search of work, the number of gigs to go around has shrunk.

The gig economy companies couldn’t have known that their big fight at the ballot box — which, according to current polls, is a relatively close race — would come at a time when a global pandemic and historic recession would leave their precarious workers even more vulnerable. But the influx of people desperate to earn quick cash could be playing to their advantage.

Gig work often acts as a substitute for the robust social safety net that the United States lacks. Many people who expect to be able to turn on an app and make deliveries when they need extra money are understandably nervous when they hear those gigs could be going away; that’s what makes Uber’s dire warnings about having to reduce its workforce so effective.

Using the threat of cutting jobs or lowering pay to score political points, said Robert Reich, former Clinton administration labor secretary and UC Berkeley public policy professor, is “completely inappropriate.”

“It exploits the fears that workers have during the pandemic,” he said. “Everybody is endangered right now, or they’ve lost their jobs already. This isn’t unique to Uber and Lyft drivers. But for Uber and Lyft to threaten that they will lose their jobs if this proposition doesn’t pass is particularly egregious.”

The campaign supporting Prop 22 said if it passes, drivers will gain new protections, like a minimum wage guarantee and partial compensation for benefits like healthcare. But if it fails, a spokesperson for the campaign warned, “80%–90% of app-based driver jobs would disappear, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

An Uber spokesperson said in a statement, "We'd be doing riders and drivers a disservice if we weren't honest and upfront about the consequences of forced employment.”

One of those precarious workers who’s worried about the consequences is Jeffrey Grant, a 54-year-old veteran and resident of Daly City. Grant said he’s applied for over 200 full-time jobs in his field, security contracting, in the last four years, and has received only two interviews. To cover his share of the $3,500-a-month apartment he shares with his girlfriend, Grant started driving for Uber in fall 2016. At first, he said, he made decent money. But over the years, his take-home earnings started to fall off. When the pandemic hit California in March, he stopped driving altogether.

The few times Grant bothered to turn the app on this year, he said, he was online for hours and only did a few short trips. “2020 was the worst,” he said. “I've seen consumer use just completely plummet.”

Grant has been able to collect some unemployment benefits — which were made available to gig workers during the pandemic even though gig companies don’t contribute to the fund via payroll taxes — but those payments recently got cut in half. With no other way to earn money, he’s worried things could get even worse if gig companies are forced to hire their drivers as employees.


Jeffrey Grant
“[People] think these companies are rich and wealthy and they're going to hire everybody,” Grant said, “and they simply can’t.”

He believes that if Prop 22 fails, Uber and Lyft will only be able to afford to hire around 15% of their current contractor workforce, leaving the other 85% high and dry. He also suspects that the companies will find workarounds to actually providing benefits like healthcare by limiting drivers to part-time schedules.

“State law says you have to work 31 or more hours to be eligible for employment benefits,” he said. “That’s a dirty trick these companies can play if they want to, and they'd be in full compliance with the laws.”

Grant doesn’t think Uber and Lyft pay drivers enough as it is, but he doesn’t think the employee model is viable. “There’s a huge amount of costs that’s going to come with this if the proposition fails,” he said.

Though Uber brings in billions of dollars in revenue a year — $2.24 billion in the second quarter of 2020 — the company is still not profitable. Food delivery companies have fared better during the pandemic: Instacart raised $200 million in venture capital this month, its third multimillion-dollar raise of the year, and it’s currently valued at $17.7 billion. DoorDash is valued at $16 billion and is said to have plans to go public within the year. Uber paid $2.65 billion to acquire food delivery app Postmates in July.

Many people, including Reich, disagree that the gig economy companies can’t figure out a business model that would allow them to treat their workers fairly. “They have enough money to do quite well; they don’t need to take that money away from their drivers,” he said. “They are mounting one of the most expensive public relations campaigns on any proposition in history. They certainly have enough money.”

