Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

International

Major Dem Donors Freeze $90 Million Until Biden Drops Out: REPORT

Published

3 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ROBERT SCHMAD

 

Major Democratic donors have paused contributions totaling roughly $90 million to the largest pro-Biden super PAC, opting to hold their money unless the president drops out of the race, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Donors have frozen multiple eight-figure donations they had promised to Future Forward PAC — the committee designated by the Biden campaign as its leading super PAC — amid worries that the president is in a uniquely weak position ahead of November’s election, two individuals familiar with the situation told the NYT.

Democratic donors are also planning on diverting money away from the presidential election and toward down-ballot elections to hedge against what they view as increasingly likely defeat in the race for the White House.

“I think that the dam has broken and that more and more people will come out publicly,” long-time Democratic donor Whitney Tilson said in early July. “There is basically no — almost no support remaining for him as a candidate.”

In the weeks following the June 27 presidential debate where President Joe Biden appeared disoriented and struggled to articulate, 19 Democratic members of Congress and numerous liberal pundits have called on the president to drop out of the race, according to the NYT. Even Biden’s reelection operation seems to be testing the waters, with the president’s campaign reportedly testing Vice President Kamala Harris’ viability against Trump, according to the New York Post.

“He needs to drop out,” one Biden campaign official told NBC News. “He will never recover from this.”

The blow to Biden’s campaign finance operation follows former President Donald Trump’s campaign erasing the president’s fundraising lead in May. Trump and the Republican National Committee had $171 million in cash on hand as of the most recent campaign finance reports, compared to the just $157 million held by the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Convention, The Hill reported.

The primary super PAC supporting Trump, MAGA Inc., had $93.7 million in cash reserves as of May while Future Forward PAC had a slightly smaller war chest of $92.3 million, according to Federal Election Commission records. Much of the funds taken in by MAGA Inc., however, are being diverted to cover Trump’s legal expenses, according to CNN.

One Future Forward advisor told the NYT they believe the donations will return once the current uncertainty regarding the Democratic presidential ticket is resolved. The PAC has announced $250 million in advertisement reservations following the Democratic National Convention in August.

Despite mounting pressure, the president has repeatedly asserted that he will not drop out.

“I am firmly committed to staying in this race, to running this race to the end, and to beating Donald Trump,” Biden wrote in a letter to congressional Democrats on Monday.

Future Forward PAC could not be reached for comment.

(Featured image credit: Screen Capture/CSPAN)

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.

Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”

Oh.

While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”

Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.

Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Crime

U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.

According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.

Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.

Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.

Continue Reading

Trending

X