Subject: H4 News Clips 7.16.15
From: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandria Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:17:48 -0400
List-Id: <HRCRapid.hillaryclinton.com>

*H4A News Clips*

*July 16, 2015*

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING NEWS*

CBS and ABC did not report on 2016 issues. NBC reported that Donald Trump
filed his FEC report; says it was “difficult” because, his campaign
reports, the forms are not meant for someone of his “massive wealth," and
that forms left many questions answered but stated in all caps that he’s
worth $10 billion. His campaign said Trump's income last year was $362
million, stock gains were over $27 million, and salary from 14 seasons of
‘The Apprentice’ was $213.6 million but released very little information on
assets or debt. Commentators say that he might actually be worth less than
he asserts.

*LAST NIGHT’S EVENING
NEWS........................................................................
**1*

*TODAY’S KEY
STORIES.....................................................................................
**8*

Hillary Clinton Reports Raising Almost $47 Million for Primary Campaign //
NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15,
2015.................................................................................................................................
8

Female donors help Hillary Clinton bring in $47.5 million in second quarter
// WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15,
2015......................................................................................................................................
9

*SOCIAL
MEDIA................................................................................................
**10*

Alex Moe (7/15/15, 1:03 PM) – INBOX: Speaker Boehner Calls for Hearings on
Grisly Abortion Practices, Says President Obama Should Denounce
Them.............................................................................
10

Ryan Lizza (7/15/15, 2:57 PM) – Curious why Obama doesn't take the HRC
approach to this issue: support the deal but pivot to very hawkish position
on Iran's meddling in ME........................................... 10

Nick Confessore (7/15/15, 4:42 PM) – Wow: Out of $15 million Bernie raised,
$11 million came from donors giving less than
$200............................................................................................................
10

Marco Rubio (7/15/15, 5:48 PM) – .@mav213 I will give Iran a choice: change
your behavior, or face the collapse of your economy due to U.S.
pressure........................................................................
11

*HRC NATIONAL
COVERAGE............................................................................
**11*

Hillary Clinton Lags in Engaging Grass-Roots Donors // NYT // Nicholas
Confessore and Maggie Haberman – July 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................
11

The fallacy of the ‘real Hillary Clinton’ // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15,
2015........................ 13

Democrats release now-abandoned hearing schedule for Benghazi committee //
WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15,
2015.........................................................................................................................
15

2016 Campaign Cash Flowing to Clinton and Bush // AP // July 16,
2015................................. 16

Hillary Clinton Spends $18 Million, Hires Hundreds // AP // Lisa Lerer and
Julie Bykowicz – July 15,
2015............................................................................................................................................
17

Hillary Clinton’s not-so-cheapskate campaign // Politico // Gabriel
Debenedetti and Annie Karni – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
19

Republican field walloping Clinton in money race // Politico // Daniel
Strauss – July 15, 2015. 21

Poll: Hillary Clinton’s lead shrinks among Democrats // Politico // Nick
Gass – July 15, 2015... 23

3 Charts That Show Why Hillary Clinton Wants to Increase Profit-Sharing //
Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15,
2015........................................................................................................................
24

Hillary Clinton Takes in $46.7 Million from 250,000 Donors // Bloomberg //
Jennifer Epstein – July 15,
2015............................................................................................................................................
24

Democratic House Members Accuse Benghazi Panel of Abandoning Duty //
Bloomberg // Billy House – July 15,
2015................................................................................................................................
27

Hillary Clinton Far Outpaces Democratic Rivals in Spending // TIME // Sam
Frizell - July 15, 2015             28

Warren pushes for return of Glass-Steagall after Clinton adviser said she
won’t back measure // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15,
2015...........................................................................................................
29

Clinton has spent 40% of campaign funds // CNN // Dan Merica – July 15,
2015...................... 31

Hillary Clinton video pushes pathway to citizenship // CNN // Tanzina Vega
– July 15, 2015... 32

Hillary Clinton campaign’s ‘highest priority’: Getting email addresses //
CNN // Dan Merica – July 15,
2015............................................................................................................................................
33

Clinton campaign rebuilds from a digital meltdown // LA Times // Michael A.
Memoli – July 16, 2015       35

Hillary Clinton's campaign raised nearly $47 million in first quarter //
CBS // Julianna Goldman and Steve Chaggaris – July 15,
2015......................................................................................................
37

Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of Obama’s Iran deal // CBS // Stephanie
Condon – July 15, 2015            38

Is Hillary Clinton all talk, no substance on climate policy? // MSNBC //
Tony Dokoupil – July 15, 2015      39

Hillary Clinton Releases Campaign Fundraising Report // MSNBC // Alex
Seitz-Wald - July 16 2015           41

Women open wallets for Hillary Clinton // MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July
15, 2015............. 42

Hillary Clinton enjoys a warm welcome in Washington // MSNBC // Alex
Seitz-Wald – July 14, 2015          42

Hillary Clinton’s Resurrection // New Yorker // Nicholas Lemann – July 15,
2015.................... 44

Hillary Clinton Becomes First 2016 Candidate To Release Bundler Names //
HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15,
2015................................................................................................................................
46

Clinton In 2011: Iran Only Has Right To Enrich After Nuclear Weapons
Program “Irreversibly Shut Down” // BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July
15,
2015..................................................................... 47

Bill Clinton apologized for his 1994 crime bill, but he still doesn’t get
why it was bad // Vox // Dara Lind – July 15,
2015...............................................................................................................................
48

Lobbyists, lawmakers rake in cash for Hillary // The Hill // Megan R.
Wilson – July 15, 2015... 50

Dems: Benghazi panel has ‘abandoned’ its work to focus on Hillary // The
Hill // Martin Matishak – July 14,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
51

Clinton’s fundraising surpasses $47 million // USA Today // Fredreka
Schouten – July 15, 2015 52

Hillary Clinton says she called for Wall Street regulations early in the
financial crisis // PolitiFact // Lauren Carroll – July 15,
2015...........................................................................................................
53

Clinton’s Model Staffers // National Journal // Emily Schultheis – July 11,
2015...................... 56

Hillary Clinton Has Already Spent $18.7 Million // National Journal //
Shane Goldmacher – July 15,
2015............................................................................................................................................
57

Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors // The
Guardian – July 15, 2015             59

Hillary Clinton Wants to Run on Climate. And She Thinks Democrats Should
Too. // National Journal // Clare Foran and Jason Plautz – July 15,
2015..................................................................................
60

Benghazi Republicans slam ‘one-way letter war’ of committee Dems //
Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................
62

Why Hillary Clinton should take a tougher stance on banks // CS Monitor //
Robert Reich – July 15, 2015 64

Wealthy Donors and Lobbyist Bundlers Are Largely Bankrolling Hillary
Clinton’s Campaign // Mother Jones // Russ Choma – July 15,
2015...............................................................................................
66

Hillary Clinton spends nearly $19M during first three months of
presidential campaign // NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 15,
2015............................................................................................
67

Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors // Guardian
// July 15, 2015 68

Hillary Clinton Has Spent $18M Of Over $46M In First 3 Months Of Her
Presidential Campaign // IB Times // Sneha Shankar - July 16
2015................................................................................................
70

DC Rep Says Hillary Wants To Make DC The 51st State // Daily Caller // Josh
Fatzick – July 15, 2015           71

As Described By NYT’s Mark Leibovich, Reporters Covering Hillary Are A
Bunch Of Monsters // Daily Caller // Betsy Rothstein – July 15,
2015.............................................................................................
72

Clinton, Dem Hopefuls Silent on Planned Parenthood Organ Sales Video //
Free Beacon // Bill McMorris – July 15,
2015........................................................................................................................
73

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Give Middle Finger to Israel and Jewish
People // The Blaze // Wayne Root – July 15,
2015......................................................................................................................
77

Rep. Marcia Fudge endorses Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid //
Cleveland.com // Sabrina Eaton – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
79

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL
COVERAGE................................................. **80*

*DECLARED.................................................................................................
**80*

*O’MALLEY...............................................................................................
**80*

Martin O’Malley Raises $2 Million for Presidential Bid // NYT // Maggie
Haberman – July 15, 2015            80

O’Malley raised $2 million during first month of presidential campaign, he
tells donors // WaPo // John Wagner – July 15,
2015.........................................................................................................
80

O’Malley Raised $2 Million in June, Putting Him in Rear of Money Race //
WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
81

O’Malley campaign raises $2 million for Democratic contest // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 15, 2015            82

Martin O’Malley campaign raises $2 million in the first month // Politico
// Gabriel Debenedetti – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................................
82

Martin O’Malley raises $2 million; lags behind Clinton, Sanders // MSNBC //
Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15,
2015...........................................................................................................................................
82

Martin O’Malley Trails Rivals in Fundraising with $2 Million Haul // TIME
// Sam Frizell – July 15, 2015 83

O’Malley on Wall Street: ‘If you slap a bank robber on the arm, he’s going
to rob the bank again’ // Business Insider // Hunter Walker – July 15,
2015...............................................................................
84

Creating a 21st Century immigration policy // The Gazette // Martin
O’Malley – July 14, 2015.. 87

*SANDERS................................................................................................
**88*

The Bernie Sanders campaign, brought to you by small-dollar donors // WaPo
// Jose A. DelReal – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................................
88

There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors. //
WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................................
89

Bernie Sanders’ official haul: $15.2 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz
– July 15, 2015......... 90

‘Billionaires for Bernie’ Group Is Formed, With Neither Billionaires Nor
Bernie // Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15,
2015......................................................................................................................
91

The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men // TNR //
Michael Tracey – July 15,
2015............................................................................................................................................
92

The savvy tech strategy fueling Bernie Sanders’ upstart 2016 campaign // LA
Times // Evan Halper – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................................................
94

The Bernie Sanders Surge Is About Bernie, Not Hillary // Five Thirty Eight
// Nate Silver – July 15, 2015 96

*WEBB......................................................................................................
**99*

Jim Webb Becomes Sole 2016 Democrat to Question Iran Deal // WSJ // Peter
Nicholas – July 14, 2015    99

Jim Webb breaks from 2016 Dems in Dinging Iran deal // Politico // Nick
Gass – July 14, 2015 100

Webb skeptical of Iran deal, worries Dems bow to interest groups // MSNBC
// Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
101

*CHAFEE.................................................................................................
**102*

Lincoln Chafee Bankrolls His Campaign // WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15,
2015.............. 102

Literally No One Supports Lincoln Chafee In Latest Poll // HuffPo // Sam
Stein – July 15, 2015 103

Lincoln Chafee’s Presidential Bid has Zero Support, New Poll says // TIME
// Nolan Feeney – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
103

*UNDECLARED..........................................................................................
**104*

*OTHER...................................................................................................
**104*

Bernie Sanders throws shade at Hillary Clinton during Senate visit // AP //
July 15, 2015...... 104

Bernie Sanders gets his say on Clinton’s day in Capitol // AP // David Espo
– July 15, 2015.... 105

Bernie Sanders narrows the gap as Hillary Clinton’s lead declines by double
digits // Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................................
106

Bernie Sanders gaining on Hillary Clinton, with Biden looming // Washington
Times // David Sherfinski – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................................
107

Hillary Clinton’s Lead is Shrinking, and a New Poll Shows Growing Support
for a Dark Horse Candidate // IJ Review // Kyle Plantz – July 15,
2015..................................................................................
108

*GOP...............................................................................................................
**109*

*DECLARED................................................................................................
**109*

*BUSH.....................................................................................................
**109*

Jeb Bush to Release Names of His Fund-Raisers // NYT // Nicholas Confessore
– July 15, 2015 109

Lobbyists bundle nearly a quarter million dollars for Jeb Bush // WaPo //
Catherine Ho – July 15, 2015    110

Jeb Bush reports $11.4 million campaign haul // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal and
Anu Narayanswamy – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................................
111

Jeb Bush to release names of campaign bundlers, joining Hillary Clinton //
WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
112

Wall Street Donated Generously to Jeb Bush, Filing Shows // WSJ // Beth
Reinhard and Christopher S. Steward – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................
112

Jeb Bush’s Iowa Travels Take Him East and West, Left and Right // WSJ //
Beth Reinhard – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
114

Jeb’s official haul: $11.4 million // Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July
15, 2015....................... 115

Goldman Bankers Are Jeb Bush’s Biggest Backers for White House // Bloomberg
// Max Abelson – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
116

Republican Bush raises $11.4 million for 2016 presidential bid: filing //
Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
116

Jeb Bush to release list of campaign bundlers // CNN // Ashley Killough –
July 15, 2015........ 117

Only 3 Percent of Jeb Bush’s Campaign Cash Came From Small Donors //
National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15,
2015.................................................................................................
118

Clinton And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing //
IB Times // Andrew Perez and David Sirota – July 15,
2015...........................................................................................
119

*RUBIO....................................................................................................
**120*

Marco Rubio Has Missed Most Votes This Year of Senators Running for
President // NYT // Jeremy W. Peters – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................
120

*WALKER................................................................................................
**121*

A Sleep-Deprived Scott Walker Barnstorms Through South Carolina // NYT //
Patrick Healy – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
121

Scott Walker, in South Carolina, Skirts Gun Control and Flag Issues // NYT
// Patrick Healy – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
122

Scott Walker Tries to Clarify Remarks on Gay Scout Leaders // NYT //
Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015            122

Scott Walker Using Harley-Davidson to Burnish ‘Fighter’ Image // NYT //
Nick Corasaniti – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
123

Unbending (and unexcitable) // WaPo // Michael Fletcher – July 14,
2015............................ 125

Scott Walker: Boy Scouts should decide if they want gay leaders, not me //
WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
130

In South Carolina, battle flag not an issue for Walker // AP // Bill Barrow
– July 15, 2015........ 131

Scott Walker backtracks on reaction to gay Boy Scout leaders // Politico //
Adam B. Lerner – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
133

Waiting for Scott Walker // Politico // Eli Stokols – July 15,
2015........................................... 133

Scott Walker: Gay Troop Leader Ban Protected Scouts From ‘Political Media
Controversy’ // Bloomberg // Ben Brody and John McCormick – July 15,
2015..........................................................................
136

Scott Walker Confronts the Rigors of the Presidential Campaign Trail //
Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15,
2015..............................................................................................................................
136

Flight Delays Add Exhaustion to Scott Walker’s Rollout Marathon //
Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
138

Scott Walker Sues Feds Over Food Stamp Drug Testing // HuffPo // Arthur
Delaney – July 15, 2015            139

Unions: This time, we’ll defeat Walker // The Hill // Tim Davaney – July
15, 2015................. 141

Scott Walker tells Laura Ingraham he doesn’t believe abortion should be
between a woman and her doctor // Capital Times // Jessie Opoien – July 15,
2015.....................................................................
143

*PAUL......................................................................................................
**144*

Rand Paul’s official haul: $7 million // Politico // Katie Glueck and
Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015             144

Rand 2015 Runs From Rand 2007 On Iran // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July
15, 2015......... 145

*CRUZ......................................................................................................
**147*

Ted Cruz makes New York Times’ list // Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15,
2015...................... 147

Ted Cruz challenges Fox debate standards // Politico // Alex Isenstadt –
July 15, 2015.......... 148

Ted Cruz owes donor’s firm $556k // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Katie
Glueck –July 15, 2015               149

Ted Cruz threatens highway bill filibuster to block Ex-Im renewal //
Politico // Seung Min Kim – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
150

Ted Cruz Forsees Military Action Against Iran // Bloomberg // Kathy Kiely –
July 15, 2015..... 151

He’s Ba-a-a-ack: Ted Cruz Hints He’ll Filibuster Ex-Im Bank // Bloomberg //
Heidi Przybyla – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
151

Ted Cruz relish silver medal standing on fundraising at confab // CNN //
Theodore Schleifer – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
152

Ted Cruz: ‘If you think Washington is going great…then I ain’t your guy’ //
MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15,
2015..............................................................................................................................
154

Several Hours Of Ted Cruz B-Roll And Interviews With Family Members Just
Went Online // BuzzFeed // Megan Apper and Andrew Kaczynski – July 15,
2015............................................................ 156

*CHRISTIE..............................................................................................
**156*

Christie picks up 2016 endorsement from Maryland governor // AP // Brian
Witte – July 15, 2015                156

Chris Christie Says Obama ‘Lied’ to American About Iran Deal // Bloomberg
// Elise Young – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
156

Gov. Chris Christie bags 2016 endorsement from Gov. Larry Hogan // MSNBC //
Aliyah Frumin – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
157

*PERRY...................................................................................................
**159*

To help get Rick Perry into debates, super PAC advertises on conservative
talk radio // WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................
159

Rick Perry’s official haul: $1.1 million // Politico // Katie Glueck – July
15, 2015..................... 160

Perry dismisses Trump on border policy // CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July
15, 2015............ 161

Rick Perry: Obama Is ‘A Very, Very Naïve Man’ // HuffPo // Marina Fang –
July 15, 2015....... 162

*GRAHAM...............................................................................................
**163*

Lindsey Graham’s official haul: $3.7 million // Politico // Katie Glueck –
July 15, 2015........... 163

*SANTORUM...........................................................................................
**163*

So Far, Little Reflection in His Fundraising of Rick Santorum’s 2012
Success // WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 15,
2015..............................................................................................................................
163

Rick Santorum’s official haul: $607,000 // Politico // Theodoric Meyer –
July 15, 2015........... 164

Rick Santorum Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Just As Racist As The
Confederate Flag // HuffPo // Matt Ramos – July 15,
2015.........................................................................................................
164

*HUCKABEE............................................................................................
**166*

Mike Huckabee’s official haul: $2 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz –
July 15, 2015.......... 166

Mike Huckabee Calls Children Of Gay Parents “Little Guinea Pigs” In His
2011 Book // BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................
166

*CARSON.................................................................................................
**167*

Ben Carson’s official haul: $8.5 million // Politico // Jonathan Topaz –
July 15, 2015.............. 167

*FIORINA................................................................................................
**168*

Why Aren’t More Women’s Groups Fighting to Get Carly Fiorina Into the GOP
Debate? // Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 16,
2015.................................................................................................
168

Carly Fiorina’s official haul: $1.7 million // Politico // Hadas Gold –
July 15, 2015.................. 172

*JINDAL...................................................................................................
**172*

Bobby Jindal, a Late Entry, Reports Campaign-Finance Fillings // NYT //
Maggie Haberman – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
172

Jindal, allies report $9 million take for presidential bid // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 173

Bobby Jindal’s official haul: $579,000 // Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July
15, 2015............... 173

*TRUMP...................................................................................................
**174*

Donald Trump Claims His Wealth Exceeds ‘TEN BILLION DOLLARS’ // NYT //
Gerry Mullany – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
174

So, Donald Trump looks like he’s serious about running for president //
WaPo // Amber Philips – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
175

Donald Trump says he’s worth $10 billion. But we still won’t really know.
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
178

Individuals give money to billionaire Trump and more from his FEC report //
WaPo // Colby Itkowitz and Rosalind S. Helderman – July 15,
2015.................................................................................
179

Donald Trump claims he’s wroth more than $10 billion // WaPo // Rosalind S.
Helderman and Tom Hamburger – July 15,
2015.................................................................................................
180

Donald Trump claims ‘most people’ read his book. No one we talked to at
Trump Tower has. // WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................
182

Donald Trump, middle finger of the Republican base // WaPo // Chris
Cillizza – July 15, 2015 183

Donald Trump word cloud: Nazism and consumerism // WaPo / James Hohmann –
July 15, 2015               185

The best of Donald Trump on ‘Morning Joe’ // WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July
15, 2015............ 186

Trump Files Disclosure, Touts $10 Billion Net Worth // WSJ // Heather
Haddon – July 15, 2015 187

Trump campaign sets his personal fortune at $10 billion // AP // Jeff
Horwitz – July 15, 2015 189

Trump indeed funding own presidential bid: $1.8 million loan // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 15, 2015       190

British Open waits on Turnberry call after Trump remarks // AP // July 15,
2015.................... 191

Donald Trump: ‘A vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote’ // AP // July
15, 2015................... 191

5 things to know about Donald Trump’s personal fortune // AP // Jeff
Horwitz – July 15, 2015 192

Trump campaign to reveal wealth details: ‘I’m really rich’ // AP // Jeff
Horwitz – July 15, 2015 193

Donald Trump grows up // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15,
2015................................. 194

Donald Trump snipes at Karl Rove // Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15,
2015.................... 196

How Barack Obama Created Donald Trump // Politico // Keith Koffler – July
15, 2015........... 197

Donald Trump: I’m getting richer // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15,
2015................... 201

Trump’s official haul: $1.9 million // Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15,
2015.......................... 201

Trump claims $213M payout for ‘Apprentice’ // Politico // Dylan Byers –
July 15, 2015.......... 202

Poll: Trump’s favorability increasing, but not with Hispanics // Politico
// Nick Gass – July 15, 2015           203

The Trump Litmus Test // Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 14,
2015.................................... 203

Donald Trump Claims Net Worth Over $10 Billion as He Files Disclosure //
Bloomberg // Richard Rubin – July 15,
2015......................................................................................................................
205

Donald Trump Says He'll Release Financial Disclosure by Thursday //
Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
206

Donald Trump: I’m worth $10 billion // CNN // MJ Lee – July 15,
2015................................. 206

Donald Trump claims he’s worth $10 billion // MSNBC // Carrie Dann – July
15, 2015........... 208

CPAC Chairman: Trump a plausible president // MSNBC // Jesse Bergman – July
15, 2015... 208

Donald Trump's Team Says His 'Massive' Net Worth Is More Than 'TEN BILLION
DOLLARS' // HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................
209

Donald Trump Exaggerates Crowd Size At Phoenix Rally // HuffPo // Jacob
Kerr – July 15, 2015 210

Donald Trump’s ‘Miss USA’ Pageant Earns Record-Low Ratings // HuffPo //
Gabriel Arana – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
211

That Time Im 1988 Trump Told Oprah What Was Wrong With America’s Foreign
Policy // BuzzFeed // Ilan Ben-Meir – July 15,
2015.....................................................................................................
212

Trump To USA: Look How Rich I Am! // Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 14,
2015................ 213

GOP Gives Up on ‘Dump Trump’ // Daily Beast // Tim Mak – July 15,
2015............................ 214

Donald Trump Claims $10 Billion Net Worth After Filing Election Forms //
TIME // Zeke J. Miller – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
216

Heat on GOP Candidates Paul, Rubio to Derail Iran Pact // Real Clear
Politics // Caitlin Huey-Burns and Rebecca Berg – July 14,
2015...............................................................................................
217

Trump Swears He’s Not Running For President As A Democratic Plant // TPM //
Catherine Thompson – July 15,
2015..............................................................................................................................
220

Republican Voters Like Trump More Than Boehner, McConnell // Morning
Consult // Reid Wilson – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
221

*UNDECLARED..........................................................................................
**222*

*OTHER..................................................................................................
**222*

Paul Singer, Top Republican Donor, Is Still on the Sidelines // NYT //
Alexandra Stevenson – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
222

Candidate Forum Planned in New Hampshire Before First Republican Debate //
NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................................
222

Sniping Intensifies Between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush // NYT // Alan
Rappeport – July 15, 2015          223

Trump, Carson, and Santorum burn through campaign cash fastest // WaPo //
Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15,
2015............................................................................................
224

As Jindal and Huckabee struggle with fundraising, super PACs bolster
tallies // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................................
226

2016 fundraising shows power tilting to groups backed by wealthy elite //
WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
227

The Trump-Bush feud: Frontrunner edition // WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July
15, 2015......... 229

Bush, Walker to reveal top presidential money-raisers // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 231

Cruz sets meeting with Trump, praises ‘bold, brash voice’ // AP // Erica
Werner – July 15, 2015 231

Early-state newspapers plan GOP forum before Fox debate // AP // Kathleen
Ronayne – July 15, 2015      232

Charleston massacre, flag debate put Haley in 2016 spotlight // AP // Bill
Barrow and Meg Kinnard – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
233

GOP candidates slam Iran deal, but will it play in 2016? // AP // Nicholas
Riccardi – July 15, 2015               235

Officials say Cleveland on track for 2016 GOP convention // AP // Mark
Gillispie – July 15, 2015 235

George Pataki’s official haul: $256k // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July
15, 2015................. 237

Donald Trump changes tune on Cruz // Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July
15, 2015.............. 237

Donald Trump: I don’t know why I’m meeting Ted Cruz // Politico // Nick
Gass – July 15, 2015 238

Rivals Cruz, Trump play nice en route to 2016 // CNN // Eric Bradner – July
15, 2015............ 239

Donald Trump meeting with Ted Cruz on Wednesday // CNN // Jeremy Diamond –
July 15, 2015               241

Cruz defends Trump’s ‘bold, brash voice’ ahead of private meeting // MSNBC
// Emma Margolin – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
241

Cruz dodges question on mysterious Trump meeting // MSNBC // Emma Margolin
– July 15, 2015              243

How much money have Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee raised for 2016? // CBS
// Reena Flores – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
243

Republican Presidential Candidates To Disclose Bundlers For First Time
Since 2008 // HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15,
2015.................................................................................................
244

Ted Cruz Defends Donald Trump On Immigration Before Their Dinner Date //
HuffPo // Michael McAuliff and Elise Foley – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................
245

C-SPAN to preempt first GOP debate // The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July
15, 2015.............. 246

*OTHER 2016
NEWS.......................................................................................
**248*

What Campaign Filings Don’t Show: Super PACs’ Growing Sway // NYT // Eric
Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................
248

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are set to barnstorm New Hampshire. Here’s
what to watch. // WaPo // Sean Sullivan – July 16,
2015...............................................................................................
249

Bush, Clinton dominate early 2016 presidential fundraising // AP // Julie
Bykowicz – July 15, 2015            250

Fundraising - and spending- shatter records // Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel
and Tarini Parti – July 16,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
252

Chart: The 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Time in Elected Office, Ranked //
Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................................................
255

Candidates Show First Glimpse in Historic 2016 Money Race // Bloomberg //
Zachary Mider – July 15,
2015..........................................................................................................................................
256

Trump's Popularity Rises, Still 2-1 Negative, While Clinton Regains
Positive Territory //ABC // Gregory Holyk – July 15,
2015....................................................................................................................
258

Bernie Sanders Won’t Accept Money From Billionaires. Donald Trump Donated
$100,000 to Hillary Clinton. // HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 15,
2015..........................................................................
260

Bush Hails Uber, While Clinton Criticizes // TIME // Jay Newton-Small –
July 15, 2015........ 262

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS...................................................................
**264*

Jim Webb: A respectable alternative to Hillary Clinton // Newsday // July
15, 2015.............. 264

Democratic poll shows Nevada Senate race a dead heat, Hillary up in the
state // Ralston Reports // Jon Ralston – July 15,
2015........................................................................................................
265

*TOP
NEWS.....................................................................................................
**267*

*DOMESTIC................................................................................................
**267*

Senate clears way for final vote on No Child rewrite // AP // Jennifer C.
Kerr – July 14, 2015... 267

Obamacare Fines Paid by 6.6 Million Taxpayers, More Than Planned //
Bloomberg // Anna Edney – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
268

*INTERNATIONAL.....................................................................................
**269*

Clearing Hurdles to Iran Nuclear Deal With Standoffs, Shouts and Compromise
// NYT // David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon – July 15,
2015.......................................................................................
269

Greece, Its Back to the Wall, Adopts Austerity Steps // NYT // Suzanne
Daley and James Kanter – July 15,
2015...................................................................................................................................
275

*TODAY’S KEY STORIES*

*Hillary Clinton Reports Raising Almost $47 Million for Primary Campaign
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/hillary-clinton-reports-raising-almost-47-million-for-primary-campaign/?smid=nytpolitics>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton raised $46.7 million for her primary campaign, more
than half of it from women, according to campaign officials and reports
filed on Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.

Mrs. Clinton had $28 million in cash on hand at the beginning of July after
spending more than $18 million since starting her campaign in April, as she
moved rapidly to establish infrastructure in key primary states after
months of waiting to enter the race. And while her campaign has focused on
raising contributions for the primary, Mrs. Clinton accepted $824,620 in
money earmarked for the general election should she win the Democratic
nomination.

About one in six dollars of the almost $47 million Mrs. Clinton raised came
from donors giving less than $200, a smaller proportion than some
Democratic and Republican rivals, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of
Vermont and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Sanders raised far less than Mrs.
Clinton overall — about $15 million, including money transferred from his
Senate account — though more than two-thirds of it came from smaller donors.

“Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical
investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the
primary and the White House,” Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager,
said in a statement. “With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers
for unlimited sums of money, we are glad to be able to have such broad
support to be able to show why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who
will fight for policies that allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay
ahead.”

An earlier version of this article misstated when Hillary Rodham Clinton's
campaign finance reports were filed with the Federal Election Commission.
They were filed on Wednesday, not Monday.

*Female donors help Hillary Clinton bring in $47.5 million in second
quarter
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/female-donors-help-hillary-clinton-bring-in-47-5-million-in-second-quarter/?postshare=8691437006802822>
// WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 *

The $47.5 million Hillary Rodham Clinton raised during her first two and
half months as a presidential candidate this year was boosted by a
predominantly female donor base, her campaign said Wednesday.

Of the more the 250,000 contributors who donated to Clinton, 61 percent are
women.  That puts her on track to outstrip the presidential high-water mark
set by President Obama in 2012, when 47 percent of donors who gave him more
than $200 were women, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The surge of female-driven contributions for Clinton could fuel a partisan
divide when it comes to gender and political money. In 2012, women gave 52
percent of their federal donations to Democratic candidates, a slight edge
the party has held since 1998, according to the Center.

All but $824,000 of Clinton's war chest is money raised for the Democratic
primary contest. Her campaign entered July with nearly $29 million in cash
on hand.

Donations under $200 made up just under 17 percent of Clinton's total
raised. That was in sharp contrast with Republican Jeb Bush: Just 3 percent
of the $11.4 million he raised came from such low-dollar donations.

Clinton's small-donor base is larger than it was in her first quarter of
fundraising in the 2008 race, when just 9 percent of her money came from
contributions under $200, according to data analyzed by the Campaign
Finance Institute. But it is smaller than that of then-candidate Barack
Obama, who raised 22 percent of his money that same quarter from small
donors.

It is also dwarfed by that of primary season rival Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.). Nearly 76 percent of the $13.5 million in individual donations he
received were under $200.

“With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of
money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show
why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that
allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," campaign manager
Robby Mook said in a statement.

Clinton also released the names of 122 fundraisers who have bundled at
least $100,000 for the campaign. In all, they have raised at least $12.2
million since April 12, 2015.

The Clinton bundler list included many familiar and longtime Democratic
Party fundraisers, as well as some of the Clinton’s biggest long-time
donors. Haim and Cheryl Saban, who built a fortune marketing the “Mighty
Morphin Power Rangers” and other entertainment offerings, were on the list
as they have been for past Clinton presidential, Senate and foundation
activities.

Longtime donor Fred Eychaner, a reclusive Chicago business and media titan,
is on the list. In 2012, he was one of the largest donors to Democratic
outside spending groups, and has been particularly supportive of same sex
marriage legislation.

The list also includes many familiar Washington names, including Elizabeth
Frawley Bagley, longtime Democratic donor and former ambassador to
Portugal, and veteran Clinton adviser Minyon Moore. Washington lobbyist
Steve Elmendorf – who worked on the presidential campaigns of Richard
Gephardt, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton – was listed, along with Tom
Nides, who was Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretary of state before joining
Morgan Stanley as a top executive.

Other notable Wall Street bundlers listed include hedge fund magnate Orin
Kramer and Marc Lasry.

Unlike Obama, Clinton is allowing lobbyists to bundle for her campaign.
Among those raising money for Clinton were former Sen. Robert Torricelli of
New Jersey and K Street power Heather Podesta. Others included David
Leiter, a lobbyist who served as former chief of staff to John Kerry; and
Jackson Dunn, a managing director at FTI Consulting who served as an aide
to President Bill Clinton and other national figures.

*SOCIAL MEDIA*

*Alex Moe (7/15/15, 1:03 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/AlexNBCNews/status/621349404537192448>* – INBOX:
Speaker Boehner Calls for Hearings on Grisly Abortion Practices, Says
President Obama Should Denounce Them*

*Ryan Lizza (7/15/15, 2:57 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/RyanLizza/status/621377991164198912>* – Curious why
Obama doesn't take the HRC approach to this issue: support the deal but
pivot to very hawkish position on Iran's meddling in ME.*

*Nick Confessore (7/15/15, 4:42 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/621404481478070272>* – Wow: Out
of $15 million Bernie raised, $11 million came from donors giving less than
$200.*

*Marco Rubio (7/15/15, 5:48 PM)*
<https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/621421006507376641>* – .@mav213 I
will give Iran a choice: change your behavior, or face the collapse of your
economy due to U.S. pressure.*

*HRC** NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*Hillary Clinton Lags in Engaging Grass-Roots Donors
<http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lags-in-engaging-grass-roots-donors.html?referrer=>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore and Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign has been slow to harness the
fund-raising power of the Democratic Party’s legions of grass-roots donors,
according to reports filed Wednesday, a weakness that her campaign is
racing to combat.

Of the $47.5 million that Mrs. Clinton has raised, one-fifth has come from
donors giving less than $200. That is a far smaller proportion than that of
her Democratic and Republican rivals who have excited grass-roots donors on
the left and right, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ted Cruz
of Texas. While Mr. Sanders raised far less than Mrs. Clinton over all —
about $15 million, including money transferred from his Senate account —
about four-fifths of that amount came from smaller donors.

The slow response of grass-roots donors is a consequence, Mrs. Clinton’s
aides and advisers said, of the deliberately low-key approach she has taken
on the campaign trail — with few of the big rallies and campaign events
that can help build voter lists and drive donations — along with the
challenge in persuading some donors that Mrs. Clinton, who is far ahead in
primary polls, needs their money.

The deficit could represent a financial and strategic liability for Mrs.
Clinton if she were to win the nomination. The pool of Republican donors
willing to write the maximum $2,700 check has grown so large that no
Democrat, not even Mrs. Clinton, is likely to be able to match a mainstream
Republican nominee on high-dollar fund-raising over the long term. In 2012,
President Obama and his party were able to match the Republican candidate,
Mitt Romney, only by raising far more money than Mr. Romney from small
donors.

“Given the prodigious amount of money on the Republican side, the
Democratic nominee absolutely has to overperform” among small donors, said
David Axelrod, who advised Mr. Obama’s two successful presidential
campaigns.

Campaign officials said that operational hurdles and administrative delays
also have impeded her outreach to small donors. On the day that Mrs.
Clinton sent out emails in April announcing her presidential bid, a
campaign official said, many of the messages bounced back. Fewer than
100,000 of the 2.5 million email addresses collected during her 2008
campaign, it turned out, were still active. The campaign did not gain
access to a huge list of supporters, built over two years at substantial
expense by a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” Ready for Hillary, until a month and
a half after Mrs. Clinton’s announcement.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s allies acknowledge that Mr. Sanders has done a
better job of engaging small donors on the left. “The small donors right
now are very much attracted to what Bernie is saying,” said Ed Rendell, a
former Pennsylvania governor and a Clinton supporter.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has responded with a new program, the Hillbuilder
Initiative, intended to build a more robust online presence and harvest the
grass-roots money and enthusiasm that can come with it. But the slow start
has bewildered some longtime supporters, who recall small-donor enthusiasm
as a crucial piece of Mr. Obama’s win over Mrs. Clinton in 2008.

Relying more heavily on large donors could also present an unwanted
contrast not only to other candidates, like Mr. Sanders, but with Mrs.
Clinton’s own statements about fighting for those who feel locked out of
the economy. Mrs. Clinton has attended 46 fund-raisers since she entered
the campaign, many of them for donors giving the largest possible check.
Mr. Sanders has attended two.

“We’re spending our time talking to people, rather than sitting around in
small rooms talking to very wealthy people,” Mr. Sanders said in an
interview on Wednesday, as he prepared for a campaign rally in Phoenix.
“These are working people, middle-class people who are making these
contributions."

Wednesday’s campaign filings underscored not only how small donors have
powered insurgent candidates, but how the growing world of super PACs and
outside spending have upended conventional measures of fund-raising
strength.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has taken in three times more money than any of her
Democratic or Republican rivals, according to Federal Election Commission
data filed by the 2016 candidates on Wednesday.

But super PACs and other outside groups set up by allies or former aides to
the Republican candidates have dwarfed the top Democratic super PAC — as
well as most of the Republican campaigns — collectively raising in excess
of $200 million and startling some in Mrs. Clinton’s camp.

Jeb Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise, raised more than $103 million, on top
of $11 million raised by his campaign, giving him an effective war chest
twice as large as Mrs. Clinton’s. Priorities USA, the lead Democratic super
PAC, has raised $15 million, and Mrs. Clinton’s allies are struggling to
persuade her wealthiest backers to make seven- and eight-figure donations
to the group.

The only silver lining, Democrats said, was the knowledge that much of the
Republican super PAC money would be used to savage other Republicans, in
what is likely to be a long and hard-fought primary campaign.

“What it means is that they are going to tear each other apart in the
primary season,” said Mr. Rendell, who predicted that Mrs. Clinton’s
small-dollar fund-raising would grow substantially in the months ahead.

Some Democrats privately said that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign fund-raising is
less impressive than it appears. Aside from Martin O’Malley, the former
Maryland Governor, who reported raising $2 million for his campaign, Mrs.
Clinton has no competition for the Democrats’ big-donor establishment,
which handed out a combined $80 million to a crowded Democratic primary
field during the equivalent fund-raising period in 2007, the last open
primary.

She also has been slow to seize the chance to raise money jointly with the
Democratic National Committee. Under legislation passed in December, the
party can accept up to $334,000 from each donor every calendar year — 10
times the amount in past years. One leading Democratic donor, who asked not
to be identified so as not to damage his relations with Mrs. Clinton,
estimated that the Democrats could be leaving $60 million to $70 million on
the table.

While some Clinton allies say they are not concerned about the campaign’s
potential to excite small donors, the difficulty that Mrs. Clinton has
faced presents a paradox of her position as a kind of de facto incumbent in
the fight for the Democratic nomination. Without a pitched primary battle —
like the one she faced against then-Senator Barack Obama eight years ago —
it is far more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to create urgency among her
financial and political base this early in the campaign.

But an all-out fund-raising blitz, or a campaign built around larger
events, could stoke the aura of “inevitability” that she is determined to
avoid.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Josh Schwerin, said the campaign was
“thrilled to have 250,000 donors in our first quarter in the race, and our
Hillbuilder program is already paying off with a rapidly growing list that
is active and engaged.”

*The fallacy of the ‘real Hillary Clinton’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/the-fallacy-of-the-real-hillary-clinton/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has been campaigning either for herself or her husband
since 1991, with the exception of the four years she served as secretary of
state (and including time in office, which one should). That's 20 of 24
years, which is why Mark Leibovich's New York Times coverage of the latest
effort necessitates several extra "re-"s before "reintroducing Hillary
Clinton."

Leibovich argues that the drip-drip release of e-mails from Clinton's time
as secretary of state has inadvertently helped the campaign achieve that
dream goal of every candidate: Presenting the real Hillary Clinton. None of
this what-I-read-in-the-papers stuff about who Clinton is and what she's
like, but the real, unfiltered, only slightly sanded-down Hillary Clinton
that her friends and family know. And heck, they'd all vote for her in a
heartbeat!

Those old enough to remember back to 2012 will remember another candidate
who bemoaned that his realness was sheltered (and, of course, he features
in Leibovich's very next sentence). If only people had known the real Mitt
Romney, the thinking goes, they'd have voted for him in a heartbeat. This
was son Josh's stated goal in 2012, to "help voters to get a different side
of him … to really see the real Mitt Romney."

Between January 2012 and January 2014, there were at least 1,400 news
articles talking about the "real Mitt Romney," according to Nexis — a wave
cresting with the release early that year of the documentary "Mitt." Here,
at last, was the real Mitt. (But somehow, when he talked about running for
president a third time earlier this year, people were still only lukewarm.)

Here's the thing, though. This "get to know the real so-and-so" thing is
not new.

The day after the 2004 debate, Newsweek's Evan Thomas figured the debate
helped John Kerry's chances because George W. Bush's allies "made him just
a flip-flopping, effete, sherry-sipping, windsurfing joke, and when the
American public finally saw the real John Kerry" he was "pretty good." The
Lowell (Mass.) Sun spoke to Kerry's neighbors, folks that "had a chance to
watch the real John Kerry, up close and unguarded." A syndicated column
that went around before the election asked the real Kerry to "please stand
up," perhaps marking Eminem's recent influence on the culture. Scores of
articles between 2004 and 2006 demanded or revealed the "real" John Kerry.

Just as, four years earlier, scores had looked for the "real Al Gore."

''Whatever he does, he has to be real,'' pollster John Zogby advised
shortly before the 2000 election. ''Who is the real Al Gore?'' After the
first debate, CBS' Russ Mitchell figured that viewers had seen him. Maybe.
"If there is such a thing, though, as a real Al Gore, then voters probably
saw him last night," he said. And on and on.

The same concern didn't seem to surround George W. Bush that year. Far
fewer people worried about uncovering the real Dubya than the real Gore or
Kerry. In 2008, there was a lot of handwringing about the real Barack
Obama, but some of that was of the birther variety.

In 1984, it was Walter Mondale's turn. The Washington Post spoke with his
team as the election approached. "Mondale's advisers also are trying to
bring out a 'real Mondale,' " we reported, "who they say is, among other
things, really a 'pragmatic, progressive Midwest politician' — not the
ultra-liberal Reagan decries." Mondale offered the same — unsuccessful —
advice to Michael Dukakis for his — unsuccessful — 1988 bid. "He's just got
to go out and show us the real Dukakis and tell us where he wants to take
the country," Mondale told the Times. "Don't worry about advisers. I didn't
at this point. I said things my way." And how'd that work out?

What's really being said, of course, is usually that the candidates are too
candidate-y — that they seem as though they're trying to leverage their
communications sophistication to hide who they really are. Kerry wasn't
hiding a bubbly, easygoing persona when he ran in 2004; he doesn't really
have one. Voters saw the real Al Gore and the real John Kerry. Voters in
2008 saw the real Hillary Clinton. Sure, they're all nice and easy-going
sometimes, but who isn't? Sometimes, like when they're campaigning, they
aren't.

Or, look at it another way: Is the you that you offer on Facebook "the real
you"? Of course not. The "real" us is never really knowable by another
person. What candidates who want you to know the "real" them are really
saying is, "I know you don't like me, but trust me that you would."

Often, as we've seen, that sales pitch doesn't work.

*Democrats release now-abandoned hearing schedule for Benghazi committee
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/democrats-release-now-abandoned-hearing-schedule-for-benghazi-committee/>
// WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015 *

Former defense secretaries Leon Panetta and Robert Gates, then-U.N.
Ambassador Susan Rice and, of course, former secretary of state Hillary
Rodham Clinton were among the high-level witnesses who Republicans intended
to call to testify this year about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Democrats on the special House committee investigating those attacks made
public Wednesday a list of witnesses and hearings they claim Republicans
outlined as part of a 2015 schedule for the committee.

In a letter to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and distributed widely, the
Democrats accuse him of abandoning the investigation in favor of skewering
Clinton during her presidential run.

According to the Democrats, Panetta and Gates were supposed to testify in
April for a hearing entitled, “Why were we in Libya?” Rice, who famously
was the White House mouthpiece in the days after the attacks, was to be
summoned in July to discuss the “motivation of the attackers, as well as
what was said after the attacks.”

And Clinton was going to come before the committee in May to discuss “How
did we respond?”

Gowdy has previously blamed the committee’s slow walking the investigation
on the State Department not turning over documents fast enough. He has said
they can’t hold hearing until they have all the relevant facts.

But the Democrats wrote in their letter that it doesn’t explain why no
hearings, except for one in January, have been held. Particularly ones
focused on other agencies like Defense, which shouldn’t be dependent on
State documents.

An Associated Press story Tuesday said the committee has “devolved from an
investigation into the deaths of four Americans in Libya into a political
fight over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails and private computer server.”

The conclusion was that the purpose of the committee’s work is to uncover
Clinton’s wrongdoings, not how and why the Benghazi attacks occurred.

*2016 Campaign Cash Flowing to Clinton and Bush
<http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/16/us/politics/ap-us-2016-political-money.html>
// AP // July 16, 2015*

WASHINGTON — The major parties' top presidential candidates in the
fundraising race — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush
— are collecting cash in the huge amounts needed to fuel the extensive
political organizations they are building for the 2016 campaign.

Their financial backers have poured more than $176 million into their
campaigns and the super PACs specially designed to boost them.

Clinton's campaign is spending money at a rapid clip, according to initial
fundraising reports filed Wednesday with federal regulators. The former
first lady and front-runner in the Democratic race has paid out 40 percent
of the $47 million in donations that she amassed by the end of June,
employing some 364 people and building infrastructure across the country in
preparation for next year's general election.

Bush, the former Florida governor and son and brother of ex-presidents,
spent more than one-quarter of the $11.4 million in fundraising that he
collected in the final 16 days of June, according to the reports. The
campaign invested heavily in payroll and policy consulting.

The Federal Election Commission reports cover financial activity between
April 1 and June 30, a period when almost all of the 22 presidential
hopefuls jumped into the race, and list the names of everyone who gave at
least $200. The maximum contribution for the primary is $2,700.

The FEC documents also showed how candidates are spending — or saving: In
the crowded Republican field, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio started July with
almost $10 million, just ahead of Bush and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, and in
front of the rest of the GOP pack.

Yet a candidate's own campaign is just one page in the money story. Super
PACs, which are required to file similar documents at the end of the month,
can accept contributions of any size. They're limited on how closely they
can work with the campaigns but are often staffed with close confidants of
the candidates. In many cases, the candidates themselves have "blessed" the
super PACs and pitched in with their fundraising.

These and other powerful outside groups account for about two-thirds of the
roughly $400 million raised so far for the presidential election, according
to an Associated Press tally of FEC documents and financial totals provided
by the groups that haven't yet reported.

No current candidate has made as much use of super PACs and their
unlimited-donation potential as Bush. Before he officially declared his
candidacy, he spent the first six months of the year raising huge sums of
money for Right to Rise. That group says it has raised a record $103
million.

Outside groups are furthering the ambitions of at least four other
Republican presidential aspirants: Rubio, Cruz, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and
Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In each case, the fundraising for those entities is
outpacing the fundraising for their campaigns.

Rubio's overall take from donors — $44.7 million to his campaign and two
outside groups — includes $15.8 million for a nonprofit that won't file any
public budget information until at least next year and keeps its donors
secret.

Some donors are secret for another reason: They're too small. The FEC only
requires names and identifying information for people who give more than
$200.

These kinds of contributors are underwriting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders'
Democratic presidential campaign, FEC reports show, accounting for more
than three-quarters of the $13.7 million in contributions he collected.
Sanders also transferred $1.5 million from his dormant Senate campaign
account.

Also doing well on the small-donor front is Republican retired neurosurgeon
Ben Carson. About 68 percent of his $10.6 million raised this year was in
contributions of $200 or less. Carly Fiorina, a California technology
executive also seeking the GOP nomination, raised 43 percent of her $1.7
million this way.

Because the money is coming directly to those candidates, they have tighter
control over how it is used.

By comparison, 3 percent of Bush's campaign cash and 17 percent of
Clinton's came from small donors.

A few major Republican candidates are missing from the initial campaign
finance reports. Kasich hasn't officially launched his campaign yet.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made their
campaigns official too recently to file second-quarter FEC reports,
although a Christie-allied super PAC said on Tuesday that it has raised $11
million. The first look at their campaign numbers will come in mid-October.

*Hillary Clinton Spends $18 Million, Hires Hundreds
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hillary-clinton-spends-19-million-hires-hundreds-32480930>
// AP // Lisa Lerer and Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Rodham Clinton spent more than $18 million and hired hundreds of
employees in the first three months of her presidential campaign, creating
a national operation that vastly outpaces her rivals in both parties.

She has the money for it, having raised more than $46 million for the
Democratic primary contest.

But building a campaign Goliath hasn't come cheap. Clinton spent more than
$5.9 million on 343 employees, $700,000 on computers and other equipment,
and nearly half a million renting offices, including her 80,000-square-foot
Brooklyn headquarters.

Beyond paying for salaries and space, her campaign purchased lists of
voters in four early primary states, paid six figures to a super PAC
devoted to defending her record and spent heavily on building a digital
team, according to campaign finance documents filed Wednesday with federal
regulators.

It's a strategy aimed at a contest that's nearly a year away. The
overwhelming favorite for her party's nomination, Clinton's team has set
its sights on building the massive infrastructure they'll need for the
general election.

The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three
months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more
competitive primary race against then-Sen. Barack Obama.

During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors
that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices — like
spending nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa
caucus, a contest she lost.

This time, her staff has emphasized its "cheapskate" mentality —
particularly to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May,
top donors were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own
transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn.

Campaign aides like to brag about taking the bus from New York to
Washington, rather than the more expensive Acela train. Even so, her
campaign spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just a few hundred
dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election Commission report shows.

All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during
this campaign than she did eight years ago.

During the first three months of her 2008 bid, Clinton spent 14 percent of
the $36 million she raised, according to FEC documents. In the launch of
this campaign, she's burned though nearly 40 percent of what she has taken
in.

Her campaign also reported that Clinton received more than 250,000
contributions, with an average donation of $144.89. About 17 percent of her
contributions were $200 or less.

By comparison, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent
challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2
million through the end of June, and three-quarters of his donations were
$200 or less.

Though they've highlighted their lower-dollar contributions, Clinton's team
also released a list of campaign bundlers who each raised more than
$100,000 for her primary bid.

Some of the donors included Clinton's most ardent financial backers,
including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie Tompkins Buell, a wealthy
California investor who was a major donor to the Ready for Hillary super
PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a longtime friend and college
classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire J.B. Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan
Patricof, a New York-based financier who served as Clinton's finance chair
when she first ran for Senate in New York.

Clinton's team also successfully courted some of Obama's biggest backers,
including New York financiers Marc Lasry, Charles Myers and Blair Effron.

Others included former Clinton aides like Minyon Moore, Tom Nides and Lisa
Caputo, former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, and current members of Congress like
Reps. Jim Himes of Connecticut and Grace Meng of New York.

*Hillary Clinton’s not-so-cheapskate campaign
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-official-haul-46-million-120189.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti and Annie Karni – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s cheapskate campaign is sure spending a lot of cash.

The Democratic front-runner, who has pledged to run a thrifty operation,
started off with a historically lucrative fundraising quarter, but it’s
also gone through campaign funds at a rate surpassing any of her rivals in
either party.

Racing against a Republican field full of highly funded campaigns and super
PACs, the Clinton machine spent more than $18.7 million since launching in
mid-April — that’s more than the rest of her Democratic rivals raised,
combined, according to filings released on Wednesday.

It could afford to do so after raising roughly $47.5 million — including
$46 million in primary money, the most of any campaign in its first
quarter, ever.

The report, which came in late Wednesday as the federal filing deadline
loomed, showed a campaign investing heavily in organizing, but also in a
large staff around the country.

It also showed an operation heavily reliant on a handful of large donors:
Just $8 million of its haul came from donations of $200 or less, though the
campaign said 94 percent of its contributions were less than $250.

In a bid for transparency, the campaign voluntarily disclosed its bundlers
of over $100,000 — a long list that included several stand-by Democratic
megadonors and a handful of elected officials.

But, for a campaign that has publicly promoted its allegedly frugal ways,
the report also showed a few particularly large or eyebrow-raising
expenditures and liabilities.

Hillary for America reported a debt of $574,000 for the first three months
of its campaign since its April 12 launch, including over $553,000 owed to
pollster John Anzalone’s firm.

When Clinton last ran for president, in 2008, her campaign finished in
debt, and the candidate used nearly $13 million of her own dollars —
circumstances the operation has been keen to avoid repeating. So far this
time, Clinton herself donated about $279,000 to her own 2016 campaign.

And while the campaign has highlighted how it encourages even its top
staffers to take the cheap Bolt Bus to travel along the Northeast corridor,
the filing showed the campaign has also spent more than $8,700 on Amtrak.

Much of the campaign’s money was spent on payroll and organizing expenses,
but some expenditures — such as nearly $180,000 for a charter plane company
— stood out.

Other noticeable expenditures included a $500 payment to former Rep.
Anthony Weiner — husband of top aide Huma Abedin — for office furniture,
and over $387,000 in legal fees.

The campaign did spend considerably in the early-voting states, including
$370,000 for voter files in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
And it has spent almost $815,000 on services from pollster Joel Benenson’s
firm.

Background=istockphoto

Clinton has been raising money aggressively in a bid to raise $100 million
in primary election money by the end of December. Much of her fundraising
pitch to donors has been based around her likely Republican rivals’ own
campaign cash, including Jeb Bush’s super PAC haul of over $100 million.

But Clinton’s filing on Wednesday covered only her campaign, not its
supportive groups. The main pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action,
raised over $15 million in the first half of the year despite raising money
particularly actively in only recent weeks.

“With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of
money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show
why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that
allow everyday Amerians to get ahead and stay ahead,” said campaign manager
Robby Mook.

Clinton’s total puts her miles ahead of her Democratic rivals, including
Bernie Sanders — who raised north of $15 million — and Martin O’Malley —
who brought in $2 million. In fact, Clinton spent more than the rest of the
Democratic field raised, combined.

Her three-month haul was larger than that of any Republican’s official
campaign, but super PAC numbers will not fully be reported until the end of
the month.

At this point in 2007, Clinton was already in her second quarter as a
candidate, and she reported a $27 million haul that July, with $45 million
cash on hand. In that bid, less than 10 percent of her contributions came
from people donating $200 or less.

The campaign on Wednesday noted that over 250,000 individual donors
contributed this time, and that over 60 percent of its donors were women.

