Election Recap: 2018 Illinois Gubernatorial Primary

Illinois gubernatorial candidates Bruce Rauner and J.B. Pritzker will square off in the November general election after clinching their party’s respective nominations Tuesday night. Pritzker easily took the Democratic field, defeating his closest competitors by a 20-point margin. As the incumbent, Governor Rauner, narrowly fended off a challenge from his political right by State Representative Jeanne Ives. Rauner took 51.6 percent of the vote, while Ives had 48.4 percent, making it far tighter than pollsters had originally predicted. The Governor performed well in Cook County, while Ives picked up support in the counties outside Chicago and in rural regions.

However, Rauner’s primary performance could spell trouble. Illinois has a strong base of Democratic support, and a low-recognition candidate like Ives demonstrates the Governor’s political vulnerability.

Pritzker, who faced allegation surrounding his offshore banking accounts, as well as private FBI tapes, had outperformed expectations. With the support of powerful Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, and an energized Democratic base, Pritzker sailed to victory with 45 percent of the vote among five other candidates. State Senator Daniel Biss captured around 27 percent, while Chris Kennedy had 24 percent.

Rauner versus Pritzker, a multimillionaire and a billionaire, respectively, has the ability to become the most expensive gubernatorial race in American history. They have already flooded the Land of Lincoln with a combined $150 million in campaign cash, less than seven months before the general election (the record was set in 2010, when Democrat Jerry Brown defeated Republican Meg Whitman after they raised a combined $280 million to run for Governor of California).

For more information on the Illinois gubernatorial race, check out our primary preview.


2018 Illinois Gubernatorial Primary Preview

Primary: March 20, 2018

General Elections: November 6, 2018

The 2018 Illinois gubernatorial contest may become the most expensive governor’s race in American history. A multimillionaire incumbent and multibillionaire challenger have already flooded the Land of Lincoln with $180 million in campaign cash ahead of the primary. With eight months left until the general election, the current rate of spending will likely break the record before November (the record was set in 2010, when Democrat Jerry Brown defeated Republican Meg Whitman after they raised a combined $280 million to run for Governor of California).

Meanwhile, Illinois has serious budget issues, with nearly $9 billion in past due bills.

Governor Bruce Rauner

Republican Governor Bruce Rauner will seek re-election under dismal circumstances. He’s among the most unpopular governors in America, with a 31-percent approval rating, according to a February Morning Consult poll. Rauner defeated Democrat Governor Pat Quinn in 2014, after riding a business-friendly message focused on streamlining government. Rauner, a former private equity manager worth several hundred million dollars, has delivered on few campaign promises since then. He’s also antagonized the state’s financial woes by vetoing legislation from the Democratic-controlled state house. In 2015, he tried to close a $1.5 billion budget gap by cutting a number of government programs, which angered many Democrats. Currently, the Illinois credit rating remains one level above junk.

Fortunately for Rauner, his missteps might not cost the him office. According to a February poll from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University, Rauner leads State Representative Jeanne Ives, 51-31 percent. With a sample of 259 Republican voters, more than 18 percent remained undecided.

State Representative Jeanne Ives

Ives, a three-term assemblywoman from the western Chicago suburbs, has crafted a campaign targeting social conservatives in down state Illinois. She’s criticized Rauner for failing to deliver on spending cuts or holding government agencies accountable. In a controversial television advertisement, a pro-Ives group attacked Rauner on policies ranging from transgender bathrooms to sanctuary cities. The Republican Party has increased its presence in rural Illinois in recent years, which could benefit Ives. However, Rauner has far outspent Ives, raising more than $103 million, with more than half coming from his own fortune. Conversely, Ives has only reached $3.8 million, placing her in an uphill battle.

Illinois_JB Pritzker
J.B. Pritzker

The top Democratic nominee, J.B. Pritzker, is a multi-billionaire scion from a powerful Chicago family.  Pritzker has been a major figure in Democratic fundraising circles, while his older sister, Penny Pritzker, served as President Barack Obama’s Commerce Secretary during his second-term. With a personal wealth of $3.5 billion, Pritzker has used more than $63 million of his own money for the campaign. Yet his finances have become a point of contention: A March news story highlighted his offshore bank accounts, he has not yet released his tax returns, and he was caught on an FBI wiretap in 2008 discussing campaign funding and available statewide offices with former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. Blagojevich, was sentenced to 14 years in jail on federal corruption charges after he tried to sell President Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat in 2008.

Pritzker also maintains a close relationship with Michael Madigan, Illinois House Speaker and Chairman of the State Democratic Party. Madigan is the longest-serving leader in any federal or state legislative body in U.S. history. He’s among the most powerful politicians in Illinois, known for steamrolling opponents and wielding heavy influence over legislation. His shadow looms large in this primary, even though allegations connecting him to impropriety have emerged.