Edan Alva, a former Uber and Lyft driver in Alameda, California, said that, despite the big valuations, the Yes on 22 campaign has some gig workers worried. “This is a tactic that’s meant to scare passengers and drivers, and it works in the sense that an uninformed person can easily say, ‘Oh my god, I’m going to lose my only source of income,’” he said. “There are plenty of people who are in that situation.”

Alva started driving for Lyft in 2014 to offset the cost of an hourlong commute from Alameda to San Jose, but when he lost that job two years ago, driving for Lyft became his primary source of income. He quickly realized how difficult it was to earn a living with the cost of maintenance, fuel, and taxes, not to mention unexpected costs like falling ill or getting into an accident.

Uber and Lyft attract people who are desperate for money, but it’s easy to get in over your head, said Alva, who eventually became an organizer with local labor group Gig Workers Rising. In the same way a payday lender charges people who need quick cash a high interest rate, he said Uber’s model “depends on desperation and exploitation.”


Edan Alva

Through a combination of unemployment checks, census work, and help from friends and family, Alva has been able to avoid driving for Uber during the pandemic, which he said has made the economics of gig work even starker. “The people who choose to work during the pandemic have, by definition, some significant degree of desperation,” he said.

Economists who’ve studied the gig economy say a significant percentage of participants turn to the apps when they’re experiencing a gap in their income. “They’re using it to make ends meet when they need extra money from week to week,” said Dmitri Koustas, an economist at the University of Chicago.

If the US had a stronger social safety net, the gig economy might not be as appealing. But in a time of economic crisis, when it’s unclear whether financial aid will continue to be available, what was once a side gig is now all some people have.

When people lost their jobs during the pandemic, “it was easy to start a delivery job if you wanted to earn money that way — but at the same time, it does highlight gaps in the safety net,” said Koustas. “If people were more inured against shocks and had stability in their main jobs, I don’t think there would be as much value for people to have these flexible jobs with low barriers to entry.”

If Prop 22 fails, Uber is likely to continue appealing labor regulation in the courts. A California judge came down against the company’s most recent appeal earlier this month, meaning if the ballot measure fails, gig companies would have 30 days from a final ruling to hire their workforce as employees. But that could take a few months while the companies continue their appeal at the California Supreme Court.

If the proposition t passes, it would be extraordinarily hard to undo. The language of the measure requires a supermajority — seven-eighths of the California legislature — to make any changes, making it “virtually permanent,” according to Bloomberg.

In other states, the companies would hope to use a win as a precedent to fight similar regulatory efforts that could crop up. In New York City, ride-hail companies were forced to cap the number of drivers on the platform and pay them a minimum rate per trip; while drivers there are still independent contractors, the industry is incentivized to avoid the creep of additional regulation in major markets.

Mike Wilson is a food delivery driver in Washington state who has kept a close eye on the fight over gig worker classification in California. Like a lot of people, he turned to gig work when the casino he worked at temporarily closed due to the pandemic and he lost his full-time job.

“There’s so much uncertainty — what’s going to happen with the election, or after? Are they going to have a stimulus package? Everybody’s really freaked out,” Wilson said. “I got into it for that same reason.”

He said anxiety over how far gig companies might go to avoid regulation has spread up the West Coast. “If they say something like, ‘We’re going to shut down in California,’ people freak out,” he said.

Wilson enjoys doing food deliveries, and at first said the bonuses and promotions made it relatively lucrative. But as the months passed and he earned less and less, he started to realize the shortcomings of the job.

“A lot of the time you spend out there is sitting and waiting for an order … and you don't get paid for that,” he said. “If you were an employee, you’d get paid for that time.”

He worries that those who prioritize earning quick cash over a stable job are being “shortsighted,” but as a dad of three daughters who’s scared to go back to the recently reopened casino and risk getting sick, he understands the pressure people are under.

“A lot of people don’t have any other way of making money,” he said. “This is their only way to make money, and those people are being exploited.”


Caroline O'Donovan is a senior technology reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in San Francisco.