It voluntarily disclosed a list of over 100 top bundlers — the National
Finance Committee members known as “Hillblazers” — which includes a mix of
major Obama backers in 2008 and Clinton standbys, as well as a handful of
current and former lawmakers.

Included in the roster are former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh; Rep. Joaquin
Castro; Rep. Grace Meng; Rep. Jim Hime;, former Clinton press secretary
Lisa Caputo; longtime supporter and Clinton Foundation donor Lynn Forester
de Rothschild; Sean Eldridge and New Republic owner Chris Hughes; media
mogul Fred Eychaner; billionaire venture capitalist J. B. Pritzker; Morgan
Stanley executive Tom Nides, who served as part of Clinton’s brain trust at
the State Department; megadonor and Univision owner Haim Saban; Steve
Rattner; and Democratic National Committee member Robert Zimmerman, among
others.

Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised: $47.5 million

Total spent: $18.7 million

Total cash on hand: $28.85 million

Total debt: $574,000

*Republican field walloping Clinton in money race
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/republican-field-walloping-clinton-in-money-race-120175.html>
// Politico // Daniel Strauss – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton, the dominant front-runner in the Democratic field, is
facing a massive pile of money on the Republican side, with early numbers
showing that the GOPers have outraised Clinton more than four times over.

So far, the 15 candidates vying for the Republican nomination have raked in
more than $280 million to Clinton’s $69 million, through a mix of campaign
fundraising, super PAC donations, and other money groups.

Yes, the field is lopsided, but that doesn’t diminish this fact: Hillary’s
squaring off against a lot of Republican cash.

Federal Election Commission numbers are trickling in on Wednesday, the
deadline for candidates to provide their official campaign figures. The
numbers provide an initial snapshot of the cash dash, with 16 months still
to go before Election Day.

But there was already a pretty good money picture before the deadline. Over
the past couple weeks, the 2016ers have leaked, announced and — in some
cases — boasted about their fundraising hauls.

Among the sea of numbers, one has stood out: Jeb’s.

Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC, which will take on an unprecedented role in
tandem with his presidential campaign, announced last week that it had
banked $103 million in the past six months, exceeding its own ambitious
goal of $100 million.

On top of that, Bush’s official campaign announced it raised $11.4 million
over 16 days since he announced his bid for the White House (Bush’s camp
confirmed that in its filing on Wednesday). A third money group raised $5
million, bringing his total amount to a formidable $119 million.

The figures showed Bush’s prowess on the fundraising front. In two weeks,
his campaign raised more than some of his rivals have over several months,
and the super PAC’s take is unprecedented in American politics.

The numbers confirmed some of the worries among Clinton supporters, who
believe now is the time for the pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action
to get its act together and start becoming a fundraising machine that can
counter the Jeb juggernaut.

But Bush is not the only Republican who has successfully flexed his
fundraising muscle.

Sen. Ted Cruz was not far behind with a $51 million pull, while Sen. Marco
Rubio’s combined haul was $43.8 million.

The rest of the field drops off from there, at least from initial reports.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s war chest stands at roughly $18 million (he
reported $1.1 million in official campaign fundraising on Wednesday),
groups backing Ohio Gov. John Kasich (who will announce his candidacy next
week) raised $11.5 million, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s super PAC has
reported bringing in $11 million, and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s
campaign said it raised $10.5 million.

Others have so far raised in the single-digit millions. Louisiana Gov.
Bobby Jindal was the first to have his paperwork appear on deadline day,
reporting on Wednesday that his campaign had raised just under $579,000
during the seven days before the June 30 deadline. An adviser for the
governor’s super PAC said later on Wednesday that pro-Jindal groups have
raised nearly $9 million.

On the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is shunning super PAC
money, comes in a not-close second with $15.2 million, while former
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley brought in roughly $2 million during his
first month as a candidate.

Clinton, meanwhile, has set off on a solid clip of fundraising, with $45
million in campaign money during her first three months as a candidate (a
primary record, her campaign notes), and an additional $24 million through
pro-Clinton super PACs.

Stuart Roy, who formerly advised a pro-Rick Santorum super PAC in 2012,
said the GOP’s numbers looks huge against Clinton, but cautioned against
reading too closely into the numbers.

“The Republican spin doctor inside of me wants to tell you that Hillary
Clinton is going to get crushed but I really don’t think that July of this
year that it’s terribly indicative of the general election. Most of the
donors that are giving now are early donors and are giving because they
believe in the candidate and you’re not getting too much of the momentum
money which is what you get when people believe you can win.”

*Poll: Hillary Clinton’s lead shrinks among Democrats
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-hillary-clinton-lead-shrinking-democrats-120140.html?ml=tl_16>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is still leading the Democratic field for 2016, but her
lead has shrunk in recent months, according to a Monmouth University poll
out Wednesday, as independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to make
steady gains, despite trailing by a wide margin.

Among Democrats and those leaning toward the Democratic Party, Clinton
picked up the support of 51 percent, down from 57 percent in June and 60
percent in April.

Sanders came in second with 17 percent, followed by former Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb with 1 percent each.
Lincoln Chafee, the former governor and senator from Rhode Island,
registered no support.

If Vice President Joe Biden were to run, however, the results suggest that
he would take some votes from Clinton. He has not announced his intentions,
but poll respondents backed him with 13 percent, just behind Sanders.

Among voters who said they were likely to vote for Biden in the event of
his candidacy, 68 percent said they currently support Clinton, while 18
percent said they are backing another candidate, with 14 percent undecided.

Clinton continues to have the best favorability ratings among her
Democratic rivals in the Monmouth poll (74 percent favorable to 17 percent
unfavorable), though Biden is close behind (67 percent to 17 percent).

The poll was conducted via landlines and cellphones from a larger July 9-12
survey, which sought the opinions of 1,001 adults nationwide. This
particular sample included 357 registered voters who identified themselves
as Democrats or leaning toward the Democratic Party, carrying a margin of
error of plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

*3 Charts That Show Why Hillary Clinton Wants to Increase Profit-Sharing
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/3-charts-that-show-why-hillary-clinton-wants-to-increase-profit-sharing>
// Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015 *

In a speech at the New School in New York City on Monday, presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton called for building a “growth and fairness
economy.”

“Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate
earnings they helped produce,” she said, adding that "studies show
profit-sharing that gives everyone a stake in a company’s success can boost
productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets.”

The philosophy behind Clinton’s proposals is sometimes called inclusive
capitalism. Rather than focusing on higher tax rates for the rich, Clinton
is proposing reforms that would change the incentives of the current
economic system in hopes of making it more equitable. Unlike Vermont
Senator Bernie Sanders, her presidential rival, and a self-described
socialist, Clinton is looking to amend the rules of the game, not toss the
board up into the air. The following charts help explain why she is
promoting profit-sharing:

The one-percent

The percent of wealth controlled by the top one percent now hovers near 20
percent, double where it was in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Skin in the game

Clinton says she would incentivize businesses to share profits through the
tax code. By increasing profit sharing, the plan would give more employees
a stake in the business’s growth and put that growth directly into
employees' pockets.

An increase in the share of income lower level employees take home could
decrease inequality, but it may not make up for the structural inequality
created by improvements in technology, according to the National Bureau of
Economic Research.

Defining issue of our time

Few deny that inequality has risen dramatically over the last thirty years,
though its causes are disputed. Even low tax republicans like Jeb Bush and
Marco Rubio are making it a central issue of their campaigns.

*Hillary Clinton Takes in $46.7 Million from 250,000 Donors
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/hillary-clinton-second-quarter-fundraising>
// Bloomberg // Jennifer Epstein – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised close to $47 million in
primary money during its first quarter and has $28.85 million in cash on
hand, according to a report filed Wednesday with the Federal Elections
Commission.

The Democratic front-runner is focused on raising money for the primary,
and brought in more than $46.7 million—including in-kind contributions of
nearly $280,000 from Clinton, who financed the testing-the-waters
pre-campaign phase with her own money—once all the checks for the second
quarter of 2015 were totaled. The campaign is not actively soliciting
general-election money but still took in close to $825,000 that can only be
spent if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

More than 250,000 people from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia and all U.S. territories gave to support Clinton's candidacy, the
campaign said in a statement, and 94 percent of donations were of $250 or
less. The average donation was $144.89 and, showing Clinton's appeal to
female voters, 61 percent of donors were women.

“Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical
investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the
primary and the White House,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a
written statement.

While Clinton's team touted broad-based support, the breakdown by dollars
is slightly less kind, with about $8 million—just under 17 percent—of
Clinton's haul coming in contributions of $200 or less.

The campaign was the first to voluntarily disclose a list of major
fundraisers, and posted on its website the names of 122 individuals or
groups that bundled at least $100,000 for Clinton. Many of those people
hosted fundraisers for Clinton, including Facebook cofounder and New
Republic owner Chris Hughes and his husband Sean Eldridge; Chicago media
mogul Fred Eychaner; and Avenue Capital Group CEO Marc Lasry and his wife
Cathy.

Texas Reprepsentative Joaquin Castro—the twin brother of Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Julian Castro, a possible Clinton vice presidential
pick—is listed as a bundler, as are Connecticut Representative Jim Himes
and New York Representative Grace Meng. A few former Hillary Clinton
staffers, including Minyon Moore and Lisa Caputo, are also listed as
bundlers.

The campaign reported $2.1 million in donations bundled by registered
lobbyists, including FTI Consulting's Jackson Dunn, who raised the most at
$231,554, and former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, who raised $28,000.
Campaign chairman John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta raised $74,575, while
Tony Podesta's ex-wife Heather raised $31,150.

More than a dozen Hollywood stars and moguls gave the maximum $2700 to the
campaign, including Leonardo DiCaprio, Bryan Cranston, Ben Affleck,
Jennifer Garner, Richard Gere, Kate Hudson and Stephen Spielberg, who has
also written a big check to the pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action super PAC.

Clinton's second-quarter primary haul, which her campaign had initially
estimated at $45 million, beats the record-setting $41.9 million that
President Barack Obama's reelection campaign brought in during its first
quarter in 2011.

While the campaign's expenses were sizable—disbursements totaled just under
$18.7 million, more than any other campaign has even raised—aides insist
that they were focused on making smart investments for the rest of the
campaign, including starting off with a substantial number of staffers
working in a large Brooklyn office, hiring dozens of staffers in early
primary and caucus states, and buying voter files and e-mail lists outright
rather than in installments.

The campaign spent its funds at a rate of about $230,000 per day and its
overall burn rate is about 40 percent, much faster than the 20 percent rate
of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders or the 27 percent rate of former Florida
Governor Jeb Bush.

Even so, the $28.85 million in cash on hand exceeds any of her opponents
from either party by more than double. Still, there's plenty of financial
pressure on Clinton and the outside groups backing her, which in total
raised about $70 million during the second quarter.

The campaign spent more than $900,000 on polling, with just over $800,000
going to Benenson Strategy Group, run by top Clinton adviser Joel Benenson.
David Binder's polling firm was paid $90,000 by the campaign. The campaign
ended the quarter owing $553,113.66 to another polling firm, Anzalone Liszt
Grove Research.

While the campaign has sought out media attention for its thrift –
especially on travel expenses – the numbers are less generous. The
campaign's filing details $661.50 spent on Bolt Bus and Best Bus, and
$8,700 spent on much pricier Amtrak trips. (There are also plenty of
reimbursements to staffers for travel expenses which could of course
include ground transportation.) Clinton initially relied on commercial
flights to get to campaign stops but has increasingly been using private
planes as her travel schedule has picked up, and disclosures show nearly
$180,000 paid to just one aircraft company, Executive Fliteways.

The campaign spent $463,656.63 on rent, including $105,875.34 a month for
its Brooklyn headquarters at 1 Pierrepont Plaza.

“With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of
money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show
why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that
allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," Mook said in his
statement.

Groups supporting Jeb Bush brought in $114.4 million during the first half
of 2015—including $11.4 million raised by his official campaign between its
launch in mid-June and the end of the second quarter. The Clinton team is
"without a doubt" worried about being outraised by the efforts backing Bush
and more broadly by the flow of massive amounts of money to super PACs
backing Republican candidates, Clinton communications director Jennifer
Palmieri said Wednesday on Bloomberg's With All Due Respect.

"I am concerned that Democrats aren't taking it seriously enough and they
should be really worried about this," she said. "We are really worried
about this. We are still going to be outspent—we still think [Clinton] can
win—but this is a big threat."

*Democratic House Members Accuse Benghazi Panel of Abandoning Duty
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/democratic-house-members-accuse-benghazi-panel-of-abandoning-duty>
// Bloomberg // Billy House – July 15, 2015 *

The five U.S. House Democrats on the special committee investigating the
2012 attacks in Benghazi on Wednesday criticized Republicans for not
planned hearings this year, accusing their colleagues of instead focusing
on partisan attacks against Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state
now running for the Democratic nomination for president.

"It appears that much of the Select Committee's work has been shelved while
Republicans pursue every possible avenue of political attack against
Secretary Clinton," states a letter sent by the Democrats to committee
chairman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. It's the latest salvo in a partisan
battle over the work of the committee, formed to look into the State
Department's handling of the 2012 terror attacks in Libya that killed four
Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.

In the Wednesday letter, the panel's Democrats, led by Elijah Cummings of
Maryland, said their Republican colleagues had initially provided them with
information about plans to hold 11 hearings between January and October on
a wide range of topics relating to the Benghazi attacks.

Since then, however, the letter states Republicans "have completely
abandoned this plan — holding no hearings at all since January and instead
focusing on former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

"Amazingly, the last eight press releases on the Select Committee's webpage
deal entirely with Secretary Clinton," the letter adds.

There was no immediate response from Gowdy and Republicans on the committee.

The letter goes on to specify topics of hearings that were promised, but
never held. Those include:

   - A January hearing with State Department eyewitnesses to the attacks to
   address the question of what happened in Benghazi;
   - A February hearing with non-State Department eyewitnesses to the
   attacks to address the question of what happened in Benghazi;
   - A March hearing with State Department witnesses to address the
   question of "Why were we in Libya?"
   - An April hearing with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates and
   Secretary Leon Panetta as witnesses to address the question of "Why were we
   in Libya?"
   - A May hearing hearing with Clinton as the planned witness to address
   the question of "How did we respond?";
   - A June hearing with former Deputy Director of the CIA Michael Morrell
   as the witness to address intelligence matters related to Libya,
   specifically about what was said after the attacks;
   - And a July hearing with former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as the
   witness to address the motivation of the attackers, as well as what was
   said after the attacks.

The letter states that the committee has not only postponed its hearings
with Clinton and other State Department witnesses, "but it has abandoned
all of its other hearings as well, including those examining other agencies
like the Department of Defense and the CIA.

"In the entire 14 months since the Select Committee has been in existence,
the Select Committee has not conducted a transcribed interview or
deposition of even a single Defense Department employee," the Democrats
contend, adding: "In the past, Republicans have attempted to blame the
Select Committee's glacial pace on Secretary Clinton and the State
Department. But it seems difficult to understand how they could be
responsible for the Select Committee abandoning every single hearing it had
planned to hold since January."

Republicans have acknowledged that the the findings of the Republican-led
committee investigating Clinton’s response to the deadly 2012 attack in
Benghazi, Libya, likely will not be released until next year, just months
before the 2016 presidential election.

Democrats have previously noted there there already have been as many as
seven congressional inquiries into the fatal Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the
U.S. compound in Libya. Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and her
Republican critics contend that she failed to bolster security before the
assault and should share blame for what they say is the Obama
administration’s initial, erroneous account that the attacks were
spontaneous and not the result of a terror attack.

*Hillary Clinton Far Outpaces Democratic Rivals in Spending
<http://time.com/3960164/hillary-clinton-campaign-spending/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell - July 15, 2015     *

Hillary Clinton’s campaign spent $18.7 million since its launch on expenses
ranging from payroll to voter files and office furniture, as the Democratic
frontrunner sought to build a huge national operation that includes staff
in all 50 states.

Her campaign has spent more money than both her Democratic rivals have
raised.

“Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support
Hillary Clinton’s campaign, we have had the ability to make critical
investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the
primary and the White House,” said campaign manager Robby Mook.

Some of the campaign’s more significant expenditures included $370,000 for
the New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina Democratic party voter
files, nearly $2 million outsourcing its direct marketing to a Washington,
D.C.-based firm, and millions of dollars in payroll for the campaign staff
of nearly 350.

The campaign also spent around $440,000 on legal fees, according to
filings, including $163,000 to the law firm of the campaign’s lawyer, Marc
Elias.

The campaign can afford to spend, having raised $46.7 million since
mid-April, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another contender for the Democratic
presidential nomination, raised about $15 million in the first quarter.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley brought in around $2 million.

The spending represents some 40% of the money Clinton has raised since her
official launch.

The campaign has taken a famously cheap approach, with staff forced to take
buses, fly commercial and buy minimal office furniture and supplies. Some
of that was reflected in the expenditures: in the month of June, for
example, payroll expenditures to campaign manager Robby Mook totaled just
$4,910, according to the filings, though Mook holds one of the most senior
positions on the campaign.

The average donation to the Clinton campaign was $145, and the campaign
said that 61% of its donors were women.

Celebrity donors to the campaign included Steven Spielberg, YouTube CEO
Susan Wojcicki, Disney Chairman Alan Horn, and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey
Katzenberg. Notably, neither Chelsea Clinton nor Bill Clinton donated to
the campaign, while the Bush family has already maxed out its contributions
to Jeb’s campaign.

Nearly 33,000 people have purchased items from Clinton’s online store,
which includes tongue-in-cheek items like a “Chillary” koozie and a
“pantsuit tee.”

*Warren pushes for return of Glass-Steagall after Clinton adviser said she
won’t back measure
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-glass-steagall/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 *

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pushed for the reinstatement of a major
Depression-era banking law on Wednesday, emailing her large list of
supporters to push for the measure.

The plea from the progressive icon comes two days after an economic adviser
to Hillary Clinton's campaign said the presidential candidate wouldn't
reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act if elected.

"Wall Street spent decades -- and millions of dollars -- to repeal the
original Glass-Steagall Act, and you can bet they'll do whatever it takes
to keep it from being reinstated," Warren wrote in an email titled "Let's
get real." "We need grassroots support from all across the country if we're
going to fight back to make our financial institutions smaller and safer."

The email asked supporters to sign a petition supporting Warren's "21st
Century Glass-Steagall Act," which was introduced by the senator -- along
with Republican Sen. John McCain -- last week.

The Glass-Steagall Act was a Depression-era law passed in 1933 that
separated commercial and investment banking. The law was in place for more
than 60 years until President Bill Clinton, with the backing of
Congressional Republicans, repealed the law in 1999.

On Monday, Clinton outlined her economic vision for the country in a speech
at the New School in New York. The former secretary of state promised to
get tough on Wall Street and called lifting middle-class wages the
"defining economic challenge of our life."

After the speech, Alan Blinder, an economist who the Clinton campaign says
is advising the former first lady, told Reuters that Glass-Steagall was not
going to be part of the candidate's economic platform.

"You're not going to see Glass-Steagall," Blinder said.

A Clinton aide, however, refuted Blinder on Wednesday.

"She will be announcing her ideas for dealing with the continuing problem
of 'Too Big To Fail' in the coming weeks, and nothing has been taken off
the table," the aide said.

In a 2013 interview with CNN, Bill Clinton blamed deregulation -- and the
repeal of Glass-Steagall -- on Congressional Republicans.

"The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative
Republicans," he said. "When they passed bills with the veto-proof majority
with a lot of Democrats voting for it, that I couldn't stop, all of a
sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come on."

The reinstatement of Glass-Steagall has become something liberal -- and
some conservative -- leaders have championed since its repeal and the
market crash of 2008.

Clinton's top progressive challengers in the 2016 Democratic field, Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, have pushed
for the law to be reinstated. And Sens. Warren, McCain, Maria Cantwell,
D-Washington, and Angus King, I-Maine, proposed reinstating the law in 2013.

The next year, the group wrote that "reinstating and strengthening the wall
between federally insured commercial banks and investment banks would
discourage the largest financial institutions from exploiting regulatory
loopholes in order to take excessive risks at taxpayer expense."

*Clinton has spent 40% of campaign funds
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-fec-report/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton's campaign filed it's first report with the Federal
Election Commission on Wednesday, stating that they raised a substantial
$47 million, but spent roughly 40% of that.

Clinton, whose campaign has been focused on raising money for the primary,
brought in $46,725,329.13, according to the report. Some donors, however,
sent the campaign money twice the $2,700 primary donation minimum, leading
the campaign to raise $824,620.51 in general election contributions.

The campaign has spent heavily, though. While they have about $29 million
in cash-on-hand, they spent about $19 million in their first quarter as a
campaign, giving the campaign a burn rate of 40%.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, by comparison, spent 22% of the money his
campaign raised.

Clinton's 40% burn rate is far higher than her first quarter as a candidate
in 2007. During that quarter -- from January to March in 2007 -- Clinton
raised $36 million and only spent about $5 million, giving that campaign a
14% burn rate.

In the second quarter of 2007, Clinton's campaign brought in $27 million
and spent about $13 million, giving it a 47% burn rate.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said thanks to their 250,000 donors,
the campaign has "had the ability to make critical investments in our
organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White
House."

"With Republicans tapping their billionaire backers for unlimited sums of
money, we are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show
why Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that
allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead," Mook said.

A release from Clinton's campaign said 94% of their donations were $250 or
less, with an average donation of $144.89. Sixty-one percent of the donors,
the campaign said, came from women.

Clinton and her team have focused intently on raising money during their
first quarter, criss-crossing the country at a frenetic pace. Clinton
personally headlined 58 fundraisers in 18 states in the three-month
quarter, a sizable number for a frontrunner. Her campaign aides headlined a
number of other fundraisers.

Hillary for America's high burn rate smacks against campaign aides's claims
of being thrifty. For much of the quarter, aides joked and bragged about
spending little money, providing journalists with anecdotes about taking
the bus, not the train, and not being given business cards.

"It is a big dollar number," an aide said Wednesday as the FEC report was
filed. "But we have more cash on hand than any other campaign by far. We
feel good about where we are. Robby and the whole team made a plan and
executed on that plan and it was about spending smartly and spending in
ways that make sense. We are very comfortable with where things are and how
we are moving."

Despite the burn rate, Clinton still far outpaces her Democratic opponents.

Sanders raised about $14 million during the quarter, $1.5 million of which
came from his Senate committee, according to his campaign's FEC report.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who was a candidate for 30 days this
quarter, raised $2 million, according to his campaign.

*Hillary Clinton video pushes pathway to citizenship
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-immigration/index.html>
// CNN // Tanzina Vega – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton continued to amplify her support for a pathway to
citizenship, particularly for young Latino immigrants commonly known as
DREAMers, in a new campaign video released Wednesday morning.

In the video, called "Sueños" or "Dreams," Clinton is seen meeting with a
small group of young Latino immigrants at a roundtable discussion she held
at Rancho High School in Las Vegas who are telling her about their goals
for the future. One young woman, Betsaida Frausto, who arrived in the
United States when she was two, tells Clinton she wants to go to Yale and
become a doctor but won't be able to fully realize her dream because she is
not a citizen. Another young man, Rafael Lopez, who arrived when he was
one, tells the story of how his parents were deported after being in the
United States for 15 years.

"I'm not about to let anybody who can make a contribution to our economy
and our society get thrown away," Clinton tells the group.

In addition to scenes from Clinton's meeting with the DREAMers, the video
contains scenes from a Clinton campaign rally where a young woman addresses
the crowd in Spanish.

The Clinton campaign released the bilingual video one day after Clinton
addressed a crowd of thousands of Latinos at the National Council of La
Raza in Kansas City. In her speech there, she called for a clear path to
citizenship for young immigrants and highlighted economic inequities
Latinos face in the United States including the millions of Latino youth
that cannot find work and the fact that Latinas make just 56 cents on the
dollar compared to white men.

Clinton also called out Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush for
comments he made about Americans having to work harder.

"He should tell that to the farmworkers breaking their backs picking fruit
in Southern California," Clinton said to a rousing applause from the crowd.

Bush aides have argued that his comments were taken out of context and said
he meant that more part-time workers need full-time jobs.

In addition to her speech at La Raza, the largest Latino civil rights group
in the country, Clinton has also met with officials in the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus. Last month Clinton addressed the National Association of
Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Las Vegas where she accused the
entire GOP field of seeking to relegate immigrants to "second-class status."

*Hillary Clinton campaign’s ‘highest priority’: Getting email addresses
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-list-buidling/index.html>
// CNN // Dan Merica – July 15, 2015 *

A lot changes in seven years. Just ask Hillary Clinton's campaign.

When Clinton launched her campaign in April, her staff -- armed with the
list of 2.5 million email addresses from the former secretary of state's
failed 2008 campaign -- hit send on their first 2016 message.

The realization they received shortly after that stunned them: Less than
100,000 of Clinton's 2008 emails addresses were still active and usable.

Teddy Goff, Clinton's top digital strategist, had thought going into the
campaign that around 1 million of the 2008 emails would still be active.
But the realization that only a fraction of those emails still worked was a
slightly sour point on an otherwise "successful" day for the campaign, he
said.

"It wasn't as if we all kind of retreated into a bunker to drown our
sorrows or anything like that," Goff said Wednesday. "In the midst of that
day, discovering that we were really rebuilding a list virtually from
scratch, it was a realization that there was going to be a tough road
ahead."

To respond to this problem, Goff and the campaign launched what they dubbed
The "Hillbuilder Project," an internal campaign push that urged all staff
members to think about and act on how they could build the campaign's email
list. Goff called building the email list the "the single highest priority,
for now" on the tech and digital side of the campaign.

Signs were put up around the Brooklyn headquarters that read, "What are you
doing to grow the list today?" Organizers in New Hampshire, Iowa and other
states were urged to get emails from everyone they spoke with and add them
to the database. And at an all staff meeting on June 12, the day before
Clinton's first big rally in New York, campaign manager Robby Mook included
list building as one of the campaign's top three priorities for the summer.

"This is not just a digital thing," Goff said, "this is a campaign
priority."

The campaign's goal, Goff added, was to provide "relevant content" and
allow people to connect with the campaign so that they can "provide an
experience that people are going to like."

Part of that is content that taps into the news of the day. Most campaigns
do this: A big news event happens, so the team blasts out an email and post
social media content that looks to build their list.

When the Supreme Court decided to make same sex marriage legal in all 50
state, Clinton's campaign sent an email -- subject line: "Full Hearts" --
that asked people to "celebrate history" by adding their name to a list.
The campaign made similar pitches on Twitter and Facebook, including a
video titled "Equal" about gay marriage that received more than 3 million
views on Facebook.

The goal of these emails and lists is to make people who support Clinton
feel like they are missing out by not being on the list, campaign aides
have said about their digital strategy.

Another way Clinton's campaign grew the list was by swapping with other
groups, including Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that spent 2013 and 2014
urging Clinton to run. While the super PAC had a number of priorities,
including engaging grassroots organizers who wanted to support Clinton,
Ready for Hillary's top aides long said that their main focus was building
a sizable list of current and engaged Clinton devotees.

The campaign gained access to the Ready for Hillary email list in May and
started to use it for fundraising and other pitches shortly thereafter. But
Goff said Wednesday that while the list was helpful, it couldn't make up
for name generated by the actual campaign.

"I think all of us are very appreciative of Ready for Hillary and what they
did," Goff said. "It has been valuable, but at the same time, it is
incumbent on us to build our own community."

He added, "The fact of the matter is an email address that an entity
acquired on its own either by a petition or by an online ad is always going
to be a little bit more active and engaged than an email address that is
acquired by the way of a swap."

The biggest reason email lists matter is fundraising. Previous presidential
campaigns, including President Barack Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, have
raised huge sums of money through email and online fundraising. Goff was
the digital director of President Obama's 2012 reelection bid.

Like other campaigns, Clinton's operation will release their first FEC
report on Wednesday. Campaign aides have already previewed that they raised
over $45 million in primary money during their first quarter, part of that
through digital fundraising. The FEC report, however, will not itemize what
money came on line, however, and what came through other venues.

Campaign aides also would not disclose the current size of their list or
goals they have for the list building project. Goff did say, however, that
the campaign is "more concerned with the output of the list than with the
size of the list."

"We would rather have a couple million really good email addresses by
election day," he said, "than 15 million really bad ones."

*Clinton campaign rebuilds from a digital meltdown
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-digital-20150715-story.html>
// LA Times // Michael A. Memoli – July 16, 2015*

Hillary Rodham Clinton wound down her political operation in 2008 with 2.5
million email addresses in her campaign database. Seven years later, when
campaign officials turned on the lights in April, they were stunned to find
fewer than 100,000 still worked.

Campaign aides learned the bad news in much the same way a reunion
organizer trying to reconnect with old friends might, albeit on a much
larger scale: an in-box clogged with bounce-back messages on the day
Clinton announced her campaign and sent messages to supporters.

The huge attrition of valuable data is not unique to Clinton -- a typical
email list will lose 1 in 5 subscribers each year, said Jordan Cohen, chief
marketing officer for Fluent, which specializes in email list acquisition.
But it created one of the first big challenges for the campaign’s growing
digital team and sparked a response that illustrates the high priority
campaigns now place on acquiring digital data.

“It wasn’t like we all had time to retreat to a local bar and drown our
sorrows,” said Teddy Goff, the Clinton campaign’s digital director – a role
he also filled for President Obama’s reelection campaign. “It was an
instantaneous recognition on the part of a lot of us that we had a bigger
challenge ahead of us than we realized.”

Rebuilding that digital infrastructure became one of the most critical
goals that campaign officials set this year, prompting what became known as
the “Hillbuilder” program.

During the campaign’s first all-staff meeting, on the day before Clinton’s
public campaign launch on Roosevelt Island in June, campaign manager Robby
Mook identified building the email list as one of the top three goals in
the year’s third quarter. On the cubicle walls of the offices used by the
digital staff, a sign asks: “What are you doing to grow the list today?”

In 2012, Obama’s reelection campaign, which boasted 30 million addresses at
its peak, raised $485 million – more than 40% of its total haul – through
its endless, and often parodied, email appeals, according to a former
campaign official who provided the internal fundraising data on condition
of anonymity. The rest of the fundraising total was split equally between
major donors and direct marketing through traditional mail and phone
contacts.

Increasingly sophisticated methods for analyzing large amounts of data have
made emails more and more valuable to campaigns, and not just as a vehicle
for direct communication. The ability to track a user’s online experience
helps the campaign develop a profile that is then used to send
more-targeted communications.

“The campaigns are looking at not just ‘are they going to contribute $1,
$10 when I send them an email,’ but ‘are they opening, are they clicking,
are they forwarding this email to their friends. Are they taking the email
and posting it onto social,’” Cohen said. “There is just inherent value in
having engagement that will lead, hopefully, into votes.”

The Clinton campaign’s digital handicap wasn’t limited to its email lists.
The former secretary of State had no Facebook page, no Instagram account
and only 3.3 million Twitter followers at her launch date (President
Obama’s campaign-run account has more than 60 million today, by comparison).

The campaign would not disclose how much its list has grown since April.
But it has reached 5 million followers across its accounts on Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Spotify and Pinterest, officials said.

The campaign launched each of those platforms over the last few months,
with a goal of reaching would-be supporters where they normally spend time
online and creating a ripple effect that would expand their contact lists.

One early, successful tactic was to create a daily, rapid-response-style
newsletter that supporters could subscribe to called “The Briefing,”
launched to coincide with a new book critical of the Clinton Foundation.

The campaign also sought to build suspense around the Roosevelt Island
rally by promising exclusive details about the event to those who signed up
on Clinton’s website. And last week, Clinton emailed supporters inviting
them to tell her when their birthdays are, so she – or her digital avatar,
at least -- can send a note when the day arrives.

“We're part of a team together,” the email read. “We're going to work hard
and have a lot of fun through it all. Part of that is taking some time to
celebrate and appreciate each other, and that’s what I’d like to do on your
birthday.”

The idea, Goff said, grew out of the fact – attested to by her own, now
public, emails – that Clinton has always gone out of her way to offer
birthday wishes to those around her. A successful digital effort, he noted,
depends on the authenticity of each communication.

“That’s a true thing about her that reflects something that we think people
are going to enjoy that can also be turned into an online program that’s
going to help us build our community,” he said.

Expanding the digital infrastructure isn’t just happening organically, of
course. The campaign also engaged in more transactional efforts, including
exchanging active contacts with the Ready for Hillary organization. They
have also already spent $2 million on an online advertising campaign that
has helped add names to the list.

“The core of what we’re trying to do is serve people with an experience
that they’re going to enjoy, that’s going to enlighten them and hopefully
inspire them to get more deeply involved in the campaign,” Goff said.

*Hillary Clinton's campaign raised nearly $47 million in first quarter
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-campaign-raised-nearly-47-million-in-first-quarter/>
// CBS // Julianna Goldman and Steve Chaggaris – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has filed her first fundraising
report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and her campaign says that
she raised $46.7 million in primary dollars, a record for an opening
quarter in a campaign.

She has also spent a sizable amount - among the expenditures is $18.6
million on gearing up for the campaign ahead - voter files for the first
four early-voting states - a one-time cost - plus organizers, technology
and list-building. Still, Clinton had plenty of cash on hand at the end of
the fundraising period, about $28.8 million.

The Clinton campaign says that more than 250,000 contributors representing
every state and Washington, D.C. donated and 94 percent of the donations
were $250 or less, with the average donation coming in at just under $145.
Sixty-one percent of the donors were women.

Clinton herself made $278,000 in in-kind contributions, mostly to pay staff
working with her during the testing-the-waters, including Huma Abedin,
Robby Mook, and Nick Merrill)

The previous record for primary money raised in a candidate's first quarter
was set by President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, which pulled in
$41.9 million during three months in 2011.

The fundraising total does not include the money raked in by a number of
Clinton-friendly outside groups, like super PACs, non-profit organizations,
and others.

Clinton's campaign fundraising may be record-breaking, but its super PAC
numbers - which have not been released yet - are not expected to be as
robust for the second quarter, a Clinton campaign official told CBS News.

Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in 2016, formally launched her campaign
in mid-April.

*Hillary Clinton comes out in favor of Obama’s Iran deal
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-comes-out-in-favor-of-obamas-iran-deal/>
// CBS // Stephanie Condon – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night
clarified that she supports the agreement that President Obama's
administration and its world partners have reached with Iran to freeze its
nuclear program.

"I support this agreement because I believe it is the most effective path
of all the alternatives available to the U.S. and our partners to prevent
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," she said.

Her statement Tuesday night went a step further than her remarks earlier in
the day, when Clinton she stressed she needed to learn more about the
deal's details. She said Tuesday morning that based on what she knew at the
time, the deal was "an important step in putting the lid on Iran's nuclear
program."

GOP 2016 candidates put onus on Congress, Hillary Clinton to reject Iran
deal

In her latest statement, Clinton added that she is still "studying the
details."

"But based on the briefings I received and a review of the documents, I
support the agreement because it can help us prevent Iran from getting a
nuclear weapon," she continued. "With vigorous enforcement, unyielding
verification, and swift consequences for any violations, this agreement can
make the United States, Israel, and our Arab partners safer."

Given Iran's past behavior, she said, "the highest priority must be given
to effective enforcement of the agreement. Signing is just the beginning."

She argued that her experience shaping the deal as secretary of state will
help her enforce it if she wins in 2016.

"As Secretary of State, I logged tens of thousands of miles and twisted a
lot of arms to build a global coalition to impose the most crippling
sanctions in history," she said. "That unprecedented pressure delivered a
blow to Iran's economy and gave us leverage at the negotiating table,
starting in Oman in 2012. I know from experience what it took to build a
global effort to get this done; I know what it will take to rally our
partners to enforce it."

While Clinton signaled her endorsement of the deal earlier in the day, the
Republican National Committee (RNC) suggested the Democratic frontrunner
was trying to keep an ambiguous position. The RNC spotlighted one report in
which a reporter asked Clinton's staff whether she fell "somewhere on a
spectrum between support and opposition."

Clinton's spokesman responded, "Everybody lives somewhere between support
and opposition."

Meanwhile, as Republicans work to thwart the deal, the RNC continues to
refer to it as the "Clinton-Obama nuclear agreement."

*Is Hillary Clinton all talk, no substance on climate policy?
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-all-talk-no-substance-climate-policy?cid=sm_tw_msnbc>
// MSNBC // Tony Dokoupil – July 15, 2015 *

“She spoke on climate. She is into it,” enthused one lawmaker.

“She was incredible,” swooned another, a climate-minded senator.

“Hillary Clinton wants to run on climate. And she thinks Democrats should
too,” blared a headline in National Journal.

By Wednesday afternoon, word of Hillary Clinton’s closed-door luncheon this
week with House and Senate Democrats was everywhere. But while the
Democratic presidential candidate covered a long list of hot-button issues,
her climate change policy — quite literally the hottest issue of all —
seemed to dominate the political reactions.

The only problem is, well, Hillary Clinton doesn’t actually have a climate
change policy.

There are precisely five mentions of the word on her entire campaign
website, none particularly illuminating. There’s talk of “adapting for
tomorrow” with “domestic action” and “intensive global engagement” on “the
global threat of climate change.”

How exactly will all this happen? Clinton doesn’t say.

There are precisely five mentions of the word on her entire campaign
website, none particularly illuminating.

Her competitor Bernie Sanders brought up that lack of detail in his own
impromptu press conference in the Capitol on Tuesday. For the socialist
junior senator from Vermont, it’s unacceptable for Clinton to
smile-and-wave her way through issues of “planetary” importance. All the
major environmental groups are likely to feel the same way.

“Our movement is looking for a candidate who has the political courage to
move us off fossil fuels in time to avert catastrophic global warming,”
Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for 350 Action, said in an email. “Given
her murky history on this issue, Hillary Clinton needs to do a lot to show
us that’s her.”

“We aren’t going to give her a demerit for failing to give a big climate
speech by this date,” added Michael Brune, the executive director of the
Sierra Club. “But we are looking for an agenda that’s bold, ambitious, and
– hopefully – coming soon.”

There’s no doubting that Clinton appreciates the problem. She’s called
climate change “one of the defining threats of our time,” and suggested
she’d like to take more money from carbon polluters and funnel it toward
clean energy. In a statement to Politico, a spokesperson for Clinton
promised there would be more details to come.

For now, however, the best we can do is return to the rare details that
she’s already put down on the record. There is good news and bad news for
environmentalists, and it all starts with a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is
very likely to be a third term of President Barack Obama when it comes to
climate policies.

Her campaign chair is John Podesta, one of Obama’s closest advisers on
climate policy. She also defends Obama’s controversial policies on
coal-fired power plants, which he has pursued without congressional
support. That’s the good news for the greens.

Hillary Clinton is very likely to be a third term of President Barack Obama
when it comes to climate policies.

Obama has been aggressive when it comes to cutting carbon emissions, and
Clinton has said she’ll not only protect his legacy but extend it. Here’s a
passage environmentalists can love from her speech last December at the
League of Conservation voters:

“You pushed for and rallied behind President Obama’s use of the Clean Air
Act to set the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing
power plants, which are driving the most dangerous effects of climate
change. As you know so well, power plants account for about 40% of the
carbon pollution in the United States, and therefore must be addressed. And
the unprecedented action that President Obama has taken must be protected
at all cost.”

That’s a big deal. Obama’s proposed regulations have already been attacked
by Republicans, and a Republican president would almost certainly weaken or
repeal them. The battle to preserve Obama’s policy is important because it
will help determine how many coal plants close in the near future.

The more coal plants that close, the better chance we have of lowering U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, and as much as 28% by 2025. The
more that we lower those emissions, the more likely it is that other
nations will follow. In turn, the more likely it will be that world will
really — seriously, no joke — slow the rise of the oceans and help the
planet correct its course before it’s too late.

If Clinton is a third-term of Obama, however, there’s also a lot still to
be desired. She supports clean energy, for instance, but like Obama she
seems to favor an “all of the above” approach to energy production. That
means expanded offshore drilling, which Clinton supported as a senator in
2006.

It also means more use of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to
slurp up previously trapped oil and natural gas. She promoted the practice
abroad when she was secretary of state, according to reporting by Grist and
Mother Jones. That’s a deal-breaker for some voters, no matter how well she
eventually defines her “smart regulations.”

The biggest deal-breakers of all, however, are all still pending. What is
Clinton’s position on continued drilling in the Arctic? What does she think
about the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline? She hasn’t
taken a stance on either project yet. But activists have come out in force
to fight both, and unless Clinton falls in line — and soon — they might end
up fighting her as well.

*Hillary Clinton Releases Campaign Fundraising Report
<http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-releases-campaign-fundraising-report-n392971>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald - July 16 2015*

Clinton Stops Short of Fully Supporting Iran Deal, Calls It An 'Important
Step' 0:39

Women made it rain for Hillary Clinton in the first three months of her
presidential campaign — representing more than 60 percent of the donors who
supported the former secretary of state.

The campaign had already announced that it raised $45 million for the
Democratic primary as of June 30, but a new campaign finance report made
public Wednesday evening sheds new light on the campaign's haul.

More than 250,000 people contributed to Clinton, according to the campaign,
and 61 percent were women. That's especially notable since men typically
make up the vast majority of campaign donors — just over 70 percent,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The campaign also raised almost $825,000 in money that can only be used for
the general election. That brought the total haul to more than $46 million.

But the campaign also spent heavily, burning through $18.7 million in the
second quarter of the year, leaving the campaign with $28.85 million in the
bank. A campaign aide defended the spending, telling msnbc that it included
large upfront investments that won't need to be repeated in coming months
on items that most campaigns wait to invest in until later in the cycle.

While Clinton held dozens of high-dollar fundraisers across the country,
her small-dollar fundraising operation also proved successful. According to
the campaign, 94 percent of donations were for $250 or less, and the
average donation was $144.89.

Clinton herself contributed in-kind more than $275,000 to her campaign,
mostly from staffers she paid before the campaign officially kicked off,
the aide said.

*Women open wallets for Hillary Clinton
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/women-open-wallets-hillary-clinton> // MSNBC //
Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015*

Women made it rain for Hillary Clinton in the first three months of her
presidential campaign  — representing more than 60% of the donors who
supported the former secretary of state.

The campaign had already announced that it raised $45 million for the
Democratic primary as of June 30, but a new campaign finance report made
public Wednesday evening sheds new light on the campaign’s haul.

More than 250,000 people contributed to Clinton, according to the campaign,
and 61% were women. That’s especially notable since men typically make up
the vast majority of campaign donors — just over 70%, according to the
Center for Responsive Politics.

The campaign also raised almost $825,000 in money that can only be used for
the general election. That brought the total haul to more than $46 million.

But the campaign also spent heavily, burning through $18.7 million in the
second quarter of the year, leaving the campaign with $28.85 million in the
bank. A campaign aide defended the spending, telling msnbc that it included
large upfront investments that won’t need to be repeated in coming months
on items that most campaigns wait to invest in until later in the cycle.

While Clinton held dozens of high-dollar fundraisers across the country,
her small-dollar fundraising operation also proved successful. According to
the campaign, 94% of donations were for $250 or less, and the average
donation was $144.89.

Clinton herself contributed in-kind more than $275,000 to her campaign,
mostly from staffers she paid before the campaign officially kicked off,
the aide said.

*Hillary Clinton enjoys a warm welcome in Washington
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-enjoys-warm-welcome-washington>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 14, 2015 *

So far on the trail of her second presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton
has spent days meeting with bowling alley owners in Iowa and passing out
ice cream cones in New Hampshire.

But on Tuesday, she took her campaign to Washington, where Clinton returned
to the playing field where she may be at her strongest – marble floors,
behind closed-doors. Hoping to lock down support from Democratic lawmakers
and labor unions, Clinton showed her strength at playing the inside game.

Her whirlwind day in Washington began early with breaking news on Iran’s
nuclear program, did not relent as she met with Democratic members of
Congress – including her top rival for the Democratic nomination – and
continued into the evening with an audition before leaders of the nation’s
largest organized labor group.

As the nation’s capitol was processing the national security breakthrough,
Clinton returned to Capitol Hill with a cadre of heavyweight political
aides in tow for six separate meetings with various groups of Democratic
lawmakers.

In between, she spoke to reporters about her position on the Iran deal,
calling it an “important step.” After that, between more meetings with
House Democrats, she dialed into a conference call with three current
cabinet officials and several former secretaries of state to learn more
about the deal, a briefing made available to her by her status as a former
secretary of state.

And after she left the Capitol, Clinton headed to the offices of the
AFL-CIO to pitch herself to the executive council of the massive labor
federation, hoping to earn their endorsement.

It’s unclear when – or if – Clinton even had time to eat. By the time she
made it across the Capitol to meet with Senate Democrats during their
weekly luncheon, she had missed the meal. “She got there late, she didn’t
get lunch,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

One Senate Democrat left the room early. It was Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is
challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but has found more
enthusiastic support at large rallies in places like Madison, Wisconsin
than among his colleagues in the halls of Congress.

“I have known Secretary Clinton for 25 years, since she was first lady. I
served with her in the Senate. I like and respect Hillary Clinton,” he told
reporters at a press conference. “But there are differences of opinion that
we have which should be the basis for a serious discussion.”

“I helped lead the effort to stop the deregulation of Wall Street. I
believe the biggest banks should be broken up and that Glass-Steagall
financial regulations should be reinstated. To the best of my knowledge,
she isn’t for either one,” he said.

Sanders was respectful inside the luncheon and stood and applauded for
Clinton other senators said. Meanwhile, Clinton has already secured the
support of almost two-thirds of Sanders’ Democratic colleagues, according
to one tally.

That’s a stark contrast to last time Clinton ran for the presidency, when
the caucus split and many of her fellow senators were supporting her
then-colleague, Barack Obama.

The defectors included leaders like Reid – who declined to endorse Clinton
today out of loyalty to Vice President Joe Biden – and some of the
lawmakers who hailed Clinton’s visit today. House Democratic Leader Nancy
Pelosi quietly supported Obama then, but exchanged kisses with Clinton
today in front of the cameras, and said she couldn’t wait for the candidate
to enter the White House.

Among others, Clinton received almost uniformly positive reviews, even from
lawmakers who have been skeptical of her in the past.

“She expressed values that are very consistent with the Progressive
Caucus,” said Rep. Keith Ellison, the chairman of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus, who had hoped Sen. Elizabeth Warren would throw her hat
in the ring.

“No matter where people end up gong, they’re two awesome progressives, in
our view,” said Ellison of Clinton and Sanders.

Clinton had initially not scheduled a meeting with the Progressive Caucus,
but added it later. Thirty-eight of its liberal members turned out to meet
the candidate, according to a congressional aide.

After a different meeting, Rep. Louise Slaughter, a Clinton ally who
represents New York was asked if she thought Democratic lawmakers might
side with Sanders. “Bernie Sanders is running as an independent, I think,
isn’t he?” she told reporters. “I remember quite well hearing he was not a
Democrat, so I’m not exactly clear why he’s running on our ticket to be
honest with you.”

Clinton twice led a stampede of reporters through the entire length of the
Capitol building, as she moved from the House to the Senate and back again.

The train behind grew as more staffers and reporters attached themselves,
meandering through a throng of iPhone-wielding tourists in rotunda who
screamed for selfies with the candidate. But Clinton kept a brisk pace as
her entourage pressed itself through narrow stairwells.

The former secretary of state was not the only fair-haired celebrity
allegedly spotted in Congress today. Rumors swirled that singer Taylor
Swift, in Washington for a two-night stand, had come to the Hill.

A persistent lack of sighting of the pop star did not stop some  –
including members of Congress – from hoping for a selfie of the two. “Staff
tell me @taylorswift13 is roaming Capitol Hill. @HillaryClinton can you
confirm? We could do a selfie,” tweeted Rep. Debbie Dingell.

*Hillary Clinton’s Resurrection
<http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/hillary-clintons-resurrection> //
New Yorker // Nicholas Lemann – July 15, 2015 *

The twenty-first-century boom in new translations of the great
nineteenth-century Russian novels has not encompassed one significant work:
the last of Leo Tolstoy’s three full-length novels, “Resurrection,”
originally published in 1899. The English translation of “Resurrection”
that is easiest to find is the first, from 1900, by the Tolstoy acolyte
Louise Maude, and there hasn’t been a new one in decades.

It’s easy to see why this is so. Both “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina”
have Tolstoy-like characters—Pierre Bezukhov and Konstantin Levin—who chafe
at the self-satisfaction, relentless social striving, and oppressive
economic underpinnings of the Russian aristocracy into which they were
born. Both are drawn to reformist spiritual and political ideas. But in
“Resurrection” the main character, Dmitri Nekhlyudov, another landowning
aristocrat, goes a step further, into what appears to be full-bore
rejection of his world and its values. He institutes land reform on his
estates, and leaves the Russia of cities and country homes to undertake a
long eastward journey to Siberia, where a household servant he seduced and
abandoned years earlier has been unjustly imprisoned. Where “War and Peace”
and “Anna Karenina” presented the life of a corrupt society with
astonishing richness and subtlety, “Resurrection” is relentlessly preachy,
prudish, and joyless.

There is a strain of American liberalism that offers government as a
sensible, useful way to make society function better than it does now—as a
problem-solving instrument that conservatives are too stubbornly prejudiced
to employ. That is Bill Clinton’s liberalism. And then there’s the
Tolstoyan strain, in which it’s evident that society works well only for a
fortunate minority, whose elaborately enjoyed well-being may even have come
at the expense of the majority. Tolstoyan liberalism is, like its namesake,
élite liberalism—more Franklin Roosevelt (who grew up on an American
inherited dacha farmed by peasants) than Eugene Debs, or for that matter
Elizabeth Warren. Tolstoy offers a harsh critique, but from an insider’s
perspective; it treats the system as deeply flawed, but not as utterly
alien. In her 2016 Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has been publicly
flirting with Tolstoyan liberalism.

Long before she announced her candidacy, Clinton surrounded herself with
advisers from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and banished the
centrists who controlled her last campaign. Her April announcement video
and first campaign speech last month hinted at a left-populist direction
that continued, with more bite, in her first big economic-policy address
this week. This wasn’t where her husband had ever gone, or where she had
been in 2008.

Has she decided never again to be in the thankless position of running as a
moderate in a Democratic primary campaign, no matter how prohibitive her
lead? Is Bernie Sanders’s surge in the first two primary states pushing her
leftward? Is she seeing research that indicates, or just concluding
instinctively, that the financial crisis changed the way Americans think
about the economy? Does she finally feel free to express what have always
been her opinions?

This week’s speech left the answers to such questions where they usually
are with Clinton—tantalizingly uncertain. She left all but a few specifics
of her economic policies to be unveiled in speeches to come, and she made
sure to praise small business, entrepreneurship, and investment. But she
criticized Wall Street by name and by specific practices (her Web site has
a section called “Rein in Wall Street”), and criticized Uber and AirbnB,
sacred causes in Silicon Valley, without naming them, by saying that their
advent is “raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a
good job will look like in the future.” This demonstrates a willingness to
risk alienating the subcultures where some of the Democratic Party’s
biggest donors dwell. (On Friday, President Obama will appear at a
fund-raiser at the San Francisco home of Shervin Pishevar, one of Uber’s
founding investors.) And there was no commensurate implicit challenge to
organized labor, which both Clintons and Obama have tangled with in the
past.

It felt as if Clinton were crossing a line, policy specifics or no, in the
way she was choosing to frame economic questions. First, she made it clear
that the traditionally safe zone for American political discourse about the
economy—calling for equality of opportunity, not equality of result—was no
longer sufficient for her. Her target is “strong and steady income growth”
for ordinary working people, which can presumably be measured only by how
much money people wind up with, not how fair a chance they had to make it.
And second, she at least toyed with the theme of resentment of the
rich—another area Democratic politicians of the past generation, including
Clinton herself, have generally avoided—as when she responded to Jeb Bush’s
exhortation to Americans to work longer hours by saying, “Let him tell that
to the nurse who stands on her feet all day or the trucker who drives all
night. Let him tell that to the fast-food workers marching in the streets
for better pay. They don’t need a lecture—they need a raise.”

Tolstoy, even though he was deep into his final holy-moralist phrase,
didn’t quite know what to do with Nekhlyudov at the end of “Resurrection.”
Having set out on his Siberian journey resolved to give everything away and
to marry his wronged former mistress, the hero is perhaps relieved to learn
that she refuses to marry him. He’s free, and it seems possible that he
might return to some version of the former life he had been determined to
reject. He still seems more comfortable at a dinner party than in the
company of the political prisoners he encounters in the proto-gulag.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t born an aristocrat, but she functions as one now,
and, assuming she becomes a major-party nominee, she can only take her new
and rather profound critique of how well American society functions so far.
She won’t, and can’t, run, or live, as a radical. So it’s a question of
finding the right equipoise. The practice of American politics almost
always requires rhetorical optimism; the practice of liberal American
politics now seems also to require just the right measure of opprobrium
directed at the way our country is run. What’s interesting about Clinton’s
struggle to find the balance is that she is struggling to find it, as she
hasn’t in the past. And it will be even more interesting to see what she
does with it, if she gets the chance to govern.

*Hillary Clinton Becomes First 2016 Candidate To Release Bundler Names
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers_55a6f70ce4b0c5f0322c5852>
// HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released the names of 159
campaign bundlers on Wednesday, the first 2016 contender to disclose
big-money fundraisers.

The bundlers include many of the names appearing on fundraising invitations
sent out over the past three months by the Clinton campaign. Many of these
people were bundlers for Clinton’s last presidential bid in 2008.

Clinton is the first candidate in the crowded 2016 race to disclose
bundlers. Two Republican candidates, Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, said they will disclose their bundlers in
October. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas),
won't voluntarily disclose their bundlers.