Illinois_Daniel Biss
State Senator Daniel Bliss

In the SIU poll, which sampled 472 voters, Pritzker has 31 percent support among Democrats, with nearly a quarter undecided. Trailing behind the billionaire is State Senator Daniel Biss of Evanston, a progressive candidate who wants to collect tax money from financial transactions on the Board of Trade and Mercantile Exchange. He once ran a Super PAC for Madigan, whose funding apparatus gave Biss more than $220,000 to help him win in 2010. However, his liberal bona fides have come under fire after he cosponsored a bill limiting the growth of retirement annuities for state employee pensions. The Illinois State Supreme Court struck down the legislation on constitutional grounds in 2015. Biss said he regrets the co-sponsorship but he still wants to reduce debts in the state retirement system. With roughly $5 million in campaign funding, he falls well short of Pritzker’s resources.

With 17 percent in the SIU poll, Chris Kennedy has emerged as a dark horse contender. As the son of Robert F. Kennedy, and the nephew of President John F. Kennedy, Chris has made gun control and mental health a centerpiece of his candidacy. He also wants to reform the state property tax system, calling it “a racket” in public. He served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois from 2012 to 2015. He was President of Merchandise Mart Properties, a commercial management firm based in Chicago.

Three other candidates have received single digit polling numbers: Bob Diabler, a Madison County school superintendent located west of St. Louis; Tio Hardiman, director of the anti-violence group Cease Fire Illinois; and Dr. Robert Marshall, a radiologist and Vietnam veteran who wants to divide Illinois into three separate states—Chicago, Chicago suburbs and rest of the state.

The Cook Political Report has categorized the general election as a toss-up, while Inside Elections has it tilting towards Democrats.



Pennsylvania Special Election Recap

Conor Lamb

Democrat Conor Lamb has declared victory over Republican Rick Saccone in the special election for Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, held Tuesday, March 13th. Less than 600 votes separate the two candidates in a race where more than 227,000 votes were cast. Saccone has not yet ceded the race, while absentee ballots continue to trickle in.

Republican Party officials have already said they will request a recount. They’ve also sought to impound all voting machines citing voter irregularities.

Pennsylvania_Rick Saccone
Rick Saccone

This special election—like others before—was billed as a litmus test for the GOP ahead of the 2018 midterms in November. The district, which encompasses part of Pittsburgh’s suburbs and stretches into rural southwestern Pennsylvania, supported President Donald Trump by 20 points in the 2016 election. Registered Democrats have a large presence, but the district was considered safely Republican for more than a decade. Republican congressman Tim Murphy held the seat since 2003, until allegations surfaced of an extramarital affair and texts urging his mistress to have an abortion appeared in the media. Murphy resigned from office in October 2017.

Lamb, a 33-year-old former Marine and U.S. Attorney, campaigned as a moderate Democrat who supported gun rights and promised to protect social safety nets. Throughout his campaign, Lamb said he wouldn’t support Nancy Pelosi to lead House Democrats, while promising to back the President when it benefited the district. As a state representative, Saccone ran as a staunch supporter of the Trump agenda. The former Air Force officer had become known in the region for his firebrand conservatism.

Lamb outspent Saccone by nearly a five-to-one margin. According to pre-special election FEC filings, Lamb spent $3.1 million while Saccone doled out roughly $615,000.  Outside groups spent more than $13 million, with more than 80 percent supporting Saccone.

A new court-ordered congressional map will eliminate the 18th district in November. As a result, Saccone and Lamb could run again in separate districts during the 2018 midterms.

DMGS will continue to monitor this and provide updates as they develop.

State Budget Showdown

By Danny Restivo and Brett Goldman (posted 7/10/17)

As the fiscal year ends on June 30th, nearly all 50 state governments across the United States (with the exception of Vermont) are required to maintain a balanced budged whether by statue/law, constitutional amendment, or judicial decision. From state to state, the requirements vary from the simple introduction of a budget, to a balanced budget, to budgets that are based off of the available cash on hand by the state.

There are three general kinds of state balanced budget requirements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures:

  • The governor’s proposed budget must be balanced (43 states and Puerto Rico).
  • The legislature must pass a balanced budget (39 states and Puerto Rico).
  • The budget must be balanced at the end of a fiscal year or biennium, so that no deficit can be carried forward (37 states and Puerto Rico).

Unfortunately, 2017 has seen a situation where 11 states did not pass their budgets by the June 30th deadline. In some states, such as New Jersey or Rhode Island, political differences between legislators created a budget impasse; whereas in other states, such as Illinois, budgets have not been passed in nearly three years. We have compiled a breakdown of states that saw budget impasses in 2017. Please note that some of these are still undergoing budget negotiations and as such the situation may evolve.

