Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) released key takeaways from Chief Judge Beryl Howell’s favorable court ruling which ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over redacted 6(e) grand jury material from Special Counsel Mueller’s report to the House Judiciary Committee by October 30, 2019.
The House Judiciary Committee petitioned the court in July for access to grand jury materials redacted from the Mueller Report and obtained by the Special Counsel’s office. The Committee argued that because it seeks these materials in connection with the House’s impeachment inquiry, it is entitled to them under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)’s exception allowing disclosures “preliminary to . . . a judicial proceeding.” The Judiciary Committee also informed the court that it would share any grand jury materials it receives with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), given HPSCI’s areas of expertise and its own investigative interests in the materials.
The Chairmen released the following statements on the ruling:
Chairman Nadler said, “I am gratified that the federal district court has ordered that the Special Counsel’s grand jury information must be turned over to the House’s impeachment inquiry. The court’s thoughtful ruling recognizes that our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution and thoroughly rejects the spurious White House claims to the contrary. This grand jury information that the Administration has tried to block the House from seeing will be critical to our work.”
Chairman Schiff said, “Today, a federal judge ruled that as a part of the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry, the Trump Administration was required to disclose grand jury material underlying Mueller’s report. Indeed, as Judge Howell noted, the White House’s blanket refusal to accommodate the demands of a coequal branch of government, weighs heavily in favor of Congress’s right to the information needed to conduct oversight and the impeachment inquiry. The stonewall continues to crumble.”
Key Takeaways from Chief Judge Howell’s Ruling Granting Access to Grand Jury Materials
Holding: The court ruled for the House Judiciary Committee on every issue presented. It ordered prompt relief: DOJ is required to provide the Committee with “all portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e) and any underlying transcripts or exhibits” referred to in those portions of the Report by October 30.
- First, the court held that a Senate trial is clearly a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of Rule 6(e). It rejected DOJ’s contrary arguments, which it described as “in service of the obvious goal of blocking Congress from accessing grand jury material for any purpose.” The court’s decision was based on an extensive discussion about the purpose and meaning of impeachment as envisioned by the Founders.
- Second, the court held that the House’s impeachment inquiry is “preliminary to” an impeachment trial. It rejected all of the arguments the Trump Administration and the Republican Minority have raised against the legitimacy of the House’s impeachment proceedings.
- The court made clear that “a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry.” It said the notion that a full vote is required has “no textual support in the U.S. Constitution [or] the governing rules of the House.”
- Third, the court held that the Judiciary Committee demonstrated a “compelling need” for access to the grand jury materials. It described particular portions of the Mueller Report redacted under Rule 6(e) that the Judiciary Committee has an obvious interest in reviewing—such as information that could reveal whether President Trump sought or obtained advance knowledge of WikiLeaks’s email disclosures.
- More broadly, the court made clear that the House has a compelling interest in reaching its own judgments about the President’s conduct described in the Mueller Report—especially given the fact that DOJ policy prevented Special Counsel Mueller from pursuing charges. The court agreed with the Committee that “the House alone can hold the president accountable” for his misconduct.
- The court observed that Special Counsel Mueller himself “signaled his view that Congress, as the federal branch of government tasked with presidential impeachment duty under the U.S. Constitution, was the appropriate body to resume where the Special Counsel left off.” The court stated that “Complete information about the evidence the Special Counsel gathered, from whom, and in what setting is indispensable to” the Committee.
- Finally, the court soundly rejected the Administration’s argument that other types of evidence could be adequate substitutes. The court stated that DOJ’s claim that it had agreed to produce FBI interview reports to the Committee “smack[s] of farce. The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information.”
- The court held that the “White House’s stated policy of non-cooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure. Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a President is heightened when the Executive Branch willfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”
The court ordered DOJ to produce (1) all of the grand jury material redacted in the Mueller Report and (2) all grand jury transcripts and exhibits referred to in the Mueller Report by October 30. It noted there could be limited exceptions if disclosure could harm ongoing law enforcement matters.
As envisioned in the Judiciary Committee’s rules for handling grand jury materials, the Committee anticipates working closely with HPSCI to review materials produced by DOJ.