Clinton's list of bundlers was limited to those who had helped raise
$100,000 or more. The campaign also reported on Wednesday that it had
raised $47.5 million and spent $18.7 million since its launch on April 4.
The minimum total amount raised by her bundlers was $15.9 million.

Among the names are Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell; Comcast lobbyist
David Cohen; hedge funders Blair Effron, Orin Kramer and Marc Lasry;
Chicago billionaires J.B.Pritzker and M.K. Pritzker; Hollywood honcho and
Israel booster Haim Saban; trial lawyer and medical marijuana proponent
John Morgan; and The New Republic owner Chris Hughes and his husband Sean
Eldridge.

Lynn Forrest de Rothschild is back as a Clinton bundler in 2016. After
Clinton's loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primary, de Rothschild flipped
her support to Republican presidential candidate John McCain. She backed
former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in the 2012 Republican primary, and Mitt
Romney in the 2012 general election.

A number of members of Congress, current and former, are among Clinton’s
bundlers. They include Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.),
Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).

One notable bundler is Gordon Giffin, a former lobbyist for the Canadian
company working to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin is also on the
board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which paid Clinton
$990,000 for speeches she gave immediately before announcing her
presidential campaign.

Clinton also disclosed, in a filing with the Federal Election Commission, a
list of 40 registered lobbyists who had raised a combined $2 million for
her campaign. The lobbyists included some, like Steve Elmendorf, who
appeared on her list of $100,000-plus Hillblazers, and others, like former
senator-turned-lobbyist Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), who did not.

The top lobbyist bundlers were FTI Consulting's Jackson Dunn, with
$231,554; Elmendorf, with $141,815; Capitol Counsel's David Jones, with
$120,675; and McGuireWoods's Andrew Smith and Jim Hodges, with $133,350 and
$106,750, respectively.

*Clinton In 2011: Iran Only Has Right To Enrich After Nuclear Weapons
Program “Irreversibly Shut Down”
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/clinton-in-2011-iran-only-has-right-to-enrich-after-nuclear#.auYeMz4y2>
// BuzzFeed // Christopher Massie – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton said in 2011 that it was her and the Obama administration’s
position that Iran would not have a right to enrich uranium until it had
“irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program.”

On Tuesday, as a Democratic presidential candidate, Clinton endorsed a deal
that would restrict Iran’s nuclear fuel for 15 years, while allowing it to
continue to enrich uranium at levels well below bomb-grade, in exchange for
the removal of economic sanctions.

At a hearing of the House Committee of Foreign Affairs on March 1, 2011,
Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot asked then-Secretary of State Clinton whether
the administration believed that “the current regime should be allowed to
enrich or reprocess domestically.”

Clinton did not specifically answer the question with regard to the regime
of the time, which, below Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, was led by
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was widely seen as less open to
compromise than current President Hassan Rouhani. Clinton did, however, say
that Iran would have such a right “sometime in the future,” if it met
certain conditions, such as the irreversible shutdown of its nuclear
weapons program.

“Well, Congressman, it has been our position that, under very strict
conditions, Iran would sometime in the future, having responded to the
international community’s concerns and irreversibly shut down its nuclear
weapons program, have such a right under IAEA inspection,” she said. “I
think that is the position of the international community, along with the
United States.”

Months before, in December 2010, Clinton said to the BBC that the
administration had told Iran “that they are entitled to the peaceful use of
civil nuclear energy,” once they had “restored the confidence of the
international community,” but did not mention an irreversible shutdown of
their weapons program as a prerequisite for that.

On the other hand, in a story published in August 2014, Clinton told
Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic that “I’ve always been in the camp that
held that they did not have a right to enrichment” and that the assertion
of such a right was “absolutely unfounded.”

Of the deal reached on Tuesday, which is now awaiting Congressional action,
Clinton said, “I support this agreement because I believe it is the most
effective path of all the alternatives available to the U.S. and our
partners to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

*Bill Clinton apologized for his 1994 crime bill, but he still doesn’t get
why it was bad <http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8565345/1994-crime-bill> // Vox
// Dara Lind – July 15, 2015*

Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, among other things, an end to the era of
mass incarceration. Awkwardly, Bill Clinton, former president of the United
States, signed a law in 1994 that did a lot to accelerate mass
incarceration.

Bill Clinton has been doing a lot to demonstrate that he has seen the error
of his ways, and supports his wife's reform efforts. He's made several
statements acknowledging the errors of the 1994 crime bill he passed. And
speaking to the NAACP on Wednesday, July 15, Clinton put it as bluntly as
he ever has: "I signed a bill that made the problem worse. And I want to
admit that."

He's right. But does he understand how it made the problem worse? He didn't
in May, when he told The Hill:

"We have too many people in prison. And we wound up spending — putting so
many people in prison that there wasn’t enough money left to educate them,
train them for new jobs and increase the chances when they came out that
they could live productive lives."

That was a problem! But that is not the problem that Clinton's bill made
worse.

There were two big reasons the prison population rose so drastically from
the 1980s to the late 2000s. One of them was, yes, that more people went to
prison. But the other was that the people who went to prison were going for
longer.

This chart is a little hard to read, because the red line for murder
sentences is so bright and distracting. But there were very few murder
sentences compared to other crimes. Instead, check out the more gradual,
but definite, sentence increases for other crimes:

The 1994 crime bill Clinton signed was a big reason for the second trend:
longer prison terms. The law used funding for new prisons as a way to
pressure states to get rid of parole and adopt "truth-in-sentencing" laws
that required prisoners to serve out their sentences. Since states are
responsible for much more incarceration than the federal government, this
was one of the more influential things the federal government could do.

And it worked. When Clinton signed the bill, five states had
truth-in-sentencing laws. In 1995, 11 new states passed them. Another 13
states passed truth-in-sentencing laws in the next five years. (Many of
these states didn't explicitly say they were doing it to go after federal
funding, and some of them didn't ask for it.)

That didn't just end up taking up money that could have been used for
prison programming, to help people "live productive lives" when they got
out. It deliberately forced them to spend more of their lives in prison.
They had less of a chance to live productive lives after release, because
they had less of their lives to live.

A lot of the progress that's been made at the state level over the past
several years has been aimed at reducing the length of prison sentences —
in other words, undoing what states had done during the Clinton era. The
Clinton crime bill doesn't deserve all the blame for the push for longer
sentences. But that is its lasting legacy.

The Clintons are politicians, and it makes sense that they've shifted their
positions in response to the demands of the public and their party. In the
1980s and 1990s, Democrats were afraid of being seen as "soft on crime,"
and felt that cracking down on crime might help African-American
communities; today, Democrats are responding to growing awareness that mass
incarceration perpetuates a lot of the problems it's supposed to solve, and
a grassroots movement protesting police killings of young, often unarmed
black men. Their party is now more worried about policing and prison than
swing voters are about crime.

But when it comes to actually proposing solutions, a politician has to do
more than understand that something is a problem. That leads to exactly the
same kind of "do something" politics that got us into this mess to begin
with. Understanding what the solutions will be — and why they might have to
include politically difficult measures, like reducing sentences for violent
crime — requires understanding why it's a problem.

*Lobbyists, lawmakers rake in cash for Hillary
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/248140-clinton-releases-bundlers-list>
// The Hill // Megan R. Wilson – July 15, 2015*

More than 100 individuals each helped bundle together $100,000 or more for
Hillary Clinton’s presidential run since April, according to an
announcement from the campaign Wednesday evening.

Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) made the list, in
addition to lobbyists David Jones of Capitol Counsel and Steve Elmendorf of
Elmendorf|Ryan.

The website does not include the exact amount that individuals raised.

Former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now works as a partner at McGuireWoods,
also appears. Bayh, his wife and the firm’s political action committee
hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last month.

"We had a fantastic turnout and the event was a huge success raising more
money than we had expected,” L.F. Payne, president of McGuireWoods
Consulting, said in a statement.

The Clinton campaign says it raised about $47.5 million in the second
quarter — which spans from April to June. It spent about $18.7 million and
still has $28.9 million cash on hand.

Bundlers play a key role, especially in presidential races, proving to a
candidate that they can bring in much-needed cash needed to keep the
expensive operation running.

Campaigns are not required to disclose their bundlers unless they are
registered lobbyists, although Clinton and GOP contender Jeb Bush vowed to
do so.

Also on Clinton’s big bundler list: abortion rights group EMILY’S List,
billionaires M.K. and J.B. Pritzker; her campaign’s treasurer Jose
Villareal, who also works at top law and lobby firm Akin Gump; Morgan
Stanley executive and former Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides – and many
others.

More than 250,000 individuals donated to the Clinton campaign, it said in a
release Wednesday evening, and 94 percent of those people gave $250 or less.

In the release, campaign manager Robby Mook blasted Republican candidates,
saying they had relied on “billionaire backers for unlimited sums of money.”

“We are glad to be able to have such broad support to be able to show why
Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who will fight for policies that
allow everyday Americans to get ahead and stay ahead,” he said.

Clinton has two super PACs raising money to support her — Ready PAC and
Priorities USA — but they have not yet released the amount they have raised.

The super PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's bid for the White
House recently announced $103 million in donations.

Bush raised $11.4 million in the second quarter, according to newly
released reports.

*Dems: Benghazi panel has ‘abandoned’ its work to focus on Hillary
<http://thehill.com/policy/defense/247982-dems-benghazi-panel-has-abandoned-work-to-focus-on-hillary>
// The Hill // Martin Matishak – July 14, 2015 *

Democrats serving on the House Select Committee on Benghazi say the panel’s
GOP chairman has “abandoned” plans for hearings to shift the focus of the
investigation to Hillary Clinton.

“At the beginning of this year, Select Committee Republicans provided
Democrats with detailed information about their plans to hold 11 hearings
between January and October on a wide range of topics relating to the
Benghazi attacks,” the panel’s five Democrats wrote Wednesday in a letter
to chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).

“Since then, however, Republicans have completely abandoned this plan —
holding no hearings at all since January and instead focusing on former
Secretary Hillary Clinton,” they added.

The missive gives an outline of the hearings the panel was supposed to
convene, including: one in April with former Defense secretaries Robert
Gates and Leon Panetta to examine why the U.S. had an outpost in Benghazi,
Libya; another in May with Clinton to discuss the same topic; another in
July with former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice; and finally one in October to
hammer out specific oversight recommendations to help prevent a similar
attack from happening in the future.

Gowdy and panel Republicans have maintained that the probe into the 2012
attacks that killed four Americans cannot move forward until the State
Department hands over all emails Clinton's top aides.

They have also argued that Clinton should give the private email server she
used while in office — which the presidential contender's attorney says has
been wiped clean of data — to a third-party to determine if any information
can be recovered.

Democrats are upset that no work on the panel has been completed recently.

“The Select Committee has not only postponed its hearings with Secretary
Clinton and other State Department witnesses, but it has abandoned all of
its other hearings as well, including those examining other agencies like
the Department of Defense and the CIA,” according to Democrats.

They say the Republican-controlled panel “has not conducted a transcribed
interview or deposition of even a single Defense Department employee” and
waited until April before sending a document request to the CIA.

“In the past, Republicans have attempted to blame the Select Committee’s
glacial pace on Secretary Clinton and the State Department.  But it seems
difficult to understand how they could be responsible for the Select
Committee abandoning every single hearing it had planned to hold since
January,” Democrats said.

“It appears that much of the Select Committee’s work has been shelved while
Republicans pursue every possible avenue of political attack against
Secretary Clinton,” they added.

Democrats said the actions by the select committee “which lack any
legitimate basis — serve only to delay its work further into the election
season and subject it to increasingly widespread criticism for its highly
partisan actions.”

*Clinton’s fundraising surpasses $47 million
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/07/15/hillary-clinton-fundraising-report/30216357/>
// USA Today // Fredreka Schouten – July 15, 2015 *

Democrat Hillary Clinton drew more than $47.5 million in donations since
announcing her presidential campaign in April and swiftly spent nearly 40%
of the money to build her staff and infrastructure in early primary states,
figures released Wednesday show.

The vast majority of Clinton's haul — $46 million — is reserved for the
primary election, a record amount of primary dollars for a candidate at
this point in the election cycle. She started July with nearly $29 million
in cash reserves.

Clinton and other presidential candidates filed reports Wednesday detailing
their fundraising and spending with the Federal Election Commission.
Clinton also voluntarily released a list of 122 individuals and couples who
raised money for her campaign, becoming the first 2016 candidate to
disclose her bundlers.

The lists includes long-time allies, such as Esprit clothing co-founder
Susie Tompkins Buell, and prominent political figures, such as Washington
lobbyist Steve Elmendorf and former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh.

The former secretary of State spent nearly $279,000 of her own money during
the "testing the waters" phase of the campaign to help underwrite travel
and staff expenses, the filings show.

Clinton, who has not run for office since her 2008 unsuccessful
presidential bid, sought to quickly ramp up her political operation this
year, buying voter files in the early states and hiring staff to rally
voters in states such as Iowa and her Brooklyn, N.Y., headquarters.

In a news release, her aides touted the size of her contribution base,
noting that 250,000 donors had given to Clinton. The campaign said six in
10 were women.

The filings show that 17% of her money came in amounts of $200 or less.
More than 80% came from donors who gave $2,700 or more, the maximum amount
an individual can donate for the primary.

"Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support
Hillary Clinton's campaign, we have had the ability to make critical
investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the
primary and the White House," campaign manager Robby Mook said in a
statement.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders posted the second-largest haul among Democratic
presidential candidates. He raised $15.2 million, more than two-thirds of
which came from donors who gave in small amounts.

Republican field is outraising Democrats, boosted by independent groups
that can collect unlimited sums. A super PAC supporting Republican Jeb
Bush, for instance, has raised more than $103 million. Outside groups
backing Clinton have trailed behind, drawing about $24 million.

*Hillary Clinton says she called for Wall Street regulations early in the
financial crisis
<http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/>
// PolitiFact // Lauren Carroll – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being cozy with Wall Street -- but in
her 2016 campaign, she’s been striking populist tones.

Clinton introduced her plan for a variety of economic issues in a speech at
the New School in Manhattan on July 14, 2015. As president, she said, she
would go "beyond Dodd-Frank" -- the regulations on financial institutions
that took hold in 2010, following the economic crisis of 2007-08.

She said she had been calling for financial regulations since the very
early stages of the crisis.

"As we all know, in the years before the crash, financial firms piled risk
upon risk, and regulators in Washington either couldn’t or wouldn’t keep
up," she said. "I was alarmed by this gathering storm and called for
addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and
improving financial oversight."

Clinton used to be the senator from New York, the home of Wall Street. She
has a history of campaign backing from the finance industry and of
delivering high-priced speeches to finance firms, such as Goldman Sachs.
And her husband, former President Bill Clinton, signed the repeal of a bank
break-up bill, the Glass-Steagall Act -- a deregulation that some critics
believe contributed to the financial crisis.

So we questioned Hillary Clinton’s record of addressing financial
regulations. Did she address derivatives, subprime mortgages and financial
oversight so early in the crisis?

The 2008 primary campaign

While the financial crisis came to a head in summer 2008, problems with
housing started to bubble up in 2007 during Clinton’s ill-fated
presidential primary campaign. On the trail, Clinton addressed these
nascent issues -- particularly the mortgage crisis -- as early as March of
that year.

Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility
of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people
were ignoring warning signs.

"The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street,"
Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and
millions of hard-working families."

She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including
expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing
options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards
against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent
foreclosures.

In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with
problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals,
and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration
for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders.

"I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she
said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems
here.’ "

It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these
policies in September 2007.

The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in
Iowa.  (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge
against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.)

"We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other
complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the
bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out.
Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as
Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments.
Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply
because the securities they own are worth less than they thought."

In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the
subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George
W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution.

And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as
president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a
21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of
these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."

This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors,
according to the New York Times.

At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the
financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a
six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in
part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products,
establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer
protections.

After becoming secretary of state in 2009, Clinton made noticeably fewer
comments on domestic policy and financial regulation. But the record shows
that establishing policies to address the then-nascent financial crisis was
a key point of her campaign platform in 2007 and 2008.

Our ruling

Clinton said she "called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down
on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight" early on in the
financial crisis.

The crisis hit a peak in summer 2008, though it started to gain traction in
2007. Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her
appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She
also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing
oversight of financial institutions.

Her statement is accurate, and we rate her claim True.

*Clinton’s Model Staffers
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/hillary-clinton-staffers-online-store-20150710?utm_content=bufferda28a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer>
// National Journal // Emily Schultheis – July 11, 2015 *

Half a dozen Hillary Clinton staffers lounged on a backyard patio in
Brooklyn's Bushwick neighborhood one afternoon in June, sporting campaign
T-shirts as they chatted and laughed. Communications staffer Ian Sams stood
by the barbecue, wearing sunglasses, skinny black jeans, and an apron
emblazoned with a play on his boss's name: "More Like Grillary Clinton."
Sams watched hot dogs sizzle on the grill as he talked with Amanda
Renteria, the campaign's political director, whose son, Diego, played
nearby. Others sat around a table that had been set with place mats and
plates.

A midsummer staff get-together? Not exactly. The occasion was a photo shoot
for Clinton's online campaign store. Launched in May, the store has
everything from bumper stickers and T-shirts featuring the campaign's "H"
logo to branded grilling spatulas and beer koozies that say "Chillary
Clinton." And every single model on the website works for the campaign or,
in the case of the children, is related to someone who does.

The barbecue scene, which now tops the campaign's store page, was shot over
the course of about an hour in the Bushwick backyard of a Clinton staffer's
friend. (There was no food budget; an aide picked up the hot dogs at a
nearby convenience store.) But most of the photos on the site were taken by
staff photographers at the campaign's Brooklyn Heights headquarters, in a
glass-walled conference room that gives other campaign workers a chance to
peer in and cheer on their colleagues as they pose.

For some, the practice has added a new—and unexpected—dimension to working
for Clinton. Communications staffer Jesse Lehrich says he was used to being
behind the scenes and modeling had never crossed his mind—until the
campaign solicited volunteers for a photo shoot, and someone from the
merchandise team handed him a shirt from the campaign's "Pride" collection.
"What can I say? I'm a team player," he tells me. "Our photog grabbed me
and asked me, and between my willingness to do anything for the campaign
and the room full of people egging me on, I capitulated." (A photo of the
blue-eyed, bearded Lehrich rocking a tank top adorned with a rainbow
version of the campaign logo went up on the site in June.) Others are more
openly enthusiastic about their moment in the sun: "My family was very
excited to see me modeling items in the store," says Alexandria Phillips, a
press assistant with springy brown curls and a broad smile, who on the
website wears a purple T-shirt that says, "Women's rights are human
rights." "Even my grandmother, our family matriarch and last Republican
holdout, had to admit that she thought I made the Hillary items look good!"

But the arrangement has earned the staffer-models a certain amount of
good-natured ribbing as well. Political operatives and reporters have
recognized the aides in question and teased them on Twitter about their
moonlighting. The photos have even popped up in snarky articles. One post
from New York magazine, titled, "Hillary Knows Exactly What Kind of Dumb
Beach-Themed Merch You Want," featured a large photo of Ian Sams in the
"Grillary Clinton" apron. (He didn't get to choose his apparel either, he
tells me: The merchandise team gave him the apron and that's what he wore.)
"I never thought I'd be compared to an Urban Outfitters model by New York
magazine," he says. "But cross that off the bucket list."

No other 2016 campaign is using staffers to show off its apparel in quite
this way; the closest is Rand Paul's, which has several photos of young
people—some of whom are staffers—in "Rand 2016" gear at the top of its
merchandise page. But individual items aren't displayed on models,
professional or otherwise.

The Clinton campaign's official answer for why it went this route was that
using in-house talent was a cost-cutting measure cribbed from Obama 2012.
But they could have done without the human mannequins entirely, as most
other campaigns have. Cost-consciousness aside—and with Clinton's record
$45 million fundraising haul from her first quarter in the race, she's not
exactly hurting for cash at the moment—the decision to use staffers as
models is also, clearly, a marketing move. The question is: What does this
marketing move actually communicate?

"Everyday items made by everyday Americans" is the tagline of the store,
and the phrase "everyday Americans" is one that Clinton frequently invokes
on the stump. As a group, however, these young, Brooklyn-based Democratic
operatives give off more of a hipster vibe; they seem, in short, like the
kind of people you're likely to see hanging out at a Bushwick barbecue.

Meaghan Burdick, who ran merchandising for the 2012 Obama campaign and
herself modeled for the Obama store (as a redhead, she frequently showed up
in the St. Patrick's Day—or O'Bama—apparel section), says the site "shows
youthful energy" and is in keeping with the campaign's efforts to cultivate
a looser, more laid-back image. "It's the whole, 'This is fun,' trying to
take the edge off the serious aspect of it, I think," she says. Sean Duffy,
a brand marketing expert, says it's about projecting diversity and youth:
"There's the obvious demographic thing going on: a more or less youthful
group of people, racially diverse, you've got kids, so it hints at the
family thing. For me … it just said she's trying to portray this kind of
young normalcy." Jasmine Sandler, a digital marketing strategist, looked at
the photo of Sams and said it brought to mind "a techie dad, who is as
comfortable managing the grill as he is his tech team at work. He has a
sense of domestic stability to him and good employment."

Will the strategy sell shirts? The campaign wouldn't talk about how many
apparel items had been purchased thus far, or whether the images on the
site were getting as much attention from potential buyers as they were on
social media. But some have their doubts. "I keep saying, they may have
saved money by using me as a model," says Lehrich, "but there ain't nobody
that's going to buy that tank top now."

*Hillary Clinton Has Already Spent $18.7 Million
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-campaign-fundraising-fec-20150715>
// National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton spent a massive $18.7 million in her first quarter as a
presidential candidate, an enormous sum that is more money than any of her
rivals, Democratic or Republican, have even raised.

The spending amounts to roughly $230,000 for every day since she declared
her candidacy on April 12, an incredible pace at a time when Clinton was
not purchasing expensive television ads. Instead, the funds have gone
toward building a national political apparatus helmed by campaign manager
Robby Mook.

"We have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization
that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House," Mook
said in a statement.

Despite the spending, Clinton still ended the quarter with roughly $28
million in primary cash, according to the campaign and reports filed with
the Federal Election Commission. She raised a total of $46.7 million,
including $824,000 in general election contributions.

Clinton also released a list of 122 of her bundlers Wednesday that have
raised at least $100,000 for her campaign. One name that stands out is Rep.
Joaquin Castro, the twin brother of Julian Castro, the secretary of Housing
and Urban Development who is often listed as a potential Clinton running
mate.

The Clinton campaign said that it had received money from more than 250,000
people, with an average-sized contribution of $144.89. Her campaign said 61
percent of her donors were women and that 94 percent of donors had given
$250 or less. Earlier on Wednesday, her chief Democratic rival in the
polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders, revealed he had 284,000 contributors who had
given an average of $35.

All told, Clinton's fundraising dwarfs that of Sanders, who reported
raising $15.2 million, including $1.5 million he transferred from his
Senate committee, and spent roughly $3 million in the second quarter.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has not yet filed his disclosure.

Clinton's new FEC filing suggests that her campaign's spending choices this
time are informed by her previous run, when she also began as the
prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

In that first run eight years ago, Clinton found herself nearly out of cash
by the time of the Iowa caucuses, despite having raised $100 million and
having started her ground operation relatively late, compared to rivals
Barack Obama and John Edwards.

In the second quarter of 2007, Clinton spent a total of $2.5 million on
salaries and $1.1 million on travel and $237,000 on polling.

In 2015, she has spent $3.8 million on salaries, plus another $391,000 on
"organizing services," while keeping travel costs to $465,000. The amount
spent on polling, meanwhile, nearly quadrupled, to $905,000.

S.V. Dáte contributed to this article.

*Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/hillary-clinton-fec-filing-shows-46m-raised-with-women-60-of-donors>
// The Guardian – July 15, 2015*

FEC filing shows hundreds of staff hired and big online operation built up,
but does not include money being accumulated by super PACS

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has detailed $46m worth of fundraising
activities to the FEC.

Hillary Clinton has spent nearly $19m and hired hundreds of staff during
the first three months of her presidential campaign. In total, Clinton’s
official campaign raised more than $46m from more than 250,000
contributors, according to records filed with the FEC, the US election
finance watchdog.

About 60% of donors were women, the Clinton campaign said, and 94% of the
donations came in amounts of $250 or less. The average donation was $144.89.

Clinton’s spending underscores her early effort to build a national
campaign, even as aides say she is focused on the primary contest. Beyond
paying salaries for 343 new employees, her campaign purchased lists of
voters in four early voting states and spent heavily on building up a
digital team.

Her campaign also released a list of campaign bundlers, donors who each
raised more than $100,000. Some of the donors included Clinton’s most
ardent financial backers, including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie
Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor who was a major donor to the
Ready for Hillary super PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a
longtime friend and college classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire JB
Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan Patricof, a New York-based financier who
served as Clinton’s finance chair when she first ran for Senate in New York.

Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly $390m
that official presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates say
they have raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton’s and Bush’s, were
required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission
by midnight on Wednesday.

The FEC reports cover financial activity between 1 April and 30 June and
list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution
for the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also show how candidates are
spending their money on consultants, office space, advertising, polling and
more.

Wednesday’s reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are
handing over. The candidates also benefit from “super PACs” – political
action committees – usually created specifically to help them. Those
groups, which accept contributions of any size and are subject to legal
limits on how closely they can work with the campaigns, file their FEC
reports at the end of the month.

The pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that counts on
seven-figure donors and previously backed Barack Obama, raised an
additional $15m, according to an Associated Press assessment.

The AP found that donors have handed over nearly $400m, more than
two-thirds of it to outside groups rather than to official campaigns. That
total is more than the presidential candidates raised for the entire
primary election of 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics,
a group that tracks election spending.

Since announcing her White House bid in April, Clinton has positioned staff
in all fifty states with the majority working out of a large and pricey
Brooklyn headquarters.

The overwhelming favorite for her party’s nomination, Clinton and her team
have set their sights on building the massive infrastructure they will need
for the general election.

The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three
months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more
competitive primary race against Barack Obama.

During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors
that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices like spending
nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus, a
contest she lost.

This time, her staff has emphasized its “cheapskate” mentality particularly
to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May, top donors
were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own
transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn. Campaign aides like to
brag about taking the bus from New York to Washington, rather than the more
expensive Acela train. Even so, her campaign spent at least $8,700 on train
tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election
Commission report shows.

All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during
this campaign than she did eight years ago. During the first three months
of her 2008 bid Clinton spent 14% of the $36m she raised, according to FEC
documents. In the launch of this campaign she has used up nearly 40% of
what she has taken in.

By comparison Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent
challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2m
through the end of June and three-quarters of his donations were $200 or
less.

*Hillary Clinton Wants to Run on Climate. And She Thinks Democrats Should
Too.
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-climate-change-democrats-20150714>
// National Journal // Clare Foran and Jason Plautz – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton isn't afraid to talk about global warming—and she wants her
fellow Democrats to join her.

In closed-door meetings with House and Senate Democrats Tuesday, Clinton
jumped at the chance to discuss the hot-button topic in political terms,
numerous lawmakers said. Clinton delivered a clear message: Democrats must
convince the American public that action to combat Earth's rising
temperatures is urgent, and her party can make that case by tailoring their
message to different kinds of voters.

"She was incredible," said Sen. Ben Cardin. "She really relates [climate
change] to the current political communities and how we have to do a better
job. We know the policy, but we have to do a better job on the politics."

Clinton wants Democrats to grasp the importance of Paris climate
negotiations later this year and speak about global warming in a way that
resonates with millennials, according to several Senate Democrats. That
would be an easy way for Democrats to draw a clear contrast with a GOP
presidential field dominated by climate skeptics.

She wants to keep her left flank clear as well, delivering a message
guaranteed to appeal to the party's progressive wing. Clinton framed global
warming as a pressing and serious threat and touted the climate credentials
of John Podesta, the chairman of her 2016 campaign and a former climate
adviser to President Obama.

But Clinton doesn't want Democrats to run too far to the left. According to
several senators, she cautioned members of her party that Democrats can't
forget that coal country is an important part of America and can't be left
behind in the fight to tackle global warming.

"She pointed out to those of us who are passionate about climate change
that it's a big country, and a lot of our previous economic growth was
dependent on coal country, and that as we pursue a transition to a
clean-energy economy, that it's not like Americans to leave folks behind.
So we have to really think deeply about how we help folks who are
experiencing challenges during this transition," said Sen. Brian Schatz in
an interview.

That message offers up an olive branch to moderate Democrats who have felt
spurned by the Obama administration's climate agenda, and it could help the
party win over centrists in purple states.

"She was very much concerned," said Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat
from West Virginia. "She said people need to realize what coal has done for
this country. ... People don't realize that; they just want to condemn it
now, and she was very compassionate about that." Manchin added that he
invited Clinton to visit West Virginia so that she can see coal country
up-close.

Environmentalists have been frustrated by what they view as a lack of
specifics from the Clinton campaign when it comes to climate change and
energy, even though Clinton has spoken of the need to act on climate change
in campaign speeches. Many progressive green groups worry that Clinton's
ties to Wall Street will discourage her from taking a strong stand in the
fight against global warming, and they are concerned about the fact that
she has not come out firmly against the Keystone XL pipeline—an issue that
congressional Democrats did not press her on when she met with them on
Tuesday.

But rather than interpreting Clinton's silence on Keystone and sympathy for
coal country as suspect, progressive Democrats were encouraged and
energized by her remarks.

"I thought it was pretty solid," Rep. Raul Grijalva, one of the cochairs of
the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said after hearing Clinton speak.
"Some of the progressive issues and members have kind of been crying in the
wilderness for a while, and now these issues like climate change, income
inequality, and the jobs agenda are resonating with the public. And I think
that Hillary understands that. ... The fact that the progressive causes and
organizations feel more in touch with and included with Hillary now is a
mark that she understands that."

"I think she recognizes that the politics of the legislative branch are
stuck, and you have got to have an understanding of what people are going
through if you're going to get to a 60-vote threshold to have legislative
success," Schatz said. "I think she is trying to cobble together a
coalition that can actually do something."

Of course, even if Clinton's climate agenda wins over Democrats, it will be
difficult for her to match the progressive record of her biggest challenger
on the Left: Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders was quick to remind reporters of
that, holding an impromptu press conference on Tuesday in the Capitol,
where he touted his record on energy and the environment as one of many
areas where he could break away from Clinton.

"I have helped lead the opposition against the Keystone pipeline. I don't
believe we should be excavating or transporting some of the dirtiest fuel
on this planet," Sanders said. "I think Secretary Clinton has not been
clear on her views on that issue."

*Benghazi Republicans slam ‘one-way letter war’ of committee Dems
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/benghazi-republicans-slam-one-way-letter-war-of-committee-dems/article/2568346>
// Washington Examiner // Sarah Westwood – July 15, 2015 *

Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi slammed Democrats on
Wednesday for refusing to assist the majority in the investigation of the
2012 terror attack.

"Unlike committee Democrats, who believe all has been asked and answered,
and who have never made a single document request of the administration
during the entirety of the existence of this committee, committee
Republicans continue to doggedly pursue getting all the facts regarding
Libya and Benghazi," said Jamal Ware, the majority's spokesman, in response
to a Democratic letter accusing Chairman Trey Gowdy of diverting the
committee's focus to Hillary Clinton.

"To the extent the Committee has had to focus on Secretary Clinton to try
to recover relevant portions of what should have been her public record, we
would not be here today had Clinton decided the right thing instead of the
'convenient' thing to do was to use the official State Department system,"
Ware said.

The select committee discovered earlier this year that Clinton had shielded
all of her government communications on a private email server, undermining
claims that the formation of the committee would merely retrace the steps
of several previous congressional investigations.

"We would not be here had Clinton answered a letter from Congress two years
ago that explicitly asked about her use of personal email to conduct
official public business," Ware added. "We would not be here had she not
found it convenient to keep her emails on her server for more than 20
months and only then to wipe it clean after the Committee came asking for
records."

Relations between the select committee's Democrats and Republicans have
soured in the days since Clinton announced her campaign for president.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee's top Democrat, and its four other
Democratic members sent a letter to Gowdy on Wednesday morning blasting
what they saw as a dereliction of the committee's duties in favor of
partisan attacks on Clinton.

Democrats published a tentative schedule that indicated the committee had
planned to hold 11 hearings between January and October, none of which had
occurred.

But Ware countered the notion that Republicans had allowed their
investigative efforts to lapse.

"The Select Committee has conducted more than 30 transcribed interviews to
keep the focus on uncovering facts," he said. "These initial witness
interviews centered on State Department and CIA witnesses because they were
the eyewitnesses to the attacks and many have never before been interviewed
by any committee of Congress."

Witnesses from the Pentagon, the National Security Council and even the
White House are slated to be interviewed before the committee, Ware added.

Several of these interviews have been hampered by the government's
reluctance to hand over documents related to the Benghazi attack.

The committee said Monday it had not been given a pair of emails in which
Clinton and her top aides discussed controversial talking points in late
September 2012.

State Department officials have withheld documents on three separate
occasions without providing justification, although committee members have
twice written to ask why the records were not disclosed.

Gowdy and the Republicans on the committee have long criticized the
minority for what they see as a failure to exert pressure on agencies that
stonewall their congressional requests.

Democrats have frequently accused the majority of using its platform to
weaken Clinton's presidential prospects.

Earlier this month, Cummings blasted Republicans for leaking "doctored"
documents to the press in an attempt to smear the Democratic frontrunner.

Gowdy later released a statement in which he instructed his staff not to
spend time responding to the minority's public missives.

"If Democrats insist on continuing to write, hopefully next time it will
include what they are doing to bring an end to State Department
stonewalling and to help the majority enforce subpoenas that have been
outstanding for months," Ware said.

*Why Hillary Clinton should take a tougher stance on banks
<http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2015/0715/Why-Hillary-Clinton-should-take-a-tougher-stance-on-big-banks>
// CS Monitor // Robert Reich – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the
Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who
has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see
Glass-Steagall,” Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she
failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about
Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is
still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on
Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing
Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

Recommended: How is money reshaping American politics? Take our quiz.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led
directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of
another one.

Some background: During the Roaring Twenties, so much money could be made
by speculating on shares of stock that several big Wall Street banks began
selling stock along side their traditional banking services – taking in
deposits and making loans.

Some banks went further, lending to pools of speculators that used the
money to pump up share prices. The banks sold the shares to their
customers, only to have the share prices collapse when the speculators
dumped them.

For the banks, it was an egregious but hugely profitable conflict of
interest.

After the entire stock market crashed in 1929, ushering in the Great
Depression, Washington needed to restore the public’s faith in the banking
system. One step was for Congress to enact legislation insuring commercial
deposits against bank losses.

Another was to prevent the kinds of conflicts of interest that resulted in
such losses, and which had fueled the boom and subsequent bust. Under the
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks couldn’t both gamble in the market and
also take in deposits and make loans. They’d have to choose between the
two.

“The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said
a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks
want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t
get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that
reason.”

For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it
was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no
financial panic endangered the banking system.

But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits.
They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial
deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall.

Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican
Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal
Glass-Steagall altogether.

What happened next? An almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once
again, banks originated fraudulent loans and sold them to their customers
in the form of securities. Once again, there was a huge conflict of
interest that finally resulted in a banking crisis.

This time the banks were bailed out, but millions of Americans lost their
savings, their jobs, even their homes.

A personal note. I worked for Bill Clinton as Secretary of Labor and I
believe most of his economic policies were sound. But during those years I
was in fairly continuous battle with some other of his advisers who seemed
determined to do Wall Street’s bidding.

On Glass-Steagall, they clearly won.

To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have
prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like
Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.

Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of
lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks
hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into
trouble.

And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral?
Because Glass-Steagall was gone.

Other apologists for the Street blame the crisis on unscrupulous mortgage
brokers.

Surely mortgage brokers do share some of the responsibility. But here
again, the big banks were accessories and enablers.

The mortgage brokers couldn’t have funded the mortgage loans if the banks
hadn’t bought them. And the big banks couldn’t have bought them if
Glass-Steagall were still in place.

I’ve also heard bank executives claim there’s no reason to resurrect
Glass-Steagall because none of the big banks actually failed.

This is like arguing lifeguards are no longer necessary at beaches where no
one has drowned. It ignores the fact that the big banks were bailed out. If
the government hadn’t thrown them lifelines, many would have gone under.

Remember? Their balance sheets were full of junky paper, non-performing
loans, and worthless derivatives. They were bailed out because they were
too big to fail. And the reason for resurrecting Glass-Steagall is we don’t
want to go through that ever again.

As George Santayana famously quipped, those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it. In the roaring 2000’s, just as in the Roaring
Twenties, America’s big banks used insured deposits to underwrite their
gambling in private securities, and then dump the securities on their
customers.

It ended badly.

This is precisely what the Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent – and
did prevent for more than six decades.

Hillary Clinton, of all people, should remember.

*Wealthy Donors and Lobbyist Bundlers Are Largely Bankrolling Hillary
Clinton’s Campaign
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fundraising-bundlers-lobbyists>
// Mother Jones // Russ Choma – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton hauled in $47.5 million in the first three months of her
campaign, besting both Republican Jeb Bush, who raised $11.4 million, and
her surprising Democratic challenger, Bernie Sanders, who racked up $15.2
million. According to her campaign, she had more than 250,000 donors, of
whom 61 percent were female, an unprecedented number of female donors. But
what Clinton did not highlight was that she had relied on wealthy donors
and lobbyists to pull together most of her money.

Clinton reported raising $8 million—or 16.8 percent of her total—from small
donors who gave $200 or less. Many politicians raise far less from small
donors. Jeb Bush, for example, raised just 3 percent of his campaign cash
from small donors. But Sanders blew Clinton out of the water when it came
to grassroots fundraising, taking in $10.4 million (or 68 percent) of his
warchest from $200-or-less donors.

The bulk of Clinton's campaign funds came from an elite, wealthy class of
donors—those who can afford to give the maximum donation. In 2014, roughly
0.04 percent of Americans made the maximum donation for a primary campaign
of $2,600 (adjusted to $2,700 in this election cycle). Bush's campaign
raised more than 80 percent of its cash from this upper-crust of donors,
and Clinton raised 64 percent. Clinton may well have had 250,000 donors—but
just 11,400 of them accounted for almost two-thirds of her total
fundraising.

Clinton also got a big boost from her bundlers—supporters who tap their
personal and professional networks to amass donations for the campaign.
Candidates are only required to list the names of registered lobbyists who
have bundled for them, and Clinton did go above and beyond that by
releasing on her website the names of 122 people who had raised $100,000 or
more for her campaign. With much less fanfare, she also disclosed to the
Federal Election Commission the names of 40 registered lobbyists who
bundled just over $2 million for her campaign.

By comparison, Bush's campaign listed the names of eight registered
lobbyists who bundled $228,000 for his campaign. Sanders had no registered
lobbyists fundraising on his behalf.

The top lobbyist bundling for Clinton was Jackson Dunn, who represents
Mastercard, Dow Chemical, Pepsico, and Noble Energy, a Houston-based oil
and gas company. Dunn bundled more than $231,000 for the campaign. He
wasn't the only lobbyist with ties to the oil and gas sector who went to
work fundraising for Clinton. Lobbyist Ankit Desai, who works for natural
gas company Cheniere, raised $82,000. Theresa Fariello, of ExxonMobil,
raised $21,200 for the campaign.

*Hillary Clinton spends nearly $19M during first three months of
presidential campaign
<http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-spends-19m-3-months-campaign-article-1.2293695>
// NY Daily News // Cameron Joseph – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton spent almost a whopping $19 million in her first three
months as a candidate, a sign she's investing heavily in building out a
huge campaign organization.

That leaves Clinton with just under $29 million cash on hand, more than any
other candidate's direct campaign, after raising almost $48 million in
total with all the checks counted. All but $1 million of that money is
earmarked for the primary.

"Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support
Hillary Clinton's campaign, we have had the ability to make critical
investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the
primary and the White House," said campaign manager Robby Mook in a
statement.

Clinton's high burn rate was a problem for her in 2008, when she spent
heavily early on in the campaign on high salaries and unnecessary expenses.
Her team insists that this time around the money is being put to better use
in ways that will help her down the line: heavy investments in building a
big digital presence and strong ground game. The Clinton campaign made big
investments in analytical teams, technology and field, according to a
campaign spokesman.

Her main primary rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has $12 million in the
bank after raising $15 million in the same time period, from approximately
the same number of donors. Clinton's team says 94 percent of her donors
gave $250 or less, even higher than the 76 percent of donors to Sanders who
gave less than $200.

Clinton loaned her campaign $280,000 while she was in the unofficial
"testing the waters" phase of her campaign.

While Clinton raised the most direct money for her campaign than any of her
rivals in either party, that figure is lower than Jeb Bush's total haul.
His super-PAC alone raised more than $100 million in donations, and $11
million more in direct contributions.

Clinton staff are sounding the alarm about those hauls as they look to spur
up more donations from scared Democrats. Clinton Communications Director
Jennifer Palmieri predicted Wednesday afternoon that Clinton will be
outspent in the general election.

"People need to be more worried about the Republican super-PACs," Palmieri
said on Bloomberg TV. "This is a big threat."

Clinton's high burn rate was a problem for her in 2008, when she spent
heavily early on in the campaign on high salaries and unnecessary expenses.

Clinton also released a list of the more "Hillblazers," campaign bundlers
who helped her raise $100 million apiece.

That list includes Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), the twin brother of
secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, who is rumored to
be a top possibility to be Clinton's eventual running mate.

Roughly one third of Clinton's bundlers are from the New York City area,
including Facebook founder Chris Hughes and his husband Sean Eldridge,
Citigroup Vice President Lisa Caputo, Morgan Stanley vice chairman and
former deputy secretary of State Tom Nides, Lynn Forester de Rothschild,
and Reps. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.).

*Hillary Clinton campaign raises $46m, with women 60% of donors
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/16/hillary-clinton-fec-filing-shows-46m-raised-with-women-60-of-donors>
// Guardian // July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton has spent nearly $19m and hired hundreds of staff during
the first three months of her presidential campaign. In total, Clinton’s
official campaign raised more than $46m from more than 250,000
contributors, according to records filed with the FEC, the US election
finance watchdog.

About 60% of donors were women, the Clinton campaign said, and 94% of the
donations came in amounts of $250 or less. The average donation was $144.89.

Clinton’s spending underscores her early effort to build a national
campaign, even as aides say she is focused on the primary contest. Beyond
paying salaries for 343 new employees, her campaign purchased lists of
voters in four early voting states and spent heavily on building up a
digital team.

Her campaign also released a list of campaign bundlers, donors who each
raised more than $100,000. Some of the donors included Clinton’s most
ardent financial backers, including Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie
Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor who was a major donor to the
Ready for Hillary super PAC; Las Vegas publisher Brian Greenspun, a
longtime friend and college classmate of Bill Clinton; billionaire JB
Pritzker of Chicago; and Alan Patricof, a New York-based financier who
served as Clinton’s finance chair when she first ran for Senate in New York.

Clinton and Republican Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly $390m
that official presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates say
they have raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton’s and Bush’s, were
required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission
by midnight on Wednesday.

The FEC reports cover financial activity between 1 April and 30 June and
list the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution
for the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also show how candidates are
spending their money on consultants, office space, advertising, polling and
more.

Wednesday’s reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are
handing over. The candidates also benefit from “super PACs” – political
action committees – usually created specifically to help them. Those
groups, which accept contributions of any size and are subject to legal
limits on how closely they can work with the campaigns, file their FEC
reports at the end of the month.

The pro-Clinton Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that counts on
seven-figure donors and previously backed Barack Obama, raised an
additional $15m, according to an Associated Press assessment.

The AP found that donors have handed over nearly $400m, more than
two-thirds of it to outside groups rather than to official campaigns. That
total is more than the presidential candidates raised for the entire
primary election of 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics,
a group that tracks election spending.

Since announcing her White House bid in April, Clinton has positioned staff
in all fifty states with the majority working out of a large and pricey
Brooklyn headquarters.

The overwhelming favorite for her party’s nomination, Clinton and her team
have set their sights on building the massive infrastructure they will need
for the general election.

The outlay is nearly four times what Clinton spent in the first three
months of her last presidential campaign, when she faced a far more
competitive primary race against Barack Obama.

During that 2008 campaign, Clinton and her team faced charges from donors
that they were wasting money on ineffective strategic choices like spending
nearly $100,000 for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus, a
contest she lost.

This time, her staff has emphasized its “cheapskate” mentality particularly
to contributors. At her first national finance meeting in May, top donors
were instructed to purchase their own lunches and fund their own
transportation to various gatherings in Brooklyn. Campaign aides like to
brag about taking the bus from New York to Washington, rather than the more
expensive Acela train. Even so, her campaign spent at least $8,700 on train
tickets and just a few hundred dollars on bus fare, the Federal Election
Commission report shows.

All told, Clinton has spent a far greater portion of her early funds during
this campaign than she did eight years ago. During the first three months
of her 2008 bid Clinton spent 14% of the $36m she raised, according to FEC
documents. In the launch of this campaign she has used up nearly 40% of
what she has taken in.

By comparison Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has fueled an insurgent
challenge to Clinton with small donations. He pulled in more than $15.2m
through the end of June and three-quarters of his donations were $200 or
less.

*Hillary Clinton Has Spent $18M Of Over $46M In First 3 Months Of Her
Presidential Campaign
<http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-has-spent-18m-over-46m-first-3-months-her-presidential-campaign-2011151>
// IB Times // Sneha Shankar - July 16 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton hired hundreds of employees and spent more than $18 million
in the first three months of her presidential campaign in an effort to
outpace her rivals. Clinton had raised over $46 million for the Democratic
primary contest, the Associated Press (AP) reported on Wednesday.

Clinton reportedly spent over $5.9 million on 343 employees, $700,000 on
computers and other equipment, and half a million on renting offices,
including her 80,000 square feet headquarters in Brooklyn. According to
campaign finance documents filed on Wednesday, Clinton also purchased lists
of voters in four early primary states, paid a political action committee
six figures to defend her record, and spent massively on building a digital
team, the AP reported.

The report also analyzed that the outlay for this year’s campaign is nearly
four times what Clinton spent in the first three months of her last
presidential campaign against then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. During that
campaign, Clinton and her team faced accusations that they wasted a lot of
money on strategies that did not work, including nearly $100,000 on party
platters and groceries before the Iowa caucus. Clinton lost that contest.

At the first national finance meeting in May, Clinton’s team reportedly
asked top donors to buy their own lunches and fund their own transportation
to gatherings in Brooklyn. While campaign aides bragged about traveling
from New York to Washington in a bus, and not the more expensive Acela
train, Clinton’s team still spent at least $8,700 on train tickets and just
a few hundred dollars on bus tickets, the AP reported, citing the Federal
Election Commission report.

During the 2008 campaign, Clinton spent 14 percent of the raised $36
million in the first three months, but this time she has reportedly spent
nearly 40 percent of the raised amount in the same period. Clinton also
reportedly received over 250,000 contributions and only about 17 percent of
the donations were less than $200 dollars. A list of campaign bundlers,
each of whom helped raise over $100,000 for her primary bid, was also
released by Clinton’s team.

Some of the donors included Hollywood media mogul Haim Saban; Susie
Tompkins Buell, a wealthy California investor; Las Vegas publisher Brian
Greenspun; billionaire J.B. Pritzker of Chicago; and New York-based
financier Alan Patricof, the AP reported. Her team also managed to attract
some of Obama’s biggest backers, including New York-based financiers Marc
Lasry, Charles Myers and Blair Effron.

*DC Rep Says Hillary Wants To Make DC The 51st State
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/15/dc-rep-says-hillary-wants-to-make-dc-the-51st-state/>
// Daily Caller // Josh Fatzick – July 15, 2015 *

After speaking with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, D.C.’s
Delegate to Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton said she got Clinton’s personal
support for the D.C. statehood movement.

Norton had been following Clinton to various Capitol Hill Meetings and
after the pair left a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, Norton popped the
D.C. statehood question. A spokesman for Hillary Clinton did not
immediately return a request for confirmation of Clinton’s support for D.C.
statehood.

In June, Norton, along with Democratic colleagues in the Senate, introduced
legislation that would turn the district into the 51st state and give
residents a real voice in Congress.

Currently, the district has a similar position in Congress to Puerto Rico,
with Norton serving as a non-voting delegate. Norton is not allowed to vote
on the House floor, but she can introduce legislation and serve on
committees.

The issue, according to Norton, is that D.C. residents pay taxes just like
everybody else in America, but they do not have a real say in how that
money is spent by Congress. In a statement, Norton said she has known
Clinton since her husband was in the White House, so she was not surprised
by Clinton’s support for D.C. statehood.

“President Bill Clinton was the first president to support statehood for
the District of Columbia, and President Obama has followed in endorsing
D.C. statehood,” Norton said. “President Clinton made phone calls that
helped get Democrats to support my statehood bill when I first came to
Congress.”

President Barack Obama joined the fight for D.C. statehood last year during
a town hall meeting when an audience member asked him about the movement.

“I’m in D.C., so I’m for it,” he said. “It’s not as if Washington, D.C. is
not big enough compared to other states.”

With roughly 650,000 residents in the city, D.C. is on par with states like
Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota and Alaska, which have populations between
570,000 and 730,000, and each posses one vote in the House.

It’s no surprise Obama and other Democrats want to see D.C. become a new
state. 75 percent of registered voters in the city are Democrats, with
Republicans at just 6 percent, right behind “No Party,” which has slightly
more than 17 percent.

If D.C. were to become a state, Democrats would most certainly pick up two
new Senate seats and another House seat, and hold them indefinitely.

*As Described By NYT’s Mark Leibovich, Reporters Covering Hillary Are A
Bunch Of Monsters
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/15/as-described-by-nyts-mark-leibovich-reporters-covering-hillary-are-a-bunch-of-monsters/>
// Daily Caller // Betsy Rothstein – July 15, 2015 *

New York Times Magazine writer Mark Leibovich paints a bleak picture of the
press covering Hillary Clinton‘s every move in her quest to win the White
House in 2016.

They’re vultures, bullies and shouters. They’re self-aggrandizing.

They care about stupid things — like what she ate for lunch at a Chipotle
in Ohio — and seem to cause Clinton, in turn, to ask absurd questions while
touring a microbrewery in New Hampshire. She wanted to hold grain in her
hands. She asked, “Where does the Barley come from?”

But it’s a vicious circle isn’t it?

In his story, Leibovich describes a press team surrounding Hillary that
says things that force a reporter to reveal the ridiculous depths her staff
will plunge to in order to control her image.

When Leibovich visited her Brooklyn campaign headquarters to meet with
Robby Mook, her campaign manager, a press aide, Jesse Ferguson informed him
that the office space would be off-the-record. Leibovich refused to honor
it. Hilariously, Ferguson said he didn’t want guests devolving into a
tweeting contest (you know, with the throngs of people who want to visit
the building and brag on social media that they were there).

Ferguson ultimately wanted anything Leibovich saw “embargoed” until his
piece published. Embarrassingly, he even buttered the reporter up by
telling him that this “still means you’re the first reporter who can report
anything from the office.” (Oh boy, really?)

Leibovich abided by a no-tweeting rule, but refused to keep a 40,000-foot
space off record. That said, he didn’t really see anything juicy there
unless you count spotting President Obama‘s former body man Reggie Love. (A
little Zzzzzzz.)

Even the way the NYT writer landed the interview became part of his lengthy
profile.

“Her campaign at first declined to make her available for an interview. It
did offer me an ‘off the record’ meeting, which is highly irregular: an
off-the-record sit-down with a profile subject who happens to be running
for president, and who is not exactly new to these rodeos. (I demurred on
the off-the-record sit-down, at least at first.)”

Leibovich ultimately agreed to an off-the-record meeting and ultimately
landed his partial on-the-record interview.

On one hand he shows FNC’s Ed Henry bragging about getting Hillary to
finally answer questions from reporters to shouts of “DO YOU HAVE A
PERCEPTION PROBLEM?” But on the other, he depicts Hillary’s handlers as
people who regularly treat members of press like “cattle” that they
literally corral with rope.

The writer makes fun of the notion that this was somehow appalling. He also
notes that the national media made sure it became the day’s big news.

“That image became the day’s takeaway, at least in the national media:
proof, supposedly, of Clinton’s running scared from the ‘tough questions,’
thwarting press freedom on this day of our independence.”

But maybe it isn’t reporters who occasionally deserve to be treated like
animals.

The most startling scene comes at a fourth of July parade when a smiling
Hillary walks a parade route and telling a reporter what a “great time”
she’s having. Meawhile, there’s Leibovich watching her face down Benghazi
signs and shouts from complete strangers calling her a “LIAR” and a
“CARPETBAGGER.”

*Clinton, Dem Hopefuls Silent on Planned Parenthood Organ Sales Video
<http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-dem-hopefuls-silent-on-planned-parenthood-organ-sales-video/>
// Free Beacon // Bill McMorris – July 15, 2015 *

The Democrats vying for the 2016 presidential nomination were silent about
a new video showing a top Planned Parenthood doctor outlining plans to sell
body parts from aborted babies.

The undercover sting video shot by the non-profit Center for Medical
Progress appears to show Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of
medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, talking about
reselling body parts of babies subjected to abortions. Nucatola brags about
the techniques Planned Parenthood doctors use to preserve valuable body
parts as she eats lunch with two actors posing as prospective buyers.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that,
so I’m not going to crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below,
I’m going to crush above, and I’m going to see if I can get it all intact,”
she says in an eight-minute video pulled from a nearly three-hour
conversation that the group also posted online.