New Jersey- (Status: Resolved)

On Monday, July 3rd, Governor Chris Christie signed a $34.7 billion budget ending a three-day government shutdown that sparked a backlash against the governor.

While the publicity focused on Christie’s Sunday trip to the beach, the shutdown stemmed from a plan to restrict the state’s largest health insurance provider, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey. Christie had approved of the Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate’s other appropriations, including $325 million in additional funding from Christie’s proposed budget from February, which include $150 million in additional school funding. However, he wanted lawmakers to sign off on a bill capping Horizon’s reserves, while using the excess funding to pay for drug treatment and other care for the poor and uninsured. In the insurance industry, reserves are often called risked-based capital, which helps hedge against unexpected healthcare payouts.

Essentially, Christie wanted to cap Horizon’s reserves, and giving an estimated $300 million for the expansion of drug treatment programs. He also wanted to give the assembly the control to appoint two members to Horizon’s 15-member board. Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson) pushed back against Christie’s plan, calling it “extortion” as Horizon initially had nothing to do with the state’s budget.  As a result, Christie pledged to line-item veto democratic-backed spending if lawmakers didn’t pass the Horizon cap. Meanwhile, Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D. Gloucester) posted S4 (the “Horizon Bill”) to the Senate’s June 29th schedule, where it was passed. Speaker Prieto, however, refused to post S4 to the Assembly schedule and instead posted the budget (A5000) for a vote. The vote on A5000 became deadlocked, and Speaker Prieto refused to remove the bill resulting in the state-government shutting down.

Legislators worked through the holiday weekend to come to a resolution on the Horizon Bill and budget impasse. On Monday, July 3rd, Speaker Prieto, Senate President Sweeney, and Governor Christie emerged with a resolution and the state government reopened for business as usual.

The following is an excerpt that was sent to our NJ clients regarding the resolution of the shutdown:

“Part of this Budget compromise is contingent on a new Horizon bill— (S2) —that will address issues that were raised with S4. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of NJ executives spent the weekend meeting with Speaker Prieto, Senate President Sweeney, and other legislators. Following tonight [July 3rd)’s budget vote on A5000, the Assembly then voted on S2, which resolved many of the issues with S4 including:

  • ​Establishing an appropriate range of reserves for Horizon, requiring a minimum of 550% of risk-based capital reserves and a hard cap maximum of 725%, sufficient to cover claims for all of its policy holders in the event of a catastrophic medical emergency such as hurricane Sandy, when regular premium payments from policy holders were delayed;
  • Requiring the state department of Banking and Insurance (DOBI) to commission independent annual audits to determine Horizon’s reserve level, which would be paid for by Horizon;
  • Creating a process for Horizon to submit a plan to DOBI to determine how excess reserves above the 725% level should be used to reduce future policy holder premiums or otherwise benefit policyholders.
  • Requiring the appointment of two additional public members with a background in healthcare, finance, or insurance to the horizon board—one each by the senate president and speaker—bringing the total board membership to 17, including 11 members currently appointed by Horizon and four by the Governor;
  • Requiring DOBI to establish requirements for health services corporations to provide detailed financial reporting information, including executive compensation, and to post this information on the department website.
  • Removing “insurer of last resort” language.”

 Pennsylvania- (Status: In Progress)

On June 30th, the Pennsylvania State Legislature approved a $31.99 billion budget for the 2017-2018 year. While the budget received bipartisan support, lawmakers have yet to agree on a funding package and remain in negations at the time of publication.

The bill awaits Governor Tom Wolf’s (D.) signature until lawmakers can solve a $2 billion deficit. If the Governor does not veto the bill, it will automatically become law without his signature. In 2016, Wolf vetoed the legislature’s budget, but the government kept spending money. As a result, schools, counties, and nonprofits began taking out loans to stay afloat, and not until local governments threatened to withhold taxes and schools said they would remain closed after the holiday break did lawmakers finally approve a budget.

This year, lawmakers have debated several options for funding the deficit, including borrowing up to $1.5 billion against future revenues from a 1998 multistate settlement with tobacco companies. While Wolf and Senate Republicans have supported the idea, House Republicans have opposed it adamantly. House Republicans have suggested leveraging 40,000 video gaming terminals at bars, taverns and other establishments for more tax revenue. Senate Republicans have pushed back, saying it will cut into casinos which already contribute a large sum to government coffers. Some Democrats have lobbied for a tax on Marcellus shale drilling, but the Republican majority has strongly refused to bring tax increases to a floor vote. Other options include expanding privatized liquor operations while reassessing the sales tax on purchases of alcoholic drinks. Senate President Joe Scarnati, (R. Jefferson) has said he’s working on legislation to expand casino gambling in the state, but few details have emerged.