Washington, D.C.- Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to hold the 2020 G7 Summit at Trump National Doral Miami, a potential violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses:
“The Administration’s announcement that President Trump’s Doral Miami resort will be the site of the next G7 summit is among the most brazen examples yet of the President’s corruption. He is exploiting his office and making official U.S. government decisions for his personal financial gain. The Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution exist to prevent exactly this kind of corruption. The Committee will continue investigating, litigating and legislating regarding these matters—including pressing for answers to our prior requests about the G7 selection process—but we will not allow this latest abuse of power to distract from Congress’ efforts to get to the bottom of the President’s interference in the 2020 election.”
Background: On September 6, 2019, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House Committee on the Judiciary sent a series of letters requesting documents and other information regarding multiple efforts by the President, Vice President, and other Trump Administration officials to spend taxpayer funds at properties owned by the President in potential violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses.
Chairman Nadler and Rep. Steve Cohen, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, sent a letter to the White House Counsel and Secret Service seeking information about President Trump’s recent promotion and solicitation of foreign and U.S. government business at Trump properties—including pushing the Trump National Doral Miami as the next venue to host the G7 Summit.
DALLAS, Texas—Texas Senator Royce West released the following statement today regarding the death of Baltimore Congressman, and Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee Elijah E. Cummings:
“Today, America has lost an irreplaceable leader, who was a beacon of integrity in a place where integrity is hard to come by. Congressman Cummings is a model for how to serve with dignity, commitment, and an unwavering dedication to justice,” West said.
“I offer my sincerest condolences to the Congressman’s loved ones, colleagues, and his constituents—who for decades had a formidable champion working for them on the House floor. I mourn for the loss of Congressman Cummings and am grateful for mark he left on this nation.”
(USA Today)WASHINGTON – It has been nearly three weeks since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry on Sept. 24 into President Donald Trump’s pressuring of the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
House Democrats have escalated their inquiry, issuing subpoenas to several administration officials and associates of Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.
The White House has vowed not to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, calling it a “partisan” probe.
Despite the clashes between the legislative and executive branches, public opinion polling has shown noticeable shifts in attitudes towards impeachment, though every single poll has asked about impeachment differently.
Partisan divides still persist in every poll, with Democrats and Republicans splitting on the issue. Independents, however, have slowly started to support impeachment or impeachment proceedings.
As of Oct. 10, an average of impeachment polls calculated by FiveThirtyEight, a polling analysis website, shows 49.3% of respondents supporting impeachment and 43.5% not supporting it.
Here is what the individual polls say about impeachment, separated by each question.
Proposed rule would take food assistance away from more than 118,000 Wisconsinites
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is raising serious concerns about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed rule to eliminate categorical eligibility, which would take food assistance away from millions of families currently participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Senator Baldwin and 14 other Senate Democrats are urging the Trump administration to withdraw the proposal, citing the negative consequences of the rule and noting that the administration has not conducted an accurate analysis of its impact on children and families.
“This rule is yet another example of the Trump Administration ignoring Congressional intent and proposing a self-initiated, flawed rule that will take food assistance away from millions of Americans, disproportionately affecting children, seniors and working families,” write the Senators.
According to analysis by Mathematica, at least 3.6 million SNAP participants will lose SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed rule, including more than 118,000 Wisconsinites.
In the bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill, which passed by a historic bipartisan vote and was signed into law by the President, Congress deliberately chose to exclude any changes to categorical eligibility due to the devastating impact such changes could have on families. Additionally, the Senators raised concerns that the administration failed to conduct an accurate regulatory impact assessment. In a briefing to Congressional staff, the USDA acknowledged that, at a minimum, 500,000 children would lose access to school meals; however, these impacts, among others, are not included in the required analysis.
“Changes to broad-based categorical eligibility have been rejected countless times by Congress, on a bipartisan basis,” write the Senators. “Further, the regulatory impact assessment is seriously flawed, ignoring key impacts, particularly on children, that have been previously recognized by this Administration in budget proposals and the Congressional Budget Office when estimating the cost of bills that would change broad-based categorical eligibility.”
“We urge you to immediately withdraw this proposed rule,” write the Senators.