Nucatola said that Planned Parenthood doctors enlist the help of ultrasound
to make sure they don’t damage organs as they remove pieces of the baby
from the womb.

Planned Parenthood has called state ultrasound bills “cruel” in the past.

“A lot of people want liver,” she says pausing to bite her salad. “And for
that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so
they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

The Washington Free Beacon reached out to the campaigns of all five
Democrats running for president: former Secretary of State and frontrunner
Hillary Clinton, insurgent socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, and former
Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. None responded to questions about whether
they condemned the practice of organ harvesting, whether Democrats should
distance themselves from Planned Parenthood, or return campaign donations
from the group.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, performing
around 300,000 abortions per year. It has received nearly $200 million
taxpayer dollars since 2012 including $27 million in grants alone in 2015,
according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Planned Parenthood has in turn spent major money supporting the Democratic
Party, including nearly $18 million in outside spending in 2014 and 2012,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly all of its nearly
$6 million in direct contributions since 1990 have gone to Democrats.

Each Democratic candidate enjoys a close relationship with Planned
Parenthood and the abortion lobby. Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of
Rhode Island, is the only one without a perfect rating from the
pro-abortion group NARAL. He has a 90 percent approval score.

Clinton won Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. She
received more than $10,000 from the organization during two Senate runs and
failed 2008 primary against President Barack Obama. She opposes limits on
late-term abortion. As president, Bill Clinton vetoed a ban on partial
birth abortion methods that Nucatola appeared to discuss in the video.

“The overarching mission of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America,
the cause of reproductive freedom that you continue to advance today is as
relevant in our world now as it was 100 years ago. So, I thank you,”
Clinton said in a release upon winning the award. A campaign spokesman did
not return a request for comment.

O’Malley has also been honored by the organization, winning Planned
Parenthood Maryland’s Betty Tyler award in 2014. “We are building a
stronger future for all of our children and grandchildren. I am honored to
receive this recognition from Planned Parenthood Maryland for Maryland’s
hard-won progress,” he said in a release.

Martin O’Malley receives awardMartin O’Malley receives award

Sanders received $5,500 from Planned Parenthood between 2012, a steep
increase from the $1,500 he received between 2004 and 2006, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics.

Chafee received more than $18,000 in 2000 and 2006 when he served in the
U.S. Senate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Webb received
no money from Planned Parenthood in his 2006 Senate run, though he still
enjoys a perfect pro-abortion rating from NARAL.

Neither O’Malley, Sanders, nor Webb returned a request for comment.

Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, was the first
presidential hopeful to respond to the video, posting a link to her
Facebook page.

“I am proudly pro-life. I believe that every human life has potential and
that every human life is precious. This latest news is tragic and
outrageous. This isn’t about ‘choice.’ It’s about profiting on the death of
the unborn while telling women it’s about empowerment,” Fiorina said.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced his presidential run in June,
launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood operations in his state
following the video’s release.

“The systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts is shocking
and gruesome,” Jindal said in a statement. “This same organization is
seeking to open an abortion clinic in New Orleans.  I have instructed
Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct an immediate
investigation into this alleged evil and illegal activity and to not issue
any licenses until this investigation is complete.”

Jindal called on the Democratic field to return campaign donations and to
condemn Planned Parenthood.

“Even the most hardened liberal must feel some pang of conscience watching
the callousness with which [Nucatola] discusses the dismemberment of
defenseless babies. How could anybody, regardless of political party,
refuse to condemn such barbarism?” Jindal told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I hope those who oppose efforts to encourage a culture of life watch this
video.”

Rick Perry, the former governor of Texas, said in a statement that these
types of concerns led him to defund Planned Parenthood in his state.

“The video showing a Planned Parenthood employee selling the body parts of
aborted children is a disturbing reminder of the organization’s penchant
for profiting off the tragedy of a destroyed human life,” he said in a
statement. “It is because of stories like this that I signed legislation
defunding Planned Parenthood in the state of Texas—to protect human life
and the health and safety of Texans.”

The call to defund Planned Parenthood stretched beyond pro-life
politicians. A campaign spokesman for George Pataki, the former governor of
New York and the only pro-choice candidate in the GOP field, endorsed
cutting off taxpayer dollars to the organization.

“The video is abhorrent and Governor Pataki would support ending federal
funding for Planned Parenthood,” said David Catalfamo, a spokesman for
Pataki, in a statement.

Planned Parenthood defended the practice as “ethical,” referring to the
harvested body parts as “tissue.” It claimed to receive “no financial
benefit.”

“We help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we
do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with
full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and
legal standards,” it said in a release. “In some instances, actual costs,
such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are
reimbursed.”

Nucatola alluded to the fact that local clinics stand to gain in the
harvesting of organs and other body parts.

“For affiliates at the end of the day, they’re non-profits. They want to
break even, and if they do a little bit better than break even and do so in
a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that,” she says in the
full video.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a 501(c)(4)
non-profit that supports pro-life candidates, said that Nucatola’s
statements mirrored the actions of the abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who
kept jars of body parts in his Philadelphia clinic. Gosnell was convicted
of multiple counts of first-degree murder in 2013 for stabbing babies born
alive.

“This barbarity is only a natural outcome for an organization that,
according to their own annual reports, destroys more than 300,000 children
a year and wounds that many women. Trafficking is the grotesque collateral
damage following a gross violation of human life,” she said of the video.

Dannenfelser said enacting safety regulations and signing 20-week abortion
bans could cut back on such practices. She said such legislation would put
pro-life politicians on offense as the measures have received more than 55
percent support in several polls.

“The best way to end [harvesting] is to protect these distinct and unique
human lives from destruction. This is why 15 states have enacted laws to
put an end to abortion after five months, when the baby can feel pain,” she
said.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who kicked off his 2016 campaign on Monday,
is expected to sign a 20-week abortion ban in the coming weeks, while Sens.
Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Rand Paul (R., Ky.) have sponsored similar
prohibitions on late term abortion in the Senate.

*Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Give Middle Finger to Israel and Jewish
People
<http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-give-middle-finger-to-israel-and-jewish-people/>
// The Blaze // Wayne Root – July 15, 2015 *

Don’t look now, but President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry
and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton just gave a collective middle
finger to Israel and the Jewish people.

Obama just agreed to an Iranian nuclear deal that is as dangerous and
deadly to the Jewish people as any treaty in world history. It is the
Neville Chamberlain agreement of our time. Neville appeased Adolf Hitler.
That didn’t work out so well for the world. Neither will this deal.

Even Iran points out it won this negotiation. They will be placed under
limited arms deal restrictions for only five years. Then it’s off to the
races. In the meantime Iran gets to continue it’s nuclear research and
development and keep two key enrichment plants.

“Its not a ceiling, but a solid foundation” said their foreign minister.

Great job of negotiating, John Kerry!

But this deal isn’t just bad news for America and deadly for Israel. It’s
also deadly for the Democrat Party. This deal is the kiss of death in 2016
for any Democrat candidate that signs on. It’s a wrecking ball. It’s a,
excuse the irony, nuclear bomb. Any Democrat that puts their name beside
this terrible and tragic treaty will face devastating attacks by the GOP
and pro-Israel groups, as well as the loss of Jewish donors.

But the real story here is Hillary Clinton endorsing the deal. The smart
move was for Hillary to oppose this deal as “not good for America, American
interests or Israel.” She should have said she would negotiate a much
tougher deal as president. That would have made Hillary look smart, tough
and independent.

Instead she looks like a political hack. And she has badly damaged her
relationship with Jewish voters and donors. Why? Why would Hillary make
such a serious miscalculation?

One can only guess. But we know it’s dangerous to embarrass Obama. Ask
Donald Trump. Ask Dinesh D’Souza. Ask retired Gen. David Petraeus.

Or study the case of Democratic U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey –
who dared to oppose and publicly criticize Obama on this very same Iranian
deal months ago – and suddenly wound up indicted on federal charges.

What did Obama offer Hillary to convince her to support a deal that makes
it likely that Israel will one day face a nuclear holocaust? We know Obama
plays by the rules of “Chicago Thug Politics.” So let me make an educated
guess on the conversation. Clearly Obama must have intimidated Hillary. My
educated guess is he told her:

“Embarrass me by opposing this Iranian deal and I will see to it that you
never get the Democrat presidential nomination. All of my support will go
to Joe Biden or Martin O’Malley or a late entry by Elizabeth Warren. I’ll
throw my weight behind ABH – Anyone But Hillary. I’ll cut off your donors…

And for good measure, I’ll ask my Justice Department to open a criminal
investigation against you and the Clinton Foundation for accepting bribes
from foreign governments while secretary of state. This investigation will
last through the 2016 election. No matter the outcome, your political
career is over.

But stand behind this Iran deal and my team will elect you president of the
United States. I’ll put the old Acorn team on your side. I’ll teach you how
to register millions of illegal aliens to vote in states with weak voter ID
laws. I’ll show you how to stuff the ballot box in friendly districts, so
you get more votes than registered voters. I’ll show you how to arrange
hundreds of millions of dollars of donations from foreign donors – all
under the $200 reporting threshold. I’ll twist the arms of corrupt frauds
like Jon Corzine to become Hillary bundlers.

Just make sure after the election you reward them with another another
billion dollar stimulus bill and more corrupt green energy loans.”

That’s a typical Obama conversation. Intimidation is his calling card. It’s
his way, or the highway. And that highway is build with union slush funds.

Support Obama or the dogs of hell are unleashed upon you: Personal attacks;
insinuations; slander; investigations and indictment by the IRS, DOJ, FBI,
or Securities and Exchange Commission will suddenly appear out of nowhere.

Or…

You can take what’s behind door number two: Support Obama and loads of
money, media and manpower suddenly appear.

How bad is this Iranian deal?

First it all but guarantees that one day in the future Israel, or Paris, or
New York will be hit by a nuclear bomb. Remember this date: July 14, 2015.
It is a day that will live in infamy. It is the day a nuclear attack was
set in motion by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

But even more frightening and tragic is the immediate terrorism nightmare
this appeasement will enable. This deal ends sanctions and reopens Iran’s
oil spigots. It gives Iran hundreds of billions of new petro dollars that
they will use to spread terrorism all over the world. They will use this
expanded income stream to support Hamas, Hezzbollah, and Al Qaeda (to name
just a few of America’s worst enemies).

This blood money just injected by Obama into the Iranian economy will be
used to kill Israelis, Jews, Christians and Americans across the globe.

This deal is a middle finger to the Jewish people. But there is a one
silver lining. That makes it a nuclear bomb to the historic relationship
between Jewish voters, donors and the Democrat Party. This will not end
well for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

*Rep. Marcia Fudge endorses Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid
<http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/07/rep_marcia_fudge_endorses_hill.html>
// Cleveland.com // Sabrina Eaton – July 15, 2015 *

Warrensville Heights Democratic Rep. Marcia Fudge announced Wednesday that
she backs Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

Fudge described her as "the fighter that everyday Americans need."

"We are at a point in our nation's history when the right leadership is
needed more than ever," said a statement from Fudge. "Hillary has spent her
life advocating for poor and working class families.

"Hillary will help build an economy for tomorrow and beyond; strengthen
America's families; defend our country and its core values; and revitalize
our democracy. In other words, she gets it. Hillary understands the issues
that matter to people in my district and around the country, like income
equality, women's rights and universal voter registration. Hillary is the
best candidate for the job."

Ohio Democrats in Congress who previously endorsed Clinton include Rep. Tim
Ryan of the Niles area and the Columbus area's Joyce Beatty. According to a
tally by "The Hill," more than 100 Democratic lawmakers in Congress have
announced they're backing Clinton. Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland also
supports her.

*OTHER DEMOCRATS NATIONAL COVERAGE*

*DECLARED*

*O’MALLEY*

*Martin O’Malley Raises $2 Million for Presidential Bid
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 *

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who has explored a Democratic
presidential campaign for the last two years, raised about $2 million in
the month after he announced his candidacy.

The amount was reported in campaign finance filings on Wednesday that
covered the second fund-raising quarter of the year, the first when Mr.
O’Malley was formally a candidate.

Mr. O’Malley’s aides portrayed the dollar figure as a sign of his ability
to connect with the grass roots. Yet the former governor has been heavily
outpaced by another Democratic hopeful, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont,
who raised $15 million in the filing period.

But a bigger obstacle for Mr. O’Malley, a former Democratic Governors’
Association chairman who had donor contacts around the country, is Hillary
Rodham Clinton, who raised $45 million, much of it in increments of $2,700,
the maximum amount allowed in the primary.

Mr. O’Malley is “the only candidate who has actually gotten results on the
issues progressives care about,” his senior adviser, Bill Hyers, said in a
statement.

It was not immediately clear how much has been raised for a “super PAC”
created by Mr. O’Malley’s allies. The former governor is trying to sell
himself as the true policy wonk of the race, and the one with the most
appeal to progressives.

*O’Malley raised $2 million during first month of presidential campaign, he
tells donors
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/omalley-raised-2-million-during-first-month-of-presidential-campaign-he-tells-donors/?postshare=7581436977435311>
// WaPo // John Wagner – July 15, 2015 *

Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley raised $2 million in the month
after launching his presidential campaign, he told donors during a
conference call Wednesday morning.

His take is well short of two other Democrats: Hillary Rodham Clinton,
whose campaign raised $45 million since mid-April; and Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), whose campaign took in about $15 million since he joined the race
in late April.

O'Malley, who formally entered the race May 30, is positioned ahead of
another Democratic hopeful, former Vermont senator and governor Lincoln
Chafee, who reported this week that he had raised just $30,000 from donors,
in addition to lending his campaign $364,000.

Former Virginia senator Jim Webb, who is also competing for the nomination,
did not have to file because he did not officially declare his candidacy
until after the quarterly reporting period had closed June 30.

The conference call with O'Malley and aides was described by three donors
who participated. They requested anonymity to more freely discuss the call,
in which O'Malley also provided an update on other aspects of his long-shot
campaign.

An e-mail advertising the call from O'Malley's national finance director,
Michael Kurtz, described the past quarter as "successful."

*O’Malley Raised $2 Million in June, Putting Him in Rear of Money Race
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/omalley-raised-2-million-in-june-putting-him-in-rear-of-money-race/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed>
// WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley raised $2 million in the
month since he launched his campaign, a haul that places him far behind his
rivals for the party’s nomination in the early money race.

Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the nomination, raised $45 million in
the 11 weeks after she announced her campaign, making her the second-most
prolific fundraiser in the 2016 race, after Republican Jeb Bush. Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $15 million in the two months after launching
his campaign, exceeding expectations.

These figures, including that of Mr. O’Malley, do not include funds raised
by outside groups backing the candidates. The super PAC promoting his
campaign, Generation Forward, will announce its fundraising numbers later
this month.

“We’re thankful for the support we’ve received from donors across all 50
states who are ready for the new leadership, progressive values, and track
record of getting things done that Governor O’Malley brings to the race,”
Bill Hyers, the campaign’s senior strategist, said in a statement Wednesday.

The campaign is required to file a disclosure revealing its donors and its
expenses with the Federal Election Commission by midnight Wednesday. That
filing will offer numbers the campaign left out of its statement, including
how much money the campaign has in the bank and how much money it has spent.

A survey last month of 72 top fundraisers for President Barack Obama in
2012 found that Mr. O’Malley had been making an aggressive push to win
their allegiance. Wednesday’s filing will offer a window into how
successful that effort has been.

*O’Malley campaign raises $2 million for Democratic contest
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0213a6d5f8ce4082bad4eaeb8695c0f2/omalley-campaign-raises-2-million-democratic-contest>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

Martin O'Malley's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination says
the former Maryland governor has raised $2 million.

O'Malley is one of five candidates in a field dominated by Hillary Rodham
Clinton, a former secretary of state.

Clinton, who began her campaign in mid-April, raised $45 million through
the end of June. O'Malley's bid began May 30, and his supporters
contributed $2 million in 30 days.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $15 million, while former Rhode Island
Gov. Lincoln Chafee is financing most of his campaign out of his own
pocket. The fifth candidate, Jim Webb, a former Virginia senator, only
recently became a candidate.

Most of the presidential contenders are due to file their initial
fundraising reports to federal regulators by midnight Wednesday.

*Martin O’Malley campaign raises $2 million in the first month
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/martin-omalley-fundraising-2016-120149.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Gabriel Debenedetti – July 15, 2015 *

Martin O’Malley’s presidential campaign raised roughly $2 million in its
first month, a person familiar with its fundraising told POLITICO on
Wednesday.

The former Maryland governor’s haul lags far behind that of Hillary Clinton
— whose campaign raised $45 million — and Bernie Sanders — whose campaign
raised $15 million — the party’s two leading candidates in early-state and
national polling.

The campaign confirmed the numbers in a release on Wednesday afternoon,
noting that donations came from contributors in all 50 states.

O’Malley informed donors of the numbers on a conference call on Wednesday
morning, which was first reported by the Washington Post.

The candidate’s campaign will also be supported by a super PAC, Generation
Forward, which has yet to report how much it has raised. The campaign is
required to file its fundraising disclosure paperwork with the Federal
Election Commission by the end of the day Wednesday.

*Martin O’Malley raises $2 million; lags behind Clinton, Sanders
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-2-million-lags-behind-clinton-sanders>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015 *

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley raised $2 million dollars since
announcing his presidential campaign a month ago, his campaign announced
Wednesday ahead of the deadline for campaigns to file their financial
disclosure reports with the Federal Elections Commission.

“We’re thankful for the support we’ve received from donors across all 50
states who are ready for the new leadership, progressive values, and track
record of getting things done that Governor O’Malley brings to the race,”
said O’Malley Senior Strategist Bill Hyers. “And he is the only candidate
who has actually gotten results on the issues progressives care about.”

The number puts O’Malley behind both Hillary Clinton (who raised $45
million) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (who raised $15 million), though both had
significantly more time to fundraise before the report was due. O’Malley
has so far languished in the single digits in polls, but is hoping for a
late-game surge.

Fellow Democratic candidate Lincoln Chafee announced he raised about
$390,000, though the vast majority if came from a loan the candidate loaned
to his campaign. Former Sen. Jim Webb will not have to declare his
fundraising numbers until October because he waited until after the end of
the second quarter to announce his presidential run.

*Martin O’Malley Trails Rivals in Fundraising with $2 Million Haul
<http://time.com/3959085/martin-omalley-fundraising/> // TIME // Sam
Frizell – July 15, 2015 *

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has raised $2 million in the first
month of his campaign, his campaign announced Wednesday, trailing far
behind his rivals for the Democratic nomination in fundraising efforts.

The two-term governor’s campaign said Wednesday that its total haul through
the end of the first quarter on June 30 was $2 million, averaging about
$65,000 per day since he announced a month earlier.

“In his first 30 days as a candidate, Governor Martin O’Malley held 15
public events in Iowa and New Hampshire and raised $2 million for our
grassroots campaign,” said Bill Hyers, the senior campaign strategist on
the O’Malley campaign. “He is setting the standard on key issues like
climate change, debt-free college, Wall Street reform, and immigration by
proposing bold, progressive ideas on how to rebuild the American Dream.”

O’Malley’s total haul reveals just how far he’ll have to go to win the
nomination. A recent poll shows him with just 1% support in national polls,
even as Sanders gains on Clinton.

O’Malley’s competitors for the Democratic nomination have far outpaced him
in fundraising. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has raised $45
million, or well over $500,000 per day since launching her campaign in
mid-April, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has brought in $15 million, or
around $250,000 per day. Sanders raised $1.5 million in a single day of
fundraising after announcing his campaign.

*O’Malley on Wall Street: ‘If you slap a bank robber on the arm, he’s going
to rob the bank again’
<http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-omalleys-war-on-wall-street-2015-7>
// Business Insider // Hunter Walker – July 15, 2015 *

Former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland has made Wall Street reform a
central component of his Democratic presidential campaign.

Last week, O'Malley released a white paper detailing his plan to bring a
mix of structural changes including the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall and
strengthened regulations to the financial industry.

On Tuesday, O'Malley sat down with Business Insider for his first interview
about his Wall Street-policy push.

In that conversation, he railed against what he described as "lawbreakers"
in the industry, whom he likened to bank robbers.

O'Malley also discussed several aspects of his push for Wall Street reform
including:

   - His thoughts on Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton's policies and
   how he believes she should "be forced to" weigh in on Glass-Steagall.
   - The fact he believes Wall Street wants Clinton and former Gov. Jeb
   Bush of Florida (R) to win their presidential primaries.
   - His desire to have a "sit-down" with Sen. Elizabeth Warren
   (D-Massachusetts).

O'Malley's fiery rhetoric about clamping down on what he describes as the
"dangerous activities" of "megabanks" has caused some to brand him an
"enemy" of Wall Street.

In his conversation with Business Insider, O'Malley said he didn't mind
that label and would also be content if taking on Wall Street were seen as
his major issue in the presidential campaign.

"I don't mind," he said. "Look, there's a lot of really good and decent
people who work in the financial industry in our country, and the vast
majority of them are just as saddened at the sort of reckless behavior and
the inability — the utter lack of any sort of restraint and what it's done
to our economy.

"So, I'm going to continue to speak truthfully about what I believe is in
our country's best interest. And if that makes me the enemy of a small
clique of CEOs of a small handful of big megabanks, so be it. I don't
really care. I'm running to be president of the United States. I'm not
running to be, you know, wined and dined."

Overall, O'Malley characterized his efforts as an extension of a vow made
by the Democratic Party after the financial crisis.

"People are rightly angry that we as a party haven't followed through on
what they thought was the commitment and the promise we made to institute
Wall Street reform," O'Malley said. "We got part of the way there with
Dodd-Frank. We didn't get all the way there. It makes no sense to think
that an industry where this much money is at stake would police itself. You
know, if you slap a bank robber on the arm, he's going to rob the bank
again. The same holds true with people in suits."

Even if O'Malley, who is polling behind Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vermont) in the Democratic primary, manages to make it to the White
House, there are questions about just how much he would be able to change
Wall Street without congressional support.

O'Malley told Business Insider he was confident he could make a difference.
Specifically, he cited his desire to appoint federal prosecutors who would
be willing to pursue cases against the industry.

"Some of it comes down to the personnel appointments and the people that
we'd put in place at the SEC and the Justice Department," O'Malley said. "I
think that is something that will have a huge impact regardless of what
Congress does or doesn't do."

O'Malley also suggested he hoped to turn the 2016 elections into something
of a referendum on Wall Street.

"I also think it should be stated pretty clearly that the biggest
impediments to Wall Street reform have been Republicans in Congress,"
O'Malley said. "I'm not saying that there aren't a few Democrats that have
become weak-kneed as well, but the biggest impediment is Republicans in
Congress. This national campaign, with the higher turnout numbers that are
generally in national elections, is an opportunity for people to make a
change and to make a change in their Congress as well."

Additionally, O'Malley hinted that he would force other candidates to
address this issue in the Democratic primary debates.

"I'm not going to assume people aren't interested. I know they're
interested," O'Malley said. "Other candidates who think they can just gloss
over this and go back to business as usual ... I think that that attitude
will only last until the first debates."

O'Malley also issued a warning to anyone on Wall Street who wasn't worried
about meaningful regulations coming about as a result of the 2016 election.
He predicted there would be "a pretty abrupt awakening" for the industry's
"lawbreakers" if his bid is successful.

"People that actually do business and do it honestly on Wall Street would
have nothing to fear," O'Malley said, adding, "I think the habitual
lawbreakers will be in for a pretty abrupt awakening here. We need to
restore deterrents. We need to put prosecutors in place and people that are
willing to take cases criminally when the facts justify a criminal
prosecution."

Wall Street donors are generally an important source of campaign cash for
presidential candidates. O'Malley, however, said he was not concerned about
his Wall Street crusade hurting his war chest.

"I really don't care. I'm running my narrow path," O'Malley said. "It's the
path of putting the national interest first and putting it ahead of
powerful wealthy special interests. I know the path is narrow. I know that
it's probably the steepest path, but I also know it has the greatest
audience, and I know that that's what people are looking for. They want a
president that's going to fight for them, that's not going to compromise
the national good for the sake of well-connected elites."

Warren, the Massachusetts senator, is the most prominent advocate of Wall
Street reform on the political scene. Her office has not responded to
requests for comment on O'Malley's plan.

O'Malley, however, said he was eager to "sit down" with Warren to discuss
his platform.

"I've met her before," O'Malley said. "We were together at a fundraiser up
in Baltimore when she came in to campaign for the DCCC, and I had occasion
to meet her there and hear her speak.

"I'd like to have the opportunity to sit down with her, and I hope I'm able
to do that in the not-too-distant future," he added. "I think she speaks
very clearly, which is hugely helpful to building a consensus on this
issue."

Right now the politician O'Malley should be most concerned with is Hillary
Clinton, who remains the overwhelming front-runner in the Democratic
primary.

Clinton unveiled her economic "agenda" on Monday. At that speech, she faced
a heckler who challenged her to say whether she supported reinstating the
Glass-Steagall Act.

Glass-Steagall, which was passed in 1933 and repealed in 1999, separated
commercial banks and investment banks. Last week, Warren joined a
bipartisan group of senators who are pushing to restore Glass-Steagall.
Both O'Malley and Sanders support its reinstatement, but Clinton has not
made her position clear.

In his conversation with Business Insider, O'Malley said Clinton and all
2016 presidential hopefuls should be "forced to answer" questions about
where they stand on Glass-Steagall.

"I think it's a pretty important issue," O'Malley said. "I mean, for 70
years we protected our common good against reckless behavior by
mega-speculation banks on Wall Street ... Wherever you stand, you should
state where you stand.

"I have stated I am very much in favor of reinstituting Glass-Steagall. I
believe in doing the things that work, and in the hindsight of history, I
think most people recognize that repealing Glass-Steagall was a mistake and
enabled this sort of reckless behavior ... and the crash that ruined so
many families. So, I'm very much in favor of reinstating it, and I think
that all candidates in both parties are going to be forced to answer that
question."

O'Malley's first major broadside against Wall Street came in his
announcement speech in May, where he suggested Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd
Blankfein wanted Clinton and Jeb Bush to win their respective primaries.

That claim has been called into question, but O'Malley doubled down on it
in his conversation with Business Insider and predicted other major Wall
Street executives feel the same way based on Clinton and Bush's "positions."

"I thought it was pretty widely reported that Lloyd Blankfein sent word to
his people that they'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton," O'Malley
said. "I don't think I would be on their short list. That's what I believe.

"I mean, given what we know now about the candidates' positions. And then,
as I said at announcement day, I bet Lloyd Blankfein would be just fine
with either Bush or Clinton. My guess is that probably Jamie Dimon would
feel the same way."

*Creating a 21st Century immigration policy
<http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/creating-a-21st-century-immigration-policy-20150714>
// The Gazette // Martin O’Malley – July 14, 2015 *

My great grandparents came to this country from Ireland. My great
grandfather, his name was also Martin O’Malley, had no money, and his first
language was not English. But the hopes and dreams he had for his children
were purely American.

We are a nation of immigrants — whether our ancestors came from Ireland or
from Mexico, or whether they immigrated generations before us or brought us
to the United States. But today, the very essence of our country, the
diversity that makes us great and rejuvenates us with each new arrival, is
being eroded.

Iowa knows well the importance of immigration and the need for reform. As a
state economy leading the way in agriculture, immigration reform means
greater economic success for Iowans. And as the state that has been home to
some of the largest immigration raids in the country, you’ve seen families
torn apart and thrown in a detention center in Waterloo. It’s not only
heartbreaking, it’s disruptive to the workforce as well.

Our outdated immigration laws aren’t meeting our economic needs, our
national security imperatives, or our values.

So here’s my goal: use bold executive action to provide immediate relief to
the millions of new Americans waiting for Congress to act, while forging a
new consensus for comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive reform
must create a pathway to citizenship to help rebuild the American dream for
us all.

I offer not words, but action. As governor of Maryland, I signed the
Maryland DREAM Act, allowed undocumented immigrants to get driver’s
licenses and broke with national leaders and offered young children who had
come across the border a home in Maryland. I stood up to the Obama
Administration on deportation of unaccompanied minors, and have stood with
President Barack Obama on his executive actions on DACA and DAPA.

Now, to continue to attract the next generation of strivers, dreamers and
risk-takers, and to be true to the values we hold dear, we must pursue a
dynamic, modern approach to immigration policy as a nation.

As president I will take immediate action to extend administrative relief
to millions of new American families, so that all of the people who would
have become eligible for legalization can continue to work and support
their families. I would also make common sense reforms to keep families
together, make sure that DACA and DAPA-recipients have access to affordable
health care, and limit detention to only those who pose a clear threat to
public safety.

Most importantly, I will use my executive experience to finally secure
comprehensive immigration reform legislation that creates a pathway to
citizenship and builds a 21st century immigration system.

Our current immigration system hasn’t changed much over the past 60 years.
It’s not responsive to the hiring needs of employers, whether they’re
looking for computer programmers or agricultural workers. And it tears
families apart. My plan as president will be to overhaul the US immigration
system by creating an independent agency to set immigration policy based on
the real-time needs of our economy. That way, we won’t be in the position
of having to fight for immigration reform again.

Comprehensive immigration reform will help all families — by lifting wages,
creating new jobs, growing our economy, expanding our tax base, and
improving standards for all workers. With new leadership, we can and will
come together to make immigration reform a reality so that the enduring
symbol of our nation will forever be the Statue of liberty and never become
the barbed wire fence.

*SANDERS*

*The Bernie Sanders campaign, brought to you by small-dollar donors
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/the-bernie-sanders-campaign-brought-to-you-by-small-dollar-donors/>
// WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) has raised more
than $15 million for his presidential campaign, according to a Federal
Election Commission document that reveals the vast majority of those
contributions totaled $200 or less.

The Sanders campaign reported to the FEC Wednesday that it raised nearly
$10.5 million in small contributions, and an additional $3 million in
donations of more than $200 each. That $13.5 million fundraising haul --
which accounts for money he has raised since he announced his candidacy in
late May -- was bolstered by an additional $1.5 million he transferred from
his Senate campaign account.

The campaign is likely to use the larger-than-expected fundraising tallies,
particularly his impressive haul among the grassroots, to reinforce the
senator's claim to speak for Democratic Party base.

In addition to his strong support among small donors, the second quarter
FEC filing reveals the campaign has spent around $3 million. The bulk of
those expenditures have gone to digital consulting and media advertising,
on which the campaign spent about $1.3 million. Besides spending $350,000
on printing and mailing services, the campaign's remaining costs have been
primarily operational.

*There’s a new super PAC for Bernie Sanders. It wants billionaire donors.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/>
// WaPo // Colby Itkowitz – July 15, 2015*

A cornerstone of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is extracting
billionaire influence from politics.

So imagine our surprise when a Sanders supporter seemed to miss that point
and filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday a super PAC
called “Billionaires for Bernie.”

Putting aside the fact that Eric C. Jacobson, the Los Angeles lawyer behind
the effort, will have to change the name because unaffiliated PACs can’t
bear the name of the candidate, the goal of “Billionaires for Bernie” is
exactly as it sounds.

Jacobson is a self-described progressive, who likes Sanders because he’s
“unbossed and unbought.” But to get Sanders to the White House means
competing at the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush.

And in today’s politics, that takes money.

Jacobson believes liberals’ general position against unlimited
contributions in politics is limiting their ability to compete.

“I’m hoping to facilitate a level playing field where a billionaire of
conscious can write a check … and I’m going to encourage them to do it,”
Jacobson told the Loop. In his view, there are plenty of “well-heeled”
liberals who should get in the big money game.

He’s on the hunt now for those billionaires. He already has one in mind,
Ronda Stryker, a Michigan philanthropist. He doesn’t know where her
allegiances are, but he knows she cares about progressive causes.

Too bad in 2013 Stryker was quoted in the Kalamazoo Gazette disparaging
partisan politics.

“I don’t have a passion for politics,” Stryker said then. “I don’t like
what it does to people. I’m always disappointed.”

But she did give $50,000 to President Obama’s first inauguration, so maybe
she can be persuaded?

Now, no one at Sanders campaign responded to our inquires about this new
“Billionaires for Bernie” endeavor, but the Vermont socialist has made
clear he does not want super PAC help.

The Citizens United “decision is undermining American democracy. I do not
believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians,” he said on
“Face the Nation” in May.

But Jacobson is not deterred. It will be a “very unaffiliated effort,” he
told us.

“There’s going to be full-court press to outspend the Sanders camp — the
Hillary billionaire drown out,” he said. “This is about First Amendment
freedoms. … I’m a pretty true believer in this and I think it can make a
difference.”

Brought to you by Billionaires for Bernie.

*Bernie Sanders’ official haul: $15.2 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-campaign-finance-fec-15-million-2016-120164.html?ml=tl_11>
// Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders’ campaign reported Wednesday that it had brought in more
than $15 million during the second quarter of this year.

Part of that total was a $1.5 million transfer from his Senate campaign
committee, meaning that the presidential campaign had raised $13.7 million
in contributions during the quarter.

Just under $10.5 million — more than 76 percent of his donations — were
$200 or less, while he received about $3.3 million in donations that were
more than $200.

The campaign announced that it had received 390,730 donations from 284,062
individuals, with an average contribution of just over $35.

The total is still far behind the $45 million that front-runner Hillary
Clinton’s campaign is expected to announce later Wednesday. But it shows
the significant grassroots backing of Sanders’ liberal insurgency, which
has garnered huge crowds and is surging in the polls as he challenges
Clinton from the left.

Sanders also spent more than $3 million in the quarter — a large amount for
an insurgent campaign and one that outpaces what many candidates on both
sides raised in total.

The candidate’s filing shows that the campaign spent $1,265,000 on “digital
consulting and ad buy” from Revolution Messaging, the group helping to lead
the senator’s digital fundraising and social media effort and led by
several digital strategists for Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign. Sanders — an
ardent campaign finance reform critic who has shown little interest in
fundraising and refuses to have a super PAC — has placed a significant
emphasis on small-dollar online contributions and social media.

It also spent more than $380,000 on printing — not to mention $822.46 for
an in-kind contribution of ice cream to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of
Ben and Jerry’s used at his launch in Burlington.

Sanders finds himself well ahead of other challengers such as former Rhode
Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who
told donors that he had raised roughly $2 million in his first month.

Sanders announced his campaign on April 30. Below is a breakout of the
campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised: $15,247,353.43

Total spent: $3,085,615.76

Total cash on hand: $ 12,161,737.67

Total debt: $0

*‘Billionaires for Bernie’ Group Is Formed, With Neither Billionaires Nor
Bernie
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/-billionaires-for-bernie-group-is-formed-with-neither-billionaires-nor-bernie>
// Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders, the liberal Vermont senator seeking the Democratic
nomination for president, has repeatedly discouraged the formation of
super-PACs supporting his candidacy. That hasn't stopped some political
activists from doing it anyway.

The latest is Eric C. Jacobson, a Los Angeles lawyer who filed papers today
with the Federal Election Commission to form a super-PAC he calls
Billionaires for Bernie. Jacobson, 60, describes himself as a
public-interest lawyer and activist who once volunteered on Gary Hart's
campaigns. He says he's never met Sanders and doesn't have any billionaires
lined up yet, but he already has some ideas for whom to contact, such as
Michigan heiress Ronda Stryker.

Unlike many liberals, Jacobson celebrated the Supreme Court's Citizens
United decision to loosen restrictions on big money in political races, and
he's not troubled that Sanders himself is discouraging such efforts.

“If it was good enough for the Founders to pledge their fortunes to found
the country,” he said, “how could it be wrong for the well-heeled people of
our time to pledge their fortunes to affect the destiny of our country?”

Jacobson's first task may be to come up with a new name. It's illegal for
super-PACs to use the name of the candidates they support.

“Thank you for the heads up,” Jacobson said when asked about the legality
of the name, adding that he would check with the FEC. “That is something I
probably should have caught if it's true.”

*The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men
<http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122309/bernie-sanders-archive-bustling-mysterious-young-men>
// TNR // Michael Tracey – July 15, 2015 *

July is a sleepy time on the University of Vermont campus in Burlington,
and ordinarily the basement of the Bailey/Howe Library would be sleepier
still. However, in recent weeks it has been bustling—not with students
conducting academic research, but outsiders conducting political research.
They have all come with one purpose: to dig through the Bernie Sanders
archive.

Some are national journalists, but others are more mysterious figures. A
reporter for local alt-weekly Seven Days recently speculated that "two
casually dressed twentysomethings" at the archive were opposition
researchers for Hillary Clinton—which her camp later denied, though not
before Drudge Report picked up the story. Ever since then, a retinue of
young men has streamed through the library basement. They refuse to
identify themselves, and the librarians on duty do likewise, citing Vermont
privacy statutes and their own code of ethics.

These men work for Sanders's presidential campaign, the headquarters of
which is a stone's throw away, and they have been tasked with digitizing
the entire archive—a gargantuan effort that left the librarians flummoxed
when staffers announced their plans last week. It's a vast trove of some 30
boxes of documents chronicling Sanders's eight-year mayoralty of Burlington
and other early political activities. As material is not allowed to leave
the special collections room, Bernie's workers sit for hours on end,
scanning every last leaf of paper onto thumb drives.

They say little, but in a rare moment of candor, one did ask me whether I
was “with Hillary." Otherwise they refuse to engage, operating under strict
orders not to speak with media under any circumstances. Asked if these men
are paid Sanders staffers, campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said, "Interns
are staff, and staff are paid." Otherwise he declined to comment on their
task, what prompted their arrival, or how many there are. Campaign manager
Jeff Weaver said of them, “Just collecting information for ads and to
document his record of effective leadership as Mayor of Burlington."

Sanders’s ad hoc 2016 operation in some sense is a reflection of the
Vermont senator himself, who famously eschewed neckties until first
entering elective office and reliably projects an image of rumpled
earnestness. The campaign is powered thus far more by passion than
structure, lacking the hyper-organized, corporatized polish of the Hillary
Clinton juggernaut. Whatever the upsides of such an approach, the goings-on
in Bailey/Howe Library suggest that the campaign might have been unprepared
for the sudden surge of interest in Sanders’ past.

The digitization of the Sanders archive began about a week ago, and that
his campaign apparently only thought to do so now could indicate a
refreshing lack of paranoia. But it's potentially a tactical misstep, too.
As much as Sanders might have evolved since his leadership role in the
Vermont’s renegade Liberty Union Party during the 1970s, his records from
that period are housed in the UVM archive for all to see—and might require
a bit of contextualization from his campaign, lest an opportunistic
opponent portray them unflatteringly.

Notwithstanding Politico Magazine's claim that "Bernie Sanders Has a
Secret," no bona fide bombshells have emerged yet from the archive or
elsewhere. Much of the material is fairly unremarkable to those schooled in
Cold War-era socialist discourse, especially given that Sanders today is a
self-identified democratic socialist. Nonetheless, his past statements
could feasibly cause some disquiet among the culturally conservative
working men and women whom Sanders hopes to court.

To wit: Sanders described himself as “clearly anti-capitalistic” in a 1976
interview with the Cynic, UVM's weekly student newspaper.

“Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves
and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” he said.
“It’s quite obvious why kids are going to turn to drugs to get the hell out
of a disgusting system or sit in front of a TV set for 60 hours a week.”

Television's enervating influence was a recurrent theme for Sanders in
those days; in 1972, he wrote a letter to FCC chairman Dean Burch
denouncing as “banal” such classic Americana as “I Love Lucy” and
“Gunsmoke.”

“How many programs do we see which reflect what is really going on in this
nation?” Sanders asked. “Where is the weekly T.V. network series which
deals with the worker who is unable to find a job and who is drinking
himself to death as a result?”

In the Cynic interview, Sanders was asked to expound on the nature of
socialism, a question that continues to arise 40 years later. But in
something of a departure from his typical response today, Sanders confessed
ambivalence about the term’s connotations. "I myself don’t use the word
socialism because people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism
automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship, and lack of freedom of
speech,” he said. “The [Liberty Union Party] more strongly than any other
party in the State of Vermont defends civil liberties.”

That defense of civil liberties included a commitment to unfettered gun
ownership: The party, while Sanders served on its executive committee,
adopted a platform in 1972 that called for the “abolition of all laws which
interfere with the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms.” This may
suggest that Sanders’s relatively permissive views on gun ownership,
already the subject of much consternation among liberals, could be rooted
in sincere principle—not simply in the practical realities of winning
election in rural Vermont. While this position might irk the average
Democrat, it could ultimately serve to broaden his appeal: Sanders has said
he wants to forge a coalition that can “cross traditional
liberal-conservative lines.”

Other documents in the archive may help in that effort, such as those
documenting his consolidation of municipal services as Burlington mayor, as
well as his disdain for property taxes. During his Liberty Union years,
Sanders endorsed the total elimination of “the very regressive property tax
system,” to be replaced by a much more steeply progressive income tax. By
his 1986 bid for governor, he had adopted “Vote tax relief” as a campaign
slogan. You might even say he ran the municipal government as a fiscal
conservative.

All of which is to say, there's a lot to mine in the archive, for both the
good and ill of the campaign. Sanders, who did not respond to an interview
request, probably has as little patience for discussing the contents of
those 30 boxes as his campaign leaders do. But his small army of digital
archivists have no choice but to be patient as they toil their summer away
in a library basement—scanning, scanning, forever scanning. As I overheard
one of them lament, “My grandchildren will be working on this.”

*The savvy tech strategy fueling Bernie Sanders’ upstart 2016 campaign
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-campaign-technology-20150715-story.html>
// LA Times // Evan Halper – July 15, 2015 *

Bernie Sanders is more likely to sport a rumpled suit than a hoodie, has no
affinity for geeking out on the gadgets of Silicon Valley and may prefer
the company of protesters over programmers — yet no candidate running for
president is more successfully leveraging technology.

The liberal Vermont senator’s rapid rise from a token leftist to a rival
with the potential to disrupt Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham
Clinton’s path to the nomination confirms that technology, as political
data wizards like to say, has become an equalizer in modern campaigns.

“It is extraordinary how this has revolutionized politics in America,”
Sanders said in an interview. He is the first to admit that he is no
techie. “I consider myself smart enough to hire excellent people who know
its importance.”

The Sanders ascent is built on deft use of the campaign tools first
developed a decade ago by fellow Vermonter Howard Dean. During his 2004
campaign for president, Dean also was not particularly tech-savvy, but his
message resonated with those who were.

Sanders is the same. Recently, he overtook Clinton in the number of people
searching for his name on Google. His Senate Facebook page has 1.3 million
followers, more than any other senator.

An online effort to get volunteers to throw house parties in support of
Sanders on a day this month has so many people signing up that the campaign
is trying to figure out how to coordinate it all.

“Can you imagine 20 years ago anyone thinking you could sit down in front
of your computer and talk to tens of thousands of people in America at once
and do it at such a reasonable cost?” Sanders said.

Nobody doubts Sanders’ ability to draw a crowd. But until recently, a fiery
liberal like him would have had considerable difficulty creating a durable
campaign operation out of the large groups of peaceniks, environmentalists
and college professors turning out to see him in liberal towns like
Madison, Wis., and Iowa City, Iowa.

Now, off-the-shelf technology is available to build detailed profiles of
the thousands who come to rallies and use the data to find many thousands
more just like them in early-voting states. Sanders’ staff can tap into a
massive voter file the Democratic National Committee makes available to
candidates to pinpoint with precision which people who show up at a rally
are prospective precinct captains in Iowa.

And instead of a balky, in-house online fundraising tool, Sanders can lean
on the transformative liberal fundraising website ActBlue. Thousands of
Sanders enthusiasts are playing the role of “microbundler,” enticing their
friends to the Web page where making donations is as intuitive and
addicting as shopping on Amazon.

Most of these tools were not available until recently, at least not at a
price affordable to a grass-roots candidate like Sanders, who disavows
corporate money and refuses to launch a "super PAC."

“We were trying to do this with bubble gum and Scotch tape,” said Joe
Trippi, who managed the Dean campaign. “There is a Ferrari out there now
for Bernie Sanders to use. He is doing well with it and can do even more
than he has been. It can go even faster and a lot further. We will see
where he takes it.”

Trippi cautions, though, that technology will only get Sanders so far. Like
other strategists, he says the appeal of the democratic socialist drops off
considerably once he is no longer competing in parts of the country where
primary voters share the demographic profile of those in his home state,
Vermont — overwhelmingly white, very liberal and older.

Still, only weeks ago, there was little talk that Sanders could actually
win in New Hampshire or Iowa or both. Now victory in those states is at
least conceivable, particularly after about 250,000 mostly small-dollar
donors sent the Sanders campaign $15 million during his first quarter as a
candidate, an amount that far exceeded the expectations of operatives in
Washington.

Sanders’ staff is cagey about particular technologies they are using. But
unlike the days of Dean, when the software had to be created on the fly,
progressives now have a deep pool of experienced political data-miners from
which to draw.

The techies working for Sanders are veterans of President Obama’s wildly
successful digital team. Among them is Scott Goodstein, who was external
director for Obama ’08.

“We were looking for a candidate ... who could inspire a movement,” he said
in a statement.

Sanders may be no techie, but the gruff independent with the thick Brooklyn
accent has a cult of personality that spawns clicks.

In a campaign where strategists are competing with one another to come up
with the most clever “404 error” page — the page that comes up when you hit
on a bad link within a website — Sanders bested his rivals with a video
message that mocks his Internet aptitude.

Standing awkwardly before the camera in an unfashionable suit and tie,
speaking too loudly and with the cadence of a grandparent trying to explain
something extremely important and complicated, Sanders directs visitors on
how to use the website. Swiping a meaty hand in front of the camera, he
says, “Just scoot down to the bottom of the page and you will find your way
back home to where you should be.”

The Vermonter’s success at harnessing social media defies convention.

“What we do not do,” the senator said, “is say, ‘Hi, I walked my dog this
morning. What a beautiful day. And then tweet it out.” Not even close.
Sanders writes detailed ideas about such concepts as America’s “grotesque
level of income inequality” and the “moral responsibility we must accept to
transform our energy system,” and his people push it out to his growing
mass of followers.

“In some cases, we will quote other people,” Sanders said. “Like the pope.…
I am a big fan of the pope.”

Digital strategists have seen this before.

“Howard Dean was thought of as a conservative Democrat who did not know
much about the Internet,” said John Hagner, a partner at the tech firm
Clarity Campaign Labs in Washington and a veteran of the Dean campaign.
“People who had a lot of technical sense opposed the Iraq war, and they
liked what he was saying. He fit the zeitgeist.”

*The Bernie Sanders Surge Is About Bernie, Not Hillary
<http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-bernie-sanders-surge-is-about-bernie-not-hillary/>
// Five Thirty Eight // Nate Silver – July 15, 2015 *

“The recent rise of Bernie Sanders,” wrote Vox’s Jonathan Allen last week,
“points as much to [Hillary] Clinton’s vulnerability as Sanders’s
strength.” Allen went on to argue that Joe Biden should run for president.
“The Sanders surge shows that Democratic activists want an alternative to
Clinton,” he explained.

We’ve seen this idea before. For at least a year, journalists have been
urging, sometimes almost begging, Biden to enter the race. The more
elaborate versions of the idea liken the 2016 campaign to 1968, a year in
which the incumbent president, Lyndon B. Johnson, withdrew after the
liberal, anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy finished a close second in the
New Hampshire primary. The nomination was eventually won by Johnson’s vice
president, Hubert Humphrey, after Robert F. Kennedy (who had entered the
race after New Hampshire) was assassinated. In the 2016 narrative, Clinton
is Johnson, Sanders is McCarthy and Biden is some composite of Kennedy and
Humphrey.

But these comparisons suffer from a fatal flaw. Unlike LBJ, who (mostly
because of the Vietnam War) had approval ratings only in the mid-50s or low
60s among Democrats during the 1968 campaign, Hillary Clinton is beloved by
voters in her party. In national polls, her favorability ratings among
Democrats usually exceed 80 percent.

Nor do Sanders’s gains in Iowa and New Hampshire say much about Clinton’s
vulnerability. This is easy enough to test. When a candidate gains relative
to another, it could be because he is growing more popular, or because his
opponent is becoming less popular. Horse-race polls, in which voters reveal
only their first preference, won’t always be able to distinguish between
these causes.

Favorability ratings allow us to say more. If Allen’s assertion is right —
that Sanders’s gains represent an “anybody but Hillary” vote that could go
to Biden — we should have seen a significant deterioration in Clinton’s
favorability ratings. That’s not what we see, however. In the charts below,
I’ve compiled all the favorability rating polls I could find among Iowa and
New Hampshire Democrats since the start of the year. In Iowa, there’s been
no change at all in Clinton’s ratings. Her favorability rating is about 85
percent, and her unfavorable rating is around 10 percent, right where it
was in January.

silver-feature-berniehillary

Perhaps you can perceive a slight downturn in Clinton’s favorability
numbers among Democrats in New Hampshire — they’re now in the high 70s
instead of the mid-80s, while her unfavorable ratings have grown by a few
percentage points. Her ratings are still very good, however, and (given the
noise in the polling) the change isn’t statistically significant.1

Instead, it’s the Vermont senator’s ratings that have shifted dramatically.
In Iowa, Sanders’s favorability rating has grown from about 35 percent at
the start of the year to 60 percent now. And in New Hampshire, it has
improved from around 45 percent to 65 percent. Some of that is from
improved name recognition, but Sanders’s unfavorable ratings haven’t
increased even as he’s become better known, remaining at about 10 percent
in each state.

The Bernie Sanders surge, in other words, has a lot more to do with Bernie
Sanders than with Hillary Clinton. More specifically, it has to do with his
left-populist politics. We’re going to break some news here: It turns out
that some Democrats are really liberal, and they like a really liberal
candidate like Sanders. Right now, Sanders is winning about half the
support of white liberal Democrats, but little support from other groups
within the party. That works out to around 25 or 30 percent of the vote in
Iowa and New Hampshire but more like 15 percent among Democrats nationally.

It’s possible that Sanders’s standing will continue to improve. If he goes
from winning half of the white liberal vote to most of it, he could win
Iowa and New Hampshire, though not very many other states.

But he could also encounter some headwinds. Sanders’s name recognition is
now 70 to 80 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire, so he doesn’t have that
much more room to grow on the basis of improved name recognition alone. And
while he’s an appealing choice to some very liberal Democrats, Democrats
who describe themselves as “somewhat liberal” may instead prefer Clinton.
The policy differences between the Democrats aren’t all that profound;
Clinton is pretty liberal herself, and she and Sanders voted together 93
percent of the time in the two years they spent in the Senate together.

Sanders may also be benefiting from media coverage of his campaign, which
has been favorable to him recently. Polls that show him gaining in Iowa and
New Hampshire receive lots of press coverage, whereas those that show him
stalling out, like this one released late last week, are all but ignored.
Meanwhile, it was described as a “game-changer” when Sanders announced he’d
raised $15 million in the spring, even as Clinton raised $45 million during
the same period.

Some of this has to do with the longstanding antipathy between the Clintons
and the news media (a phenomenon that Allen has written about). But the
media have another incentive to paint Sanders’s candidacy in a favorable
light, the same one that encourages them to call for a Biden candidacy:
Coronations are boring. They’d rather see a competitive Democratic primary,
which means more to talk about and analyze, and thus more viewership and
traffic. This isn’t an anti-Clinton thing, necessarily; in the past, the
dynamic has sometimes worked toward Clinton’s benefit. The 2008 Democratic
nomination was portrayed as anyone’s race until the bitter end, for
instance, even though Barack Obama’s substantial lead in delegates made it
difficult for Clinton to win.

Ordinarily, Democrats might push back against what they perceived to be
unfair or inaccurate coverage about Clinton. But Democratic activists and
commentators are more liberal than Democrats as a whole. Many of them like
Sanders’s policy positions — and even though they may also like Clinton,
they’d like to see her pulled further to the left before the general
election gets underway.

What about the Clinton campaign itself? So long as Clinton retains 80
percent favorable ratings among Democrats, she has little reason to deflate
the Bernie bubble. Sanders may satiate the media’s desire for a
“competitive” Democratic primary without really making her vulnerable.
Clinton has plenty of ammunition, however, including her money and the
endorsements she’s received from her fellow Democrats (including many
Democrats who are almost as liberal as Sanders). That’s likely enough to
secure her the nomination without her going negative. If needed, she could
also press concerns about the electability of Sanders, a 73-year-old
self-described socialist who hasn’t run a national campaign before.

In the meantime, you’re likely to see journalists misunderstand the reasons
for Sanders’s gains, attributing them incorrectly to criticisms of Clinton.
Her email scandal, for example, has received plenty of press coverage, but
it isn’t likely to weigh her down in the primary. While only 42 percent of
Americans overall say that Clinton is honest and trustworthy — a potential
concern for her in the general election — 73 percent of Democrats think she
is. And 80 percent of Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them.

There isn’t much of a market among Democrats for an “anybody but Hillary”
candidate, in other words. And it’s particularly illogical to argue that
Biden might serve as a better foil to Sanders. Biden has lower favorable
ratings and higher unfavorable ratings than Clinton and by statistical
measures is further to the right.

So if you’re going to speculate about a new candidate entering the race, at
least do it in a way that’s consistent with the evidence. Since Sanders’s
surge is mostly about Democrats liking a really liberal candidate, you
could argue that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren should run for
president. She’s also extremely popular with liberals but carries less
baggage than Sanders.2 But it’s going to be hard for any Democrat to beat
Clinton as long as she has an 80 or 85 percent favorability rating within
her party.

*WEBB*

*Jim Webb Becomes Sole 2016 Democrat to Question Iran Deal
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/jim-webb-becomes-sole-2016-democrat-to-question-iran-deal/>
// WSJ // Peter Nicholas – July 14, 2015 *

Former Sen. Jim Webb became the sole major Democratic presidential
candidate to voice objections to the Iran deal struck by the Obama
administration, telling an interviewer on Wednesday, “I have a lot of
concerns about this deal.”