The 2017-2018 proposed budget is roughly 1.6 percent higher than the $31.5 billion budget in 2016-2017. Unfortunately, the budget faced a $1.1 billion shortfall in 2016 due to an underestimation of human services and corrections needs. The budget became law without Wolf’s signature when lawmakers delivered a $1.3 billion package in additional funding centered on cigarette tax increases.

As of publication, the House and Senate were in session over the weekend to move various pieces of legislation needed to complete the budget process.  Both the House and Senate returned on Monday, July 10th at 11:00 a.m. for another long day of negations.

Other states with Budget Impasses

Connecticut (Status: Unresolved)

Democratic Governor Daniel Malloy took executive control of the state’s finances on June 30 after lawmakers failed to agree on a budget. Despite having one of the highest per capita incomes in the country, the nutmeg state could run a $2.3 billion deficit in 2017-2018, roughly 12 percent of the state’s budget. Lawmakers haven’t submitted a budget to Malloy who has requested a three-month provisional budget that includes cuts and modest tax hikes. Democrats have a 79-72 edge over Republicans in the House.

As Connecticut moves into day 10 of its budget crisis, state parks, beaches, campgrounds, and museums are beginning to feel the pinch.  Statements from Governor Malloy’s office indicate that a resolution may be found by the July 18th session of the legislature, but a path forward remains to be seen.

Delaware (Status: Resolved)

Budget gridlock had lasted for months over issues including a Democratic push to raise

the personal income tax and disagreement over changes to the prevailing wage for state construction projects. As a result, the Delaware legislature missed its June 30th budget deadline for the first time in decades. Spending the weekend hunkered down in the state house, legislators reached a deal that included a new spending plan on July 2nd. The budget restores cut funding to nonprofits, public health programs and schools, and raises taxes on real estate transfers, tobacco and alcohol. Gov. John Carney (D) signed the budget early on Monday July 3rd.

Illinois (Status: Resolved)

 The Democratic-controlled House overrode Republican Governor Bruce Rauner’s veto and implemented a $36 billion budget for 2018, which includes $5 billion in tax increases. The Democratic-controlled Senate sent the bill to Rauner on Tuesday. The Governor vetoed the bill before the Senate quickly overruled him. The bill then moved to the House where Democrats overrode the Rauner’s veto. With a $6.2 billion annual deficit and $14.7 billion in overdue bills, credit-rating houses have threatened to downgrade Illinois’s credit rating to junk. Meanwhile, the United Way has predicted the demise of 36 percent of Human services agencies within the state.

Massachusetts (Status: Resolved)

Slumping tax revenue has left the bay state with a $430 million hole. By July 6th, lawmakers said they had agreed upon a $40 billion budget but had not held a vote. The state approved an interim $5.2 million budget last month. Marijuana legalization remains a point of conflict among lawmakers. The Senate has proposed a 12-percent tax (which voters approved in November) while the state house has proposed increasing it to 28 percent.

On July 7th, both houses of the Massachusetts legislature approved the budget. The compromise trims spending by about $400 million to $500 million from spending plans previously approved by the House and Senate. It also takes other steps to account for a $733 million reduction in anticipated tax revenues for the 2018 fiscal year that began July 1,

Oregon (Status: Resolved)

State lawmakers have passed multiple bills to keep the government operating, however, a couple items remain unfunded. Lawmakers have debated ways to best solve a $1.8 billion budget gap, which threatens hundreds of thousands of people on Medicaid and child welfare services. Governor Kate Brown (D) has pledged to rein in spending by instituting a hiring freeze for state employees, as well as taxing hospitals and insurance plans. One proposal introduced by lawmakers would cut $424 million over the next two years by halting automatic inflation increases in the budget while eliminating unfilled government jobs; however, legislators failed to find votes to reform Oregon’s tax system and public pension costs, leaving the toughest decisions to future sessions.

Rhode Island (Status: Unresolved)

The Rhode Island assembly ended abruptly on June 30th with the state’s $9.2 billion budget in limbo.

Senate President Dominick Ruggerio (D) and House Speaker Nichoas Mattiello (D) aren’t on speaking terms and Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) says she has been in touch with both but isn’t getting into the middle of the rupture or offering to mediate it. While there be no state “government shutdown” due to a 2004 provision whereby the state operates on the previous year’s budget, tensions remain high. Most state beaches, parks and government agencies—including law enforcement—will remain open until a resolution is reached. According to a memo, state budget officials will meet with individual department leaders to help balance their books and find an additional $25 million in unspecified cuts called for in the proposed budget. However, hiring and staffing of agencies will not be impacted, assuming a budget is passed in the coming months.