The letter is also signed by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Patty Murray (D-WA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tina Smith (D-MN), Bob Casey (D-PA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).
Dear Secretary Perdue:
We write to raise serious concerns about the Administration’s recent proposed rule “Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (84 FR 35570).” This rule is yet another example of the Trump Administration ignoring Congressional intent and proposing a self-initiated, flawed rule that will take food assistance away from millions of Americans, disproportionately affecting children, seniors and working families. Changes to broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) have been rejected countless times by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, most recently by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334), which passed Congress by a historic vote of 87-13 in the Senate and by 369-47 in the House of Representatives and signed into law by President Trump. Further, the regulatory impact assessment is seriously flawed, ignoring key impacts, particularly on children, that have been previously recognized by this Administration in budget proposals and the Congressional Budget Office when estimating the cost of bills that would change broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE).
The broad-based categorical eligibility option is currently being used by over 40 states in order to smooth the benefits cliff for working families, allow modest assets for emergencies and reduce the administrative and paperwork burden on individuals and state agencies. Contrary to assertions in the proposed rule, this policy is not the result of accidental expansion of state authority or variation in program implementation. Rather, BBCE is a well-established policy that has been utilized by nearly every state in the country for over two decades.
Both the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills contemplated changes to BBCE, but in both cases, Congress deliberately chose to exclude any changes due to the devastating impact on families. This was evident during debate on the final bills in both the House and Senate as numerous members remarked that the “conference agreement very specifically protects SNAP’s categorical eligibility” and that their yes vote was based on the conference report excluding limitations to BBCE and other harmful House provisions. The Conference report, written by Chairman Pat Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow, Chairman Mike Conaway and Ranking Member Collin Peterson and approved by the 369 members of the House and 87 members of the Senate was clear in its conclusions: The Conference substitute “deletes the House provision.” Thus, Congress considered, and rejected, changes to broad based categorical eligibility.
Not only has this Administration ignored the will of Congress by promulgating this rule, it has also abdicated its responsibility in producing an accurate regulatory impact assessment. Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 12866, and OMB Circular A-4 specifically require that “In addition to the direct benefits and costs of each alternative, the list should include any important ancillary benefits and countervailing risks…. A countervailing risk is an adverse economic, health, safety, or environmental consequence that results from a regulatory action and is not already accounted for in the direct cost of the action (e.g., adverse safety impacts from more stringent fuel-economy standards for light trucks). As with other benefits and costs, an effort should be made to quantify and monetize both ancillary benefits and countervailing risks.” Loss of school meal access is a widely recognized consequence of changes to BBCE. During debate related to the 2018 Farm Bill, CBO noted that the changes to BBCE proposed by House Republicans would result in over 265,000 children losing access to school meals. In its analysis of the President’s FY20 Budget proposal, CBO again noted that proposed BBCE changes would impact school breakfast and lunch. In presenting the details of this rule to Congressional staff, USDA admitted that, at a minimum, 500,000 children would lose access to school meals. Some students currently receiving free meals also would be switched to reduced price meals, increasing the likelihood that some students would accrue school meal debt. However, these impacts are noticeably absent from USDA’s regulatory impact analysis.
While the RIA is clearly lacking proper evaluation of some key impacts, we are also concerned about the detrimental impacts that USDA does acknowledge in its evaluation. According to analysis by Mathematica, at least 3.6 million SNAP participants will lose SNAP benefits as a result of this proposed rule. Some states would see as much as 18% of its SNAP households lose access to food assistance. The proposed rule would impose new paperwork burdens on 69% of current SNAP participants and increase churn, or eligibility individuals losing and regaining benefits in a short amount of time, by 26%, creating the risk that families in need will lose access to food because of paperwork errors or barriers. As USDA’s own research notes, “churn imposes costs both to participants and to State Agencies. For States, churn increases costs by requiring States to process additional applications” and “for households, costs include the loss of benefits they otherwise would have received as well as administrative burden associated with the recertification process.” This is one example of many that highlights that the costs, both human and administrative, far outweigh any benefit USDA claims.