Mr. Webb said the agreement means the U.S. is effectively “acceding” to
Iran eventually developing a nuclear weapon.

Bernie Sanders Calls on Clinton to Take a Stand on Minimum Wage, Other
Issues

He spoke about the Iran deal on the Diane Rehm radio show, a day after the
landmark agreement was announced.  His four main rivals for the Democratic
nomination – former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ex-Maryland Gov.
Martin O’Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Rhode Island Gov.
Lincoln Chafee – all spoke favorably about the agreement in the hours after
it was announced.

A Wall Street Journal poll last month showed Mr. Webb in third place with
4% of registered voters who said they would vote in the Democratic primary.
Mr. Sanders was in second place with 15%; Mrs. Clinton was in first with
75%. Both Mr. O’Malley and Mr. Chafee trailed Mr. Webb.

This was not the first time Mr. Webb has taken a position that put him at
odds with his rivals.

As leaders of both parties called for the removal of the Confederate flag
from the South Carolina state capitol grounds, Mr. Webb posted a statement
on his Facebook FB +0.65% page last month that struck a contrarian note,
calling on people to acknowledge “the complicated history of the Civil
War.” He wrote that “honorable Americans fought on both sides of the Civil
War.”

Last week, though, he said in a TV interview that he approved of the South
Carolina legislature’s decision to remove the flag.

In the radio interview, Mr. Webb said that in the long-running negotiations
over its nuclear program, Iran did well for itself.

He said he has asked himself “What does Iran get out of this?”

“And they get a lot out of this,” he said. “They get immediate lifting of
sanctions and over a period of 10 years they are going to be able to say
they can move forward with a nuclear weapons policy with the acceptance of
the U.S. and the other countries” involved in the negotiations.

Asked what the U.S. achieved, Mr. Webb laughed and said: “That’s what I’ve
been trying to figure out.” He said the U.S. had secured only “vague
guarantees” that Iran will scrap efforts to develop a nuclear weapon.

For his part, President Barack Obama has said the deal was a diplomatic
victory, compelling Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program without the
use of military force.

“Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and
principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,”
Mr. Obama said in a statement from the White House on Tuesday.

Congress is now set to review the nuclear deal.

Mr. Webb, who served one term as senator from Virginia, said if he were
still in office he would be “very skeptical” of the deal.

“We cannot send a signal to this region that we will in any way accept the
eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran,” he said.

*Jim Webb breaks from 2016 Dems in Dinging Iran deal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jim-webb-criticize-iran-deal-120145.html?ml=tl_13>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 14, 2015 *

Jim Webb on Wednesday broke with fellow Democrats running for the White
House, calling the nuclear agreement with Iran a signal to the Middle East
that the U.S. is accepting the eventuality that Iran will one day acquire a
nuclear weapon.

“My concern really is that at the bottom line of the agreement, here is
what we have. We have Iran having their sanctions lifted, having a number
of these other issues with respect to their activities not addressed and
having the rest of the region receiving a signal that we, the United
States, are accepting the eventuality that they will acquire a nuclear
weapon,” Webb said Wednesday on “The Diane Rehm Show” on NPR.

The former Virginia senator and Navy secretary’s remarks are in contrast
with those of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, independent Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Lincoln
Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, all of whom praised
the agreement to varying degrees on Tuesday.

“So, however you get through the checks and the measures as the agreement
moves forward … that’s where we end up after 10 years, even if everything
works,” Webb told Rehm. “The bottom line is: Even if it all works, is this
where we want to be in that region as a country with Iran having been so
empowered in recent years,” he said, noting that he has been a proponent of
improving relations with Iran and removing sanctions in a measured way that
keeps regional balances in check.

“We should, with respect to the situation with Iran right now, we do not
want to be signaling in the region right now that we have accepted that
Iran would have a larger role in this balance than would be good for the
region,” Webb said.

*Webb skeptical of Iran deal, worries Dems bow to interest groups
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jim-webb-skeptical-iran-deal-worries-dems-bow-interest-groups>
// MSNBC // Alex Seitz-Wald – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb said Wednesday that he is “very
skeptical” of the deal Western nations recently struck with Iran over its
nuclear program, and said he worries the Democratic Party has become “less
inclusive” and too focused on social issues.

In an interview with public radio host Diane Rehm, Webb says he thought
Iran gets “a lot out of this” deal while he was still “trying to figure
out” the American interest in the agreement to halt Iran’s nuclear program
struck Tuesday. “I have a lot of concern about this deal,” he added,
explaining that he thought the deal would result in Iran acquiring a
nuclear weapon and that Congress should have had more oversight.

That puts Webb at odds not only with President Obama, but with all four
other Democratic presidential candidates, who have said they support the
deal.

That’s a comfortable position for the former senator and Navy Secretary,
who touted himself as an “independent voice” Wednesday and is used to
charting his own course. Later in the interview, he criticized his party
for prioritizing “social issues.”

“I worry that the Democratic Party’s message has has become less inclusive
even that is as it has become more focused on different interest groups,”
he said. “If you look at the [20]10 elections and [20]14 election, you will
see the Democratic Party, I believe, needs to open up and be more inclusive
to the people who traditionally part of the basic message of the Democratic
Party.”

On Sunday, Webb told Fox News that he thought his party had moved too far
to the left. “That’s not my Democratic Party in and of itself,” he told Fox
News Sunday.

*CHAFEE*

*Lincoln Chafee Bankrolls His Campaign
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/14/lincoln-chafee-bankrolls-his-campaign/>
// WSJ // Rebecca Ballhaus – July 15, 2015 *

Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee and his wife, Stephanie,
had income of as much as $5.5 million in 2014 and are worth as much as
$34.9 million, according to his financial disclosure report released
Tuesday.

The bulk of the former Rhode Island governor’s assets are held in a trust
owned by his wife, a multimillionaire philanthropist whose family founded
the Rhode Island School of Design in the 19th century. The trust holds
between $19 million and $27.5 million, according to the disclosure. The
couple also owns as much as $4 million of real estate in Rhode Island,
Maine and New Hampshire.

Hillary Clinton Transcript: Building the 'Growth and Fairness Economy'

Mrs. Chafee’s trust has stakes topping $1 million in companies including
Amazon, Intel and AH Belo, a media company that owns the Dallas Morning
News and formerly owned the Rhode Island-based Providence Journal.

The Chafees have no liabilities.

Mr. Chafee also reported this week that his longshot campaign for the
Democratic nomination raised $392,743 in the first half of the
year—$364,000 of which he loaned to his own campaign. The campaign has
$329,000 in the bank.

In Mr. Chafee’s successful gubernatorial bid in 2010, his wife donated
about $1.8 million—about two-thirds of all the money raised.

Candidates are required to disclose details of their personal income after
launching their campaigns. Mr. Chafee’s wealth puts him at the upper end of
the spectrum of 2016 candidates. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is
worth as much as $52 million, and Republican Carly Fiorina has a net worth
of $59 million.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush earlier this month released tax returns
showing his total net worth to be between $19 million and $22 million. And
Donald Trump told the crowd at his campaign launch that he is “really
rich,” citing $9.2 billion in assets.

*Literally No One Supports Lincoln Chafee In Latest Poll
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lincoln-chafee-support_55a663fde4b0c5f0322bd272?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Sam Stein – July 15, 2015 *

Running for president can be a humbling experience. And former Rhode Island
Gov. Lincoln Chafee is testing the depths of a candidate's psychological
endurance.

The one time Republican-turned-Independent-turned Democrat barely raised
any money for his White House bid, reporting less than $30,000 on hand. And
on Wednesday morning came a new poll from Monmouth University that shows
him with zero percent. As in, there is no registered support for him.

Were this a one-time thing, perhaps Chafee could chalk it up to the
variance of public polling. But, in fact, he's been hovering at 0.0 percent
for some time now, according to the Huffpost Pollster averages. His
campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

Chafee is contending with some of the same variables that have kept others
in the field way down at the low rungs of public support. Eclipsed by the
star power of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and unable to tap
into the same type of grassroots support as Sen. Bernie Sanders, there
really hasn't been much space to operate on the trail. Both former Gov.
Martin O'Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb registered at 1 percent in the
Monmouth poll.

Chafee has the type of liberal record that would suit a Democrat well in a
presidential year. But his odd campaigning style, his complete lack of
money or infrastructure, and his virtually non-existent name recognition
have left him, basically, alone

*Lincoln Chafee’s Presidential Bid has Zero Support, New Poll says
<http://time.com/3958783/lincoln-chafee-poll-zero-support/> // TIME //
Nolan Feeney – July 15, 2015 *

Plenty of Democratic presidential hopefuls are trailing Hillary Clinton in
polls, but no candidate seems to be trailing more than former Rhode Island
Governor Lincoln Chafee, who has literally zero support according to new
data from Monmouth University.

The numbers, released Wednesday, show that the percent of people who say
they’d back the little-known Chafee for the Democratic nomination stood at
zero in both June and July. Clinton, meanwhile, is currently pulling 51% of
support in the poll, down from 57% last month, and Bernie Sanders has 17%
of support, up from 12% last month.

The sample of 1,001 adults has a margin of error of 5.2 percentage points,
so maybe Chafee’s just getting unlucky with the polls two months in a row.
But even fellow candidates Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley each garnered
support from 1% of poll participants this month.

*UNDECLARED*

*OTHER*

*Bernie Sanders throws shade at Hillary Clinton during Senate visit
<http://nypost.com/2015/07/15/bernie-sanders-throws-shade-at-hillary-clinton-during-senate-visit/>
// AP // July 15, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was escorted by fellow
Democrats, her way smoothed by uniformed officers and her every pre-planned
step tracked by a pack of chroniclers as she made the rounds of private
meetings in the Capitol.

It was more than enough for Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from
Vermont who is Clinton’s closest Democratic presidential rival in the
polls. Emerging from one such meeting on Tuesday, Sanders strode,
fast-paced and trailed by a couple of aides, to a collection of nearby
television cameras.

“Let me welcome Secretary Clinton back to the Senate,” he said, although in
fact, the greeting could more fairly be described as brisk and bracing,
rather than warm.

His rival was behind closed doors with Democratic senators elsewhere in the
Capitol when Sanders said that trade deals negotiated over the past two
decades have been disastrous. “Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a
different view on that issue,” he said, although he omitted that as
president, her husband had negotiated the North American Free Trade
Agreement.

“I strongly opposed the war in Iraq,” he added. He didn’t mention that
Clinton supported it, but said, “sadly, tragically, much of what I
predicted in fact took place.”

Moving on to energy, Sanders said he has “helped lead the opposition to the
Keystone pipeline.” He added dryly, “I think Secretary Clinton has not been
clear on her views on that issue,” referring to her unwillingness to state
a position on the proposal despite repeated requests that she do so.

While not exactly unplanned, Sanders’ appearance at the microphones was a
reminder of the type of opportunistic campaign he is running as an
underdog. The cameras were there in anticipation of comments by other
lawmakers, but he made use of them.

As a result, he got his say — and on a day that Clinton’s aides had
designed to highlight her role as a front-runner conferring privately with
Democrats who may well share the 2016 ballot with her.

The news that the United States and other world powers had reached a deal
with Iran to limit its nuclear program only added to her standing.

“She’s one of two of the most important, most influential voices in this
debate, the other being President Obama,” said New York Rep. Steve Israel,
who attended one of the closed-door meetings with the former secretary of
state.

Not surprisingly, given Clinton’s experience as secretary of state and
their similar views on the deal, it wasn’t an issue Sanders dwelt on.

Proceeding down his checklist, the Vermont senator said he believes large
financial institutions should be broken up, adding that to the best of his
knowledge, Clinton does not agree with him.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and spending $1 trillion to rebuild
roads and bridges is another case, he said, where Clinton has been “less
than clear about her views.”

Finally, he said he favors a transition tax on “Wall Street speculators,”
with the proceeds going into paying the cost of public college and
university expenses for students. “The secretary’s position, I think, is
unclear,” he said, avoiding mentioning that Clinton once represented New
York and Wall Street in the Senate.

His “welcome” nearly done, Sanders added of Clinton, “I like her. I respect
her. … It is not necessary for people to dislike each other or attack each
other just because they’re running for office.”

A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign had no immediate response to Sanders’
comments.

*Bernie Sanders gets his say on Clinton’s day in Capitol
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eddca299823549c5a2f7ea7a90e4e476/bernie-sanders-gets-his-say-clintons-day-capitol>
// AP // David Espo – July 15, 2015 *

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was escorted by fellow
Democrats, her way smoothed by uniformed officers and her every pre-planned
step tracked by a pack of chroniclers as she made the rounds of private
meetings in the Capitol.

It was more than enough for Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from
Vermont who is Clinton's closest Democratic presidential rival in the
polls. Emerging from one such meeting on Tuesday, Sanders strode,
fast-paced and trailed by a couple of aides, to a collection of nearby
television cameras.

"Let me welcome Secretary Clinton back to the Senate," he said, although in
fact, the greeting could more fairly be described as brisk and bracing,
rather than warm.

His rival was behind closed doors with Democratic senators elsewhere in the
Capitol when Sanders said that trade deals negotiated over the past two
decades have been disastrous. "Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a
different view on that issue," he said, although he omitted that as
president, her husband had negotiated the North American Free Trade
Agreement.

"I strongly opposed the war in Iraq," he added. He didn't mention that
Clinton supported it, but said, "sadly tragically, much of what I predicted
in fact took place."

Moving on to energy, Sanders said he has "helped lead the opposition to the
Keystone pipeline." He added dryly, "I think Secretary Clinton has not been
clear on her views on that issue," referring to her unwillingness to state
a position on the proposal despite repeated requests that she do so.

While not exactly unplanned, Sanders' appearance at the microphones was a
reminder of the type of opportunistic campaign he is running as an
underdog. The cameras were there in anticipation of comments by other
lawmakers, but he made use of them.

As a result, he got his say — and on a day that Clinton's aides had
designed to highlight her role as a front-runner conferring privately with
Democrats who may well share the 2016 ballot with her.

The news that the United States and other world powers had reached a deal
with Iran to limit its nuclear program only added to her standing.

"She's one of two of the most important, most influential voices in this
debate, the other being President Obama," said New York Rep. Steve Israel,
who attended one of the closed-door meetings with the former secretary of
state.

Not surprisingly, given Clinton's experience as secretary of state and
their similar views on the deal, it wasn't an issue Sanders dwelt on.

Proceeding down his checklist, the Vermont senator said he believes large
financial institutions should be broken up, adding that to the best of his
knowledge, Clinton does not agree with him.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and spending $1 trillion to rebuild
roads and bridges is another case, he said, where Clinton has been "less
than clear about her views."

Finally, he said he favors a transition tax on "Wall Street speculators,"
with the proceeds going into paying the cost of public college and
university expenses for students. "The secretary's position, I think, is
unclear," he said, avoiding mentioning that Clinton once represented New
York and Wall Street in the Senate.

His "welcome" nearly done, Sanders added of Clinton, "I like her. I respect
her. ... It is not necessary for people to dislike each other or attack
each other just because they're running for office."

A spokesman for Clinton's campaign had no immediate response to Sanders'
comments.

*Bernie Sanders narrows the gap as Hillary Clinton’s lead declines by
double digits
<http://www.salon.com/2015/07/15/bernie_sanders_narrows_the_gap_as_hillary_clintons_lead_declines_by_double_digits/>
// Salon // Sophia Tesfaye – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton’s lead among Democrats is shrinking, dropping nine points
since April, according to a new Monmouth University Poll released today.

Clinton still holds an enormous lead over her nearest competitor,
Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, with 51 percent of the vote to
Sanders’ 17 percent, but just last month, Clinton led 57 percent to 12
percent in the same poll.

Increasingly, Democrats are supportive of a Democratic challenger to
Clinton — with 53 percent agreeing that it would “be better if there was an
active primary challenge,” up from 48 percent last December. But Clinton
continues to have the best favorability ratings among her Democratic rivals
— 74 percent favorable to 17 percent unfavorable.

15 percent of voters are undecided, besting the 13 percent of voters who
indicated they are still holding out hope for a Joe Biden run. Biden holds
the second highest favorability ratings in the Democratic field with 67
percent of Democratic voters viewing him favorably.

For his part, Sen. Sanders’ favorability ratings have surged as more
Democratic voters are introduced to his campaign. 36 precent of respondents
held a favorable view of the self-described democratic socialist, up from
29 percent last month.

The results in this poll release are based on a subsample of 357 registered
voters who identify themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic
Party from a larger, national random sample of 1,001 adults age 18 and
older. The poll was conducted July 9 to 12, 2015 with a margin of error of
plus or minus 5.2 percentage points.

*Bernie Sanders gaining on Hillary Clinton, with Biden looming
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/15/bernie-sanders-gaining-hillary-clinton-biden-looms/>
// Washington Times // David Sherfinski – July 15, 2015 *

Sen. Bernie Sanders, Vermont independent, has gained some ground against
former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past few months
in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, though Mrs.
Clinton still has a firm grasp on the top spot, according to a new poll.

Mrs. Clinton was the first choice of 51 percent of Democrats and
Democratic-leaning voters in the new survey from Monmouth University — down
from 57 percent in June and 60 percent in April.

Mr. Sanders was well back at 17 percent, but his numbers have increased
since his 7 percent showing in April and his 12 percent support in June.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia
were both at 1 percent, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee
registered no support and 15 percent said they were undecided.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who unlike the other candidates has not
yet officially indicated his 2016 plans, was at 13 percent, with an
additional 12 percent of Democratic voters saying they would be very likely
to consider supporting Mr. Biden if he enters the race and another 31
percent saying they would be somewhat likely to consider it.

Among those who say they’d be likely to support Mr. Biden if he runs, 68
percent are Clinton backers, 18 percent are supporting another candidate
and 14 percent are undecided.

“Most people seem to be focusing on a Sanders surge among the liberal wing
of the party. But the bigger threat to Clinton may come from a Biden
candidacy, where the two would be fighting for the same voters,” said
Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling
Institute.

A slight majority, 53 percent, said it would be better if Mrs. Clinton
faced an active primary challenge, compared to 36 percent who said it would
be better if the party got behind Mrs. Clinton early on.

Seventy-four percent of Democratic voters held a favorable opinion of Mrs.
Clinton, compared to 17 percent who held an unfavorable view.

Mr. Biden had a 67 percent/17 percent favorable/unfavorable split among
Democrats, while Mr. Sanders had a 36 percent/12 percent split.

Fewer than 30 percent of Democrats had an opinion on the rest of the field.

The survey taken from July 9-12 of 1,001 adults had a subset of 357
registered voters who identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, with a
margin of error of plus or minus 5.2 percent for that subgroup.

*Hillary Clinton’s Lead is Shrinking, and a New Poll Shows Growing Support
for a Dark Horse Candidate
<http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/369085-looks-like-support-hillary-clinton-waning-expense-democratic-candidate/>
// IJ Review // Kyle Plantz – July 15, 2015 *

Hillary Clinton is leading in most national polls for the 2016 Democratic
presidential nomination, but that lead has been slipping in recent months
as Bernie Sanders continues to make a splash in the race.

The latest Monmouth University poll released Wednesday has Clinton leading
with 51% among Democrats and those leaning toward the Democratic Party.
However, this number has dropped from 57% in June and 60% in April,
according to previous polling from the institute.

Sanders continues to trail Clinton at a sizable margin, but his support has
steadily grown to 17%, an increase from 12% in June and 7% in April.

Martin O’Malley garners just 1% of support and Jim Webb, who threw his hat
into the ring earlier this month, also earns 1%. Lincoln Chafee registers
no support in the poll and another 15% of Democrats remain undecided.

Vice President Joe Biden has not announced his intentions for 2016 yet, but
the poll suggests that he earns 13% of support from voters currently, just
behind Sanders.

But the Monmouth poll shows that Biden’s support would grow if he entered
the race. About 12% of Democratic voters said they would be “very likely”
to support Biden and an additional 31% said they would be “somewhat likely.”

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said
in the press release of the poll that most of this support would come at
the expense of Clinton:

“Most people seem to be focusing on a Sanders surge among the liberal wing
of the party. But the bigger threat to Clinton may come from a Biden
candidacy, where the two would be fighting for the same voters.”

Among the voters who said they would support Biden if he decides to run,
68% are currently supporting Clinton, 18% are supporting another candidate
and 14% are undecided.

The Democratic National Committee has not released its Democratic primary
debate schedule yet but said the first one might come as early as August.

*GOP*

*DECLARED*

*BUSH*

*Jeb Bush to Release Names of His Fund-Raisers
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/?ref=politics>
// NYT // Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush will disclose the names of his “bundlers,” or volunteer
fund-raisers, his campaign said on Wednesday.

The announcement, which comes as Mr. Bush and other presidential candidates
are preparing to submit detailed financial information to the Federal
Election Commission, makes Mr. Bush the first — and so far only —
Republican candidate to pledge to disclose his bundlers.

“Governor Bush is committed to transparency,” said Kristy Campbell, a
spokeswoman for Mr. Bush. “We plan to release a list of individuals
bundling donations for the campaign for the first two quarters by the time
we file our next F.E.C. report.”

Bundlers are the financial heart of any presidential campaign, which
requires hundreds of volunteer fund-raisers to tap into networks of
friends, family and business associates, each of whom can only give $2,700
for any one election.

Federal law does not require candidates to disclose the names of bundlers
unless they are registered lobbyists. But some major party candidates have
done so voluntarily, including President Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and
former President George W. Bush, Mr. Bush’s brother. Doing so makes it
possible for voters to known who candidates rely on the most to raise money
and what industries and interests those people represent.

A spokeswoman for Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said he would not voluntarily
disclose the names of his bundlers. Officials at several other campaigns,
including Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Scott Walker of
Wisconsin, did not respond to emails seeking comment.

*Lobbyists bundle nearly a quarter million dollars for Jeb Bush
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/lobbyists-bundle-nearly-a-quarter-million-dollars-for-jeb-bush/>
// WaPo // Catherine Ho – July 15, 2015 *

A key group of fundraisers for the 2016 presidential election, lobbyist
bundlers, raised $228,400 for Republican candidate Jeb Bush during the
second quarter, according to FEC filings submitted by his campaign on
Wednesday.

Bush also drew the financial support of top lobbyists at a number of
Fortune 500 companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, Goldman Sachs and
Hewlett-Packard.

People who raise more than $17,600 from friends, family and colleagues are
known as bundlers and campaigns are required to disclose their names if
they are federally registered lobbyists. Campaigns are not required to
disclose the names of all bundlers, but both Bush and Democratic
front-runner Hillary Clinton say they will do so.

While the amount of money raised this way may be dwarfed by the unlimited
sums that can be contributed to super PACs — hundreds of thousands of
dollars compared to millions — it nonetheless offers a glimpse into who on
K Street may have access and influence on a potential future president.

Eight lobbyist bundlers raised a collective $228,400 for Bush during the
second quarter of 2015. The top bundlers were William P. Killmer of the
Mortgage Banking Association, who raised $36,200; Dirk Van Dongen of the
National Association of Wholesalers, who raised $33,900; and Ignacio
Sanchez, co-chair of the lobbying practice at DLA Piper, who raised $32,400.

Former congressman Tom Loeffler, now a lobbyist at Akin Gump, raised
$31,500 for the campaign. Al Cardenas, former chairman of the Republican
Party of Florida and now a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs, raised $18,900.

A number of lobbyists, though not bundlers, contributed the individual
limit of $2,700 to Bush’s campaign. They include Kirk Blalock of Fierce
Government Relations, David Beightol and Brian Sailer of Flywheel
Government Solutions, Dave Boyer of BGR Group and Josh Holly, Kimberley
Fritts, David Marin and Matt Johnson of Podesta Group.

Bush also drew support from top lobbyists within major corporations,
including Maria Cino of Hewlett-Packard, Ed Ingle of Microsoft, Tim McBride
of United Technologies, Matt Niemeyer of Goldman Sachs and Woody Simmons
Jr. of Verizon Communications. They all contributed the individual limit of
$2,700.

*Jeb Bush reports $11.4 million campaign haul
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-reports-11-4-million-campaign-haul/>
// WaPo // Jose A. DelReal and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015 *

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush's campaign  raised more than $11.4 million
during the second fundraising quarter, according to a Federal Election
Commission report, just a fraction of the $114 million total money he
raised when factoring in his enormous super PAC haul.

The $11 million figure was first disclosed by the Bush campaign last week
and confirmed Wednesday, the formal FEC filing deadline for the second
fundraising quarter. Bush's allied super PAC, Right to Rise USA, disclosed
last week that it has raised $103 million in 2015 so far. With another $5
million from his leadership PAC, Bush's total haul is an unprecedented $119
million.

The report reveals that Bush's campaign received $368,000 from small donors
– less than the $390,000 the candidate himself donated to his own campaign.
About $228,000 came from bundlers who are registered federal lobbyists,
including $36,000 raised by William Killmer of the Mortgage Bankers
Association and nearly $34,000 by Dirk Van Dongen, president and lobbyist
for the National Association of Wholesale Distributors.

The campaign has spent slightly more than $3 million since Bush formally
announced his campaign in mid-June, primarily on operational fees. The
biggest amounts of money spent by the campaign was for travel, campaign
equipment, political strategy consultants and payroll. The campaign also
spent around $400,000 on legal consulting fees.

Bush donated $388,720 to his own campaign for “testing the waters”
activities, covering travel, legal fees, polls and consulting done before
he declared his bid in mid-June. Advocates for stricter campaign finance
rules have argued that the former governor skirted reporting requirements
by spending months traveling and raising money for his allied super PAC,
all while maintaining that he had not decided yet whether to run. Bush
aides said Wednesday that his donation to the campaign showed that he was
following the rules.

"Jeb 2016’s first report affirms what we have publicly stated over the past
few months — that if Governor Bush engaged in any testing-the-waters
activities that they would be paid for appropriately, and that if Governor
Bush decided to run for office that any testing-the-waters expenses would
be reported at the required time," spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said in a
statement. "In the interest of transparency, the campaign has voluntarily
identified all testing-the-waters expenses as such on this first report."

All the expenditures are dated June 5 — 10 days before he announced he was
running.

*Jeb Bush to release names of campaign bundlers, joining Hillary Clinton
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-campaign-bundlers-joining-hillary-clinton/?postshare=1801436983294538>
// WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 *

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush plans to voluntarily release the names of
fundraisers bundling contributions for his presidential bid, going further
than 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Bush aides said Wednesday that he will release a list of bundlers who have
helped raise donations for his campaign by Oct. 15, when campaigns must
file reports about their fundraising and spending during the third quarter
of the year with the Federal Election Commission.

"Governor Bush is committed to transparency," said spokeswoman Kristy
Campbell.

Bush's move puts the pressure on his GOP rivals to follow suit. Aides to
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said earlier this week that he has no plans to
disclose the names of bundlers. Other campaigns have not yet responded.

Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to release the names of
her campaign bundlers quarterly beginning with today's FEC filing deadline,
officials said. That follows the practice of President Obama, who released
information about his top fundraisers in 2008 and 2012.

The 2008 Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, also shared
details about his bundlers. But in 2012, Romney only released the names of
lobbyists who bundled for his campaign as required by law.

Bundlers play a key role in helping amass large sums for campaigns, which
can only raise $2,700 per person for the primaries.

Bush has already laid out big goals for his fundraisers as part of a
program dubbed "Mission 2016 JEB," embracing a NASA theme that hearkens to
his home state of Florida.

To qualify for the first tier, called Apollo, bundlers need to bring in
$75,000. The second tier, called Endeavour, is for fundraisers who reach at
least $150,000. Top-flight bundlers will reach the Voyager level as they
help rake in at least $250,000.

*Wall Street Donated Generously to Jeb Bush, Filing Shows
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/wall-street-donated-generously-to-jeb-bush-filing-shows/>
// WSJ // Beth Reinhard and Christopher S. Steward – July 15, 2015 *

Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s first 15 days as a presidential
candidate show Wall Street’s heavy hand, with nearly $145,000 in campaign
contributions coming from employees at Goldman Sachs GS +0.38% and nearly
$114,000 from four other big banks.

Another large batch of contributions totaling $63,100 came from employees
of the financial firm Neuberger Berman, run by his cousin George Herbert
Walker IV, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs, according to campaign
financial disclosure reports released Wednesday.

During his six years as an adviser for the defunct Wall Street bank Lehman
Bros. and later at Barclays BCS +0.81% PLC, Mr. Bush said he earned, on
average, between $1.3 million and $2 million. Employees of Barclays have
donated $29,700 so far.

Other large contributions came from employees of companies on whose boards
Mr. Bush served following his governorship, building a fortune of at least
$19 million. Employees of timber company Rayonier Inc.RYN -0.54% gave
$3,950 while those of hospital operator Tenet Healthcare contributed at
least $30,500.

Mr. Bush also filed a form disclosing lobbyists who have bundled at least
$17,600. The top bundler was William Killmer of the Mortgage Bankers
Association, who collected $36,200, followed by Dirk Van Dongen of the
National Association of Wholesale Contributors, who collected $33,900.

Some companies whose employees contributed large sums have longtime
connections to the Bush family, including the private-equity firm Freeman
Spogli & Co, whose employees donated $5,400 and whose chairman Brad Freeman
raised millions for George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election.

Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he will release the names of donors who are
bundling contributions for his campaign when he files his next campaign
fundraising report in three months.

“This display of transparency is consistent with the high level of
disclosure he has practiced during his life in public office and, frankly,
should be expected from public servants,” said Allie Brandenburger, a
spokeswoman for Mr. Bush.

Not surprisingly, the former two-term governor of Florida received the
biggest chunk of money from his home state: $2.56 million. New York came in
second place with $1.27 million. Texas, home to his brother, former
President George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush, contributed
$1.18 million.

Mr. Bush had previously announced raising $11.4 million for his campaign,
along with $103 million by his super PAC and another $5 million from a
related political committee. That makes him the far-and-away fundraising
leader in the 2016 field. Mr. Bush also loaned his campaign $388,720 for
“testing the waters” expenses before he was an official candidate,
according to a spokesman.

Mr. Bush’s campaign spent more than $3 million in its first two weeks,
leaving him with $8.35 million. His biggest expense was $372,647 for
computer equipment, followed by $308,687 for media production and political
consulting, $280,835 for air charter and $259,201 for event production and
travel. Of the $2,107.83 the campaign paid for “taxi fare,” $1,396.40 went
to Uber.

*Jeb Bush’s Iowa Travels Take Him East and West, Left and Right
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/jeb-bushs-iowa-travels-take-him-east-and-west-left-and-right/>
// WSJ // Beth Reinhard – July 15, 2015 *

As Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush hustled between eastern and
western Iowa this week, there were signs of the political divide between
the moderate and conservative parts of the state, reinforcing the
challenges of the nation’s first nominating contest.

As one eastern Iowan who supports Mr. Bush put it, “Iowans can stand nose
to nose and never see eye to eye.”

Mr. Bush’s first stop Monday was in Sioux City, which is represented by
Rep. Steve King, one of the best known immigration hardliners in Congress.
Mr. King created a furor two years ago for saying many border crossers are
drug mules with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from hauling marijuana.

Mr. Bush then traveled east to a local Republican Party dinner at a
picturesque winery in Ames, which is near the capital of Des Moines and
considered “liberal” by Iowans in the more rural west.

“Mr. Bush appeals to the moderate crowd, the disaffected Democrats and the
disaffected Republicans,” said Norman Rudi, the former local GOP chairman,
proudly holding a bumper sticker that had been signed by Mr. Bush, his
father and his brother. “Sooner or later we have to realize that
electability is the key.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush was back west in Council Bluffs, disparaged by some
eastern Iowans as backwater “Counciltucky.” He was greeted by half a dozen
protesters holding signs that said “Illegal Alien is not an Immigrant” and
“No More Bushes.” Mr. Bush is at odds with conservatives over allowing
illegal immigrants to earn legal status. He also supports the Common Core
academic standards, which some conservatives view as a federal incursion
into local schools.

“This side of the state is the conservative side,” said one of protesters,
Craig Halverson, the former statewide chairman of a border control group
called the Minutemen Patriots. “We’re not for liberals or RINOS. We’re for
our country.”

Mr. Bush didn’t tailor his remarks to the geography of his audience,
however, giving essentially the same stump speech in all three locations.
Inside a packed Council Bluffs pub, Mr. Bush began his remarks by taking on
Republican rival Donald Trump, who has come under fire in recent days for
referring to illegal immigrants as rapists.

“On our side there are people that prey on people’s fears and their angst
as well. I don’t know about you, but I think it is wrong,” he said.
“Whether it’s Donald Trump or Barack Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness
is wrong. A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts.”

He was asked about Common Core by a man who said “the folks in the Midwest
aren’t particularly fond of that.” Mr. Bush, who has fielded this question
many times, reiterated his belief in high academic standards, driven by
state and local officials. “What the federal government role should be is
none,” he said to applause.

Mr. Bush repeatedly referred to himself as a “happy warrior” during his
two-day Iowa swing. He said he would campaign by “hugging and kissing” and
said he was not a “grievance candidate.”

That’s message that the more moderate Republicans in eastern Iowa seem to
like, but it could slow down Mr. Bush in the western part of the state,
where voters seem to be itching for a fight against a political
establishment they view as too ideologically squishy.

“We could improve him,” quipped Betty Lou Law, who came to the Sioux City
event. Her husband, retired farmer Verle Law, disagreed, saying, “I think
he’s conservative enough.”

The first question Mr. Bush fielded in Sioux City was from a man upset
about Central Americans illegally crossing the border. Mr. Bush sought to
empathize but noted the impossibility of building a fence across the Rio
Grande. And when another a man thanked him for coming to western Iowa, Mr.
Bush made a promise: “I’ll be back, too.”

*Jeb’s official haul: $11.4 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jebs-official-haul-114-million-120167.html?ml=tl_2>
// Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015*

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it had
raised more than $11.4 million during the second quarter of this year. Bush
announced his candidacy June 15, giving his campaign just over two weeks to
raise funds before the June 30 deadline.

When combined with the super PAC supporting him, Right to Rise — which
announced two weeks ago that it had raised $103 million — Bush’s war chest
far exceeds any of his Republican rivals.

His campaign’s per-day fundraising total was just under $714,000. Below is
a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised: $11,429,897.64

Total spent: $3,078,087.31

Total cash on hand: $8,351,810.33

Total debt: $401,104.53

*Goldman Bankers Are Jeb Bush’s Biggest Backers for White House
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/goldman-bankers-are-jeb-bush-s-biggest-backers-for-white-house>
// Bloomberg // Max Abelson – July 15, 2015 *

Important people at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. want Jeb Bush to be the next
U.S. president. And they’re giving him a lot of money to make it happen.

More than 50 Goldman Sachs executives and employees gave the Republican
more than $144,000 in the second quarter, with most of them sending $2,700,
the maximum allowed, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

The company that was the next-best source of money for the former Florida
governor, Neuberger Berman, is run by George Walker, Bush’s second cousin.
Employees at the money manager gave more than $63,000. It once was part of
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., where Bush was an adviser.

Goldman Sachs management committee members who gave to Bush include
investment management co-heads Eric Lane and Timothy J. O’Neill, investment
banking co-head David Solomon, mergers and acquisitions co-head Gene Sykes,
risk chief Craig Broderick and merchant banking head Richard Friedman. Dina
Powell, the head of the firm’s foundation, and Robert Zoellick, the
chairman of the company’s international advisers and a former head of the
World Bank, both donated to Bush.

Goldman Sachs isn’t the only Wall Street firm with employees hoping to see
a third Bush in the White House. Credit Suisse Group AG, Morgan Stanley and
JPMorgan Chase & Co. also were among the top sources of donations.

No Goldman Sachs employees were listed as donors during the second quarter
to Vermont’s Bernie Sanders. The Democratic senator has called for breaking
up the biggest banks.

*Republican Bush raises $11.4 million for 2016 presidential bid: filing
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-usa-election-bush-fundraising-idUSKCN0PP2IU20150715>
// Reuters // Luciana Lopez – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush raised $11.4 million for his 2016
campaign in the quarter ended June 30, his campaign said in a Federal
Election Commission filing on Wednesday.

His campaign had released that same total earlier in the month.

A Super PAC backing Bush brought in a record $103 million, the group, Right
to Rise, previously said in a statement.

The total haul means that Bush will have a considerable war chest as he
goes through a potentially contentious primary season. With a large
Republican field, fundraising figures are also a way for candidates to
separate themselves from the pack, and Bush has so far outstripped rivals
such as senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Bush announced his bid for the White House on June 15, leaving his campaign
only 16 fundraising days until the end of the quarter.

The former Florida governor is one of 15 candidates, so far, who are
formally seeking the Republican nomination for the November 2016 election.

*Jeb Bush to release list of campaign bundlers
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/jeb-bush-bundlers/index.html> //
CNN // Ashley Killough – July 15, 2015 *

In an effort to help build a brand of transparency, Jeb Bush's team
announced Wednesday that it plans to reveal a list of bundlers who helped
raise money for his White House bid in the first two quarters.

Bundlers are volunteer fundraisers who encourage their own circles of
colleagues and friends to donate to a certain candidate, with a maximum
contribution of $2,700 allowed by federal election law. Bundlers typically
get credit or special access to a candidate if they cross a specific
threshold of money raised.

The former Florida governor is among the first 2016 candidates to announce
such intentions, taking on a voluntary task that his brother George W. Bush
was known for starting during the 2000 presidential campaign. For her part,
Hillary Clinton will announce her bundlers quarterly. She also revealed her
bundlers when she ran for president in 2008, as did President Barack Obama
and Sen. John McCain during their White House bids.

"This display of transparency is consistent with the high level of
disclosure he has practiced during his life in public office and, frankly,
should be expected from public servants," said Allie Brandenburger, a
spokesperson for Bush, in a statement.

Plans to release the list were first reported by The New York Times.

Later on Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said the
newly minted presidential candidate also plans to disclose his bundlers.

Election law doesn't require candidates to name these fundraisers -- unless
they are lobbyists. Representatives for other candidates said their
campaigns don't plan to reveal that information.

"We'll disclose what the law requires us to, but we don't discuss our
strategy beyond that," said Alex Conant a spokesman for Sen. Marco Rubio of
Florida, who also gave the same quote to the Times.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also confirmed that he will not
disclose his bundlers.

Bush's campaign says it aims to release the list by the time it files its
next report with the Federal Election Committee, which will be mid-October.

Bush announced last week that his campaign raised $11.4 million by the end
of June, while a super PAC supporting his bid said it raised $103 million
since January.

CNN reported that Bush has no plans to let his fundraising momentum stall,
starting a new push called "8 by Eight" where bundlers who get eight people
to donate the $2,700 maximum by the end of July will be invited to some
special events in Cleveland next month and to a dinner with the candidate
in Coral Gables on July 29.

*Only 3 Percent of Jeb Bush’s Campaign Cash Came From Small Donors
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/only-3-percent-of-jeb-bush-s-campaign-cash-came-from-small-donors-20150715>
// National Journal // Shane Goldmacher – July 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush is a fundraising powerhouse among the Republican Party's biggest
donors, but he is struggling among smaller donors. Of the $11.4 million his
campaign raised during its first two weeks, only 3 percent came from donors
who gave less than $200.

Small contributors gave Bush only $368,023, the campaign's federal filings
show. Donors who gave the legal maximum of $2,700 accounted for more than
80 percent of Bush's total haul.

For comparison's sake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz raised $1.8 million from
small donors during the first week of his campaign back in March, nearly
half of his campaign's total. And, on the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie
Sanders said Wednesday that more than 76.5 percent of his fundraising
($10.5 million) came from small donors.

Bush had 12,334 donors between June 15 and June 30, his campaign said. That
means his average contribution was $926. The average Sanders contribution?
$35.

The new figures will likely only further fuel the perception among
conservative activists that Bush is a candidate of the wealthy GOP
establishment who is unable or unlikely to connect with the grassroots. In
fact, the $368,000 in small-donor fundraising is less than Bush himself
spent on the campaign during the brief, 10-day period in early June when he
was formally "testing the waters" for a campaign.

When the $103 million his super PAC has raised is factored in, Bush's
fundraising from small donors is almost surely less than the 3 percent he
reported for the campaign itself on Wednesday, and likely well below 1
percent. The super PAC said last week that it had a total of 9,900
donors—which would mean its average donor contributed more than $10,000.
The super PAC said roughly 500 of its donors gave $25,000 or more.

The new report does show Bush's tremendous appeal among the moneyed class
of donors. In a remarkable static, the most common denomination for a donor
to Bush was the legal maximum of $2,700. More than 3,400 donors gave Bush a
maximum-sized contribution.

*Clinton And Foundation Raked In Cash From Banks That Admitted Wrongdoing
<http://www.ibtimes.com/clintons-foundation-raked-cash-banks-admitted-wrongdoing-2010404>
// IB Times // Andrew Perez and David Sirota – July 15, 2015 *

On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton is selling her version of economic
populism, including calls for Wall Street executives who engage in
financial wrongdoing to be held accountable more than they have been under
President Barack Obama. She has pushed that message hard as she seeks to
win support from the Democratic Party’s liberal base, with a speech Monday
and a follow-up statement from her campaign the next day.

“Yesterday, Hillary said that when Wall Street executives commit criminal
wrongdoing, they deserve to face criminal prosecution. Not a slap on the
wrist, not a fine paid by their employers -- prosecution,” said an email to
supporters from Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs
executive-turned-government regulator now serving as a top Clinton campaign
official.

Raking In Donations

Clinton’s outrage, though, did not stop her family's foundation from raking
in donations from many of the same banks that secured government fines
rather than face full-scale prosecution. The Clinton Foundation has
accepted $5 million worth of donations from at least nine financial
institutions that avoided such prosecution -- even as they admitted
wrongdoing. These include Barclays, HSBC and UBS, all of which entered into
agreements with the Justice Department that allowed their employees to
avoid criminal charges. The Clintons also personally accepted nearly $4
million in speaking fees from those firms since 2009.

Neither the Hillary Clinton campaign nor Clinton Foundation responded to
International Business Times questions about why her family and their
foundation accepted money from firms that settled financial fraud cases and
avoided the kind of prosecution Clinton now says is needed.

Last week, former Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice
Department’s treatment of banks was “appropriately aggressive” and told
Financial Times that assessing fines was a better strategy than “trying to
make examples of people” by prosecuting individual executives. On Monday,
Clinton seemed to disagree. In a speech at the New School in New York City,
she pressed for prosecutions and slammed regulators’ tolerance of
lawlessness from financial firms like HSBC -- a bank that two years ago
admitted to helping Mexican drug cartels launder money in its banks, and
allowing transactions by customers in countries subject to U.S. sanctions.
While HSBC paid a $1.9 billion fine, none of its employees went to jail.

“Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial
industry are shocking,” Clinton said. “HSBC allowing drug cartels to
launder money, five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for
conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be
no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.”

Money After Wrongdoing

But in 2014, two years after HSBC admitted to major violations of U.S.
laws, the firm was the top sponsor at a Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)
event, paying at least $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Earlier, in
2011, HSBC paid former President Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech he gave
in Florida.

The HSBC relationship -- taking money from a bank after the firm admitted
wrongdoing -- was not unique. In 2009, UBS avoided prosecution by the
Justice Department when it agreed to pay a $780 million fine and admitted
to defrauding the United States by allowing American citizens to hide
income from the IRS. The Swiss bank has since entered into two more
agreements with the Justice Department -- one for rigging the municipal
bond market and the other for manipulating global interest rates. UBS has
paid former President Bill Clinton more than $1.5 million for speeches
since 2009, and the firm has given more than $550,000 to the family’s
foundation.

In 2010, the British banking firm Barclays entered into a settlement
agreement with the Justice Department, and admitted to violating U.S.
sanctions by making transactions for customers in countries such as Libya,
Sudan and Myanmar. Weeks later, Barclays was a sponsor at the annual CGI
event. Barclays has remained a CGI sponsor in the years since, even after
the bank paid more fines under a new agreement with the Justice Department
for manipulating worldwide interest rates. Barclays has paid the Clinton
family $650,000 for speeches since 2009. The firm has given at least $1.5
million to the Clinton Foundation.

*RUBIO*

*Marco Rubio Has Missed Most Votes This Year of Senators Running for
President
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/?ref=politics>
// NYT // Jeremy W. Peters – July 15, 2015 *

If you were absent from work a third of the time, you’d probably be fired.

But among the many perks of being a United States senator is that you are
your own boss and can set your own schedule. Nobody knows this better than
the five senators running for president.

On average, senators miss about 3 percent of their votes, or have an
attendance rate of 97 percent.

But Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican, has a 70 percent
attendance rate this year, meaning that for the 30 percent of the days he
was out, he missed 69 votes.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, another Republican, isn’t very far behind, with
55 missed votes, or 77 percent attendance.

Both senators have been on fund-raising binges in the weeks since they
announced their presidential campaigns, trying to rake in as much as
possible before the June 30 deadline that marked the end of the second
quarter.

But their colleague, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, has managed
to miss just three votes, giving him a 99 percent attendance record. Mr.
Paul must factor in one thing that Mr. Rubio and Mr. Cruz do not: He is
asking Kentuckians to re-elect him as senator this year while at the same
time running for president.

Mr. Rubio has decided not to seek re-election, while Mr. Cruz’s term ends
in 2018.

Mr. Paul’s record is about the same as Senator Bernie Sanders, the
independent of Vermont, who is running for the Democratic nomination and
has missed six votes so far this year. The fifth senator seeking the White
House, Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has missed 45 votes.

*WALKER*

*A Sleep-Deprived Scott Walker Barnstorms Through South Carolina
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/a-sleep-deprived-scott-walker-barnstorms-through-south-carolina/?ref=politics>
// NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 *

Scott Walker worked off little sleep on Wednesday during the first
barnstorming trip of his presidential campaign.

On a one-day, three-city swing through South Carolina, Mr. Walker tried to
sell himself to voters as down-to-earth and easy to relate to by
commiserating about commercial flight delays. Mr. Walker, the governor of
Wisconsin who entered the race for the Republican presidential nomination
on Monday, told a lunchtime crowd here that he had been awake for the last
31 hours because his flight from Las Vegas to Atlanta on Tuesday night had
been diverted to Memphis because of bad weather.

When he and his campaign team finally reached Atlanta, he said, they had
missed their flight to Charleston, S.C. They opted to rent a van and make
the five-hour drive, stopping at a Burger King in the wee hours Wednesday
before reaching North Charleston for an 8 a.m. event at a Harley-Davidson
dealership.

“I tried to sneak in a few z’s, but it’s hard when your head is up against
an armrest,” Mr. Walker said in Lexington.

The lack of sleep doesn’t seem to have fazed him: Mr. Walker stayed on
message during his first two campaign events. He has had a little coffee,
aides say, but is drinking plenty of water.

His stop at a Lexington barbecue restaurant was the second of Mr. Walker’s
four events on Wednesday, the last of which will be a fund-raiser in
Atlanta before boarding a flight to New Hampshire for a couple of campaign
stops there on Thursday.

*Scott Walker, in South Carolina, Skirts Gun Control and Flag Issues
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/scott-walker-in-south-carolina-skirts-gun-control-and-flag-issues/?ref=politics>
// NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015  *

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, in his first visit to South Carolina since
nine people died in the church shootings, chose to address the massacre by
praising the people of the Charleston region for their unity rather than
discussing the gun control issues or the Confederate battle flag debate
that arose afterward.

And Mr. Walker, who officially declared his candidacy for the Republican
presidential nomination on Monday, made a point of not giving any attention
to the man charged in the killings, Dylann Roof.

“I’ll never say his name,” Mr. Walker said, as he briefly addressed the
shootings before a crowd of about 200 people at a Harley-Davidson
motorcycle dealership.

“It was amazing to see the kind of leadership you provided for this country
in what could have been a negative not just for you all, but for this
country,” Mr. Walker said of the peaceful and discerning responses to the
massacre. “You all showed how to bring people together in this community
and this region and this state and in turn you did it for this country.”

He also hailed the leadership of “my friend Nikki Haley,” the state’s
Republican governor, who he cites frequently as an ally during his campaign
visits to South Carolina. He did not touch on her successful effort to
remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds after the
shooting.

As a newly announced candidate, Mr. Walker has not had time yet to give
policy speeches on issues like gun control or government responses to the
mass shootings that have been occurring in the United States. He often
mentions his support for gun owners and for laws allowing them to carry
concealed weapons.

*Scott Walker Tries to Clarify Remarks on Gay Scout Leaders
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/>
// NYT // Patrick Healy – July 15, 2015 *

Gov. Scott Walker, who recently expressed support for a ban on gay Boy
Scout leaders because it “protected children,” said on Wednesday that he
did not mean that children needed “physical protection” from gay
scoutmasters – but rather protection from the debate over the ban.

In comments published on Tuesday by The Independent Journal Review, a news
website that is popular with young conservatives, Mr. Walker said, “I have
had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership
policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.” But during
a brief press conference in South Carolina on Wednesday, Mr. Walker said
the decision on the ban was “up to the Boy Scouts” and added that his
earlier remarks were not about protecting children from gay people.

“The protection was not a physical protection,” he said, but rather about
“protecting them from being involved in the very thing you’re talking about
right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just
focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship
and things of that nature.”

Staking out increasingly conservative positions has emerged as a key part
of Mr. Walker’s strategy to compete for votes against the 14 other
Republicans running for president. He has been vocal in his opposition to
same-sex marriage and his support for amending the United States
Constitution to allow states to define marriage as between a man and a
woman.

In response to another question, Mr. Walker indicated that he would
consider Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina as a vice-presidential running
mate if he won the Republican Party’s nomination, though he repeatedly
emphasized that the notion was premature.

“Certainly Nikki’s a friend of mine, she has been a very capable governor,
and there will be a long list of people like her, but again, like I said,
it’s premature,” Mr. Walker said.

He did sketch out the kind of person he would seek as a running mate, if he
earned the nomination: “Primarily someone who is capable of being an
outstanding president if god forbid something were to happen to me,” as
well as someone who “shares my values and my concerns.”

*Scott Walker Using Harley-Davidson to Burnish ‘Fighter’ Image
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/scott-walker-using-harley-davidson-to-burnish-fighter-image/>
// NYT // Nick Corasaniti – July 15, 2015 *

He could have been any one of the roughly 400 people gathered here. Clad in
a black Harley-Davidson shirt, slim jeans with a slight fray and bike-ready
boots, the only aspect distinguishing Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin from
the rest of the crowd was he was holding the microphone, and running for
president.

“I ride a 2003 100th anniversary Road King, so I’m kinda thrilled to be
here,” he told the crowd gathered at Red Rocks Harley-Davidson, a local
dealership, minutes after taking the stage where he also introduced his
wife and children.

Indeed, in his initial swing through the first four nominating states, one
thing is constant for Mr. Walker and his campaign: the Harley-Davidson.

From holding his first campaign event as an announced candidate at a
dealership in a nondescript mall miles from the glitz of the Las Vegas
Strip, to the events planned at dealerships in New Hampshire and South
Carolina, Mr. Walker is placing the revered Harley-Davidson motorcycle
alongside Kohl’s department store shirts as key brands in his efforts to
further burnish his Everyman persona.

Holding events at Harley-Davidson dealers helps to “show his personality,”
said Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the campaign. She said they’re
part of a larger effort to reintroduce Mr. Walker to the country, a sharp
contrast to the more button-down attire of some of his rivals.

To that end, Mr. Walker, speaking under a giant plastic American flag and
surrounded by shiny, five-figure Harleys – most of them Road Kings, as Mr.
Walker noted in his remarks — repeatedly referred to himself as a
“fighter,” a characteristic he wants voters to see as evident from his
battles with unions during his first term as governor and his subsequent
recall election. He said the word “fight” or “fighter” nearly a dozen times
in his speech and news conference afterward.

The line is not exclusively directed at bikers, but for some in this
audience, it reverberated with common themes in the motorcycle-riding
community, hinting at a proud individualism and even a little rebellious
spirit.

“I like what he’s done in his home state,” said Darwin Rockantansky of Las
Vegas, a motorcyclist – although not a Harley rider — who was proudly
sporting a Sons of Liberty jacket. “In the local environment, there is a
Spanish word ‘cojones.’ It has two meanings. One some people smile at, but
the other means ‘courage.’ This particular candidate shows courage, and
fortitude, and all those wonderful things.”

Timothy Cashman, one of the co-owners of dealership hosting the event, said
he thought Mr. Walker’s use of the brand further burnished his persona as
an Everyman.

“Harley-Davidson is pure American,” he said, having to speak a little
louder as the rumble of a revving motorcycle spun in the background. “And
that’s what a presidential campaign is about, speaking to the American
people.”

Mr. Walker will eventually step out of the dealers and hit the open road on
a bike to do just as Mr. Cashman said. He had already promised to ride
around New Hampshire and South Carolina and Wednesday, he promised to tour
Nevada on a bike as well.

But Mr. Walker, a veteran rider who says he has put over 20,000 miles on
his personal motorcycle, knew that might have to wait a bit.

“I’m gonna come back to Nevada, but I’m going to be wise, I’m going to wait
till October or November before I ride,” he told the crowd, to a few
knowing nods.

And he is indeed eager to ride as much as possible before the election,
because, as he put it: “They tell me, if I’m successful, I don’t get to
ride a Harley anymore.”

*Unbending (and unexcitable)
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/07/14/scott-walker-unbending-and-unexcitable/?tid=sm_fb>
// WaPo // Michael Fletcher – July 14, 2015 *

He tells the story without a dose of excitement or flash of charisma. Scott
Walker is standing on the stage of a Denver convention center, shirt
sleeves rolled up, microphone cradled in both hands. Before him is an eager
audience of more than 4,000 Republican activists at the Western
Conservative Summit.