Wisconsin (Status: Unresolved)

 After missing a June 30 deadline to pass a budget, Wisconsin lawmakers remain committed to approving a smaller budget. Republican lawmakers control the legislative and executive branch. They have asked for a smaller budget that increases support for rural school districts without raising taxes. Lawmakers have also struggled to reach a deal on how to plug a $1 billion transportation hole. Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker (R) asked lawmakers for $500 million for road construction over the next two years. He later dropped that request to $300 million. In an effort to assuage lawmakers leery of transportation costs, Governor Scott walker released a proposal on July 6, which tapped federal spending to subsidize construction costs. Walker believes federal aid will allow the state to borrow an additional $300 million for the projects.


Danny Restivo and Brett Goldman Contributed to This Report

Net Neutrality 2017: The Battle Continues…

By Danny Restivo (posted 7/6/17)

On July 12, 2017, a number of website landing pages will display “blocked,” “please upgrade,” or “paying customers only” banners. Fortunately for active users, the banners will only last 24 hours. These protest banners (example below) will be part of The Day of Action”, which is supported by the likes of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, GitHub, Reddit, OKCupid, Etsy, and a broad coalition of tech, media/social media, e-commerce, and other companies that peg their livelihood to the internet. The campaign aims to raise awareness regarding the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s proposed plan to roll back net neutrality measures later this summer.

Just two years ago, the FCC classified internet service providers as carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The decision forced ISPs to face regulatory measures like public utilities, while ensuring all ISPs treat content equally. Under President Donald Trump’s guidance, the FCC has targeted the regulation, drawing a number of large companies into a fray that may decide how online audiences view content.

The FCC’s net neutrality establishes three rules:

  1. Broadband providers can’t block access to legal content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
  2. ISP’s can’t impair or reduce lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
  3. They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—no paid prioritization or fast lanes.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too tom_wheeler_fccimportant to be left without rules and without referees on the field,” said Tom Wheeler, the former chair of the Federal Communications Commission, following the FCC’s 3-2 vote in favor of Net Neutrality in 2015. “Today is a red-letter day for Internet freedom, for consumers who want to use the Internet on their terms, for innovators who want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers.”

Since its implementation, the vote has drawn the ire of internet companies such as AT&T, Comcast, Oracle and Verizon. These industry leaders have cited government overreach, as well as limits to free speech and free market principles. Because net neutrality designates ISPs as “common carriers,” such as telephone companies, they are open to a host of other government regulations.

GOP leadership blasted the FCC ruling on similar grounds after it was approved in 2015.

“Overzealous government bureaucrats should keep their hands off the Internet,” Former House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (Ohio-R) said in a statement after the ruling. “More mandates and regulations on American innovation and entrepreneurship are not the answer, and that’s why Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme.”

Image result for net neutrality

Cable companies spent $44 million in lobbying efforts (including other issues besides net neutrality) during the 2015 showdown. Meanwhile, neutrality proponents like Amazon, Facebook and Alphabet Inc (formerly Google), paid $35 million in lobbying efforts that year.

Following his inauguration in January 2017, Trump enlisted the help of three net neutrality opponents to assist his FCC transition from Democratic to Republican control. On January 23, Trump appointed Ajit V. Pai to Chairman of the FCC. The former attorney for Verizon was one of two Republican votes against the 2015 decisions (Pai and Michael O’Rielly were the lone dissenters in the commission’s ruling).

Shortly after the transition, Congress overturned Obama-era internet privacy protections—a Republican bill removed regulations requiring individual permission before ISP’s could sell users data. Only a few days later, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced the President’s goals for reversing net neutrality during a March 30 press briefing. A month later, Pai unveiled plans to loosen government oversight of the internet during a speech at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

“Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake,” said Pai. “It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”

On May 18, the FCC voted 2-1 in favor of moving forward with rolling back the Obama administration’s Net Neutrality regulation. “The Restoring Internet Freedom Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” does not include specific details on how the FCC will remove Net Neutrality regulations, however the proposal does allow for a 90-day public comment period. The FCC will stop receiving comments on July 18, but will allow a second 30-day commenting period for replies ending on August 18.

The FCC’s proposal includes three key tenants.

  1. Removes Title II classification from ISP’s
  2. Returns classification of mobile broadband internet carriers to private mobile service
  3. Eliminates “the catch all internet conduct standard created by the Title II order”

Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat who previously voted for net neutrality, remained the lone dissenter during the May 18 vote.

“If you unequivocally trust that your broadband provider will always put the public interest over self-interest or the interest of their stockholders, then the ‘Destroying Internet Freedom’ [proposal] is for you,” she said after the vote.