This proposed rule would also have a disproportionate impact on our most vulnerable populations, including 13% of seniors currently receiving SNAP benefits. Governors and Mayors throughout the country have weighed in in opposition to this rule because of the $2.3 billion in increased administrative costs, negative impact on local economies and very real prospects of worsening hunger in local communities.
Even with the current BBCE policy in place, we know that SNAP maintains a rigorous benefits determination process. SNAP also has a long history of providing state options and flexibilities to allow states to address local circumstances like high housing costs and encourage earnings and savings to help families to move beyond the cycle of poverty.
The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 received more votes from Congress than any other Farm Bill in history. This law represents a bipartisan consensus directing food and farm policy for the next five years. The Administration’s justification for this proposed rule is tenuous at best, and is far outweighed by the very real negative
consequences this rule would impose on American families. This proposed rule is yet another example of this Administration’s attempt to circumvent the will of Congress and advance partisan policies that hurt American families.
We urge you to immediately withdraw this proposed rule.
Washington, D.C. — Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following floor statement in support of H.R. 1423, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (FAIR Act):
“I rise in strong support of H.R. 1423, the ‘Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act,’ or the ‘FAIR Act.’
“This critical legislation would restore access to justice for millions of Americans who are currently locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that is often skewed in the company’s favor over the individual.
“Nearly a century ago, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to allow merchants to resolve run-of-the-mill contract disputes in a system of private arbitration that would be legally enforceable. The system that Congress envisioned was to be used voluntarily and only between merchants of equal bargaining power.
“However, the Supreme Court over the past 40 years has issued a series of decisions that have expanded the use of arbitration far beyond Congress’s original intent or a fair reading of the text of the Arbitration Act—creating the unjust system we see today.
“Private arbitration has been transformed from a voluntary forum for companies to resolve commercial disputes into a legal nightmare for millions of consumers, employees, and others who are forced into arbitration and are unable to enforce certain fundamental rights in court.
“Many companies use forced arbitration as a tool to protect themselves from consumers and workers who seek to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. By burying a forced arbitration clause deep in the fine print of take-it-or-leave-it consumer and employment contracts, companies can evade the court system, where plaintiffs have far greater legal protections, and hide behind a one-sided process that is tilted in their favor.
“For example, arbitration generally limits discovery, does not adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, can prohibit class actions, which it almost always does, and deny the right of appeal. Worse yet, arbitration allows the proceedings—and often even the results—to stay secret, thereby permitting companies to avoid public scrutiny of potential misconduct.
“For millions of consumers and employees, the pre-condition—whether they know it or not—of obtaining a basic service or product, such as a bank account, a cell phone, a credit card, or even a job, is that they must agree to resolve any disputes in private arbitration.
“We used to refer to these as contracts of adhesion, where one party with all the power dictates the terms to the other party in a take-it-or-leave it contract. The next time you apply for a credit card, try crossing out the term in the fine print requiring you to agree to arbitration and see if you still get that credit card. You will be denied without a moment’s hesitation.
“These are classic contracts of adhesion, which were once clearly disfavored under the law, but which now seem to have been blessed by the Supreme Court as standard operating procedures in the corporate world.
“For individuals who have no choice but to agree to these contracts, that means that their ability to enforce civil rights, consumer, labor, and antitrust laws are subject to the whims of a private arbitrator—often selected by the companies themselves. These private arbitrators are not required to provide plaintiffs any of the fundamental protections guaranteed in the courts, and their further employment can depend on building a good reputation with the companies that hire them. Unsurprisingly, then, arbitration has become a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card many companies use to circumvent the basic rights of consumers and workers.
“H.R. 1423, the FAIR Act, reverses this disastrous trend by prohibiting the enforcement of forced arbitration clauses in consumer, labor, antitrust, and civil rights disputes. Importantly, this legislation does not preclude parties from agreeing to arbitrate a claim after the dispute arises, which will ensure that arbitration agreements are truly voluntary and transparent.
“It does, however, prevent unsuspecting consumers and employees from being forced to give up their right to seek justice in court.
“I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Compiled by MCJ Editorial Staff
Recalling the Milwaukee she knew growing up and the sense of unity and neighborhood that shaped her—and wants to reconnect to—state Sen. Lena Taylor announced her candidacy for mayor of the state’s largest city in 2020.