In a slightly nasal, Midwestern monotone, the Wisconsin governor talks
about the furor he created. He describes how 100,000 protesters descended
on the State Capitol to denounce his plan to curtail collective bargaining
for public employees. And he shares, in the least fiery way possible, how
he forged ahead with other polarizing policies, overcoming a precipitous
slide in the polls and a fevered recall effort that inspired headlines
asking whether he had become “Dead Man Walker.”

The bruising fights once threatened his political career. But he survived a
recall campaign and was reelected after that. By prevailing, Walker
transformed his battles into his calling card. He says one supporter summed
up his appeal in a tweet: “I like Walker because he wins without caving.”

At 47, Walker’s polite unwillingness to bend, his placid determination to
stand his ground at all cost, both animates and complicates his
presidential candidacy. Partisans love hearing about how he decimated
Wisconsin unions, cut taxes, defunded Planned Parenthood and required photo
identification at the voting booth - all while calmly staring down
political opponents. It has helped catapult him to the first rank of
Republican presidential hopefuls.

The question is whether voters will see his style as evidence of clear
vision or the mark of a man unwilling to compromise. And how far can he go
without backing down as he enters an arena where the issues are more
complex and the politics more treacherous?

Already, there are cracks. Speaking to farmers in Iowa earlier this year,
he endorsed the federal ethanol mandate, a reversal of his previous
position. Years ago, as Milwaukee County executive, he supported a plan
that would create a path to legal status for the nation’s 11 million
undocumented immigrants. He said in March, “My view has changed.”

But Walker is betting that voters want an unwavering, unflappable leader
who knows exactly where he want to go and won’t stop until he gets there.
He tells audiences he refused to back off on making change in Wisconsin
even in the face of death threats, including against his wife, Tonette, and
their children.

“It is a myth that winning the center requires moving to the center,” he
wrote in his autobiography. “The path to a conservative comeback lies not
in abandoning our principles but in championing bold, conservative reforms
and having the courage to see them through.”

Pleasant. That’s even how Walker’s bitterest political foes describe him.

In the heat of the state’s showdown with its union four years ago, Rep.
Peter Barca, the Wisconsin State Assembly’s top Democrat, publicly
denounced the governor at protests across the state. “You know, Governor
Walker, you have defiled our heritage,” Barca said at one rally. “You have
disregarded our values.”

But Walker, who declined to be interviewed for this article, never took it
personally. “I’d give a speech in front of 50,000 protesters saying,
‘Walker’s got to go,’ “ Barca says, “and you’d see him the next day and
you’d think I just sent him a coffeecake or something.”

Barca is part of a small group of leaders who meet regularly with Walker
during the legislative session, but Barca said those gatherings are almost
never satisfying. “Generally, when you meet with him on the major issues,
you don’t feel like it’s a dialogue,” he says. “We get along just fine. He
is sort of chitchatty. He exchanges pleasantries, makes some jokes. But you
just feel like that on the big issues he is just there to tell you, ‘Here’s
what I am going to do.’”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks in March at a high school in Concord,
N.H. For this series, Washington Post photojournalists used a phone app
with filters to capture the candidates as potential voters might. (Matt
McClain/The Washington Post)

The roots of his immovability may lie in what he calls being a “P.K.” - a
preacher’s kid.

In the tiny farming community of Plainfield, Iowa, where Walker moved when
was 2, his father, Llewellyn Walker, was pastor at First Baptist Church and
served on the city council. His mother, Patricia, was head of the Sunday
school. The family, which would soon include Walker’s younger brother,
David, lived in a parsonage next door to the church.

Walker credits his no-frills upbringing and parents’ example for imbuing a
deep religious belief and a clear moral vision that has guided him for as
long as he can remember.

He relied on that resolve, he says in his 2014 book, “Unintimidated,” even
as tens of thousands of protesters marched on his office in Madison and, at
times, outside his home in Wauwatosa.

“It wasn’t always easy,” he writes. “What gave me the inner strength to go
on was my faith.”

Classmates, teachers and friends say Walker has always been earnest, the
kind of guy people used to call a “straight arrow.”

As a young boy, he founded a “Jesus USA” club. He was so concerned that
Plainfield’s city hall did not have a state flag that he grabbed an old
container, punched a hole in it, and started collecting donations. Before
long, he had enough money to buy a flag that he presented to the city.

“Scott has a very strong sense of right and wrong,” says Stephen Satran,
who was in an antiabortion group with Walker in college.

In 1977, his family moved to Delavan, Wis., an agricultural town about an
hour’s drive southwest of Milwaukee. There, he was active in just about
everything. He whittled down model wooden cars to compete in the Cub
Scouts’ Pinewood Derby. On Sundays, he stood next to his parents greeting
parishioners at First Baptist Church. As he got older, he would at times
step to the pulpit and deliver sermons himself.

“It was a biblically based church, but not fire and brimstone,” says Chris
Stebnitz, who attended First Baptist. “The sermons were very
conversational. They always had a tie-in to the Bible and how these
teachings relate to everyday life.”

Walker was focused and busy as a teenager. Yearbooks from his days at
Delavan-Darien High School are filled with pictures of Walker in his
numerous and varied roles: on the track, cross-country, basketball and
football teams; playing percussion in the pep and symphonic bands; as a
member of the foreign-language club; and performing the “Stray Cat Strut”
with the Swing Choir. The book from his senior year features a photo of
Walker with his black hair grazing his shoulders. The caption reads, “Scott
K. Walker - the Desperado”- even if the wildest thing friends remember him
doing back then was painting his bedroom deep red, with a black-and-white
checkerboard ceiling.

“He was very responsible for his age,” says Russell Draeger, Walker’s high
school principal. “. . . He came from a great family. His mother would
bring cookies to sporting events, and she would cut out newspaper photos of
high school athletes and send notes congratulating kids for their
achievements.”

He became an Eagle Scout after completing a project that used old telephone
poles to shore up a steep slope behind his father’s church. He also worked
part-time jobs washing dishes at a local restaurant and later flipping
burgers at McDonald’s.

But the unyielding determination that has come to define Walker as governor
was not evident the first time he ventured to the nation’s capital in 1985
to attend Boys Nation, the mock-government program run by the American
Legion. In those days, Walker stood out as someone adept at forging
compromise.

“The dichotomy is he is no longer the person I knew then. He was an
intelligent, compassionate young man who seemed to care about solving
problems and bringing people together,” says Scott Adrian, who as a youth
counselor recommended Walker for Boys Nation and now works as a Democratic
staffer in the Wisconsin legislature. “Time sure changes a lot of things.”

Scott Walker when he was a member of the Delavan-Darien High School
marching band and with his parents, Llewellyn and Patricia, at home on his
graduation day in 1986. (Photos courtesy of the Scott Walker campaign via
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Walker returned from Boys Nation with a new sense of purpose. Seeing the
capital’s monuments and being able to confer with the nation's youth
leaders in Washington was mesmerizing. “As someone who loved history, that
just blew me away,” Walker said in a 2014 American Legion video.

At Marquette University, a Jesuit school in the heart of Milwaukee, Walker
dove into student politics with much more enthusiasm than he hit the books.
He helped lead a campus antiabortion group and won a seat on the student
Senate, heading an investigation that ended up with student leaders
resigning for charging a lavish dinner to organizational accounts.

As a sophomore, he ran for student government president. Walker, who was
known to wear suits to class, cited the job he did with the student Senate
investigation, as well as his status as an Eagle Scout and his opposition
to abortion. The campaign turned bitter, with charges and countercharges
about election violations by both sides, and Walker lost.

For some young men, a defeat might have ended any political aspirations.
But not for Walker.

“It’s funny - his friends were the ones losing their minds about the
election,” says Satran, who supported his candidacy. “He was not upset. It
was almost weird. He accepted it as God’s will.”

Walker left Marquette without graduating, and soon after he made his first
attempt at public office. He ran for an Assembly seat against Democratic
incumbent Gwen Moore, now a member of Congress. He pushed an anti-crime
message and papered the district with handouts. The odds were stacked
against him in the heavily Democratic district, and he was trounced.

Again, the defeat did little to curb Walker’s political ambitions. He
volunteered in the campaigns of other Republican candidates and kept an eye
peeled for future possibilities.

Soon Walker moved to Wauwatosa, the close-in Milwaukee suburb that he still
calls home. He ran again for an Assembly seat, and he won.

Democrat Sheldon Wasserman, a Milwaukee doctor and former member of the
State Assembly, says that, at first, Walker was a typical backbencher in
all ways but one: He would not budge on the issues.

At one point, Republican leaders wanted to raise the state gasoline tax to
cover the cost of a new road construction. Walker had joined a group of
Republicans who opposed the legislation, causing the leadership to turn up
the heat.

“They started working him over,” Wasserman recalls. “Leaders were coming
over telling him: ‘You are part of the team. You have to do this.’ Some
were yelling at him. Scott just sat there like a stone, with a little smile
on his face. He never got upset. He just shook his head no, no, no. He was
not going to change.”

By the time Walker decided to run for Milwaukee County executive, his
unbending political style was in full effect. In 2002, he saw an opening in
the heavily Democratic county because of a pension scandal that prompted
the incumbent to resign. Walker ran as fiscally conservative reformer.
Although he was by then the father of two sons, he promised to return
nearly half his salary as county executive. He won.

Finally, he had a chance to put his ideas into action. He moved to
privatize services, cut social service programs and reduce taxes. He pushed
to lay off unionized county workers, although often the unions blunted his
efforts.

Members of the county’s Board of Supervisors, which was controlled by
Democrats, recall an annual budget ritual in which Walker would propose a
series of tax cuts and offer a series of spending reductions. The board
would undo many of the changes. Walker would then veto the budget, and the
board would override his veto.

“We overrode more than 80 percent of his vetoes,” says Michael Mayo (D), a
county supervisor. “He is a nice person, very pleasant. But he was
determined.”

Early in his tenure, Walker moved to eliminate some bus routes in the
district of Supervisor John F. Weishan, a Democrat. Concerned, Weishan met
with Walker to propose a more palatable alternative. He says Walker
listened carefully and promised to think about rescinding the changes.
Later that morning, Weishan was stunned when Walker’s office released a
statement saying the routes would be cut.

“With him, it was total warfare on everything,” Weishan says.

Despite the pitched battles, Walker was reelected twice, and he took credit
for reducing the county workforce by 20 percent. And in 2010, his
uncompromising posture helped him win election as Wisconsin’s governor.

Even when he encounters resistance in his family, he does not back down. He
blasted the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage last month as a
“grave mistake,” despite the wishes of his two sons, who support gay
marriage as well as their father’s candidacy.

Now Walker is running for president with his trademark brand of bland but
unshakable certainty.

“The closer you get to being at the point of running,” he tells a
Washington Post reporter in Wisconsin when she asks what’s fueling him,
“the more you realize you have got to be crazy to want to be president of
the United States. The only reason you should do it is you feel called.”

Walker invokes all that he and his family have endured the past four years:
the union protests, the death threats, the bitter recall, the tough
reelection campaign.

“If we made it through all that,” he says, “maybe it’s a little bit of
God’s providence to say . . . this is what we are supposed to do.”

*Scott Walker: Boy Scouts should decide if they want gay leaders, not me
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/scott-walker-boy-scouts-should-decide-if-they-want-gay-leaders-not-me/>
// WaPo // Jenna Johnson – July 15, 2015 *

Scott Walker is no longer openly criticizing the Boy Scouts of America for
taking steps toward allowing gay leaders.

Walker said in comments published Tuesday that the Boy Scouts should keep
its blanket ban on openly gay leaders because the policy "protected
children and advanced Scout values." The comment quickly attracted
criticism from LGBT rights activists, who accused the governor of
suggesting that gay leaders are a threat to children.

On Wednesday, Walker said the decision is up to the Boy Scouts, not him. It
was another example of the governor appearing to back away from a
controversial stance, even as he presents himself on the campaign trail as
being a steadfast conservative not afraid of an unpopular fight.

"That's up to the Boy Scouts," Walker said of the proposed policy change,
following a campaign stop at a barbecue restaurant. "I'm an Eagle Scout...
All that I pointed out was that the policy was perfectly fine when I was
there and I thought they should be protected from all of the political and
media controversy about it. There's nothing more to it than that. It's
their decision."

When asked by a reporter if he supports or opposes allowing gay Boy Scout
leaders, Walker replied: "I'm not running for president of the Boy Scouts."

Another reporter then pressed Walker on what he meant in saying that the
previous policy protected children. At first Walker refused to answer the
question, saying that he had already done so. But he relented.

"The protection was not a physical protection," he said. "The policy
protected them from being involved in the very thing that you're... talking
about right now, the political and media discussion about it instead of
just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and
citizenship and things of that nature."

Gay rights has become a mine field for Walker, who launched his
presidential campaign on Monday and is aiming to win the Iowa caucuses,
which are often dominated by social conservatives. Walker called the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark decision allowing gay marriage in all 50 states a
"grave mistake," frustrating some prominent East Coast supporters who worry
he has gone too far to the right. Walker's two college-aged sons, Matt and
Alex Walker, have said they don't agree with their father's stance and
support gay marriage.

The governor also called for a constitutional amendment that would allow
states to decide if they want to allow gay marriage or not -- although he
has yet to add it to the list of things he would do soon after becoming
president, like repealing the Affordable Care Act and getting rid of excess
regulations.

This is not the first time this year Walker has appeared to back down from
an issue when faced with opposition. In February, Walker introduced a
budget that proposed massive reforms for the University of Wisconsin
System, including changing its storied mission statement to focus on work
force preparation instead of the pursuit of knowledge. University
officials, alums and others erupted in protest. Walker quickly abandoned
that idea and distanced himself, with an aide calling it a "drafting error."

Earlier this month, as lawmakers scrambled to finish the state budget,
Republicans added a provision that would greatly restricted the types of
documents reporters and others could request under the open records law.
Such a change would have shielded Walker as he jumps into the presidential
race and faces greater scrutiny. Amid a burst of angry protest from both
liberal and conservative groups, Walker and top Republican leaders quickly
issued a statement essentially killing the proposal. Although Republican
leaders said Walker's staff helped to draft the language, Walker said in a
radio interview that the idea was "a huge mistake" that "didn't come from
us."

*In South Carolina, battle flag not an issue for Walker
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81ac78b645bf4ddca9579cfad7dd0ff2/gop-candidate-walker-finds-support-scrapping-iran-deal>
// AP // Bill Barrow – July 15, 2015 *

Republican Scott Walker pledged Wednesday to scrap the Obama
administration's nuclear deal with Iran if elected president.

The Wisconsin governor also vowed to repeal the federal health care law,
mocked climate change and railed against "union bosses" in a visit to South
Carolina. But Walker did not mention the Confederate battle flag, even as
he praised South Carolinians for their response to the murders of nine
worshippers at a historic black church.

Welcome to the new paradigm for the South's first 2016 primary.

Walker is the first high-profile presidential candidate to campaign in
South Carolina since the Civil War era battle flag was removed from the
Statehouse grounds last Friday. The result of an emotional vote in the
Republican-controlled Legislature, the withdrawal of the flag from the
premises came in response to the killings at Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church; pictures of the accused gunman showed him displaying the
banner that is still commonly seen throughout the Old Confederacy.

Walker praised the assembly for how South Carolinians have reacted. "You
all showed how to bring people together for this region, this state and, in
turn, you did it for the country," said Walker, who formally entered the
Republican presidential contest earlier in the week.

He is among many Republican White House hopefuls who have tread cautiously
on the flag issue, a political flashpoint for years. The state's
influential conservatives have long viewed it as a symbol of Southern
pride, while many minorities viewed the banner as a symbol of hate.

The debate played out most conspicuously in the bitter 2000 primary between
George W. Bush and John McCain.

South Carolina leaders struck a compromise that year to move the flag from
atop the Capitol dome to a ground-level pole where it remained until last
week. Bush and McCain both declared that flying the banner was an issue of
"state's rights," a buzz phrase that traces back to the pre-Civil War
debate over slavery. Bush won that primary and the nomination; McCain later
went on to disavow his position, writing in a memoir that he should have
opposed its public unfurling.

As Gov. Nikki Haley — a politician who once avoided questions on the flag
as well — pushed for the flag's removal in recent weeks, presidential
candidates including Walker avoided taking a firm position. Walker's stock
answer was to say he wouldn't address it until after the victims were
properly mourned.

Cindy Costa, a Republican National Committee member from Charleston, said
Wednesday it is "absolutely a good thing" that the flag is down. She called
it "the right thing to do" at "a sensitive time in our state's being," but
she also celebrated that the removal dulls a political attack "that
Democrats used against us."

The debate comes as the GOP works to win over minority voters who are
becoming a more powerful voice in national politics.

A Democratic leader in the Legislature summed up the GOP challenge.

Haley did "the right thing," said state Rep. Todd Rutherford of Columbia,
adding that she is "saving the Republican Party from itself — stopping all
the presidential candidates from sounding silly saying the flag is a
state's rights issue and not a human rights' issue."

For her part, Haley even gives a nod to the politics. Recalling a recent
conversation she had with Walker, she said, "I said if you have any
uncomfortable things (regarding the flag), we'll help you get through it,
but I'm going to take care of this."

Walker supporters Wednesday said they were more excited to hear the
Wisconsinite's pitch on national issues anyway.

"He's a fighter, not an establishment Republican, and that will play very
well here," said Edward Lynch, a self-employed security contractor.

Walker was thin on details, including offering no explanation of how his
promise of "crippling economic sanctions" on Iran would differ from the
sanctions that have been in place for years leading up to the Obama
administration's Iran deal. The pact offers trade aid and sanctions relief
in exchange for Iran giving up most of its enriched uranium and granting
inspections of its nuclear operations.

But Lynch said those details don't matter. "I'm tired of the
go-along-get-along politicians," he said. "He's got guts."

*Scott Walker backtracks on reaction to gay Boy Scout leaders
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/walker-backtracks-on-reaction-to-gay-boy-scout-leaders-120166.html?ml=tl_3>
// Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015 *

Scott Walker stumbled over his own prior comments Wednesday, saying that
when he called on the Boy Scouts to reinstate a ban on gay leaders because
it “protected children,” he meant the ban protected them from media
scrutiny.

“The protection was not a physical protection,” Walker said Wednesday at an
event in South Carolina, according to The New York Times. Rather, the
Wisconsin governor continued, he was referring to “protecting them from
being involved in the very thing you’re talking about right now, the
political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what
Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that
nature.”

The Wisconsin Republican added that, ultimately, whether or not to
reinstate the ban is “up to the Boy Scouts.”

The comments came after the Independent Journal Review reported Tuesday
that Walker supported the Boy Scouts’ “previous membership policy because
it protected children and advanced Scout values.”

“I was an Eagle Scout, my kids have been involved, Tonette [Walker] was a
den mother,” Walker told the IJ Review. “I have a lifelong commitment to
the Scouts.”

The Boy Scouts of America reversed a ban on gay youths in March 2013. On
Monday, the Scouts adopted a resolution to allow gay Scout leaders; the
resolution is expected to be ratified later this month.

The group’s leader, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a Republican,
called for an end to the ban at the group’s national meeting in May.

Walker, the son of a Baptist minister, obtained the Boy Scouts’ highest
rank of Eagle Scout as a child.

A social conservative, Walker opposes same-sex marriage and has called for
a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court’s same-sex
marriage decision and leave states to decide on the definition of marriage
they would like to apply in their legal system.

*Waiting for Scott Walker
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/waiting-for-scott-walker-120136.html?ml=tl_29>
// Politico // Eli Stokols – July 15, 2015 *

When Scott Walker’s campaign was sketching out his post-announcement swing
through New Hampshire, talks between his camp and the Strafford County GOP
hit a snag. Local organizers suggested something simple and familiar to
most candidates: a town hall meeting.

But the Wisconsin governor’s camp, according to three people familiar with
the conversations, wasn’t interested in taking questions. They simply
wanted to deliver a speech and meet people afterwards.

The event fell through.

That interaction, as much as anything else, provides some insight into why
the clear front-runner in Iowa is merely a middle-of-the-pack candidate in
New Hampshire. When Walker arrives in the Granite State Thursday, three
days after launching his presidential campaign, it will be a rare
appearance — his first New Hampshire sighting since May. According to
figures compiled by U.S. News and World Report, only one Republican has
been to the state less than Walker — Rick Santorum.

Over the July 4 holiday weekend as GOP rivals paraded down Main Streets
here, not only was Walker absent – his campaign didn’t bother to have
surrogates march in his absence.

Walker’s post-announcement tour of the early states — touted by his
campaign as “the most aggressive of all the 2016 hopefuls” — includes 16
stops in five states. That includes six cookouts, four stops at motorcycle
showrooms and a town hall in Iowa, where his campaign swing culminates this
weekend with a three-day road trip across the state.

But in New Hampshire, he’ll be in and out in under 24 hours, shaking hands
and making small talk at a diner in Amherst and a Portsmouth Harley
Davidson dealership, before heading down Interstate 93 to a fundraiser in
Boston Thursday night.

The locals, accustomed to higher level of attention, have noticed. Chris
Christie and Carly Fiorina, for example, have both done close to 10 town
halls each already, following the template of John McCain, who did 150 of
them on his way to winning the primary here in 2008.

“It sounds like the trip really isn’t to New Hampshire,” said Renee
Plummer, a prominent GOP activist in Portsmouth. “It sounds like the trip
is a fundraiser in Boston with a couple stops tacked on.”

Walker’s absence from the state has cost him in the polls. As recently as
April, he led the field in New Hampshire, with support from close to a
quarter of those surveyed. But in the most recent Suffolk University/USA
Today poll released Tuesday, Walker was in the third place behind Donald
Trump and Jeb Bush.

“New Hampshire people want to be able to look you in the eye, shake your
hand and ask you the question,” said Sharon Carson, a Republican state
senator from Londonderry who is backing Fiorina. “And if you can’t do that,
you’re not going to do well here.”

For some in New Hampshire, a moment during Walker’s last trip to the state
in May serves as a metaphor for his campaign. Walker spoke to 500
Republicans aboard a 23-foot cruise boat as it sailed around Lake
Winnipesaukee, but what some attendees remember is that the captain had to
return to shore, mid-trip, to pick him up since he arrived late and,
initially at least, missed the boat.

“I’ve had a lot of conversations with people here about: ‘Where is Scott
Walker?’” said Jamie Burnett, a GOP strategist from Concord who just signed
on as a supporter with Bush’s campaign. “I personally was interested in him
early on but he just hasn’t been here.”

Gregory Slayton, a New York venture capitalist and part-time New Hampshire
resident who is advising Walker’s effort in the state, remains confident
that Walker will win over local voters.

“Walker just connects extremely well with people,” said Slayton. “He’s a
great retail politician. He’s great at town halls.”

Slayton, who President George W. Bush tapped to serve as ambassador to
Bermuda, said Walker hasn’t done any town halls in New Hampshire yet
because he’s been focused on budget negotiations at home.

“He’s got a day job,” Slayton said. “He’s not a blowhard former governor
from decades ago.”

While local Walker supporters say the governor, who is planning to do a
town hall in Iowa over the weekend, will do one in New Hampshire
eventually, some wonder if it might be too late.

“When you’ve done more than a dozen trips to Iowa and four or five to New
Hampshire, people are going to say, ‘Why don’t you just go on to South
Carolina?’” said Matt Mayberry, the vice chairman of the state GOP. “People
are taking note. The day of reckoning is going to come.”

“The key to winning New Hampshire is being here now,” notes Steve Duprey,
the state’s RNC committeeman. “By September, people here will be getting
postcards inviting them to events every day. The candidates who work the
hardest now will receive a disproportionate dividend.”

After a six-week absence, it won’t be easy for Walker to jumpstart his
campaign in New Hampshire, where so many other candidates have been busy
campaigning as if it’s the only state that matters.

“He better answer the questions,” said Plummer, who hosted Walker at her
business roundtable in March but has been disappointed in his New Hampshire
effort since then. “I would think he reads the news and sees what happens
with the Hillary campaign and people being furious that she won’t answer
questions. You’ve got Jeb and Carly and Christie here saying, ‘ask me
anything’.”

*Scott Walker: Gay Troop Leader Ban Protected Scouts From ‘Political Media
Controversy’
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/3-charts-that-show-why-hillary-clinton-wants-to-increase-profit-sharing>
// Bloomberg // Ben Brody and John McCormick – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said Wednesday that he had
been misunderstood when he said the Boy Scouts' now-defunct ban on gay
troop leaders “protected children.”

“The protection was not a physical protection,” Walker told reporters in
Lexington, South Carolina, two days after announcing his campaign for
president. “It’s a protection [from] discussion about the policy—protected
them from being involved in the very thing you’re about to talk about right
now, political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on
what Scouts are about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of
that nature.”

The Wisconsin governor's remarks come as he seeks to court social
conservatives in Iowa and other early nomination voting states. The
47-year-old is an Eagle Scout himself. The executive committee of the Boy
Scouts of America unanimously approved a resolution this week that would
end a ban on gay adult leaders and let local troops set their own policies.

Walker told the conservative news outlet IJReview on Tuesday that he
supported “the previous membership policy because it protected children and
advanced Scout values.” The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group,
slammed the comments as “offensive, outrageous, and absolutely
unacceptable” and said his “comments imply that [gays and lesbians]
represent a threat to the safety and well-being of young people.”

The policy should be “up to the Boy Scouts,” Walker said Wednesday. “The
policy was perfectly fine when I was there and I thought they should be
protected from all the political and media controversy.”

“I’m not running for president for the Boy Scouts,” he added.

Asked in 2013 whether gay people should be allowed into the organization,
Walker declined to comment, saying he had “enough troubles and challenges
dealing with what I have in state government to take on anybody else's
challenges,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

*Scott Walker Confronts the Rigors of the Presidential Campaign Trail
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/scott-walker-confronts-the-rigors-of-the-presidential-campaign-trail>
// Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015 *

The brutal reality of a presidential campaign hit Scott Walker somewhere in
the sky over the southern U.S. late Tuesday.

The Wisconsin governor's commercial flight had been circling amid
thunderstorms on its way to Atlanta, where he and his entourage were to
catch a connecting flight to Charleston.

The pilot informed the flight's passengers that they were running low on
fuel and needed to divert to Memphis. After hours on the ground there,
Walker resusmed his flight to Atlanta, and arrived at about 1:30 a.m.,
where he missed his connection by minutes.

Walker's aides decided the only way they could get him to his 8 a.m. event
Wednesday at a Harley-Davidson dealership in North Charleston would be to
drive. About five hours later, the newly minted Republican presidential
candidate arrived with a smile on his face, taking it all in stride and
telling his audience of about 250 people that he hadn't slept in more than
24 hours.

But it quickly became clear on Wednesday that Walker's challenges during
his presidential announcement rollout week wouldn't involve just weather
and delayed flights.

For the second day in a row, reporters pressed him on his statements in
opposition to a resolution unanimously approved by the executive committee
of the Boy Scouts of America this week that would end a ban on gay adult
leaders. Initially, Walker had stated that the earlier policy "protected
children," but after facing criticism from gay rights groups, he sought to
clarify his remarks.

“The policy was perfectly fine when I was there and I thought they should
be protected from all the political and media controversy," Walker said
Wednesday.

The topic served as a distraction at a time Walker wanted, as much as
possible, to stick to a message of resolute leadership and conservative
accomplishment that he'd outlined in his announcement speech Monday in
Waukesha, Wisconsin.

On Thursday, he's likely to face questions about an expected Wisconsin
Supreme Court ruling. That ruling will answer the question of whether a
criminal investigation can move forward into whether Walker's 2012 recall
campaign illegally coordinated with outside groups exempt from donor
disclosure laws.

Despite the distractions, Walker drew good-sized crowds at his stops
Wednesday. A sprawling parking outside a barbeque restaurant where he spoke
in Lexington was at capacity and beyond with cars double-parked and
hundreds there to see him.

"I've liked Scott Walker since the media started attacking him a few years
ago," said Louie Cameron, 59, an insurance agent who drove more than an
hour to attend the North Charleston event. "That's always a sign of a great
leader."

At that same event, Phil Schoonover allowed Walker to break one of his
fundamental tenants when it comes to talking about and selling
Harley-Davidson motorcycles.

"We normally don't bring politics or religion into it," said Schoonover,
who for 36 years has owned Low Country Harley-Davidson.

As part of a five-state tour this week, Walker is using Harley dealerships
as campaign props for four of his stops. They offer free space and help
burnish his everyman image.

"We get a free doughnut and some coffee," said Schoonover, a Republican
still surveying his party's presidential field.

Ahead of Walker's appearance, Schoonover's workers busily polished the
dealership, moving roughly 40 motorcycles off the showroom floor to make
room for Walker's stage and audience.

A Walker political operative had stopped in on the 5th of July, a Sunday,
to ask about using the space for a possible event, Schoonover said.

Given the fact that the company he represents is based in Walker's
Wisconsin, Schoonover said he didn't feel like he could say no. "My
franchise is with Harley-Davidson, which has its home office in Milwaukee,"
Schoonover explained.

Besides, Schoonover said he figured it would mean some free publicity for
his business and brand. "We sell everything from baby bibs to dog toys. We
sell a lifestyle," he said.

Other than his history of confronting unions and the fact that he rides a
Harley, Schoonover said he doesn't know much about Walker and isn't
necessarily going to support him in February's South Carolina primary.

"I think he's a balanced budget guy and that appeals to me," said
Schoonover, adding that he's also intrigued by the candidacy of former
Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

Walker, who owns a 2003 Road King, has for years used his Harley to connect
with rural voters, veterans and other riders.

"They tell me, if I'm successful, I don't get to ride a Harley anymore," he
said Tuesday at a Harley dealership in Las Vegas.

It was an apparent reference to limits the Secret Service might place on a
future President Walker. That said, the rookie national candidate has many
storms, canceled flights and controversies ahead of him before that could
happen.

*Flight Delays Add Exhaustion to Scott Walker’s Rollout Marathon
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/flight-delays-add-exhaustion-to-scott-walker-s-rollout-marathon>
// Bloomberg // John McCormick – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker said Wednesday he hasn't
slept for more than a day after thunderstorms wreaked havoc on the
commercial flight schedule his campaign created to stress his everyman
persona and save some money.

The Wisconsin governor arrived just a few minutes late to his 8 a.m. stop
in the early primary state of South Carolina, after driving through the
night from Atlanta following a missed connection there.

Joined by his three family members and aides, Walker was trying to get to
South Carolina from Las Vegas, where he'd made his first campaign
appearance Tuesday after announcing his presidential bid Monday in
Wisconsin.

“Finally, when they got us into Atlanta, we had missed our flight to here
by about five minutes.”

"Because of the storms last night, we were diverted to Memphis for a
while," Walker told about 250 people gathered at a Harley-Davidson
dealership in North Charleston. "Finally, when they got us into Atlanta, we
had missed our flight to here by about five minutes."

The journey then continued by rental car.

"A little before three o'clock this morning, we left Atlanta and drove here
because we didn't want to let you down because we knew there was a great
crowd," Walker said.

The newly minted candidate hit all his standard lines during a 26-minute
speech to those gathered on the dealership's sales floor, although his eyes
did look weary.

On a more serious note, Walked praised South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley
and the state's residents for how they reacted to the shooting deaths of
nine people at a historic black church in Charleston last month.

"Thanks to everybody in this region and this state for showing the nation
about how to become united when something tragic happens," he said.
"Obviously, what happened was something we denounce, not only the action,
but the beliefs of the person involved. I will never say his name."

It could be a long day for Walker. He has two additional stops in South
Carolina, a drive back to Atlanta, and an evening appearance there. On
Thursday, Walker heads to New Hampshire before starting a three-day tour of
Iowa on Friday.

*Scott Walker Sues Feds Over Food Stamp Drug Testing
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-walker-food-stamps_55a64d15e4b0c5f0322bc850?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Arthur Delaney – July 15, 2015 *

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of many Republicans seeking their party's
presidential nomination, is suing the federal government over his plan to
make some food stamp recipients pee in cups to prove they're not on drugs.

Federal law doesn't give states much room to impose new conditions on
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The program is known
informally by its former name, food stamps, and in Wisconsin it's called
FoodShare.

“This lawsuit seeks to provide clarity that the State of Wisconsin has the
authority to require drug testing for FoodShare recipients,” Wisconsin
Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a press release on Tuesday.

While federal law doesn't allow states to impose drug tests on SNAP
recipients, it does allow states to drug test and in general make up their
own rules for the much smaller Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program, which serves about 4 million Americans. Roughly 46 million
Americans receive SNAP benefits.

The Wisconsin lawsuit appears to hinge on whether the state can treat SNAP
recipients like TANF recipients. The state evidently thinks it can: The new
law that calls for drug tests also claims that an "individual who is a
recipient under the food stamp program is considered to be a welfare
recipient."

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is the program most commonly called
"welfare," though Republicans have used the term to describe most
means-tested safety net programs.

In its press release about the lawsuit, Wisconsin says the state's position
is that "FoodShare recipients are 'welfare recipients' and therefore may be
tested and sanctioned for the use of controlled substances."

By any measure, TANF and SNAP are very different programs. SNAP is an
entitlement that gives monthly food vouchers (in the form of debit cards)
to anyone poor enough to qualify, with some restrictions on able-bodied
adults without dependents and not too many differences across state lines.
TANF, meanwhile, is generally for single mothers who meet a range of
requirements that can vary widely by state. Annual federal spending for
TANF is capped at about $16 billion, while annual spending for SNAP has
surged to nearly five times that amount in the wake of the Great Recession.

Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have
frequently called for bringing "welfare reform" to food stamps and
Medicaid, since the major welfare reform legislation of 1996 stunted TANF
spending and enrollment.

When Georgia tried to drug test food stamp recipients last year, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture said no.

"Requiring SNAP applicants and recipients to pass a drug test in order to
receive benefits would constitute an additional condition of eligibility,
and therefore, is not allowable under law," the USDA told Georgia.

*Unions: This time, we’ll defeat Walker
<http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/247952-unions-this-time-well-defeat-walker>
// The Hill // Tim Davaney – July 15, 2015 *

Labor groups are gearing up for another fight with Wisconsin Gov. Scott
Walker (R) now that he has entered the presidential race.

After a failed recall bid in Wisconsin, unions are determined to make sure
Walker never sets foot in the Oval Office. But organized labor’s opposition
could play well for Walker in the GOP primary because it appeals to his
conservative base.

Some of the biggest unions are still formulating their plan of attack
against Walker, even as they signal they will dip into their coffers to go
after him. The strongest signal came from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

“Scott Walker is a national disgrace,” Trumka said in a six-word statement
rebuking the Wisconsin governor.

Walker has clashed with unions since taking over as governor of the
Democratic-leaning Wisconsin, a state with strong union roots, pushing
policies that have weakened public and private sector unions.

Critics paint Walker as a union buster. “You can’t actually outlaw unions,
but he did everything in his power to weaken unions in Wisconsin,” one
labor official told The Hill.

Walker raised the stakes for unions on Monday as he announced his bid for
the presidency.

“Since I’ve been governor, we took on the unions and won,” Walker said. “If
our reforms can work in a blue state like Wisconsin, they can work anywhere
in America.”

Shortly after taking over as governor in 2011, Walker signed legislation
that severely weakened the collective bargaining rights of public sector
employees such as teachers. Under the bill, state and local government
workers — excluding police officers and firefighters — can only bargain for
raises up to the point of inflation. Unions argue this move holds down
wages throughout the state.

This led unions to attempt to recall Walker in 2012, which he ultimately
survived.

Walker again targeted unions earlier this year after he was reelected, this
time going after private sector unions. He signed right-to-work legislation
that gives workers the choice to not join a union even if they indirectly
benefit from the union’s collective bargaining agreements.

Walker’s campaign, which did not respond to a request for comment, is
touting his record of standing up to Big Labor, but unions see it as a
threat to their survival.

The back-and-forth with unions will only help raise Walker’s profile among
potential Republican voters, said GOP strategist Ford O’Connell.

“This is political gold for Scott Walker in the Republican primary,”
O’Connell said. “The fact that unions are attacking him and that he even
won a recall election shows conservative voters that he’s a fighter who
doesn’t back down and gets results.”

Walker’s announcement that he is running for president fired up labor
activists, who are churning out stories from local union leaders in
Wisconsin to “warn” the country of what’s at stake.

“A Scott Walker presidency is a scary, scary thing for America,” said Phil
Neuenfeldt, president of the AFL-CIO’s Wisconsin branch.

Sheila Cochran of the Milwaukee Area Labor Council called Walker’s labor
policies “idiotic.”

“Labor has really taken a serious beating by the governor in this state,”
she said. “He looks at us as if we’re trying to totally derail corporate
America.”

“It concerns me that he’s hit the national stage,” Cochran added. “I pray
he never becomes president. This is a man that just cannot lead this
country. I would be terrified.”

Michael Bolton, the district director for the United Steelworkers in
Wisconsin, said unions must “make sure that all workers in America
understand Scott Walker is not a friend of the working person.”

“We’re going to talk about what he has done to the state and what we
believe he plans to do to the country if he were elected,” Bolton said.

Labor activists plan to use aggressive social media tactics to spread the
word about Walker’s treatment of unions in Wisconsin.

“Scott Walker has made it his mission to crush the ability of workers to
come together, stick together, have each other’s backs and have a
meaningful voice at work through their union,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale,
secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO’s Wisconsin branch.

“The concern is that is a blueprint for what he would do as president,” a
labor official told The Hill.

Walker’s tough talk against labor generally plays well for him with many
business-friendly Republican voters, but he faced backlash even from his
own party earlier this year when he compared union protesters to terrorists.

The governor had been asked about how he would handle the situation with
ISIS. “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the
globe,” he responded.

Labor groups have not forgotten the comment.

“That’s pretty much the most offensive thing he could say that working
people who are standing up for their rights are equivalent to terrorists,”
one labor official told The Hill.

“I’ve talked to a lot of first responders who were there on 9/11, and
they’ve also been to union rallies — and they don’t look anything alike,”
the official added.

*Scott Walker tells Laura Ingraham he doesn’t believe abortion should be
between a woman and her doctor
<http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/scott-walker-tells-laura-ingraham-he-doesn-t-believe-abortion/article_d6846dc9-797c-53cb-a1b7-61a0a076b84f.html>
// Capital Times // Jessie Opoien – July 15, 2015 *

In his more than 20 years in politics, Gov. Scott Walker has never wavered
on his stance on abortion issues. But he has demonstrated flexibility in
the way he frames it.

The most illustrative example of this was his 2014 re-election campaign,
running against Democrat Mary Burke.

After being repeatedly slammed by pro-choice groups like Emily's List,
NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood for signing into law a bill
that requires women to undergo ultrasound exams before getting abortions,
Walker ran an ad that described the decision of whether or not to end a
pregnancy as "an agonizing one."

"That’s why I support legislation to increase safety and to provide more
information for a woman considering her options," Walker said, looking
directly into the camera. "The bill leaves the final decision to a woman
and her doctor. Now, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. Our
priority is to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsin citizens."

The ad was knocked by some pro-life advocates for sounding too soft on the
issue and by pro-choice groups who said it misrepresented his position. But
Walker won the election, continuing a long streak of victories.

That ad has continued to come up as Walker parlays his experience in
Wisconsin into a presidential bid. A recent New York Times article reported
that Walker "went on to write and design the commercial himself."

"I didn’t like the ad. You’re using the other side’s garbage and it’s not
helpful," Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance told Politico
earlier this month.

Nance told Politico despite her displeasure with the ad, she never doubted
Walker's position on the issue. She said she was "thrilled" he would soon
sign into law a 20-week abortion ban.

But despite the conservative cred earned with the 20-week ban, Walker was
asked about the ad once again by conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on
Wednesday.

Ingraham told Walker she knows where his heart is on the issue, then played
audio from the ad and asked why the ad included a line about leaving the
decision to a woman and her doctor.

"Because we wanted to make the point — you had the pro-abortion, the NARAL,
and Emily’s List, and Planned Parenthood and others out there tying to
twist our ultrasound language into something that it wasn’t. We wanted to
make the case, this is all it does, it doesn’t do anything else for all
them complaining about this, it doesn’t change that decision," Walker said.
"I still believe that you’re talking about an unborn child as a human
being, and I believe that, and I have articulated that for more than 20
years, all the way back — a lot of the people you were sitting with are
folks I worked with at Marquette Students for Life when I was a student in
college. I’ve always had a strong pro-life position, I’ve always defended
that. But, for us, it made it able to wipe that issue right off the table
because we pushed back and said, what we were proposing was a positive,
strong common sense thing to do to get people information."

Ingraham responded: "But you don't believe — I just want to clarify this,
governor ... you don't believe the final decision should be between a woman
and her doctor—"

"No," Walker replied. "I believe it's an unborn child. My point was, in
pointing that out, is the bill, all it does, is require an ultrasound. It
didn't change what the law is."

*PAUL*

*Rand Paul’s official haul: $7 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-pauls-official-haul-7-million-120200.html?ml=tl_6>
// Politico // Katie Glueck and Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 *

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign took in about $7 million in
the second quarter.

The libertarian-leaning Republican, who is currently running for Senate
re-election as well, transferred $1.6 million from his Senate campaign
committee to his presidential committee, meaning that his White House bid
raised $5.3 million in the quarter.

About 60 percent of contributions from individual donors came from those
providing $200 or less to the campaign. The only GOP campaign with a
greater percentage of small-dollar donations in the second quarter was Ben
Carson.

Below is a breakout of where Paul’s campaign finances stood as of the end
of June:

Total brought in: $6,932,779.14

Total spent: $2,771,264.00

Cash on hand: $4,161,515.14

Debt: $716,442.99

*Rand 2015 Runs From Rand 2007 On Iran
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/rand-2015-runs-from-rand-2007-on-iran.html>
// Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 15, 2015 *

In 2007, Rand Paul gave his first interview to Alex Jones, the conspiracy
theorist radio host and founder of Infowars.com.

Paul was helping his father, then-Congressman Ron Paul, campaign for the
Republican presidential nomination and, Jones said, the entirety of his
audience helped to make up the elder Paul’s base of fervent supporters.

Jones was struck by the younger Paul’s similarity to his father. “You know,
talking to you, you sound so much like your dad,” Jones said. “This is
great! We have, like, a Ron Paul clone!”

When Jones noted that the elder Paul was the only anti-war candidate, Rand
replied, “I tell people in speeches, I say you know, we’re against the Iraq
war, we have been since the beginning, but we’re also against the Iran
war—you know, the one that hasn’t started yet. You know, the thing is I
think people want to paint my father into some corner, but if you look at
it, intellectually, look at the evidence that Iran is not a threat.”

As evidence of this, he said, you needn’t look further than the fact that

“Iran cannot even refine their own gasoline.”

And further, Paul said, “even our own intelligence community consensus
opinion now is that they’re not a threat. My dad says, they don’t have an
air force! They don’t have a navy! You know, it’s ridiculous to think that
they’re a threat to our national security. It’s not even that viable to say
they’re a threat to Israel. Most people say Israel has 100 nuclear weapons.”

Eight years later, Paul’s beliefs are very different.

“Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they're
not a threat.” Rand 2007

In response to the agreement reached Tuesday between Iran, the United
States, the UK, France, China, Russia and Germany to diminish Iran’s
nuclear program, Paul, now the junior Senator from Kentucky and candidate
for the Republican presidential nomination, released a statement outlining
his opposition.

“The proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable for the following reasons:

1) sanctions relief precedes evidence of compliance

2) Iran is left with significant nuclear capacity

3) it lifts the ban on selling advanced weapons to Iran

I will, therefore, vote against the agreement. While I continue to believe
negotiations are preferable to war, I would prefer to keep the interim
agreement in place instead of accepting a bad deal.”

Asked how Paul’s position had shifted so dramatically since he was
campaigning for his father, Doug Stafford, his senior campaign adviser,
said, “Foreign policy should reflect events and events change. Senator Paul
has always thought Iran getting a nuclear weapon was a bad idea and
dangerous. But over the last eight years, as Iran has made progress in
their nuclear enrichment program, it’s become more of a threat. Not
allowing your opinions to reflect changing threats would be foolish.”

But it’s just frankly not true, as the Alex Jones interview demonstrates.

What is true is that the Iran deal places Paul in an impossible bind.
Paul’s positions are usually so nuanced that they escape criticism of
flip-flopping, but his shift on Iran is unusually clear—even if it was
gradual.

Whether compromise is a wise strategy for Paul in the primary is uncertain.
Paul is currently polling at 6.6 percent—behind Jeb Bush, Donald Trump,
Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee. Paul is not going
to vault back into the top tier by siphoning off votes from more
establishment candidates, whose supporters will never buy him as one of
their own. And he won’t mobilize his libertarian base by taking them for
granted.

In April, reporter David Weigel, outlined in detail Paul’s transformation
for Bloomberg Politics. In 2011, while in the Senate, Paul was still
vocally opposed to war, telling reporter Zaid Jilani he wanted to
“influence” Iran instead. In 2012, while again campaigning for his father,
he reiterated their anti-war position while clarifying that Ron Paul
“doesn’t want Iran to nuclear weapons…But should they get nuclear weapons,
he thinks that there are some choices.” A few weeks later, Paul explained
to CNN that when it came to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,
“I did finally come down to the conclusion that doing something was better
than doing nothing.”

By 2013, Paul was saying that “the most pressing issue of the day” was how
to contend with Iran’s nuclear program, and said that although he still did
not want war, if he were in the White House while a deal collapsed, “I
would say all options are on the table, and that would include military.”

Back in March, Paul was faced with a choice: sign the open letter penned by
his Senate colleague, Tom Cotton, which Cotton explicitly said was designed
to halt negotiations, or be the only presidential contender in the Senate
to not sign it, and risk losing support in the fallout.

Despite the fact that Paul had maintained—and continues to maintain—that he
favors negotiations, he compromised and opted for the first choice,
contorting himself uncomfortably in his effort to explain his decision and
irking some of the longtime libertarian supporters he inherited from his
father in the process.

He has pursued a similar strategy with the deal.

The Atlantic’s David Frum made what on its face felt like a reckless
prediction on Tuesday: “The Rand Paul Candidacy for the Republican
Nomination Is Over.” Frum’s case was that throughout the course of his
short Senate career, Paul has been able to carve out space for himself
within his party by mostly focusing on the issue of domestic surveillance,
which comfortably placed him in opposition to the hawks he bemoans and to
President Obama. The deal presented for Paul a no-win: Were he to support
the deal, however, Frum argued, he would “find himself isolated with the
old Ron Paul constituency,” but were he to oppose it, he would vanish amid
a sea of similar voices in the primary field.

The best explanation for Paul’s new position may come from Paul himself.

In an interview with The Today Show’s Savannah Guthrie in April, the same
day two attack ads were released tying him to Obama on the issue, Paul
said, “2007 was a long time ago and events do change over long periods of
time. We’re talking about a time when I wasn’t running for office, when I
was helping someone else run for office.”

So when the facts change—be they the facts of the issue at hand or the
facts of Paul’s personal political objectives—Paul changes his mind.

*CRUZ*

*Ted Cruz makes New York Times’ list
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/ted-cruz-makes-new-york-times-list-210608.html>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015 *

Five days after accusing The New York Times of bias, secrecy and foul play,
Ted Cruz is finally getting what he wanted: a highly coveted spot on the
paper's bestseller list.

Cruz's memoir, "A Time For Truth," will appear at No. 7 on the Times' list
for hardcover nonfiction, reflecting its second-week sales, a Times
spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday. The Texas senator's book had not been
included on the list for its first week, on the grounds that its sales had
been driven by "strategic bulk purchases."

Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that the newspaper made no changes to
its selection process, and so the fact that Cruz's book is being included
now suggests a rise in individual purchases, spurred by his public battle
with the paper.

"This week's NYT best seller list was arrived at using the same process as
last week's - and the week before that," Murphy wrote. "That process
involves a careful analysis of data, and is not influenced in any way by
the content of a book, or by pressure from publishers or book sellers."

Both HarperCollins, the book's publisher, and Amazon, the largest Internet
retailer in the country, said last week that they had found "no evidence"
that bulk purchases drove the book's sales numbers. On Friday, Cruz
campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler accused the Times of "obvious partisan
bias," and called on the paper to reveal its methodology or else publicly
apologize.

The Times has resolutely stood by its claim, and has refused to reveal its
methodology on the grounds that doing so might threaten the integrity of
the process.

"Our approach serves Times readers by authenticating broadly popular books
through the confidential reporting of a wide range of retailers," Murphy
said Wednesday. "In order to avoid compromising that process, we do not
disclose who reports sales to us."

“A Time For Truth” was published on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its
first week, according to Nielsen Bookscan’s hardcover sale numbers -- more
than 18 of the 20 titles that appeared on the bestseller list for the week
ending July 4.

Cruz's campaign. is expected to comment shortly. We will update here if and
when they do.

*Ted Cruz challenges Fox debate standards
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-challenges-fox-debate-standards-120169.html>
// Politico // Alex Isenstadt – July 15, 2015 *

Ted Cruz’s campaign is leading a charge to pressure Fox News into raising
their standards for the national polls that will decide who gets into the
first Republican presidential debate.

In a memo sent to fellow GOP campaigns on Wednesday, Chris Wilson, who
serves as director of research and analytics for the Cruz campaign, called
Fox News’s standards for deciding which national polls are used in its
debate entry process “unclear.” Wilson asks the other campaigns to
“consider joining with us” in encouraging the network to impose additional
polling standards. As it stands, Fox News is allowing the top 10
contenders, based on an average of the five most recent national polls,
into the Aug. 6 debate.

“I’m sure you are aware, the standards set by Fox News for the first GOP
Presidential debate are unclear and, it would appear, undefined,” Wilson
wrote in the memo.

Among the Cruz campaign’s suggestions: That polls included in the national
average must have at least 1,000 interviews with primary voters and must be
done by telephone (not online). However, no telephone poll conducted this
year has surveyed that many GOP primary voters.

Wilson also suggests that, for a survey to be included in the national
average, it must not be conducted on a Friday or Saturday — when fewer
voters are home to answer the phone.

By almost any averaging of recent national polls, Cruz would make the cut
for the top 10. But his position in the top 10 is less certain than many
other candidates.

“I’m very open to other criteria, so please let me know your thoughts,”
Wilson writes. “Once I hear back from you, and the other campaigns, we will
put together a joint letter to sent to Fox.”

Wilson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, neither did a
spokesperson for Fox News.

*Ted Cruz owes donor’s firm $556k
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruzs-official-haul-10-million-120190.html?ml=tl_26>
// Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Katie Glueck –July 15, 2015 *

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign burned through more than half
of $10 million he raised in the past few months and also ran up nearly
$620,000 in debt — mostly to a data firm owned by a top donor — according
to a report filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.

Cruz’s campaign reported owing $556,000 to Cambridge Analytica for “survey
research” and “donor modeling.” The firm is owned by the family of New York
hedge fund magnate Bob Mercer, POLITICO revealed last week. Mercer and his
family are among the biggest donors to a network of super PACs supporting
Cruz that combined to raise $37 million. At least one of the super PACs is
in discussions with Cambridge Analytica about retaining the firm’s services.

The firm, which is relatively new to the competitive world of U.S.
political data, provides nontraditional “psychographic” voter analyses to
try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages. The Cruz
campaign’s FEC report reveals now payments to the firm, just debt.

The debt total would seem to indicate that Cruz is relying heavily on the
firm for critical data work, but it also is an unusually large debt for a
campaign to owe a single vendor early in the cycle.

Cruz, a favorite of conservatives, announced his run for president a week
before the first-quarter filing deadline. He had raised $4.3 million before
that deadline. In the second-quarter fundraising period covered by
Wednesday’s report, he raised another $10 million but also spent $5.5
million, leaving him with $8.6 million in the bank.

Around 40 percent of his intake came from individual contributors donating
$200 or less.

A cluster of four super PACs supporting Cruz also claims a fundraising haul
of nearly $38 million. They are due to file by the end of the month, but
the overall pro-Cruz total estimate puts the candidate in the top tier of
presidential fundraisers, even though his poll numbers place him in the
middle of the pack.

Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised in the second quarter: $10,043,380.09

Total spent: $5,450,051.61

Total cash on hand: $8,527,595.93

Total debt: $618,006.57

*Ted Cruz threatens highway bill filibuster to block Ex-Im renewal
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-export-import-bank-highway-bill-filibuster-120147.html?ml=tl_11>
// Politico // Seung Min Kim – July 15, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday raised the prospect of blocking a must-pass
highway bill because the measure could be used to revive the Export-Import
Bank, which expired at the end of June.

Cruz, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016,
vigorously opposes the bank, which helps some U.S. exporters sell their
goods overseas. At a news conference with other conservative GOP lawmakers
and outside groups Wednesday, Cruz vowed to use “any and all procedural
tools” to stop an Ex-Im reauthorization, particularly if it were attached
to the highway bill later this month.

“I am willing to use any and all procedural tools to stop this corporate
welfare, this corruption from being propagated,” Cruz (R-Texas) said
Wednesday when asked whether he would be willing to filibuster the highway
bill.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) agreed, adding: “I think those of us who oppose it
will continue to use any and all procedural tools at our disposal in order
to oppose it.”

The controversial export agency’s charter expired, making it impossible for
the agency to underwrite new loans. But supporters of the Ex-Im Bank —
mostly Democrats and business-aligned Republicans — have pushed to
reauthorize it by attaching it to the highway bill that must pass Congress
before the end of July.

A test vote last month showed that 65 senators — a clear filibuster-proof
majority — favor reauthorizing the export agency. But opposition to the
bank runs deeper in the more conservative House.

Cruz also took a subtle dig at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.), openly musing that the Republican majority has not scored
“conservative victories” even with a GOP-dominated Capitol.