Since FCC announced its proposal, the President has tapped two more members to serve on the commission. On June 14, Trump nominated Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel, who previously served as commissioner until her term ended in 2016. Two weeks later, Trump nominated Republican Brenda Carr, a former FCC aide to chairman Pai.  Carr’s selection solidifies a 5-person commission. According to the rules, no more than three members of the commission may be of the same political party; if both Carr and Rosenworcel are confirmed, Republicans would have a 3-2 majority.

In conjunction with the commission’s plan, Sen. Mike Lee (Utah-R) introduced S. 993: “the Restoring Internet Freedom Act “in early May. With nine other cosponsors, the proposed legislation would prohibit the FCC from classifying Internet Service Providers as Title II carriers ever again. The bill—Lee introduced an identical version nearly a year ago—would require legislative action to implement net neutrality in the future. The bill has been referred to the committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Lee, along with Senate cosponsors Ted Cruz (Texas-R) and Ron Johnson (Wisc.-R), penned an opinion piece about internet freedom in the Washington Post on May 4.

“We reject the idea that the federal government should control the Internet. That’s why we have introduced the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which will complement Pai’s efforts to repeal the 2015 Internet takeover by preventing the FCC from issuing any similar regulations in the future.”

Meanwhile, 13 Democratic Senators signed a letter supporting the FCC’s Net Neutrality rules which was published in Tech Crunch on May 17.

“By proposing to take away the existing net neutrality protections, President Trump’s FCC is threatening to take away your ability to have free and open use of the internet. This proposal will have profound impacts on the way all of us watch movies, listen to music, do homework, talk to family, consult with a doctor, pay bills, and conduct business. Taking away these rules benefits no one except cable, telephone, and wireless broadband companies.”

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix and other internet giants, released a white paper titled “Principles to Preserve and Protect an Open Internet” on June 21.  The paper outlined the “substance of the underlying rules” behind the FCC’s Net Neutrality. The paper contains “six principles and policies for preserving a free and open internet by which all proposals and potential changes to the rules will be judged.”

Principles to Preserve and Protect and Open Internet:

  1. Net neutrality rules preserve the success of the internet in driving economic growth.
  2. The FCC’s 2015 rules are working and the entire broadband internet ecosystem is thriving.
  3. Forecasting rules remain necessary to preserve and protect an open internet.
  4. Specific net neutrality rules are needed to preserve an open internet. These rules include: no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, no unreasonable interference or disadvantaging of content by ISPs, and transparency and disclosure requirements.
  5. Open internet protections should apply to broadband internet access providers on a platform-neutral basis.
  6. Strong and effective enforcement by the FCC of net neutrality rules is critical to ensuring that the benefits of the rules are realized.

The paper also states, “a free and open internet remains vital to preserving and protecting the virtuous circle of broadband innovation that benefits edge-based innovators and entrepreneurs, businesses, ISPs, and, above all, consumers.”

It also said, “undoing the existing light touch rules will create uncertainty among edge providers, innovators, and consumers, and would threaten to unravel the most dynamic segment of our economy. Instead, policymakers should seek to preserve the current rules and ensure that they remain on a firm legal footing.”

In addition to large companies supporting net neutrality, more than 800 startups, innovators, entrepreneurs and investors from all 50 states sent a letter to Pai and the FCC.

“Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the Internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market,” the letter reads. “They could impede traffic from our services in order to favor their own services or established competitors. Or they could impose new tolls on us, inhibiting consumer choice…Our companies should be able to compete with incumbents on the quality of our products and services, not our capacity to pay tolls to Internet access providers.”

If net neutrality gets abolished, companies like Verizon, Comcast, Oracle and AT&T have said they can now reinvestment on infrastructure and broadband technology in communities throughout the United States.

“We also support Chairman Pai’s proposal to roll back Title II utility regulation on broadband,” Kathy Grillo, Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, public policy and government affairs, said in a statement released on April 26. “Title II (or public utility regulation) is the wrong way to ensure net neutrality; it undermines investment, reduces jobs and stifles innovative new services. And by locking in current practices and players, it actually discourages the increased competition consumers are demanding.”

AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson echoed Grillo’s comments.

“AT&T continues to support the fundamental tenets of net neutrality. And we remain committed to open internet protections that are fair and equal for everyone,” he said. “The bipartisan, light-touch regulatory approach that Congress established at the internet’s inception brought American consumers unparalleled investment in broadband infrastructure, created jobs and fueled economic growth. It was illogical for the FCC in 2015 to abandon that light-touch approach and instead regulate the internet under an 80-year-old law designed to set rates for the rotary-dial-telephone era.”