Making the announcement during a news conference in front of her Capitol Drive home as family, neighbors and supporters looked on, Taylor said Milwaukee is at a crossroads and cited what she sees is a lack of action on the part of the presumptive incumbent mayor, Tom Barrett.
Barrett has not officially announced if he plans to seek re-election.
During the news conference, the four-term Democratic senator recounted fondly her childhood in a Milwaukee which, today, is a far cry from her early years.
“I could play double-dutch on the block. We could play hide-and-go seek. We could run in the neighbor’s yard,” Taylor said. “We could get apples and pears off the trees—and we had birthday parties with each other. That’s the Milwaukee I know. That’s the Milwaukee that made me. That’s the Milwaukee that I demand.”
Taylor said she is a child of Milwaukee—and not unique in her childhood experiences. “I am the Milwaukee that I know. I’m not (Tom) Barrett’s Milwaukee. I am the Milwaukee that allowed me to grow up and have access to opportunity. I think every child should have access to opportunity.”
Taylor, 53 and an attorney, has been critical of the mayor on a variety of fronts, charging that he is “disconnected” from the voters on issues of race, job creation, concerns over police conduct, income inequality and issues at the city’s health department.
Born and raised in the city, Taylor was first elected to the state Assembly in a special election in 2003 and was elected to the state Senate the next year.
She ran against and lost to Scott Walker in the 2008 Milwaukee County Executive race. In that election, Taylor carried the city by 5,000 votes.
When Walker was elected governor, she was one of several Democratic senators who fled the state in an effort to block a vote on Act 10, Walker’s legislation that limited the power of public employee unions.
Taylor will join a growing list of candidates vying for the city’s top job. Among the announced candidates is city Ald. Tony Zielinski and Alderman and Common Council President Ashanti Hamilton. Though he hasn’t yet formally announced his intentions, Hamilton has filed papers to run for the position.
It’s not clear whether Taylor will abandon plans to seek re-election to the Senate in the fall of 2020.
Sources for this article: MJS, WITI Fox6News, Fox11online.com
MADISON, WI – The Wisconsin Legislative Black Caucus issued the following statement in support of the bill proposed to close the unlicensed gun seller loophole:
“Background checks are an efficient and effective way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them. They help reduce gun violence and promote gun safety. However, despite being settled as sound policy, they are still not required in all gun transactions. Online sellers, gun show vendors, and pawn shops are currently permitted to sell deadly weapons without any idea to whom they are selling – and it’s estimated that as many as 1 in 5 gun purchases occur this way.
“The Caucus fully backs this common sense gun legislation, and urges our Republican colleagues to close this loophole. In states that require background checks for all handgun sales, it’s estimated that there are 47% fewer women shot to death by intimate partners, 53% fewer law enforcement officers shot to death, and 48% lower rates of gun trafficking. Simply put, background checks work.
“Not only are they sound policy, background checks are almost universally supported: 81% of Wisconsinites support background checks, and so too do 78% of households that own guns. It is rare to see an issue that has this much public agreement. Maybe it’s because they keep our communities and families safer – since 1998, the background check system currently in place has blocked more than 2.5 million attempted purchases by people who are prohibited from buying guns. That’s at least 2.5 million fewer guns on our streets, a number that would only increase by closing this loophole.”
Milwaukee makes history as the first city in America ever to create an official “Hip-Hop Week” focusing on the power of Hip-Hop to help transform urban communities
MILWAUKEE, WI – Since the 1982 release of “The Message” by Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five, Hip-Hop has been a powerful voice for the voiceless within urban communities. Hip-Hop represents and narrates the stories of those who have been crushed by the war on drugs, police brutality, subpar education, and economic hardship. Today, there are tens of millions of voting Hip-Hop fans of every race, gender and ethnicity between the ages of 18-55, an age cohort that will represent more than 60% of the electorate in 2020.