“It’s interesting. With a Republican majority, we haven’t had a lot of
conservative victories. This is one,” Cruz said, referring to Ex-Im’s
expiration. “We’re here today to praise Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
They have the opportunity to deliver on their campaign rhetoric, and I am
hopeful that actions follow words and every person here will gladly
celebrate strong Republican leadership if we, in fact, have strong
Republican leadership.”

*Ted Cruz Forsees Military Action Against Iran
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/ted-cruz-foresees-military-action-against-iran>
// Bloomberg // Kathy Kiely – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz thinks the proposed nuclear deal
with Iran could force the next president to use military force and says
he's prepared to make that decision.

"I think the odds are very high the next president is going to confront an
Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons," the Texas senator said in an
interview that aired Wednesday on PBS' Charlie Rose.

Asked what he would do were he to find himself in that position, Cruz
replied, "I would do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons."

While Cruz did not specify his military strategy, he elsewhere in the
interview expressed a preference for bombs over boots on the ground.
Discussing the Obama administration's tactics against the Islamic State,
Cruz called for "overwhelming air power."

"Right now, we're engaged in what I call photo-op foreign policy," he said.
"We drop a bomb here, a missile there but the rules of engagement are so
strict, from ISIS' perspective, they're winning." He said he disagreed with
his Senate colleague and presidential rival, Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, who has called for sending 10,000 U.S. troops to fight the
Islamic State.

In the interview, Cruz alluded frequently to his new book, A Time for
Truth, which, according to Politico, is going to be included on the New
York Times bestseller list this week, after the senator accused the paper
of deliberately excluding it.

*He’s Ba-a-a-ack: Ted Cruz Hints He’ll Filibuster Ex-Im Bank
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/he-s-ba-a-a-ack-ted-cruz-hints-he-ll-filibuster-ex-im-bank>
// Bloomberg // Heidi Przybyla – July 15, 2015 *

Texas Senator Ted Cruz signaled today he may be about to return to his
favorite battlefield -- the Senate floor -- to fight efforts to reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank.

Ex-Im’s charter expired June 30, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a
Kentucky Republican who opposes the reauthorization, has said an upcoming
bill to extend highway funding past July 31 would be an “obvious” vehicle
for supporters to try to revive it. Asked Wednesday if he plans to
filibuster the legislation, Cruz told reporters he plans to use “any and
all procedural tools” to block the it.

Cruz’s use of Senate parliamentary procedure, including the filibuster, has
turned the first-term Republican into a Tea Party sensation and bolstered
his 2016 presidential bid. He portrays himself as a crusader against a
“Washington cartel”  of lobbyists, lawmakers and big business that, in the
senator's view, works against the best interests of average Americans. The
Ex-Im battle gives him another opportunity to sound those themes.

The Ex-Im fight has pitted two traditionally Republican constituencies
against each other. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pushed hard to keep
the bank, provides loans, loan guarantees and insurance to aid overseas
sales by U.S. companies. Supporters argue that it supports American jobs by
providing financing for American companies to sell goods abroad.
Small-government groups like Club for Growth argue that it should go
because it interferes with the free market by choosing which deals receive
financial backing.

“There are a lot of campaign conservatives in the U.S. Congress,” Cruz said
during the press conference. “If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell stand up
and say ‘we simply will not allow the Export-Import Bank to be
reauthorized, that will ensure this corporate welfare goes away.’”

He also accused Republican leaders of making a "corrupt deal" in agreeing
to allow a vote to reauthorize Ex-Im in exchange for Democratic support of
trade legislation last month. “If there’s no corrupt deal, then
congressional leadership should stand with Senate conservatives and House
conservatives,” and block attempts to reauthorize the bank, Cruz said.

*Ted Cruz relish silver medal standing on fundraising at confab
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/cruz-colorado-springs-donor-summit/index.html>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015 *

Presidential campaigns are releasing their fundraising numbers on
Wednesday, but Ted Cruz's top moneymen already had their moment to be giddy.

A week after announcing they had raised $52 million, the Texas senator met
in Colorado Springs with about 45 of his top bundlers this weekend at The
Broadmoor, a luxury resort at the foot of the Cheyenne Mountains, to
celebrate the haul.

Thanks to a mix of grassroots donors and a few billionaires, Cruz's
supporters boast a position few anticipated: Second place in the crowded
and competitive GOP fundraising race.

In between expeditions of fly fishing and horseback riding (with Cruz
himself taking part), the donors said they came to realize that the vaunted
fundraising operations of their opponents aren't the juggernauts they once
believed.

"We dominated everybody in the field when it comes to hard money, and
everybody when it comes to soft money except Jeb, and I think that
surprised people," said Houston investor and summit attendee Christopher
Zook, contrasting the so-called hard money raised by official campaigns
with the soft money raised by outside groups that support the campaigns.

Some Cruz loyalists acknowledge they need to keep the celebratory
confidence from creeping into arrogance when sizing up others' fundraising
potential. Fundraisers got a pep talk in Colorado, but one they hardly need
as they hold a silver medal in a crowded field. The dollars have not
translated as of yet to polling: Cruz still trails the top tier of
candidates -- he got 3 percent of support from Republicans in the most
recent CNN/ORC poll.

Still even observers who weren't fans of Cruz admitted they were impressed.
Small online donations powered that fundraising operation, and are powering
this one too: 175,000 donors gave an average contribution of $81. Carla
Eudy, a top fundraiser for John McCain who is no fan of Cruz, cautioned
that his backers shouldn't get ahead of themselves despite their success.

"It is better than what you consider 'a top-tier candidate' did," said
Eudy, who knew Cruz would raise the small donations but thought he'd only
bring in $15 to $20 million to his super PAC. "Look, you got to give hats
off to the guy," adding, "which I hate to admit."

Cruz allies raised $14 million for the campaign and an additional $38
million for its super PACs, which can collect checks of unlimited amounts
but cannot coordinate spending with the campaign. As the first presidential
campaign to launch and open an official bank account, Cruz raised more
money for his campaign than any Republican rival. And while outside groups
supporting Cruz raised far less than the groups backing Jeb Bush -- which
raised $103 million -- they edged out those supporting any other Republican.

So at briefings, receptions and dinners back in Colorado Springs, senior
Cruz aides -- including his wife Heidi Cruz, a Goldman Sachs executive who
is playing a leading role in the finance operation -- projected confidence
to their donors that the race remained theirs to win.

They introduced a new adviser, Ronald Reagan speechwriter Anthony Dolan,
who is expected to help the oratorically gifted Cruz. And they advised that
they would have the money to go the distance -- there's no need to be the
"last-man standing" and merely exist as other Republicans make errors, said
one person familiar with the campaign's message this weekend.

That's especially so given other Republicans' fundraising, which both the
Cruz campaign and its invited donors, who pledged to raise $100,000, see as
underwhelming and not up to par. The outside groups backing Scott Walker,
who announced his campaign on Monday, are expected to unveil a $20 million
haul. And Marco Rubio and his allied groups raised a total of $44 million
-- a sum that Cruz associates said they expected to surpass their own.

As for Bush -- who has more cash than any other Republican aspirant -- top
Cruz fundraisers charge that his official campaign is too poor relative to
the super PAC that supports it, which has nearly ten times as much money.
And they drew comparisons between Bush and David Dewhurst, the Texas
millionaire who Cruz dethroned in a come-from-behind victory in the Texas
senate election in 2012.

Cruz donors heard this weekend from leaders like finance director Willie
Langston and campaign manager Jeff Roe about polling, crowd sizes and the
path to victory. But some Cruz donors expressed the most excitement about
the data vendor employed by the Houston-based campaign, Cambridge
Analytica, that uses "psychographic" profiling to predict potential
supporters. The targeting, a brainchild of Cruz analytics director Chris
Wilson, sifts voters into six personality types and tailors campaign
messaging based on that profile.

The campaign has modeled each state's electorate through March 15, having
identified three times as many potential Cruz supporters in Iowa than the
total number of expected voters in the state's Republican caucus, according
to spokesman Rick Tyler.

Donors ate it up.

"Everyone's got their own little agendas," said Lawrence Gelman, a Cruz
donor from Texas who said he was amazed at the targeting's "sophistication"
in how it could put its finger on the pulse of each voter's thinking. "I
guess they tried to find it,"

Contributors like Gelman weren't given fundraising targets for the next
quarter -- just to raise more and more.

The best way for donors to help the campaign might be to give to the super
PAC run by longtime Cruz friends. But because the group is not allowed to
coordinate with the campaign, no mention was made of the outsized power
except merely to nod to it in appreciation.

*Ted Cruz: ‘If you think Washington is going great…then I ain’t your guy’
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-if-you-think-washington-going-great-then-i-aint-your-guy>
// MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz fully assumed the role of
Washington outsider, aspiring change agent, and — potentially —
anti-establishment victor on Wednesday in New York City. While speaking to
a group of hedge funders, the Texas senator once again aligned himself with
fellow White House hopeful Donald Trump and went after big business just as
much as big government.

“If you think Washington is going great, that we just need someone to
fiddle around the edges, then I ain’t your guy,” Cruz told the crowd at the
CNBC Delivering Alpha conference in New York.

Speaking onstage with CNBC’s John Harwood, the 44-year-old Cruz again
defended Trump’s controversial remarks on illegal immigration — though he
conceded when pressed that the real estate mogul “speaks in a way that I
wouldn’t speak.” Over the past few weeks, Trump has been under fire for
describing undocumented immigrants as “rapists” during his presidential
announcement and for saying that “when Mexico sends its people,” they bring
drugs and crime.

Nearly every member of the GOP presidential pack has criticized those
remarks — including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry,
and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But Cruz has repeatedly stood by Trump,
telling reporters as recently as Wednesday morning that he’s a “big fan” of
“The Donald.”

Cruz reportedly met privately with Trump on Wednesday, though the reasons
for that sit-down remain a mystery.

“I think it’s important to highlight illegal immigration,” said Cruz, whose
father came to the U.S.  legally from Cuba as a teenager. He added during
Wednesday’s conference: “I don’t think it’s appropriate to be impugning the
integrity of other candidates.” Cruz did, however, accuse those now
“smacking” Trump of “vigorously, vocally” advocating amnesty for many years
— only to just switch their positions when politically convenient.

“In politics, sometimes verb tenses matter,” Cruz said. “In every election,
people become campaign conservatives.”

In addition to potentially alienating some in his own party, Cruz also
seemed unconcerned with alienating big business, long viewed as a reliable
source of campaign cash for Republicans. The fast-changing landscape on
social issues has started to change that relationship, however, and Cruz
didn’t seem eager to want to stop it.

“I think the Democrats are the party of the rich, and big government, and
cronyism,” Cruz said. Earlier in the day, he praised Congress’ decision to
allow the charter for the Export-Import Bank to expire, criticizing the
81-year-old institution — which acted as the U.S. government’s export
credit agency — for disproportionately serving big business.

Cruz also stood by what many in his own party have characterized as an
extreme response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision that made marriage
equality the law of the land. Shortly after that ruling came down, he vowed
to propose a constitutional amendment that would subject justices to
periodic retention elections — a clear violation of Article III in the
Constitution, and one that stands virtually no chance of passing.

Yet Cruz, who once clerked for former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
did not back down from that position Wednesday.

“Under the Constitution, from the beginning of our nation, marriage has
been a question for the states,” he said. “I don’t think it makes sense to
have every major policy issue decided by five unelected judges.”

*Several Hours Of Ted Cruz B-Roll And Interviews With Family Members Just
Went Online
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/several-hours-of-ted-cruz-b-roll-and-interviews-with-family#.cmxzBpQ26>
// BuzzFeed // Megan Apper and Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015*

Several hours of b-roll was uploaded to YouTube Wednesday morning featuring
long interviews with families members of Republican presidential candidate
Sen. Ted Cruz.

The hours of interviews uploaded by “Ted Cruz for Senate” feature
interviews with Cruz’s wife Heidi, his mother, his father, his aunt, and
several nieces and nephews.

The interviews feature some interesting tidbits about Cruz: His family
dressed him as a bald eagle one 4th of July. Cruz’s cousin made him play
with Barbie dolls. His dad says Cruz was once bit by an octopus at the
beach.

It is unclear why the videos were uploaded.

Campaigns legally can’t coordinate with PACs but often avoid the law by
posting hours of b-roll of interviews and soundless footage of the
candidate doing things like walking around and meeting with voters to get
around the law.

*CHRISTIE*

*Christie picks up 2016 endorsement from Maryland governor
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e37edae9f7e941d6ad2d6ca6e388e467/christie-picks-2016-endorsement-maryland-governor>
// AP // Brian Witte – July 15, 2015 *

Chris Christie has picked up the presidential endorsement of Maryland's
governor.

Republican Larry Hogan says Christie tells it like it is and most
politicians don't — and that the New Jersey governor can work with
Democrats and independents.

Hogan made the endorsement Wednesday during a stop at a diner near the
Maryland Capitol in Annapolis.

It's a bit of political payback.

Christie was a strong supporter of Hogan's underdog campaign for governor
last year in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1.

Christie led the Republican Governors Association and made several campaign
appearances in Maryland for Hogan. The association spent $1.2 million in
the final weeks of the campaign on Hogan's behalf.

Christie has been wearing a "Hogan Strong" bracelet since the Maryland
governor's cancer diagnosis was announced last month.

*Chris Christie Says Obama ‘Lied’ to American About Iran Deal
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/ted-cruz-foresees-military-action-against-iran>
// Bloomberg // Elise Young – July 15, 2015 *

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said President Barack Obama "lied" to
Americans about a deal among U.S. allies to ease economic sanctions on Iran
in exchange for regulation of the nation's raw materials for nuclear
weapons.

"He lied to the American people," Christie, the 52-year-old Republican
presidential candidate, said in a Wednesday interview on the Hugh Hewitt
radio show. "He put his entire support of this agreement, as you heard
yesterday, on verification. We’re not trusting anybody, and he said that we
have 24/7 access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that we could inspect
anytime, anywhere. Every reading of this agreement shows that all Iran has
to do to stop inspections is ask.

Christie also said Obama should have predicated any agreement on the
release of four Americans held against their will in Iran. "He knows this
is a bad deal," Christie said of the president.

Obama on Wednesday delivered an exhaustive news conference in which he took
on critics of the deal, and argued that without the accord, the Islamic
Republic "could move closer to a nuclear bomb."

Christie told radio host Hugh Hewitt that Iran could back out with a
request to end inspections of nuclear facilities. An arbitration panel then
could take as long as 24 days to restore the reviews—time enough, Christie
said, for Iran to spirit evidence of weapons manufacturing around the
country.

The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, which also involves
China, Russia, the U.K., France and Germany, Obama said at a news
conference at the White House on Wednesday, a day after the deal was
signed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the policy as
a danger to the Jewish state, a key Middle East ally for the U.S.

"The protection of the state of Israel has to be a top priority of the
president of the United States of America," Christie said. "What I would do
as president is immediately meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and try to
repair this relationship that this president has so callously broken."

Christie, scheduled on Thursday to appear in Camden, New Jersey, for a
national policy speech on criminal-justice reform, then will head to New
Hampshire for two days of campaign stops.

*Gov. Chris Christie bags 2016 endorsement from Gov. Larry Hogan
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gov-chris-christie-bags-2016-endorsement-gov-larry-hogan>
// MSNBC // Aliyah Frumin – July 15, 2015 *

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie picked up an endorsement for president from
fellow blue state, Republican Gov.  Larry Hogan of Maryland on Wednesday.

Outside the Double-T Diner in Annapolis, Hogan promised to “go anywhere and
do anything” to help Christie –who has fallen towards the back of the
emerging GOP field – win the party’s nomination. “My primary mission today
is to officially and enthusiastically endorse Gov. Christie for president.
I happen to believe he’s exactly the leader we need. I think he should be
the next president and I think he will be the next president,” he said.

The endorsement makes sense, as Christie, chairman of the Republican
Governors Association last year, was a big supporter of Hogan during his
underdog bid for governor in 2014. Christie made four campaign stops in
Maryland before the general election and the RGA shelled out $1.2 million
on Hogan’s behalf during the final month of the race.

Christie has also shown support for Hogan—who was recently diagnosed with
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—since his win, sporting a “Hogan Strong” wristband
on the campaign trail.

During the announcement, Hogan pointed to Christie’s loyalty, noting when
“nobody believed in our race he came here four different times.” He also
said Christie was the first to call him to offer advice and help when riots
broke out in Baltimore over the spring and has offered him continued
support as he battles cancer.

Speaking about his health, Hogan said “I feel great. I feel really good.
They tell me it might not always be that way,” noting he underwent his
first round of chemotherapy and has six more rounds to go. “I’m fighting
this with everything I got,” he added.

After the announcement, Christie took questions from reporters and skewered
the Iran nuclear deal announced by Obama on Tuesday. The governor argued
the announcement was “just another in a series of lies that he’s told the
American people.” He took particular issue with the nuclear inspection part
of the agreement.

“When [Obama] said yesterday that inspections will happen in Iran anytime
anywhere, the agreement itself undercuts the president’s position we want
to inspect someplace in Iran, we have to give them notice, they could say
no, it goes to an arbitration panel that they’re a part of and they have 24
days to make a decision, well if they’re playing around and cheating on
this agreement and they have 24 days to clean up the evidence of the
cheating. How’s that anytime anywhere Mr. President?” asked Christie.

He also took aim at Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton
who has backed the deal. “Well you know, Secretary Clinton, I’ve said all
along she owns the foreign policy of this administration. And now she owns
the second term foreign policy of this administration as well even though
she’s left to run for president,” declared Christie.

Earlier this month, Christie also received an endorsement from Maine Gov.
Paul Le Page. Christie on Wednesday called the governors’ endorsement
“incredibly important” because both LePage and Hogan are the leaders of
political infrastructure of states and will be able to help raise money.

Separately, the super political action committee backing Christie’s
presidential bid announced this week that it raised $11 million since
February, a haul the group says is more than double its initial goal—but
one that’s still significantly less than the candidate’s GOP competition.

Christie has a busy week ahead. On Thursday morning, he’ll go Camden, N.J.
to deliver what’s being billed by the campaign as a major policy speech on
criminal justice reform.  Later that evening, he’ll be in New Hampshire,
where he’ll hold a town hall meeting in Franklin and another one in Milford
on Friday.

*PERRY*

*To help get Rick Perry into debates, super PAC advertises on conservative
talk radio
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/to-help-get-rick-perry-into-debates-super-pac-advertises-on-conservative-talk-radio/>
// WaPo // Philip Rucker – July 15, 2015 *

More than many other candidates, Rick Perry's presidential chances depend
on his debate performances. The former Texas governor is determined to
erase memories of his disastrous turns on the debate stage in the 2012
campaign and prove that he is a worldlier and better prepared candidate
this time around.

Yet Perry is among eight or nine candidates who are on the bubble of
qualifying for the first Republican primary debate, scheduled for Aug. 6 in
Cleveland. So to boost his popularity and ensure he stays in the top 10 in
national polls, Perry's sanctioned super PAC, Opportunity and Freedom PAC,
has begun an aggressive, $1 million national advertising campaign on cable
television, conservative talk radio and the Internet.

Over the next month, the super PAC will run ads promoting Perry during the
nationally syndicated radio shows of Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett, Michael
Medved, Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager and other conservative commentators,
according to Austin Barbour, the super PAC's senior adviser.

The super PAC currently is running a 60-second spot that highlights Perry's
upbringing in rural Paint Creek and his leadership record and will soon
switch it out for an ad focused on his work as governor to secure the
border with Mexico, Barbour said. The ads with Salem Broadcasting are
expected to reach 10 million listeners per week, Barbour said.

"That's a significant radio audience throughout the country, and obviously
the vast, vast majority are conservative Republican voters, whether they're
in Iowa or somewhere else in the country," Barbour said.

Barbour said the radio advertising was "the hidden gem" in the super PAC's
advertising plan because of the built-in audience of loyal and politically
active conservative listeners. Barbour would not disclose how much the
super PAC is spending on radio ads other than to call it a "very deep and
thorough buy."

Overall, Barbour put a $1 million price tag on the super PAC's national
advertising push over the next month. The group also is running ads on Fox
News Channel, the most-viewed cable network, which was first reported
Tuesday by The New York Times.

In addition to the TV and radio buys, the super PAC has a series of
micro-targeted digital videos and banner ads designed to reach Republican
voters online. Barbour said that people who care about social conservative
views will be met by an ad about Perry's faith and record on abortion and
guns; those who care about veterans issues will see an ad about Perry's
military career; and those who care about immigration will be targeted with
an ad about his work to secure the border.

The ads were created by Vinny Minchillo, a Texas-based ad man who worked
with Barbour on Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.

The super PAC's strategy is simple: Promote Perry with conservative voters
who are most likely to respond favorably about Perry if pollsters call them
for surveys.

Currently, Perry ranks far back in the field of 16 declared or likely
Republican candidates. The Real Clear Politics average of national polls
puts Perry tied for ninth place with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Fox News, which is hosting the first debate, will only allow the top 10
candidates to participate. As of today, Perry would qualify. But polling
has been rather fluid and a number of factors would squeeze Perry out —
such as if Ohio Gov. John Kasich makes a big splash when he announces his
campaign next Tuesday. or if technology executive Carly Fiorina finds a
creative way to boost her standing, or if Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.)
harnesses the media attention he has received over the Iran nuclear deal to
climb in the standings.

"It's obviously very important that Rick Perry participates in that first
debate," Barbour said. "We have to do what we feel helps Governor Perry the
most — and spending this money this way helps him the most."

*Rick Perry’s official haul: $1.1 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-perry-fec-2015-second-quarter-fundraising-120155.html?ml=tl_6>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 *

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s presidential campaign on Wednesday announced
that it had raised a little more than $1 million in the second fundraising
quarter of the year.

Perry, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2012, launched his second
attempt at White House bid, a long-shot effort, in June. He spent about
half of the money he took in this quarter, with much of that going to a
firm that appears linked to Perry’s campaign manager, Jeff Miller. The
firm, Abstract Communications, LLC, doesn’t have to further disclose its
spending, and so could make strategic spending choices on campaign
expenditures without the knowledge of other campaigns.

Below is a breakout of his campaign’s finances for the second quarter of
the year.

Total raised: $1,139,366.89

Total spent: $597,542.44

Total cash on hand: $883,913.12

Total debt: $0

The bulk of Perry’s intake comes from donors who gave more than $200. Only
about 8 percent of his individual donors would count as “small dollar”
donors, contributing $200 or less.

*Perry dismisses Trump on border policy
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/rick-perry-border-donald-trump/index.html>
// CNN // Theodore Schleifer – July 15, 2015 *

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he was the only presidential candidate
with the relevant experience to secure the border, casting his Republican
rivals as talkers, but not doers.

"We know how to secure the border, and rhetoric's not going to do it,"
Perry, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the second time, told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."

Perry also said the plan submitted by Donald Trump -- also a 2016
Republican presidential candidate -- who is calling for a wall along the
U.S.-Mexico border is impractical.

"A wall without personnel there means nothing," he said.

Perry has looked to parlay his executive experience from 14 years as
governor to distinguish himself from his Republican rivals. As a border
state governor, he's also highlighted his own record boosting the presence
of patrolmen in the Rio Grande Valley.

In recent weeks, Perry has also emerged as one of the sharpest critics of
Trump's comments about undocumented immigrants from Mexico. When asked if
Trump was qualified to be president, Perry declined to answer, only saying
that he himself is "the most qualified."

Trump was meeting in New York with Perry's fellow Texan, Sen. Ted Cruz,
when speaking to Blitzer. Perry took a shot at his fellow presidential
candidate when asked if he had any thoughts on the tete-a-tete.

"Everybody gets to pick who they hang out with, so I have no idea whats
going on," Perry said.

*Rick Perry: Obama Is ‘A Very, Very Naïve Man’
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-barack-obama_55a6df30e4b0896514d04c83?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Marina Fang – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry on Wednesday called President
Barack Obama "very, very naive" for supporting the historic nuclear deal
with Iran.

"What I saw out of this president today, and this is of great consternation
to me, it’s of great concern, I saw a very, very naive man who does not
know how the world works, who cannot put the dots together, and stood in
front of the American people and said, 'I really don’t care if Congress
likes this or not, I’m going to do it,'" Perry told Hugh Hewitt, the
conservative radio host.

Perry, the former Texas governor, was commenting on Obama's press
conference earlier Wednesday, in which the president vehemently defended
the U.S. pact with Iran and five other world powers.

Perry compared Obama's defiance of an adversarial Congress with the
president's earlier efforts to pass his signature health care law. Perry
and many other Republicans have continually claimed that Obamacare
symbolizes what they see as the president's executive overreach.

"It’s a continuation of actually what we saw, Hugh, going all the way back
to Obamacare, and forcing something through," Perry said.

As soon as the nuclear agreement was announced on Tuesday, Republican
presidential candidates issued statements of condemnation, accusing the
U.S. of ceding too much to Iran and creating the potential for more
tensions in the Middle East. Perry told Hewitt that he feared the deal
would strengthen rather than weaken Iran's nuclear capability.

"They are celebrating today in the streets of Tehran because of this
agreement," Perry said. "They know that they just got a 'get out of jail
free pass' from the president of the United States."

In Washington, congressional Republicans vowed to obstruct approval of the
deal. On Wednesday, Obama implored them to read the details of the deal and
put aside politics.

"I'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about this is a bad
deal," Obama said to reporters. "What I haven’t heard is, what is your
preferred alternative?"

"My hope is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based
on the facts -- not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact that
this is a deal I bring to Congress as opposed to a Republican president,
not based on lobbying, but based on what’s in the national interest of the
United States of America."

*GRAHAM*

*Lindsey Graham’s official haul: $3.7 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/lindsey-graham-fec-haul-120198.html?ml=tl_8>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 *

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s presidential campaign will report
Wednesday night that it raised $3.7 million during the second quarter of
the year, his first as a 2016 candidate.

Graham, who announced for president at the beginning of June, is a
long-shot candidate, but he is generally respected within his own party as
a prominent voice on national security, an issue that animates many of his
donors.

Below is a breakout of Graham’s presidential finances as of the end of
June, according to his campaign:

Total raised: $3,709,552.93

Total spent: $1,126,733.82

Total cash on hand: $2,582,819.11

Total debt: $0

*SANTORUM*

*So Far, Little Reflection in His Fundraising of Rick Santorum’s 2012
Success
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/so-far-little-echo-of-rick-santorums-2012-success-in-his-fundraising/>
// WSJ // Reid J. Epstein – July 15, 2015 *

Four years ago, Rick Santorum ran a low-budget campaign for president
because he was a little-known former senator trying to win the hearts of
social conservatives in Iowa.

Winning 11 states in the 2012 primary season hasn’t helped Mr. Santorum’s
fundraising this time around. The former Pennsylvania senator, who now
lives in Virginia, raised $607,617 in the quarter ending June 30 – just
$25,000 more than he raised in the second quarter of 2011.

Mr. Santorum’s fundraising figure places him near the bottom of the 2016
Republican presidential contenders. Only Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal raised
less, and he formally launched his campaign with a week left in the second
quarter. Mr. Santorum began his campaign in late May.

Mr. Santorum’s financial supporters include Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar
Hunt and Wyoming investment manager Foster Friess, who each gave the
maximum $2,700 contribution for the primary season. Mr. Hunt gave an
additional $2,700 for the general election, which Mr. Santorum cannot
access unless he becomes the GOP’s presidential nominee. Mr. Friess
bankrolled a super PAC backing Mr. Santorum in 2012 and is supporting him
again this year. Super PAC reports aren’t due until the end of July.

The Santorum campaign also reported a $1,000 contribution from Mr.
Santorum’s mother, Catherine Santorum of St. Augustine, Fla. Mr. Santorum
himself did not make a contribution or loan to the campaign.

Mr. Santorum’s campaign reported $232,018 cash on hand.

*Rick Santorum’s official haul: $607,000
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rick-santorums-official-haul-607000-120170.html?ml=tl_6>
// Politico // Theodoric Meyer – July 15, 2015 *

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign reported on
Wednesday that it had raised about $607,000 during the second quarter of
this year. But Santorum had already burned through more than 60 percent of
that haul, giving him only $232,000 in cash on hand as of June 30.

Santorum, a social conservative who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, who is
currently polling just outside the top 10 candidates, making it uncertain
whether or not he will be on stage during the first GOP debate in Cleveland
on Aug. 6.

He announced his candidacy May 27, giving his campaign a little more than a
month to raise funds before the June 30 deadline. He pulled an average of
about $17,360 per day. Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of
the end of June:

Total raised: $607,617.07

Total spent: $375,598.81

Total cash on hand: $232,018.26

Total debt: $124,638.55

*Rick Santorum Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Just As Racist As The
Confederate Flag
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-planned-parenthood_55a693b0e4b0896514d00067?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Matt Ramos – July 15, 2015 *

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) on Tuesday equated his fight against
Planned Parenthood with recent efforts to remove Confederate symbols from
public buildings.

"You want to go back and take down the Confederate flag? Let’s take down
Planned Parenthood," Santorum said in an interview with Simon Conway, an
Iowa-based talk radio host.

The 2016 hopeful appeared on the "Simon Conway Show" to discuss his
presidential campaign. The conversation changed tone when Conway voiced his
disgust with a recently released sting video allegedly showing Dr. Deborah
Nucatola, the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood, discussing the
sale of fetal abortion tissue. The mention of the video led Santorum to go
off on a tangent about Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, whom
conservatives often portray as a racist.

“If you want to scrub all racism from America," Santorum said, "let’s start
with Planned Parenthood because it was started by a racist named Margaret
Sanger, who was a eugenist, who was someone that believed in the separation
of the races, someone that started Planned Parenthood for the purpose of
culling out the undesirables, including blacks in America."

While it's true that Sanger wrote about eugenics, the claim that she
"started Planned Parenthood for the purpose of culling out the
undesirables” has been proven largely false. An examination of her papers
indicates she used the word "race" to refer to the human race more
generally. Sanger did not suggest that certain races were inferior; in
fact, her work earned the support of civil rights activists from multiple
eras, including W.E.B. Du Bois and Martin Luther King Jr.

Santorum railed against Planned Parenthood in his interview on Tuesday,
echoing the widely debunked claims from the video.

“Planned Parenthood has continued to do disgusting things, from killing
little children in the womb, to now selling their body parts and harvesting
them,” he said.

The video that went viral on Tuesday is an edited version of footage that
was recorded almost a year ago. The full version makes it clear that the
director was discussing the reimbursement cost for tissue donation. After
the edited video was released, Eric Ferrero, vice president of
communications at Planned Parenthood, was quick to point out that tissue
donation is done under the highest ethical and legal standards and that
donors do not profit.

That didn’t stop Santorum from calling for government action against
Planned Parenthood.

“If local prosecutors are not going to do anything about it, then clearly
the state legislature and the Congress can try to hold hearings and force
public pressure about the case,” he said Wednesday.

Santorum’s wish may now become a reality, as House Speaker John Boehner
(R-Ohio) announced Wednesday that Congress will look into investigating
Planned Parenthood.

While Santorum was quick to bring up federal action with regard to Planned
Parenthood, he's been cautious about taking an equivalent stance on the
Confederate flag issue. Last month, he told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the
decision about removing the flag should be left to individual states.

"I don't think the federal government or federal candidates should be
making decisions on everything and opining on everything,” he said.

As a staunch social conservative, Santorum frequently attacks pro-choice
organizations, and has specifically targeted Planned Parenthood. In 2012,
the Sunlight Foundation found that Santorum said the word “abortion” more
than any other senator between 1996 and 2007.

*HUCKABEE*

*Mike Huckabee’s official haul: $2 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/mike-huckabees-official-haul-2-million-120173.html?ml=tl_2>
// Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 *

Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign reported on Wednesday that it had
raised about $2 million during the second quarter.

But the 2008 Iowa caucus winner had already spent more than $1.1 million of
that total in the quarter, leaving him with less than $900,000 on hand as
he tries to ensure his spot in the first presidential debate in Cleveland
on Aug. 6.

The former Arkansas governor also owes more than $11,000 in debts.

Huckabee received just over $580,000 in contributions of less than $200 or
less — about 29 percent of his total haul. He announced his candidacy on
May 5.

Earlier this week, a senior Huckabee adviser said super PACs supporting the
former governor raised $6 million so far, giving him an $8 million total
that puts him well behind many of the top Republicans and behind some
long-shot candidates such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Total raised: $2,004,360.63

Total spent: $1,118,991.72

Total cash on hand: $885,471.01

Total debt: $11,334.25

*Mike Huckabee Calls Children Of Gay Parents “Little Guinea Pigs” In His
2011 Book
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mike-huckabee-calls-children-of-gay-parents-little-guinea-pi#.gr7qlkOED>
// BuzzFeed // Andrew Kaczynski – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
called the children of gay parents “little guinea pigs” in his 2011 book, A
Simple Government.

Huckabee used the phrase in his chapter on gay parents titled, “Gay
Parenthood: A Social Experiment.”

“Still, I believe that we’re in denial about potential problems as we see
more and more homosexual couples raising families,” writes Huckabee.

“Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in
such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not
our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood.”

Here’s the full section:

I have often been criticized for my outspoken views on gay marriage and
homosexuality, so let me be clear. I have no doubt at all that homosexual
men and women love their children deeply. Just as deeply as heterosexuals
love theirs. But love alone cannot always provide what children need. If
that sounds harsh, bear with me for a moment. My main concern here is that
the children, most of whom are heterosexual, will not, and really cannot,
get critical early-life lessons in how a heterosexual family functions
successfully. In general, men and women bring different outlooks and
temperaments to the task of parenting. Those male/female dynamics that make
themselves evident in parenting—including even the conflicts and
inconsistencies that are likely to arise—teach a child about how men and
women relate to each other. In the home with two gay parents, where is that
learning going to come from? It’s already challenging enough to grow up,
even when the parents are more conventional role models. Of course, I’m
certainly not saying that all heterosexual parents provide, or are even
able to provide, a good example to their children. I know that very well
from years of conversations in my pastoral study, if not from just walking
through a mall. Still, I believe that we’re in denial about potential
problems as we see more and more homosexual couples raising families.
Essentially, these are experiments to see how well children will fare in
such same-sex households. It will be years before we know whether or not
our little guinea pigs turn out to be good at marriage and parenthood.

*CARSON*

*Ben Carson’s official haul: $8.5 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ben-carsons-official-haul-85-million-120193.html?ml=tl_21>
// Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 *

Ben Carson’s presidential campaign reported on Wednesday that it had raised
about $8.5 million during the second quarter, bringing his grand total
since he started exploring a run to just over $10.6 million.

He did it largely with the backing of small-dollar contributors.

The retired neurosurgeon — who launched an exploratory committee in March
and announced his candidacy in early May — raised nearly $5.7 million from
donors contributing $200 or less, which amounts to 67 percent of his
quarterly haul.

That figure is significantly higher than the other Republicans that have
filed their Federal Election Commission reports so far. Liberal insurgent
Bernie Sanders, who has focused almost exclusively on small-dollar
donations and grassroots organizing, raised 76 percent of his total dollars
from donations of $200 or less.

Still, Carson’s campaign had spent more than $5.4 million this quarter —
roughly tied with Sen. Ted Cruz for the largest amount of any reported
candidate to date and more than $2 million more than former Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush, who outraised Carson.

The filing reveals that Carson has spent a large amount on fundraising
expenses and less crucial ones — large salaries for the staffers on his
payroll and, for example, more than $60,000 to private-jet company Starbase
Jets for travel and more than $60,000 for musical entertainment.

He has more than $4.7 million on hand and still has not repaid a $25,000
loan he made to his campaign.

The strong total is another sign that Carson — who has never held elected
office and whose campaign has gone through some early turmoil — is
resonating with grassroots voters. He currently sits fifth in national
polling according to the Real Clear Politics average — ahead of Rand Paul
and Mike Huckabee — and does well at conservative gatherings. In May, he
won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll.

And he has outperformed other conservatives such as Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal and the past two Iowa caucus winners, former Arkansas Gov. Mike
Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, with his fundraising
totals.

Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised: $8,469,048.33

Total spent: $5,416,772.63

Total cash on hand: $4,745,312.13

*FIORINA*

*Why Aren’t More Women’s Groups Fighting to Get Carly Fiorina Into the GOP
Debate?
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-16/why-aren-t-more-women-s-groups-fighting-to-get-carly-fiorina-into-the-gop-debate-?cmpid=yhoo>
// Bloomberg // Emily Greenhouse – July 16, 2015*

Yes, the presidential election is more than a year out, but how quickly now
do we approach the first winnowing. On Aug. 6, 10 Republican candidates
will take the stage in Cleveland for the first primary debate of the 2016
election cycle. Fox News, which is hosting the debate with Facebook, says
it will determine which 10 candidates will participate based on an average
of five as-yet-unspecified national polls.

There is a top tier of candidates we can safely say will be there: former
Florida Governor Jeb Bush, for instance, and Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker. But below the handful of front-runners, as Bloomberg's Steven
Yaccino wrote last week, many microphones are up for grabs. Single
percentage points may decide the fates of contenders such as New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former New York
Governor George Pataki, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

Fiorina is the only woman in the jam-packed GOP presidential field. She has
worked at every step of the process to situate herself in direct opposition
to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee and the woman
treated practically like a presidential incumbent. Fiorina has found that
she can talk to (and about) Clinton as no other Republican can. And yet she
may not pass the threshold to get onto the debate stage—which would make
the event “all men in dark suits,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the
Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Imperfect
optics, for a party trying to show how inclusive it is.

“What purpose does a quota serve in a general election?”

Ann Stone

Yet little strategizing seems to be taking place that would help ensure a
woman’s place under the debate-stage lights: a gender-blind approach or an
aperture in Republican strategy, depending on where you’re standing.

“Everybody’s taking a very hands-off approach,” said Ann Stone, a longtime
GOP political operative and founder of Republicans for Choice, a
pro-abortion rights political action committee.

“The Republican Party prides itself on not siding with people for their
gender, their race, etcetera—not siloing people.” Stone said. “Anything
that smacks of quotas, no matter how strongly people feel, we want people
to be on the stage for their own merit.”

“What purpose does a quota serve in a general election?” she said. “They
need to be able to generate their own support.”

Read more about the wide Republican field angling for the 10 available
spots in the upcoming debates.

Party infrastructure

On the Democratic side, women’s groups have become a large and increasingly
powerful voice. EMILY's List, a political group committed to electing
female Democrats who support abortion rights, has five times as many
members today (3 million) as it did in 2008 and twice as many donors,
according to the New York Times.

The Republican landscape is somewhat more scattered. Terri Hauser,
political director of the National Federation of Republican Women—a group
that was founded in 1938 and boasts a headshot of Fiorina on its
homepage—declined to comment, as did spokespeople for Iowa Senator Joni
Ernst, Iowa's first female Senate or House member, and Representative Mimi
Walters, the sole female Republican member of Congress in California, the
state where Fiorina ran for Senate in 2010. Maggie’s List, a political
action committee that works to elect fiscally conservative women to
Congress, did not respond to e-mails.

“One of the reasons that there aren't more elected women on the Republican
side is that there hasn't been a strong infrastructure pushing Republican
women forward,” Walsh said. “That infrastructure exists on the Democratic
side and that has made a difference.”

EMILY's List press secretary Rachel Thomas sees a deeper problem. “The
Republican Party can try to appeal to women voters all they want,” she
said, “but as long as they prioritize policies that hurt women and
families—such as restricting women’s access to health care, refusing to
support raising the minimum wage, and failing to advocate for stronger
equal pay laws—they will continue to have this problem.”

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a former Republican senator from Texas, emphasized
her party's commitment to women politicians, even as she acknowledged it
takes a different tack than the Democrats.

Fiorina’s base “is the same as the Republican base,” Hutchinson said. “I
think that our women candidates have been very supported by the party.
Recruitment of candidates has been very focused on getting women. And when
there are strong women the party apparatus is very supportive. That’s the
way we have worked, and that’s how we have increased our numbers. And we
have been very supportive of new women that have emerged and encourage them
to run.”

She added, “I’d say we do it in a different way from EMILY’s List.”

Fiorina's optimism

Campaign spokeswoman Anna Epstein elided the possibility that Fiorina might
not make it to the top 10.

“Carly is confident she'll make the cut for the first debate in August,”
Epstein said by e-mail. “She is continuing to work hard to meet this goal
and introduce herself to voters, whether it's through meeting with
Americans across the country or taking numerous questions from the media.”
Epstein did not respond to questions about advocacy from other groups.

Katie Hughes, a spokeswoman for pro-Fiorina super-PAC CARLY for America,
spoke energetically of her group's work to gain endorsements and help elect
Fiorina. But she would not specify gender as a superlative reason for
considering, or boosting, Fiorina. “Yes, she is a female so that does
differentiate her,” Hughes said, “but she is a Washington outsider, she’s a
cancer survivor who lost a child—she has a wide range of experiences in her
life to draw from that differentiate her in the field.”

'Let Carly debate'

Mallory Quigley, the communications director for Susan B. Anthony List, a
group that works to elect anti-abortion women, pointed to a recent op-ed by
Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group’s president, and Frank Cannon, the head of
the American Principles Project, in which they called limiting the number
of participating candidates “undoubtedly a mistake.” They wrote, “It’s true
that the large number of candidates presents some challenges, but voters
are ill served by debates that include, for example, a national celebrity
such as Donald Trump but exclude Carly Fiorina or Lindsey Graham or Rick
Santorum.” Nothing further.

Only one group I encountered seemed to be working actively to promote
Fiorina as a woman: Smart Girl Politics, which was founded in 2008 by Teri
Christoph and Staci Mott, “two stay-at-home moms turned activists” who,
according to their website, were “disgusted by the poor treatment of Sarah
Palin and other conservative women in the public arena.”

Smart Girl Politics launched a petition called “Tell Fox News: Let Carly
Debate” that found fault with the eligibility criteria. It reads:

Since poll numbers are notoriously flawed—just ask President Mitt
Romney—this is an imprecise way to measure a candidate’s performance on the
campaign trail.

Carly Fiorina has been impressing audiences (and the media!) on the
campaign trail with her forthright manner and passionate approach to
campaigning. She is hitting out—and outsmarting—presumptive Democrat
nominee Hillary Clinton in a truly impressive manner. She is in a unique
position to set the narrative as we head into primary season … and beyond.

Carly Fiorina’s voice needs to be heard.

Were the debate to be held today, Carly might not be allowed to
participate. And because the GOP field is so crowded, and getting more
crowded every day it seems, good candidates like Carly might not have a
spot on the debate stage.

Christoph said she put forward this position chiefly because Fiorina,
“being the only Republican female in the race, would add a diversity of
thought and experience to the debate stage.”

“We're not advocating for her merely because she's a woman,” she said, then
added, “Let's face it, as a woman she can talk to certain issues—and
certain candidates—in a way that a man simply cannot.”

The petition, which they hope to personally deliver to Fox News, has a
couple hundred signatures to date, Christoph said. That’s not many, and
it's no match for money Fiorina or her supporters could use to buy
television ads that might nudge her national poll numbers upward.

Stone acknowledged a tension between her desire to have a female candidate
and her party's hesitance to treat women in politics as special, for fear
of behavior that might resemble affirmative action. “The male leadership in
the party isn’t sexist,” she stressed. She offered an analogy by way of
illustration. “They’re so gender-blind they’re like the nerds at the party
standing in the corner with pocket calculator, they don’t know how to ask
the girls how to dance. That’s how the men in the party are, they don’t
know how to engage. That’s why they try to bring women in the party to try
to reach out to women.”

(Relative to these “kind of clueless” Republicans, Stone compared
Democratic men to “the cool guys who can talk women into anything, if you
catch my drift.”)

For its part, the Republican National Committee, which sanctioned the
debate calendar, says it supports the thresholds set by Fox and CNN, which
will hold the second debate on Sept. 16 and similarly use polling to help
narrow the stage to 10 candidates. (Both networks will host forums for
lower-polling contenders as well.)

“While by law the networks set the criteria, we are very proud that both
CNN and FOX will be holding the most inclusive debates in the history of
either party,” RNC spokeswoman Allison Moore said.

*Carly Fiorina’s official haul: $1.7 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/carly-fiorinas-official-haul-17-million-120194.html?ml=tl_18>
// Politico // Hadas Gold – July 15, 2015 *

Carly Fiorina’s campaign raised $1.7 million in the second fundraising
quarter of the year.

Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard executive and the only woman currently
in the Republican primary, reported that her campaign spent just over
$714,000, and has just over $990,000 cash on hand.

Around 43 percent of Fiorina’s contributions, $728,423, came from small
donations of $200 or less.

Robert Mercer, the New York hedge fund manager and his wife Diana, both
donated to Fiorina’s campaign. Mercer also provided the lion’s share of the
$37 million raised by the super PACs supporting Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign.

Below is a breakout of Fiorina’s campaign’s finances for the second quarter
of the year:

Total raised: $1,704,703.74

Total spent: $714,044.94

Total cash on hand: $990,658.80

Total debt: $0

*JINDAL*

*Bobby Jindal, a Late Entry, Reports Campaign-Finance Fillings
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/jeb-bush-to-release-names-of-his-fund-raisers/>
// NYT // Maggie Haberman – July 15, 2015 *

Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor who is running for president, raised
about $579,000 in the week since he entered the race, he reported in
campaign-finance filings on Wednesday.

The amount is smaller than many other Republican candidates in the primary
field. But it comprises only a week from June 24 through June 30, the last
seven days of the filing quarter. Mr. Jindal was one of the last entrants
to the race.

Struggling to overcome low polling, Mr. Jindal nonetheless is being
bolstered by outside groups, including a “super PAC” and a nonprofit
organization, which are reported to have raised about $8 million in the
last six months.

*Jindal, allies report $9 million take for presidential bid
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d9aa868eb42a4b5b9550961e2adbfe2b/bobby-jindal-reports-raising-597k-presidential-race>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican presidential candidate, has
raised about $579,000 for his campaign, while his outside allies say
they've collected $8.7 million more to help spread his message.

Jindal announced his candidacy June 24 and raised most of his campaign
money in about a week. Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission
show he is drawing most of his contributions from a base of supporters in
Louisiana and spent about $65,000 by the end of June.

Like each of the 17 expected GOP presidential contenders, Jindal also
benefits from outside allies.

There's a super PAC, a nonprofit policy shop and a third fundraising group
— each of which can accept checks of any size from donors. That trio raised
a collective $8.7 million, said Brad Todd, a senior strategist to the super
PAC, Believe Again. Almost half of the total can't be confirmed because it
went to America Next, a nonprofit that keeps its donors secret and doesn't
have to disclose any fundraising information to federal regulators until
next year.

Most presidential candidates must file their initial fundraising reports
with the FEC by midnight Wednesday.

*Bobby Jindal’s official haul: $579,000
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/jindals-official-haul-under-579000-120141.html?ml=tl_2>
// Politico // Jonathan Topaz – July 15, 2015 *

Louisiana. Gov Bobby Jindal’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it had
raised just under $579,000 during the second quarter of this year. Jindal,
a long-shot candidate currently polling outside the top ten candidates in
the field, announced his candidacy June 24, meaning that his campaign
launched seven days before the June 30 deadline. Below is a breakout of the
campaign’s finances as of the end of June.

Total raised: $578,759.51

Total spent: $65,043.87

Total cash on hand: $ 513,714.64

Total debt: $0

Jindal’s total fell short of what several GOP candidates — including Rand
Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz — raised in their first 24 hours.

Just over 10 percent of Jindal’s contributions were for $200 or less.
Notable donors include CenturyLink CEO Glen Post and Louisiana state Rep.
Gordon Dove, who both gave the maximum contribution of $2,700.

*TRUMP*

*Donald Trump Claims His Wealth Exceeds ‘TEN BILLION DOLLARS’
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/>
// NYT // Gerry Mullany – July 15, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump’s wealth is rising with his polling numbers, if his
characterization of his own net worth is to be believed.

Mr. Trump issued a statement Wednesday saying that his net worth was now in
excess of $10 billion, more than the $8.7 billion he said he was worth when
he announced his presidential candidacy a month ago.

The statement noted that Mr. Trump had filed his financial disclosure
report with the Federal Election Commission, a requirement of presidential
candidates, and the commission confirmed his filing. The Trump statement
was full of the bombast often associated with Mr. Trump, including an
all-capitalization declaration of his wealth:

“Mr. Trump’s net worth has increased since the more than one year old
financial statement produced at his presidential announcement. Real estate
values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other places where
he owns property have gone up considerably during this period of time. His
debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest rates.
As of this date, Mr. Trump‟s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.”

But Mr. Trump’s characterizations of his wealth have drawn skepticism in
many quarters, partly fueled by his own statements.

“My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with
attitudes and with feelings — even my own feelings — but I try,” he once
said.

Mr. Trump continues to do well in polls of the Republican field, with a
nationwide survey released Tuesday putting him in a statistical tie for the
lead with former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida.

Mr. Trump declared that he had an income of $362 million in 2014, not
including dividends, interest, capital gains, rent and royalties. And he
said that he had made $213 million during his 14 seasons hosting NBC’s “The
Apprentice.” NBC recently ended its relationship with Mr. Trump after
remarks he made during his presidential announcement speech in which he
referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and “murderers.”

In filing his financial disclosure, Mr. Trump apparently followed through
on a pledge that he made on June 16 when he announced his campaign, saying
he would be making the submission without requesting extensions. “We don’t
need extensions,” he said at the time.

During his speech announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump waved a document that
he said was a report on his finances, prepared by a large, respected
accounting firm, reporting the $8.7 billion figure as his net worth. (He
noted then that an updated accounting would probably show his net worth
higher than $10 billion.)

He said that figuring out his finances was complicated. “My accountants
have been working for months, because it is big and complex,” he added. Of
his money, he said much was earning through real estate. “I made it the
old-fashioned way,” Mr. Trump said.

The Trump campaign included in its news release a summary of stock
transactions dating to January 2014, trumpeting Mr. Trump’s prowess as a
stock-picker. The records showed that Mr. Trump had gains from sales of
numerous stocks, including making $6.7 million on Bank of America and $3.9
million on Boeing Co.

Mr. Trump’s current investment portfolio, according to his campaign,
including investments in a series of hedge funds, including some managed by
John Paulson.

The Trump campaign did not release on Wednesday the actual disclosure that
it said was filed with the Federal Elections Commission. A spokesman for
the F.E.C. could not immediately confirm that Mr. Trump had filed a
disclosure. The F.E.C. has up to 30 days to make such a disclosure public.

*So, Donald Trump looks like he’s serious about running for president
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/is-donald-trump-really-actually-running-for-president-heres-how-well-know-for-sure/>
// WaPo // Amber Philips – July 15, 2015 *

Update: Trump is making progress toward becoming an official, legitimate
presidential candidate, so much so that we pretty much had to rewrite this
whole story since posting it after his June 16 announcement.

We honestly thought Donald Trump running for president was going to be kind
of like that kid in high school who says his girlfriend lives in Canada and
can't make it to the prom but shows you a picture of his girlfriend in
front of a maple leaf flag to prove she's real (and Canadian).

So we made a list of official candidacy-things Trump would have to do to
prove to us he was serious -- like disclose the details of his finances --
with the make-or-break dates of when he'd have to get it done by. And sure
enough, one by one, he dutifully checked off four of the five things on the
list, all on time.

Wednesday marked the biggest news of all: Trump actually shared with us his
personal finances.

Maybe Trump's fake-Canadian girlfriend is real after all? We're not quite
sure. Trump assures our own Robert Costa and Philip Rucker that his
girlfriend is indeed real ... er, that he's in it for the long haul.

So  back in June, we thought we'd help him. Here, Mr. Future President
Trump, is exactly what you had to do to prove you're serious.

1. Spend $5,000 on your candidacy

Once you do this, according to the Federal Election Commission, the law
considers you a candidate. You can also receive $5,000 for your campaign to
become a candidate. Mr. Trump, we know you said you'll finance your own own
election -- "I'm rich," you reminded us when you announced -- and we're
pretty sure your elaborate announcement at New York's Trump Tower where you
rode down an escalator to wave to tourists you lured from the streets to
cheer you on and rambled for 1,700 words in front of America-blue TRUMP
signs cost more than $5,000.

So, Mr. Trump, you have probably already passed this threshold. Well done.

Make or break date for Trump: Done. The start of your candidacy was June
16, FYI.

2. Fill out a form

As The Fix's own Philip Bump noted, the next step to running for president
is to simply fill out a form with the FEC.

There are 396 people who have filled out the FEC Presidential 2016 Form.
Mr. Trump, you played by the rules here, too. You had 15 days from his
announcement to file your statement of candidacy, which your did on June 20
-- ten days ahead of schedule.

Make or break date for Trump: June 30. Done.

3. Make a Trump for President committee

Within 10 days of filing your presidential form, you need to put together a
campaign committee and announce its organization to the FEC. We see you've
done that as well, Mr. Trump.

Make or break date for Trump: July 10. Done.

4. Share your finances

We must admit, this is the one we thought you'd never really do, Mr. Trump.
A lot of other people tried to call your bluff, too: As you started surging
in the polls, Fox News decided to limit its Aug. 6 debate to the top 10
candidates who actually filed their personal finance disclosures.

You had 30 days after declaring your candidacy to to file these forms --
which require you to list all your sources of incomes and all your assets
and liabilities. (But lucky for you, the forms were created by members of
Congress, who also have to file them, so they're pretty vague. You can list
your assets and liabilities in ridiculously broad ranges, like from
$500,000-$1 million. )

We really thought you'd just say "I'm rich" or announce to the media you
have $9 billion in assets which, as Bump notes, is far from having $9
billion in actual cash you can spend willy nilly to become president, and
just call it a day.