While many Silicon Valley tech companies have voice opposition to the FCC plan, the multinational computer corporation Oracle has levied support. In a letter sent to the FCC in early May, Oracle said “the stifling open internet regulations and broadband classification that the FCC put in place in 2015 – for just one aspect of the internet ecosystem – threw out both the technological consensus and the certainty needed for jobs and investment.”

Image result for federal communications commission 2017

Whether or not Pai and the FCC cement their proposal, the Net Neutrality rules will remain in effect through 2018.

Members of the public have until July 17 to comment on the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding. Reply comments will then be due on August 16, unless the FCC extends the process. After that, a final FCC decision on the net neutrality rollback could take several more months.

DMGS will continue to monitor this and provide updates as it develops.

Brett Goldman edited this report.

“Ni de droite ni de gauche”: A Primer on the French Legislative Election

By: Emily Beiser (Posted 6/21/17)

La République En Marche, the party of the newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron, won 306 of 577 seats in the National Assembly (lower house) on Sunday, June 18th, 2017, giving it a majority of 53%. En Marche, or On the Move, in English, was only founded as a social-movement-cum-election-campaign last April and officially declared a party upon the election of President Macron (who shares his initials—E.M.—with that of the party) this May. En Marche’s win in this election has come at the downfall of the parties which historically held the majority: Le Parti Socialiste on the left, and Les Républicains, on the right. An estimate by the French Newspaper Le Monde suggests just 148 of the representatives (called deputies) elected in 2012 were reelected this year, making this not only an assembly of a new party, but also an assembly of freshmen deputies – three quarters of the assembly.


What do the results of this legislative election mean for France?

First, we must understand how French elections work. The French term, called the quinquennat, lasts five years. The presidential and legislative terms overlap nearly perfectly, save the six weeks between the presidential election and the legislative election.  Each election is two rounds; the first round requires a majority to win. If no candidate has the majority, which is generally the case, the two candidates with the most votes face off a week later in a second vote. This presidential election cycle was divisive: with each of the top four presidential candidates getting between 19% and 25% of the vote in the first round, though Macron won with a hefty 66% in the second round against the far-right Marine Le Pen. The legislative elections which followed six weeks later showed En Marche’s prominence yet also had the lowest turnout of any legislative elections in the history of the 5th Republic, with just 42% of registered voters voting. By contrast, the previous election, in 2012, saw a 57% turnout rate. The low turnout, unusual for France, means many deputies won with approval from less than 30% of the registered voters.

President Macron claims that his party is “ni de droite, ni de gauche,” or “neither left nor right, but firmly centrist”.

Though a former head of economy for the socialist and deeply unpopular President Hollande, Macron’s economic policy is seen as leaning to the right due to his past work at an investment bank and his support of what he calls the “uberization” of the economy – namely, a flexible workforce which receives fewer protections. En Marche and Macron claim centrism due to leftist standings on social issues including “the family”, refugees, and gender equality. This support of gender equality is reflected in Macron’s choice of gender parity within the cabinet and in En Marche’s selection of legislative candidates, of which over 50% were women. While En Marche lost just 17 of the seats where they ran candidates, the French legislative assembly is at a record of 38% women, up from the previous assembly’s 26%.

The French left has seen a sharp reduction in deputies and a new leftist party, La France Insoumise (or Rebellious France), has proposed a new political system via a 6th Republic. Yet La France Insoumise only won 17 seats. The Parti Socialiste, the established left wing party of former President Hollande, won just 29 seats, making the election a devastating loss compared to the 258 won in 2012. This loss may be due in part to the extreme unpopularity of former President Hollande. Near the end of his time in office, a poll by Le Monde found just 4% of respondents were satisfied with his actions. A former member of cabinet for Hollande—though never a member of Le Parti Socialiste—President Macron retains support for parts of the fading party, endorsing another former Hollande cabinet member, Myriam El Khomri, in a legislative race in which En Marche had no candidate. En Marche’s majority suggests neither collaboration nor cohabitation will be necessary, but it remains to be seen how Macron will lead his new party.

On the right, Les Républicains, formerly known as L’Union pour un Mouvement Populaire in the 2012 election, won 113 seats, a decrease of 72 seats from 2012, despite scandal surrounding party leader François Fillon’s use of public money while Prime Minister. As the party with the second most seats in the Assembly, it remains a significant stronghold of the right. The far-right Front National has a high profile and power to move debate towards the right, especially after Marine Le Pen, the party leader, was in the second round of the presidential elections against Macron. It won just eight seats, but saw an increase compared to winning two seats in 2012.