“Hip-Hop Week MKE” visionary Alderman Khalif J. Rainey has partnered with Dave Mays, the creator of The Source Magazine, in an effort to take voter outreach a step further by presenting “Hip-Hop Goes To The Polls”with legendary rapper Brad “Scarface” Jordan, who is the first major Hip-Hop artist ever to run for public office (City Council District D in Houston, TX), and Wisconsin Lt. Governor Mandela Barnes. The event will center around the importance of political involvement in the Hip-Hop community. The event will be held on August 23rd, from 1 pm to 3 pm at the Wisconsin Black Historical Society, 2620 W. Center Street.
“Hip-Hop is the most dominant music and most influential culture spanning three generations—Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z,” said Dave Mays. “This means that collectively the Hip-Hop community is the largest and most diverse voting demographic in America.”
“The Hip-Hop vote is a sleeping giant we are going to awaken and mobilize starting right here in Milwaukee with Hip-Hop Week MKE,” said Alderman Rainey. “With the formula and lineup of events we have put together, I believe we can ignite this important voting demographic, and empower and inspire Hip-Hop voters all over America.”
“Hip-Hop Week MKE”is the city of Milwaukee’s official week dedicated to celebrating a blend of old and new school Hip-Hop culture, taking place from August 19th – 25th. Special events include: “The Hip-Hop Museum Pop-Up Experience,”which features an exhibit of the world’s largest collection of Hip-Hop artifacts and memorabilia along with 3 nights of live music events—an opening night performance by the hottest new female rapper in the game, 24-year-old Megan Thee Stallion, a closing night show starring 33-year-old superstar Kevin Gates, and the “Hip Hop Legacy Awards Show & Concert”honoring legends including Scarface, Bun B, Mystikal,Devin The Dude, and Do Or Die, along with Milwaukee’s own Speechfrom Arrested Development,Coo Coo Caland others; “Healthy Bars: A Hip-Hop Conversation About Health & Fitness”hosted by Stic Manof Dead Prez; and “A Hip-Hop Seminar On Financial Literacy & Real Estate”organized by DJ Envy, co-host of the popular morning show“The Breakfast Club.” For more information please, visit https://www.hiphopweekmke.com/
ABOUT DAVE MAYS
Dave Mays is a media and branding entrepreneur and chief executive who has specialized in Hip-Hop music and its cultural impact over the past 30 years. Born and raised in Washington, DC, Mays founded The Sourcemagazine out of his Harvard dorm room in 1988 as a single-page newsletter. In the 1990s,The Sourcegrew into the #1 selling music magazine on newsstands in the world, and was famously dubbed the “Bible of Hip-Hop” by Public Enemy’s Chuck D. Mays also created the first awards show dedicated to Hip-Hop, The Source Awards, which set rating records on both the UPN and BET television networks. Mays was the organizer of the first-ever Hip-Hop political summit in October 2000 with the Rev. Al Sharpton. In 2018, Mays created Dave Mays Media, a digital and experiential media, technology, consulting and business development firm based in Washington, DC, and Chicago. Mays co-founded The Hip-Hop Museum Pop-Up Experience in January 2019 and is a partner with the city of Milwaukee in creating and organizing Hip-Hop Week MKE 2019.
MADISON, WI – State Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and State Representative David Crowley (D-Milwaukee) released the following statement on requiring presidential candidates to release their federal tax returns:
“There has and continues to be a great deal of speculation among voters of all stripes about the current president’s financial dealings and the possible impact they could have on decisions he is making on behalf of the American people. That concern has only grown over time. I am deeply concerned that President Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns will encourage future candidates to follow suit. If that happens it could have an undermining effect on the Office of the President,” said Hansen.
“American citizens have the right to discern important financial information of those they are choosing to occupy the most powerful position in the world. The people deserve to know, with a high degree of confidence, that any decisions being made on their behalf are being done with their best interests in mind – not based on any hidden financial motives,” added Crowley.
LRB-1554 would mandate that any candidate seeking to have their name placed on the primary or general election ballot for president or vice president would be required to submit their tax returns for the three most recent years, prior to filing their candidacy with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Within 48 hours of receiving the tax returns, the Elections Commission will be required to post a candidate’s returns on its website. If enacted, the bill would go into effect for the 2020 presidential election.
“While there is a great deal of concern with the current lack of transparency with this president, our bill is aimed at addressing future concerns that could arise if presidential candidates continue to choose to withhold their tax returns from public view,” Hansen concluded.