En Marche’s majority in the National Assembly may not be paralleled by the Senate; just half of the Senate is up for election in September, and it is elected indirectly by officials, with a disproportionately strong rural vote. However, as the National Assembly is the more powerful of the houses in practice, a majority in the assembly solidifies President Macron’s power after a divisive Presidential election. Moreover, it concretes En Marche’s own viability. As the figurehead, father, and namesake for the party, Macron’s performance as president and party leader will be key in the future of the party during and after his tenure as leader.

Emily Beiser is a summer intern in DMGS’s Philadelphia office. She currently in a dual BA program at Sciences Po in France and Columbia University in NYC. 

Election Recap: GA-06 and SC-05 Special Elections, and the British Parliamentary Election

Over the past month there have been several high profile and very hotly contested special elections in the United States, including in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District and in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District. Each one of these races filled a void left by a Trump cabinet appointee and saw record amounts of money being spent. In addition, earlier in June, the British Parliament held a snap Parliamentary election, that could be the sign of more political instability in the UK following last summer’s Brexit vote. We have compiled a breakdown and analysis of each of these races below.

Georgia’s 6th Congressional District 

Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff to win Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District during the culmination of a hotly contested special election on Tuesday June 20th. Billed as a referendum on President Donald J. Trump, the highly visible race became the most expensive congressional election in United States history, attracting approximately $60 million, according to Issue One, a nonpartisan advocacy group. That money includes funding for the April 18 special election, as well as the June 20 runoff. Outside groups spent more than $27 million on the election, with pro-Handel organizations spending roughly 2.5 times more than pro-Ossoff groups.

With 52 percent of the vote, Handel fills a seat vacated by former Rep. Tom Price, who now serves as the Health and Human Services Secretary in the Trump administration. Handel’s win makes her the first Republican congresswoman in Georgia history. Similarly, she was the first Republican Secretary of State elected in Georgia after a victory in 2006. In 2010, she narrowly lost the GOP gubernatorial nomination before becoming the Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. However, she resigned in 2012 after the organization reversed a plan to cut ties with Planned Parenthood. After a failed senate bid in 2014, Handel announced her candidacy for the sixth district’s seat in February 2017. Before Tuesday’s runoff, Handel and Ossoff competed in a special election on April 18. Both failed to grab a majority of the vote. Ossoff, who was one of five Democrats received 48 percent, while Handel was one of eleven Republicans and only garnered 18 percent.

Their respective performances set the stage for a heavily funded race that attracted an intense level of national media.

With $23.9 million spent on both the special election and the runoff, Ossoff came within 10,000 votes of claiming a reliably Republican district located in the Northern Atlanta suburbs. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich held the seat from 1979 to 1999, while Price consistently won the district with more than 60 percent of the vote since his initial victory in 2004. However, Trump only won the district by two points in November–the same margin of victory for Handel. GOP ads attacking Ossoff hammered the former congressional aide and documentary filmmaker for a lack of experience and living outside the district. The ads also focused on funding he received from west coast donors.

Handel will likely face another intense challenge during the 2018 midterm elections.

South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District

Republican Ralph Norman defeated Democrat Archie Parnell in another special election Tuesday night. Norman fills a seat vacated by current White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. While Northam won the reliable conservative district 52 to 48 percent, it pales compared to Mulvaney’s 21-point victory in November. Moreover, Trump won the district by 18 points.

Norman has served as a hardline conservative in the state legislature since 2009, and has already promised to join the House Freedom Caucus. Parnell, a former Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil employee, saw the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pour $300,000 into his race, while the Georgia contest received $5 million. The National Republican Congressional Committee spent less than DCCC in South Carolina, while pouring more than $6.7 million into Handel’s race.

The British Election of June 2017

On June 8th, 2017, each of the United Kingdom’s 650 Parliamentary constituencies elected new Members of Parliament (MPs) to the British House of Commons.  Under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011, an election was not scheduled to be called until at May 7th, 2020, however on April 19th, 2017, Prime Miniser Theresa May called for snap elections in the wake of growing discontent.

Although Prime Minister May’s Conservative party had been approximately 20 points ahead in the polls of the Labour party, what had occurred was anything but, and resulted in what has been described as one of the most dramatic collapses in British political history. In a surprising result, the Conservatives received a net loss of 13 seats, with 42.4% of the vote, while Labour received a net gain of 30 seats, with a 40.0% of the vote.

UK election 2017.PNGThis was the closest result between the two main parties since February 1974, and the highest percentage of the vote for an opposition party since 1970. Although the Prime Minister May was invited by the Queen to form a Government, it is currently unclear how long she will retain power, given the overwhelming numbers the Labour opposition government has seen. With rising unrest over social issues, international issues, and of course, the backlash over last year’s Brexit vote, Theresa May’s time as prime minister may in fact be short lived.

Danny Restivo and Brett Goldman Contributed to This Report. Posted 6/21/17