But on Wednesday, July 15th, you released those.  "This report was not
designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," your staff said. And
they're kind of right: Anything worth $50 million or more simply gets
listed as $50 million+, Bump notes. So you told us you're worth $10
billion, much of that in intentionally vague real estate. And that's all
we'll know for now.

Make or break date for Trump: July 22. Surprisingly, done.

5. Get on the ballot in all the states

This is the hardest part of running for president. The GOP field is
competitive (especially since you're in it), so again, here's some free
advice, Mr. Trump: You'll probably need to be on the ballot for the
Republican primaries and caucuses in all 50 states if you want to win
enough delegates to move on to the general election.

Why is this so hard? Each state has its own set of rules for how to go
about that. They're designed to make it tough for random people to run for
president -- not that that's you. In California in 2012, for instance, Bump
reported candidates for president had to get "either 1 percent or 500
signatures (whichever was lower) from Democrats in each of the state's
50-plus congressional districts. They had two months to do so."

In 2012, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, who finished second and third in
the Republican nominating contest, both nonetheless failed to qualify for
the ballot in some states.

Make or break date for Trump: The dates vary. Consult with a really good
campaign finance lawyer. We're sure you can afford it.

*Donald Trump says he’s worth $10 billion. But we still won’t really know.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-just-filed-his-financial-disclosure-but-we-still-wont-know-his-true-worth/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 *

When he announced that he was finally, actually running for president,
Donald Trump held up a sheet of paper that outlined how much he was worth.
"I have assets," he said, clenching a sheet compiled by a "big accounting
firm, one of the most highly respected," of "9 billion, 240 million
dollars." Less $500 million in debt, his net worth was a tidy, precise
$8,737,540,000 (if you don't mind his accepting his contention that his
"brand" and licensing was worth a third of that total).

That was on June 16. On Wednesday, less than a month later, he issued a
press release stating that he'd filed a more detailed list with the Federal
Election Commission. His net worth now, after being dropped by sponsors and
battered in the press? $10 billion.

No, there's not a billion dollars in fast money to be found in
anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump claims that the difference stems from the
real-estate valuations that he used in June being a year out-of-date. Then,
the big accounting firm pegged the value of the properties he owned at
about $4.3 billion. Since then, it's apparently jumped a billion dollars in
value. (Which, to be fair, he vaguely alluded to in his speech.)

The line in Trump's release that has garnered the most -- completely
justified -- snickering is the declaration that the FEC's report detailing
income and assets "was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump‟s massive
wealth." Un-humblebrag though it is, it is also demonstrably true. And
that's why Trump's team was very careful to note that the new $10 billion
figure comes from real estate. Because the vagueness of the form means that
most of Trump's value will remain out of sight.

Here's Mitt Romney's disclosure from 2011, via the Center for Responsive
Politics. (Trump's actual disclosure isn't yet available online.) Notice
the highlighted categories for valuations. Anything worth $50 million or
more simply gets flagged as "over $50 million." So if a building is worth,
as Trump's press release suggested, $1.5 billion, it's listed as "over $50
million."

Notice that this always works in the other direction. If Trump's investment
in a building is not worth $1.5 billion, but is instead worth, say,
$50,000,001, it goes in the same category. Once the full form is released,
Trump wants us to assume that he's worth far more than the sums displayed.
One might as generously assume that he's not.

In light of his assertions about real estate, all of the other details he
released today -- Trump getting $213 million from NBC for 14 seasons of
"The Apprentice," and his $27 million in stock deals -- are peanuts. One
not assumed to view his assertions generously might consider them a bit of
hand-waving, a look-at-these-big-numbers move meant to be the focus of
attention.

The FEC form was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's willingness to
assert massive wealth. He could eliminate any questions by releasing
details of the precise valuations of his property using some other
mechanism. But for Trump, that "over $50 million" loophole probably feels
more than comfortable enough.

*Individuals give money to billionaire Trump and more from his FEC report
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/individuals-give-money-to-billionaire-trump-and-more-from-his-fec-report/>
// WaPo // Colby Itkowitz and Rosalind S. Helderman – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump has filed his first presidential campaign filing. He's raised
$1.9 million since entering the race in mid-June, of which $1.8 million was
a loan from himself. He burned through most of his money, spending $1.4
million or 74 percent, leaving his campaign with $487,736 on hand.

He also gifted his campaign $4,049. The loaned amount he could
hypothetically get back.

In his campaign announcement speech, Trump had declared he wasn't "using
donors." Still, around 60 individual donors (who include a spice importer
and a self-employed artist) from all over the country gave the
billionaire's campaign $53,075, including nine who gave the maximum $2,700
contribution.

We reached one of those top Trump supporters, Jim Shore, a figurine artist
from York, South Carolina.

Shore, who already gave Trump the maxed $5,400 - half for the primary and
half for the general - acknowledged that Trump, who claimed Wednesday that
he is worth $10 billion, is a wealthy man who might not need his money.
Still, he noted that running for president is expensive--Hillary Clinton,
he said, is wealthy but will fundraise for her campaign.

Plus, being a contributor is more likely to give him a voice in the
campaign, he reasoned.

"I figured early on that I’m going to contribute support to the one that I
want to win. It didn’t matter how they’re otherwise funding their
campaign," he said. "If at some point I want to make a suggestion or have
someone’s ear, it helps if you're participating contributor."

Shore, 65, said he decided to donate to Trump after carefully researching
the candidates and determining Trump's business background would make him a
good president.

He has followed Trump's careers, through his ups and downs, and has admired
his ability to bounce back from past missteps. "I admire anybody who has
faced adversity and has overcome it," he said.

Regarding the controversy around Trump's remarks about illegal immigration,
Shore said they'd been misinterpreted and that Trump was right that illegal
immigration was a problem.

"The perception was 'oh he’s anti immigrant, he’s a xenophobe, he hates
immigrants'," he said. "The truth of the matter is that he is probably the
only who’s standing up and saying something that protects our immigrant
community."

Other fun snapshots from Trump's FEC report:

Trump's Iowa campaign manager, veteran GOP activist Chuck Laudner, was paid
$11,605 since April. There had been rumors that he was paid as much as
$30,000 a month, but Trump insisted he was paying the going rate.

Meanwhile, his New Hampshire state director, Matthew Ciepielowski earned
more than $33,680 in that time and Iowa advisor Chris Hupke earned $20,000.

Big Mac or Fish Filet? Trump's campaign spent $457.72 at McDonalds.

More than $66,645 went to Trump-related business entities, mostly for rent
and hotel stays at his properties.

Two days before Macy's cut off its business relationship with Trump because
of his incendiary remarks about Mexicans, his campaign spent $94.85 in
"event supplies" at the department store.

He spent $506,486 on Tag Air, Inc., a private aviation company.

*Donald Trump claims he’s wroth more than $10 billion
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-claims-hes-worth-more-than-10-billion/2015/07/15/1c0ad262-2b29-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html>
// WaPo // Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger – July 15, 2015 *

Celebrity mogul Donald Trump says his net worth now exceeds $10 billion, a
figure more than $1 billion higher than he estimated when he announced his
presidential candidacy last month.

Trump campaign officials said his wealth includes $362 million earned in
2014 alone and they estimated that he earned more than $213 million from
NBC for his involvement with 14 seasons of “The Apprentice” television show.

The disclosures came as his campaign said he had filed his legally required
personal financial disclosures with the Federal Election Commission,
defying expectations from many who said Trump’s campaign was a vanity
project and he would resist legal requirements to detail his wealth.

However, his campaign did not immediately release a copy of the disclosure
form. The FEC has up to 30 days to review the form before releasing it
publicly.

According to the campaign, the disclosure shows that Trump is involved with
500 different business entities and is sole owner of 91 percent of them.

Just a few weeks ago, Trump estimated his net worth at $8.7 billion. But,
his campaign indicated his net worth has increased since those financial
documents were prepared a year ago. They also complained that the
presidential disclosure form, which requires candidates to disclose assets,
income and liabilities in broad ranges, is “not designed for a man of Mr.
Trump’s massive wealth.”

“For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply
state $50 million or more,” the campaign said in a statement. “Many of
these boxes have been checked.”

The millions Trump indicated he has earned from NBC provides some measure
of the potential cost to him of his recent controversial remarks on the
Republican presidential trail about immigrants. The network announced
earlier this month that it was “ending its business relationship” with
Trump over his comments that many Mexican immigrant who come to the United
State are criminals and rapists.

In his statement Wednesday, Trump offered another view on the ending of his
NBC work.

The statement said that “Mr. Trump decided to turn them down in order to
run for President of the United States.”

Trump has long been dogged by private sector complaints that he overstates
his wealth, as part of his larger-than-life celebrity persona as a
successful developer and entrepreneur. One reason longtime Trump watchers
had doubted he would ultimately submit the form is it requires swearing to
the accuracy of its contents.

Financial disclosure reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission
“should show the full range of assets in which he has ownership,” said Karl
Sandstrom, a former FEC commissioner who is part of the campaign law
practice at the Perkins Coie law firm in Washington. Sandstrom is
accustomed to warning clients about the serious criminal penalties that can
result from knowingly filing a false report with the federal government.

“Whether through commission or omission,” a false disclosure subjects
filers to serious federal penalties, he said. A federal statute governing
“destruction, alteration or falsification” of records would subject filers
to fines and prison for up to five years. Separately, the Sarbanes-Oxley
financial reform legislation makes it a criminal offense to file false
financial information with the federal government.

Trump has tangled in the past with analysts who have indicated he is worth
less than he claims. In 2006, he sued New York Times reporter Timothy L.
O’Brien for asserting in a book on the mogul that several people close to
Trump had estimated his worth as somewhere between $150 million to $250
million. The suit was dismissed in 2009.

In 2011, he threatened to sue MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell after the
O’Donnell insisted Trump was worth less than $1 billion. He never actually
filed suit, prompting O’Donnell to respond that Trump’s true secret was
that he could not afford to sue him.

In a statement, Trump acknowledged the doubters, noting he had filed the
form within 30 days of announcing his candidacy, without even taking
advantage of extensions allowed under law. “I look forward to the challenge
of winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country.”

*Donald Trump claims ‘most people’ read his book. No one we talked to at
Trump Tower has.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-claims-most-people-read-his-book-no-one-we-talked-to-at-trump-tower-has/>
// WaPo // Philip Bump – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump's campaign is diverse in its complaints and unified on the one
necessary solution: Everything bad in America would be fixed if only we
didn't keep getting out-negotiated. In his interview with "Morning Joe"'s
Mika Brzezinski on Wednesday, Trump revisited that argument in his favorite
way. The deal with Iran is bad, he said, because the negotiators "didn't
read 'The Art of the Deal,'" Trump's 1987 bestseller about, well, deals.

"Most people did," Trump continued. "They didn't. It's a ridiculous deal."

"Most people" read it he says, in the vague/impressive/vaguely impressive
way that we've all grown accustomed to with Trump. In the past, he's
implied that "The Art of the Deal" is the best-selling business book of all
time, which Politifact rated "false." Data from Nielsen BookScan puts the
two paperback versions of the books at 168,000 in sales since 2001, when
the data-tracking began. In that same time period, the 1936 book "How to
Win Friends & Influence People" has sold over two million copies.

I figured there was another way to measure whether or not "most people" had
read the book. I headed to Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan and asked
people there whether or not they'd cracked its spine. I asked 15 people:
businesspeople, tourists, people who worked in the building.

Of the 15, precisely none had ever read it.

Like most residents of New York City, I'd never been inside Trump Tower.
Having watched the campaign announcement, the space beside the escalator
that Trump descended at the bottom of the building's atrium seemed
surprisingly small. Normally, on days like today, there's a restaurant down
there.

One level up, at street level, you find elevator banks and a little pop-up
"Trump Store," selling a variety of Trump-branded merchandise. They have
"The Art of the Deal," which sells for $19.95. They also have Trump: Make
America Great Again campaign t-shirts -- $15 -- which seems like it
probably crosses some campaign finance line. When I arrived, the cheerful
woman tending the shop was folding the shirts; while I was there, I didn't
see any sales.

Chris, from Wyoming, hadn't read Trump's book, but still liked him as a
candidate. "Out of all the choices, I actually am for Donald Trump," Chris
said. "His views on immigration are similar to mine, and it's nice to see
someone who doesn't back down. He stands for what he wants and doesn't sway
back and forth."

Stanca, sitting up on the second level near the Starbucks, agreed on
Trump's immigration position but was a bit more skeptical on the candidate.
"I don't know if I should take it seriously," he said. A few yards away,
Rodi from New Jersey was a bit more enthusiastic. "We've had two Bushes,
the last one for eight years. Why not Trump?" she said. "He cannot be worse
than Bush." (Neither had read the book.)

Larry Mortimer, in from Connecticut on business, hadn't read the book
either -- but he did have a quick story about it. His father-in-law had
written a business book called "Swim with the Sharks Without Being Eaten
Alive" which came out shortly after Trump's. When Mortimer subsequently ran
into Trump, he pointed out that "Sharks" was (at the time) outselling
"Deal." Trump's response? "I know him! I want him to market my book!"

That was it on supporters (and semi-supporters). (Though two people who
worked in the building offered "no comment"s when asked about the
candidacy.)

Some of the detractors were generous in their assessments. Charlie (hadn't
read it) said that Trump seemed like a "very intelligent person, but not as
refined as someone would expect from someone of his caliber." One man who
didn't want to be named ("it's a small town"; Editor's  note: No, it's not)
declared that Trump seemed like an "extraordinary businessman and
entertainer." When he trailed off, I commented on his decision not to add
any other titles. "Dot-dot-dot," he added with a grin.

Some of the detractors, however, were not generous. The first group of
people I met, right by the Trump store, were tourists in from Idaho,
Nebraska and Hawaii. None had read Trump's book. Brian, the one from
Hawaii, added, "Nor do I plan on it."

"He's playing games," Brian said. "He's a buffoon. Why's he even
bothering?" The others with him nodded. "And that's coming from three
Republicans."

I asked why the three were at Trump Tower in the first place. "Because our
wives are enamored with the building," Brian said. He wasn't happy about
it, and showed me a text he'd just sent to his spouse.

It's easy to pinpoint what went wrong for Brian. When debating with his
wife about where they should spend the day, he got out-negotiated. The
irony of Brian having a book so close by that could have taught him how not
to have had to visit Trump Tower at all appears to have been lost on him.

*Donald Trump, middle finger of the Republican base
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-middle-finger-of-the-republican-base/>
// WaPo // Chris Cillizza – July 15, 2015 *

When I left two weeks ago for vacation, Donald Trump was everywhere. I
assumed by the time that I got back, he would be nowhere — or at the very
least, that the massive amount of attention he was drawing to his
presidential candidacy would have receded significantly.

Boy, was I wrong.

On Tuesday, USA Today and Suffolk University released a new national poll
that put Trump at 17 percent and (gulp) at the front of the 2016 GOP field.
New numbers from The Washington Post/ABC News out this morning show that
almost six in ten Republicans have a favorable view of Trump — an
unbelievable turnaround from a May poll by WaPo/ABC that had Trump's
unfavorables at 65 percent.  I have never seen such a reversal in  poll
numbers in such a short period of time. Never.

There are, obviously, a few possible answers to that question. Trump would
say he is tapping into what the American people really want: a brashness
and boldness that makes us (America) the good guys and everybody else the
bad guys. He tells it like it is and people respond. That the political
establishment and media are so surprised at his rapid rise speaks only to
how out of touch those groups really are.

Then there's the explanation that in a very crowded field, name ID matters
hugely — and that's something Trump has no shortage of. Philip Bump made
that case here — and it's a compelling one.

I think there may be a psychological element to add to the technical
explanation offered by Philip. Put simply: I do think Trump's name ID plays
a role in what's happening in polls, but I don't think that's all that's at
work.  Everyone knew Trump's name a month ago but he wasn't at or near the
top of the polls then. So what's happened? What's led to such a stunning
reversal in how he's perceived among Republican voters? And what makes
someone (or 17 percent of someones) say, "Yes, I think Donald Trump is the
best Republican candidate for president"?

Here's my working theory: Trump's rise has very little to do with "Donald
Trump" and very much to do with what Trump represents at the moment to
voters.

What is that?  Someone who doesn't sound or, frankly, look like other
politicians.  Trump's willingness to say impolitic things (Mexican/rapists
etc.) actually bolsters his appeal among a certain segment of the
Republican electorate, not solely because they happen to agree with his
hard-line views on immigration, but because they see him as being willing
to say uncomfortable things and shake up the system.

Trump's purposeful(?) positioning as the ultimate anti-politician is
perfectly suited to the consequence-free mindset that dominates among
likely Republican primary voters at the moment. The election is a million
miles away to the average voter, so what's the harm in telling a pollster
you like Trump right now? You almost certainly won't stick with him when
it's time to actually vote — just 41 percent of Republicans view Trump as a
"serious" candidate for president in a new Gallup poll — but he is a great
vehicle to send a message to the political establishment that you're sick
of them.

Think of it this way: You're single.  You're in your 20s. You start dating
a bad boy/girl who makes you laugh/kind of scares you/your parents hate
with the white-hot passion of 1,000 suns.  You are not planning to marry
this person. In fact, if he/she did happen to pop the question — they
wouldn't because they are a bad boy/girl and "don't like to be tied down" —
you would almost certainly say no. You are going out with this person
because it's fun and it's different and you are tired of the squares — is
that a word people still use? — you've dated up to this point. Sure, you'll
probably settle down with one of those squares (I am just going with it)
but not just yet.

The tendency in politics — particularly among the journalistic and
consultant classes — is to overthink things. And so it is with Trump. But I
think his appeal may actually be very, very simple: He's different — and
different, at least right now, is intriguing for Republicans. My strong
belief is that as the election gets closer and Trump goes from colorful
oddball to "Hey, wait a minute, he believes what?!?" his support will slip
— probably considerably.

For now, Trump represents a middle finger from a segment of Republican
voters directed at the GOP establishment.  Which seems about right.

*Donald Trump word cloud: Nazism and consumerism
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/donald-trump-word-cloud-nazism-and-consumerism/>
// WaPo / James Hohmann – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump spent Tuesday in the political sweet spot between Nazism and
consumerism.

Our Zignal Labs partners, who measure what people are talking about across
social and traditional media, showed that the chatter about the reality TV
star and businessman revolved around two main themes: a tweet (later
deleted) that included images of Waffen-SS solders and his ongoing dispute
with Macy’s about pulling his merchandise. “Retaliation” also factored big
into the equation.

On the first point, the controversy began when The Donald tweeted an image
of himself emblazoned on an American flag, with soldiers in the background.
Only, it turned out, those soldiers came from Waffen-SS stock images,
according to Internet sleuths.

As for Macy’s, TMZ reported on Tuesday that 30,000 customers were so angry
that the store refused to carry Trump ties that they were cutting up their
credit cards as a result. The store, the website said, was “taking it in
the shorts” for breaking with The Donald over his comments about Mexicans.

Recently escaped Mexican drug lord “El Chapo,” in a Twitter account
reportedly linked to him, threatened Trump in a profanity-laced tirade on
Twitter. “I’m better than them,” El Chapo wrote.

Trump took the threat seriously, increasing his security and saying he’s
alerted the FBI. “We have officials all over the place, including right
outside hanging out in trees,” Trump told reporters during an appearance at
a Virginia winery, according to the New York Post.

So the word “retaliation?” Seems like it could apply to any of the above
disputes.

*The best of Donald Trump on ‘Morning Joe’
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/the-best-of-donald-trump-on-morning-joe/>
// WaPo // Elise Viebeck – July 15, 2015 *

Sometimes it’s best to let Donald Trump’s quotes speak for themselves.

Trump, now surging in the polls, joined MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday
to discuss the Iran deal, his position in the Republican field and his
previous comments on immigration. He also weighed in on Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-Tex.), the Hispanic vote, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

Enjoy the best quotes below:

Trump on the Iran deal and “The Art of the Deal”:

They [U.S. negotiators] didn’t read The Art of the Deal.  Most people did,
they didn’t. It’s a ridiculous deal … I have seen the deal.  I have seen it
broken down in every newspaper you can imagine, and I have, I think I know
the deal quite well because other people, I assume, are going into it in
great detail.  I have seen every newspaper article you can.  I have seen
the good points and the bad points and the good points are not very
strong.  That I can tell you.

Trump on President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin:

If you had a president that was a leader, he would be able — he can’t even
talk — when you look at where we are with countries, as an example, with
Russia, they can’t even talk together, Putin can’t stand him.  In all
fairness, he can’t stand Putin, but Putin doesn’t respect him.

Trump on Hillary Clinton and the Hispanic vote:

Hillary was the worst secretary of state in the history of our country.  I
think that the person she doesn’t want to run against is me because I say
it, and [Jeb] Bush doesn’t say it, nobody says it … I would beat Hillary
and I’ll tell you what, a vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote … I’ll
create jobs, and I’ll get the Hispanic vote … the Hispanics love me.

Trump on why he’s meeting with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.):

Ted Cruz called me and I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest, but
I do have respect for him.  I respect the fact that, along with a couple of
others, he came out and he came out very strongly and agreed with what I
said on illegal immigration … I like him. He called me, he wanted to meet,
and we are going to meet.  What it’s about, I have absolutely no idea.

Trump on Iranian nuclear capabilities:

I’d hate to inherit the deal [with Iran] … Ultimately, they’re going to
have the nukes all over the place.

Trump on illegal immigrants:

Illegal immigrants are causing tremendous problems coming in …  There’s
crime, it’s a crime wave, it’s a disaster … I have hundreds and hundreds of
Mexicans working for me.  I love Mexican people, I love their spirit …
Mexico is sending a lot of their people over that they don’t want, and that
includes people that should be in Mexican prisons, and you know it and I
know it and nobody wants to talk about it.

Trump on how he knows Mexico is “sending a lot of their people” over who
belong in prison:

I heard from five different sources … I’ll reveal my sources when you
reveal your sources, Mark [to Mark Halperin of Bloomberg Politics]. I have
a lot of information on it and so do — so does everyone else, and you
probably do, too, and for some reason they don’t want to put out this
information.

Trump on Jeb Bush and his fundraising numbers:

We have grossly incompetent leadership. That is the one overriding theme,
and [voters] don’t see it any better with Bush.  He doesn’t have the
energy, he’s not going to produce, and I will tell you that when he raises
$100 million … every single person that he gave every single dollar is
expecting something for that money.  Every single person … So the $100
million that he raised is a bad thing, not a good thing.

*Trump Files Disclosure, Touts $10 Billion Net Worth
<http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/15/donald-trump-files-disclosure-touts-10-billion-net-worth/>
// WSJ // Heather Haddon – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump boasted his net worth has
grown to more than $10 billion as he filed his personal financial
disclosure, removing a potential barrier for eligibility in the GOP debates.

“First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would
never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did,” Mr. Trump
said in a statement. “They said I would never file my personal financial
disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two
45 days extensions.”

In a statement laden with bravado released Wednesday, the real-estate
developer and entertainer said that his net worth had been boosted by
rising property values in New York, San Francisco, Miami and elsewhere, and
nodded to gains in the stock market as well. A one-page sheet summary
released by his campaign previously showed total assets of $9.2 billion and
liabilities of $502 million.

In Wednesday’s statement, the campaign said that the FEC’s disclosure forms
couldn’t capture Mr. Trump’s full value, as maximum worth of assets in
certain categories were set to a range of simply above $50 million. The
value of some of Mr. Trump’s buildings well exceeded that, the campaign
said.

“This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his
campaign stated.

The campaign didn’t immediately release a copy of the disclosure Wednesday.
A FEC spokesman said Wednesday that the agency was in receipt of Mr.
Trump’s financial disclosure form. The spokesman couldn’t immediately say
when the FEC would made the filing public. The commission has 30 days to do
so.

Filing the personal financial disclosure removes one of the largest hurdles
for Mr. Trump to go forward with a full-scale presidential bid, including
appearing in televised debates.

Some of Mr. Trump’s rivals had pushed Republican officials and television
networks hosting the debates to exclude him if he didn’t file the lengthy
disclosures first. Fox News and CNN host the first two GOP debates, and the
networks have chosen to contain the main debates to the candidates placing
in the top 10 in an average of national polls. Lower tier candidates have
been angling for ways to boost their national standing leading into the
debates.

Mr. Trump, who has become a lightning rod for criticism after labeling some
Mexican immigrants “rapists,” said during a television appearance on MSNBC
“Morning Joe” Wednesday morning that he would put out the forms Wednesday
or Thursday.  A spokeswoman for the campaign said they weren’t yet certain
if they would release the full report or allow those interested to go
through the FEC.

Mr. Trump’s income last year was $362 million, not including investments,
rents or royalties, according to the campaign.  The campaign didn’t release
figures on his debt, but said it was “a very small percentage of value, and
at very low interest rates.”

The campaign released a list of 45 stocks that Mr. Trump sold last year,
saying their sale earned him $27 million. Bank of America, Alcoa, Best Buy
and Facebook accounted for the largest number of shares in the portfolio,
according to the list.

The gains came “even though stock market purchases are not something that
Mr. Trump has focused on in the past,” the release stated.

Mr. Trump also said he held assets in 11 market funds valued at $90
million, with the largest amount of purchased shares in the Obsidian Fund
LLC, Baron Funds and Oppenheimer, according to the list.

Whether Mr. Trump would go through in making the detailed filing required
by those running for president has been a source of speculation since the
mogul announced his candidacy last month. Mr. Trump has never disclosed a
detailed accounting of his wealth.

*Trump campaign sets his personal fortune at $10 billion
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/00a8539211dd4306a9e84c4fe1cdac96/trump-campaign-sets-his-personal-fortune-10-billion>
// AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump filed financial documents
with federal campaign regulators on Wednesday and set his personal fortune
at more than $10 billion with an annual income of more than $362 million.

Members of his staff had said that Trump would release the financial
documents themselves, but they issued only a press release that announced
the filing and included a few financial details. It provided little
information about how he calculated his net worth.

The $10 billion figure — up nearly 15 percent since the previous year, by
Trump's calculation — would make him the wealthiest person ever to run for
president, far surpassing previous magnates like Ross Perot, business heirs
like Steve Forbes or private-equity investors like Mitt Romney, the 2012
GOP nominee.

Among the sources of Trump's income has been $214 million in payments from
NBC related to 14 seasons of the business reality television show "The
Apprentice." NBC recently cut its ties with Trump following his
controversial remarks about Mexican immigrants.

Trump is relying almost exclusively on his personal wealth to fund his
White House bid. His fortune could help maintain his status as a major
player in the Republican presidential primary, much to the dismay of GOP
officials who worry that his hardline immigration statements could alienate
Hispanic voters.

Filing a personal financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission
is one of the requirements, set by the hosts, to participate in next
month's televised GOP debate.

Trump's statement Wednesday noted that a hypothetical Trump building worth
$1.5 billion would be reported as simply worth in excess of $50 million on
the federal forms, which offer broad ranges for asset values.

Previous reviews of Trump's real estate holdings by both Forbes Magazine
and commercial real estate trade publication The Real Deal did not identify
any single property with a valuation in excess of $1 billion.

His campaign noted that Trump held stakes in almost 500 business entities
and said the federal forms are "not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's
massive wealth."

"I have a Gucci store worth more than Romney," Trump told the Des Moines
Register last month, referring to the fashion company's flagship store in
New York's Trump Tower.

Trump also valued his personal brand and marketing deals at $3.3 billion
when he announced his candidacy.

Forbes Magazine, however, valued his brand at just $125 million. And that
was before Trump's comments about Mexican immigrants cost him business
partnerships with companies such as Macy's and Univision, which experts on
brand valuation said have at least temporarily tarnished the value of his
name in corporate sponsorship deals.

While the Forbes estimate is likely low, "the spread between Forbes $125
million and his own estimate of $3.3 billion is explained primarily by
hubris," said Weston Anson, chairman of Consor Intellectual Asset
Management, a California-based consulting firm.

Anson said it was too early to evaluate the effect of Trump's comments on
value of his name, but noted the rapid cancellation of partnership and
sponsorship deals. The notoriety could also likely erode Trump's ability to
charge a premium for his real estate, Anson said.

Trump in the past has taken umbrage at suggestions he might not be as
fantastically wealthy as he says. In 2009, he sued author Timothy O'Brien
for defamation after O'Brien wrote that Trump's net worth might be as low
as $150 million.

Trump lost the suit and a subsequent appeal. In a deposition, the panel of
appellate judges noted, Trump conceded that his public disclosures of his
wealth depended partly on his mood.

"Even my own feelings affect my value to myself," Trump said.

*Trump indeed funding own presidential bid: $1.8 million loan
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/005daf1aaca74092b15035b08ac9b466/trump-indeed-funding-own-presidential-bid-18-million-loan>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

When he announced his Republican run for president a month ago, billionaire
businessman Donald Trump said he didn't need the help of donors. That's
proved true.

Federal documents Trump filed Wednesday show that he has lent his
high-profile campaign $1.8 million. In a press release, he set his net
worth at more than $10 billion.

The documents show that Trump has not solicited any money for his campaign,
collecting only $92,000 from other people. At of the end of June, Trump had
about $488,000 left in his campaign account.

Trump is vying with 16 others for the Republican nomination.

*British Open waits on Turnberry call after Trump remarks
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/52abf4e7686f4061b51730a87e764a1f/ra-waits-turnberry-call-after-trump-remarks>
// AP // July 15, 2015 *

British Open organizers are biding their time before deciding whether
Turnberry should be removed from the championship rotation following
comments by the course's owner, Donald Trump, about Mexicans.

Trump, a Republican candidate for U.S. president, is facing a backlash
after saying some Mexican immigrants to the U.S. bring drugs and crime, and
some are rapists.

Trump recently purchased Turnberry, a links resort on the west coast of
Scotland that has hosted the British Open four times.

Asked if Trump's comments compromised Turnberry's place on the Open
rotation, Peter Dawson, chief executive of the R&A, said: "We'll just let a
bit of time pass, and future championship committees will deal with them at
the time."

The PGA of America announced last week it will move the Grand Slam of Golf
from Trump's course in Los Angeles.

The Women's British Open is to be played this month at Turnberry, and
organizers have said there are no plans to change the venue.

Turnberry last staged the British Open in 2009, when Stewart Cink beat Tom
Watson in a playoff, and is one of nine courses on the rotation. Royal
Portrush will be added in 2019.

"It's had a lot of publicity, hasn't it?" Dawson said about Turnberry and
its links with Trump. "We don't have any decisions to make about Turnberry
for quite some time."

*Donald Trump: ‘A vote that I will win is the Hispanic vote’
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fd4902f2968f430e83d778812d534ba3/donald-trump-vote-i-will-win-hispanic-vote>
// AP // July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he's confident he could
win substantial Hispanic votes if he's the party's nominee.

Brushing aside the controversy over labeling Mexican immigrants as
"rapists" and "criminals," Trump argues "the Hispanics love me."

He tells MSNBC: "I employ thousands of Hispanics."

Trump also says he's not worried about any lack of support in the Latino
community and argues he hasn't been hurt politically by his calls for
clamping down on illegal immigration.

Trump has refused to soften his stand on immigration, even after a plea by
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus (ryns PREE'-bus) that
he tone down his remarks.

The GOP fared poorly with the Hispanic community in the 2012 presidential
election.

*5 things to know about Donald Trump’s personal fortune
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5-things-know-about-donald-trumps-personal-fortune>
// AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says his personal fortune is
more than $10 billion, making the businessman the wealthiest person to ever
run for the White House.

Five things to know about Trump's wealth:

TRUMP IS ALMOST CERTAINLY THE RICHEST PERSON EVER IN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE

His net worth claim eclipses that of Ross Perot, the billionaire Texas
entrepreneur who ran a third-party campaign in 1992. Aside from Perot, no
other candidate has reached the $1 billion dollar mark, including
publishing empire heir Steve Forbes (roughly $400 million) or private
equity titan Mitt Romney ($250 million.)

IT'S GOOD TO START OFF RICH

Trump has cited his ability to become rich as an important qualification
for public office. Though he has earned a huge sum of money, Trump started
off in the upper reaches of the 1 percent. His grandfather, Fred Trump Sr.,
was a successful builder. His father, Fred Trump Jr., earned a fortune
estimated at several hundred million dollars through building
solid-but-modest housing in the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and
Queens — sometimes with government support.

TRUMP HASN'T BEEN BANKRUPT, BUT HIS COMPANIES HAVE — FOUR TIMES

"Stop saying I went bankrupt!" Trump demanded on Twitter last month, a
sentiment he expresses regularly. The confusion stems from the difference
between personal and corporate bankruptcy.

Various arms of Trump's hotel and casino business underwent Chapter 11
bankruptcy reorganizations in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. But only in the
first instance — where Trump had personally guaranteed a vast debt owed by
the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, New Jersey, — was Trump's personal
fortune at risk.

In the other bankruptcies, his exposure was limited to just his stake in
the particular venture. While plenty of other entities with Trump's name on
them have failed, including the Trump International Golf Club in Puerto
Rico this week, those were just companies that were renting Trump's name.

HE TALKS UP RISK-TAKING, BUT HIS CURRENT PORTFOLIO IS QUITE CONSERVATIVE

Setting aside Trump's $3.3 billion valuation of his personal brand, most of
Trump's wealth is in the form in the real estate. Yet the summary of his
finances he presented at his campaign kickoff last month lists more than $4
billion in mature, fully-owned assets, with less than $500 million in debt.

That's extremely safe — and completely out of keeping with the heavy
borrowing that is standard for owners of marquis commercial real estate.

In his book "The Art of the Deal," Trump extolled such borrowing:
"Leverage: Don't make deals without it."

CAVEATS ABOUT HIS WEALTH MAY BE WARRANTED

Doubting Trump's fortune can be hazardous. In 2006, Trump sued author Tim
O'Brien for citing anonymous Trump insiders lowballing Trump's net worth in
the book "TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald."

Precisely valuing a fortune such as Trump's is difficult, subjective work
under the best of circumstances.

Trump lost his lawsuit against O'Brien on First Amendment grounds, but the
panel of judges who killed the case in 2011 noted Trump's history of
claims, such as asserting that a 72-story building with tall ceilings was
actually a 90-story building. Because of numerous caveats, the judges
declared that even a 2004 financial statement authored by Trump's
accountants had "limited value as an accurate representation of Trump's net
worth."

*Trump campaign to reveal wealth details: ‘I’m really rich’
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c2adf4b3591a4c64a186bcba7dd23000/trump-campaign-reveal-wealth-details-im-really-rich>
// AP // Jeff Horwitz – July 15, 2015 *

As other presidential candidates fight to raise money, Donald Trump is
reminding everyone he's already got a lot of it.

The celebrity businessman's campaign is expected to reveal details
Wednesday of his fortune, which he estimated last month at nearly $9
billion when announcing his Republican presidential candidacy.

If accurate, that number would make Trump the wealthiest person to ever run
for president, far surpassing previous magnates like Ross Perot, business
heirs like Steve Forbes or private-equity investors like Mitt Romney, the
2012 GOP nominee.

"I have a Gucci store worth more than Romney," Trump told the Des Moines
Register last month, referring to the fashion company's flagship store in
New York's Trump Tower.

On an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday, Trump said the
personal financial disclosure forms will be filed Wednesday or Thursday.

"The numbers will be far in excess of what anybody thought," he said. "I
built a great company."

How much the personal financial disclosure form will reveal is uncertain.
Personal financial disclosures generally require candidates to list the
value of their assets within broad ranges, with "above $5 million" as the
top bucket. Many of Trump's holdings, such as Trump Park Avenue in New
York, or the hundreds of millions he says he holds in cash, would far
exceed that upper limit.

Even if Trump were to include a detailed summary of his assets and debts,
skepticism about his net worth will likely remain.

Trump, for example, valued his personal brand and marketing deals at $3.3
billion when he announced his candidacy. Forbes Magazine, however, valued
his brand at just $125 million. And that was before Trump's comments about
Mexican immigrants cost him business partnerships with companies such as
Macy's and Univision.

Trump in the past has taken umbrage at suggestions he might not be as
fantastically wealthy as he says. In 2009, he sued author Timothy O'Brien
for defamation after O'Brien wrote that Trump's net worth might be as low
as $150 million.

Trump lost the suit and a subsequent appeal. In a deposition, the panel of
appellate judges noted, Trump conceded that his public disclosures of his
wealth depended partly on his mood.

"Even my own feelings affect my value to myself," Trump said.

*Donald Trump grows up
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-grows-up-politico-interview-120196.html?ml=tl_13>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 *

In a matter of days, Donald Trump has gone from flame-throwing insurgent to
statesmanlike front-runner, at least in his own mind.

As national polls continued to roll in showing Trump in first or second
place in the Republican presidential primary, he showed restraint and
message discipline in a phone interview with POLITICO on Wednesday, passing
on multiple opportunities to level his trademark insults at political
opponents and steering the conversation instead towards the economy and
“making America great again.”

Trump’s ego remains intact — “I have been victorious against China on
numerous occasions” he bragged minutes before his campaign forwarded a
statement claiming he is now worth more than “TEN BILLION DOLLARS.”

But during the interview, away from the cameras and the packed crowds,
Trump’s tone was markedly different from Saturday, when he ranted for over
an hour against everyone from Jeb Bush to “Lyin’ Brian Williams” and the
brands that had cut ties with him at a raucous campaign rally in Phoenix,
Arizona.

Even the accent had softened from Queens to Westchester.

In Arizona, Trump cracked of Bush, “How can I be tied with this guy? He’s
terrible.”

On Wednesday, he was more measured. “I think Jeb Bush is a very nice
person, but I think he’ll be a terrible president in terms of negotiating
trade deals with China. They’re just too tough and too smart,” said Trump,
framing his critique of Bush in a way that that pivots to his own carefully
crafted image as an expert negotiator, crystallized in, “The Art of the
Deal,” the book he promotes relentlessly in campaign appearances.

When asked which of his opponents would make the worst president, Trump
responded, “I don’t want to say that, because that would be disrespectful.”

Of Republican elites, who have been fretting out loud that Trump is
tarnishing the party’s brand, especially among Hispanic voters, Trump said,
“I know the elites. Many of them are friends of mine. They’re fine. They go
with whoever’s going to win.”

When asked about the possibility that he could run as a third-party or
independent candidate in the general election, a nuclear option that could
make him a spoiler for the eventual Republican nominee, Trump said,
“Everybody wants me to run as a third-party candidate but my sole focus is
running as a Republican because my best chance to take this country back …
is for me to run as a Republican.”

On Sunday, Trump taunted the notorious Mexican drug trafficker Joaquin “El
Chapo” Guzman, who escaped from prison over the weekend, tweeting that he
“would kick [Guzman’s] ass!” only to receive back a threatening tweet from
the drug lord’s account. On Wednesday, Trump said only, “Law enforcement is
very strong. It’s really in the hands of law enforcement right now, ”
before steering the question of his personal safety back to his campaign
theme: “Making our country great again is much more important than me as an
individual.”

A Suffolk University/USA Today poll released on Tuesday that showed Trump
in first place with 17 percent support solidified what polling began to
show last week: that Trump and Bush are currently neck-and-neck among
Republican voters nationally.

Trump’s campaign announced on Wednesday that he had filed a personal
financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission, a step required
of all candidates before they can participate in the first Republican
debate next month and one that many political observed predicted Trump was
not willing to take.

Many commentators continue to dismiss Trump’s viability in the Republican
primary, pointing out that in the last presidential election former
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman
Cain both achieved front-runner status in Republican polls before voters
ditched them for candidates with more sober temperaments and traditional
backgrounds in the actual primaries and caucuses.

But Trump isn’t the only one taking Trump seriously this week. On Wednesday
evening, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz walked over to Trump tower in Manhattan to pay
the mogul a visit.

A person with knowledge of the meeting described it as “very, very
amicable” and said the two candidates discussed media coverage of Scott
Walker’s Monday presidential launch, Jeb Bush’s fundraising prowess, Cruz’s
own impressive fundraising haul, and Trump’s view that Bush does not enjoy
campaigning.

They also discussed border security, the national debt, and the October
2013 government shutdown in which Cruz played a leading role, according to
this person, who said the two left the door open to future meetings.

Unlike other Republican candidates, Cruz has defended Trump’s comments
about the alleged criminality of undocumented Mexican immigrants. “I like
Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks
the truth,” Cruz said of Trump last month on Fox News, calling NBC’s
decision to cut ties with the mogul “silly.”

Trump for his part on Wednesday backed off of questions he’s raised
previously about Cruz’s fitness for the presidency. When asked whether the
fact that the Texas senator was born in Canada should affect his
eligibility, Trump told POLITICO, “I don’t know. I mean I haven’t looked at
it. I have not looked at it at all.”

When asked about the issue by a New York-based Fox affiliate in March,
Trump had said, “It’s a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very
seriously. He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our
history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just
don’t know how the courts will rule on it.”

But Trump has apparently concluded that times have changed, and so will his
tone, at least for now and to a degree: “No matter how good you are, timing
is so important, and some people have timing and some people don’t, and I
have it.”

*Donald Trump snipes at Karl Rove
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-karl-rove-fight-120146.html?ml=tl_14>
// Politico // Adam B. Lerner – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump went on the attack against Karl Rove on Wednesday.

“Why do people listen to clown @KarlRove on @FoxNews?” the real estate
mogul and Republican presidential candidate tweeted. “Spent $430M & lost
all races — a Bushy!”

Later, he added, “.@FoxNews should not put @KarlRove on — he has no
credibility, a bush plan who called all races wrong.”

Trump and Rove have been feuding in recent works, and the tiff shows no
sign of dying down.

On Wednesday morning, Rove appeared on Fox News and downplayed recent poll
results that show Trump surging in the GOP 2016 presidential primary.

“The fundamentals matter a lot and Mr. Trump’s fundamentals are not good,”
Rove said on “America’s Newsroom,” adding that as the campaign goes on he
believes Trump will be exposed as a fundamentally unserious candidate.

Trump has previously bashed Rove for incorrectly predicting the results of
the 2012 presidential election, and for what he perceives as ineffective
spending by the Rove-linked American Crossroads super PAC, but Wednesday
was the first time he specifically called on Fox News to take Rove off the
air.

Rove, a longtime aide to George W. Bush, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street
Journal on July 8 under the headline “Trump and Sanders, the Disrupter
Brothers.”

In it, Rove wrote that “Trump could become the 2016 version of Missouri
Rep. Todd Akin, who tarnished the GOP brand in 2012 with an offensive
statement about rape.”

*How Barack Obama Created Donald Trump
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-appeal-of-donald-trump-120162_full.html#.VabOP5NViko>
// Politico // Keith Koffler – July 15, 2015 *

It is an unassailable doctrinal truth in the modern Republican Party that
Ronald Reagan was a great president and that the United States can be
restored to its former glory—i.e., the 1980s—if he is resurrected and
returned to earth in the form of someone just like him who claims the GOP
presidential nomination and then wins the general election.

That is, someone who, like Reagan, combines genial optimism with
disciplined strength. Someone with longstanding, core conservative
convictions based in a comprehensive ideology that he or she can articulate
convincingly to the masses. And someone with wit, charm and never-ending
charisma.

In other words, someone who is the opposite of Donald Trump.

And yet today millions of conservatives are swooning for The Donald,
nothing less than the anti-Reagan. They ignore Trump’s surly, intolerant
suggestions that illegal immigrants are largely rapists and other types of
miscreants. They tolerate his meanness, boastfulness and vengefulness
against those who have crossed him. And they believe his fantastical
claims, like that he can build walls atop the Mexican border and make
Mexicans pay for it.

And yet I am here to tell you that despite what you’ve read in the media,
even some outposts of the conservative media, these Trump acolytes in
general are not racist against Latinos and they have not been seized by
madness.

They are, however, angry. Very angry. And many are agonizingly fearful
about the future of the nation. They believe that vast changes to the
country are being wrought in ways that are undemocratic, dishonest and
perhaps even illegal.

Trump, who seems perpetually angry, is an expression of the angst of
conservatives who believe the United States has gotten so deep into a mess
that a little extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. What they
adore about Trump is that he is a pugilist who has emerged at a time when
someone needs to start throwing punches.

His blunt promise to stop illegal immigration touches on perhaps the
conservatives’ deepest concern of all: that their culture and the
Constitutional order are disintegrating with such rapidity that they hardly
recognize the country they are living in. There is a sense of desperation
that is fueling support for a proven achiever and fearless
confrontationalist like Trump.

As the editor of a conservative website, I am in contact with the
Republican base every day. I read their voluminous comments on my website,
and I exchange emails with them about their concerns.

Many of them right now genuinely, and even passionately, support Trump.
They are happy to contradict me when I write that Trump is a
self-aggrandizing demagogue who lacks a coherent agenda—conservative or
otherwise—unless a scattered list of personal grudges and obsessions can be
considered an agenda. In a poll last week on my website he won easily,
cornering 25 percent of the vote.

Though I disagree with them, these comments make complete sense to me.
Because I share much of the worldview that is animating support for Trump.

Let’s start with immigration. America is, as President Barack Obama and his
“immigration reform” allies like to say, a land of immigrants. But it is
not a land of endless immigration from one culture that is different than
ours and in many ways far less successful. Most immigrants from Mexico, no
doubt, are good, hardworking people seeking a chance to better their
circumstance in America. But they are not Americans. And in the numbers
they are coming, the serious concern is that they are not easily
assimilated.

Other cultures are supposed to augment ours, not replace it.

What’s more, so many of these immigrants have, as their first act in this
country, broken the law by coming here illegally. This indisputable fact is
so minimized that it has become politically incorrect to call them “illegal
immigrants.” They are to be termed “undocumented,” as if their lack of
papers were a clerical error. This is a big problem for conservatives, who
feel the rule of law is eroding fast under Obama.

Obama attempted to give millions of illegal immigrants legal status by
simply not enforcing the law. This recourse to “prosecutorial discretion”
is a shocking development, an effort to circumvent Congress and write de
facto law out of the West Wing.

Many conservatives understand that millions of people cannot just be carted
back to Mexico. But they want to be sure that this would be the final
amnesty, unlike the last final amnesty, a law ironically enough signed by
Reagan in 1986 that was supposed to mitigate illegal immigration. They
don’t trust Obama to enforce immigration reform that would block further
illegal immigration, since he has a habit of not enforcing laws. And they
believe their own Republican Party leaders are captive to business
interests ravenous for cheap labor.

That is why Trump’s unequivocal promise to build a wall has such resonance.
They believe he’ll do it. And most likely, put his name on it.

But Trump fever is about much more than immigration.

Obama’s immigration fiat—which is thankfully running into trouble with the
judiciary, which has halted it for now—is apiece with other solo measures
he has taken that seem to many conservatives designed to dispense with the
inconvenience of our system of check and balances. All in the name of doing
what is “correct” as perceived by one side of the debate. The unilateral
imposition of a certain viewpoint is exactly what the Constitution was
designed to prevent.

Many were shocked when Obama peremptorily decided the statutory due dates
of the Affordable Care Act were not to his liking and simply changed them.
They were aghast that the president misled everyone about the consequences
of the law, saying that people would be able to keep their doctors and
health plans when they could not.

The law itself, perhaps the most sweeping legislation in half a century and
a wholesale change in the way health care will be administered in this
country, was rammed through Congress not by any consensus, but in a
partisan vote that defied the will of the people, who opposed it. Norms
were sacrificed to advance an agenda, contrary to how a republic is
supposed to operate.

Meantime, the president is set to implement carbon emissions reductions
that he could never get the people’s elected representatives to approve. He
decided on his own that the Senate was not in session and appointed judges
the senate didn’t approve. The IRS targeted the president’s opponents,
while Obama’s secretary of State employed her own email server and then,
after releasing what she wanted from it, erased it.

The president who cynically pretended to be “evolving” on the issue of gay
marriage and then simply jettisoned beliefs supposedly grounded in his
religious faith.

This president, who sold himself as “post-political,” is seen by
conservatives as very political, and more accurately described as
“post-Constitutional.”

The climate of Constitutional disorder perpetrated by Obama paves the way
for demagogues like Trump to gain traction. With the rules of the game
already being violated, there is greater tolerance for a man doesn’t seem
temperamentally inclined to obey any rules at all.

In many ways, Trump is the creation of Barack Obama.

Society, many conservatives feel, is simply unraveling.

The administration informs Americans that Obama has fixed the economy, even
as it slogs along about around two percent growth. The nation debt soars
skyward without anyone even faking that they have a plan to stop it—not
even the supposedly budget-conscious Republican Congress. Even the
Republican presidential candidates have mostly failed to explain how they
will curb entitlement benefits to retirees that have been promised but
cannot possibly be provided.

The institution of marriage—the foundation of society—is collapsing, as the
out-of-wedlock birth rate explodes, with what conservatives fear are dire
consequences for children and for women who have to raise their kids alone.
Even so, the Supreme Court—at Obama’s urging—unilaterally redefines
marriage to include members of the same sex instead of allowing people to
democratically change the status quo and—if they like, sometime in the
future—change it back.

Men can now be women and women can now be men simply if they choose to, no
matter what’s actually in their pants. The Court’s notion that personal
desires and an individual conception of “dignity” is the basis of the right
to marriage surely opens the door to polygamy.

Culture seems to be falling apart—and society seems to be coarsening. Art
and music alone aren’t good enough anymore for commercial success; a good
chanteuse today needs in her arsenal of skills a talent for twerking.
Police are becoming hesitant to do their jobs lest they be accused of
racism, and the murder rate in major cities is rising.

Overseas, a new terror threat in the form of ISIL is permitted to emerge
and metastasize throughout the Middle East. Its virulence may soon be
coming to a skyscraper near you. Iraq, which had been stable, is in pieces,
as are other portions of the Middle East. China pushes up islands out of
sea as it prepares for future conquests. A deal struck this week to prevent
the extremist, expansionist and possibly insane leaders of Iran from
gaining a nuclear weapon will actually allow them to do so within 15 years.
Israel, one of our closest friends, is treated like a foe.

It is into this leadership void that Donald Trump has stepped. Say what you
will about The Donald—and people certainly say plenty—but no one doubts
that he’s decisive and confrontational.

A strong hand like that wielded by Trump is seen as one that can help piece
the seething disorder back together. That is always the promise of
demagogues, who convey a sense of certainty during bewildering times, and
who blame “others” and foreigners—in Trump’s case Mexico and China—for the
ills besetting the homeland.

What conservatives who support him are missing is that he too is a
unilateralist who will only carve further cracks into the foundation of the
republic.

But it is understandable that they are fooled by him. Because they are just
not sure that temperate, compromising people can save the country. And in
this, given how far we have fallen, they may be right.

*Donald Trump: I’m getting richer
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-im-getting-richer-120163.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 *

If Donald Trump is worried about the financial toll of his inflammatory
comments on the campaign trail, which have caused many major American
brands to cut ties with him, he isn’t showing it.

He now claims to have a net worth greater than $10 billion.

Or as, Trump’s campaign put it in a statement on Wednesday, “As of this
date, Mr. Trump’s net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” The
statement attributes Trump’s supposed gain in net worth to rising property
values over the past year in American cities where he owns real estate.

Trump’s net worth has long been a matter of contention. In recent public
statements, he’s claimed to be worth nearly $9 billion, while Forbes
magazine, which has been tracking his net worth for more than 30 years,
pegs it at $4 billion. Much of that difference can be attributed to the
value of his personal brand. Trump values his brand at more than $3
billion, while Forbes believes it is worth less than $150 million.

In the statement, Trump claimed an income of $362 million in 2014 on top of
$27 million in profits from selling stocks last January. He filed a
personal financial disclosure with the FEC on Wednesday, a prerequisite for
participating in the first Republican primary debate next month.

*Trump’s official haul: $1.9 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trumps-official-haul-19-million-120180.html?ml=tl_4>
// Politico // Katie Glueck – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul, reality TV star and Republican
presidential candidate, took in nearly $2 million in the second quarter of
this year — nearly all of which was a loan from the candidate himself.

Trump, who has sparked controversy with several inflammatory remarks but
appears to be gaining in some polls, loaned the campaign $1.8 million;
overall the campaign took in about $1.9 million. Below is a breakout of the
campaign’s finances as of the end of June.

Total raised: $1,902,410.45

Total spent: $1,414,674.29

Total cash on hand: $487,736.16

Total debt: $1,804,747.23

*Trump claims $213M payout for ‘Apprentice’
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/trump-claims-m-payout-for-apprentice-210595.html?ml=tl_1>
// Politico // Dylan Byers – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump claims that NBCUniversal paid him more than $213 million for
his work on "The Apprentice," the reality show that Trump hosted up until
the launch of his presidential campaign this year.

The total figure -- $213,606,575, over the course of 14 years -- was
included in a news release announcing that Trump had filed his personal
financial disclosure statement with the Federal Election Commission, making
him eligible to run for president.

"NBC/Universal renewed, at the upfronts this year, The Apprentice (for a
15th season), but Mr. Trump decided to turn them down in order to run for
President of the United States. NBC was not happy," Trump's office wrote.
"During the 14 seasons of The Apprentice, Mr. Trump was paid $213,606,575."

An NBCUniversal spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for
confirmation of that figure.

Trump's office claimed that the real estate magnate's total net worth is
'in excess of ten billion dollars," and added that the FEC report "was not
designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth."

Trump himself used the opportunity to strike back at critics who dismissed
his presidential run as a charade.

"First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would
never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they
said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed
them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days extensions,"
Trump said in a statement.

"Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great
Again," he continued. "I look forward to the challenge of winning the
presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the
United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with
a big heart toward the care of our people.”

Trump finished first in the most recent Republican presidential primary
poll, conducted by USA Today and Suffolk University. He finished second, to
Jeb Bush, in previous polls conducted by Monmouth University, CNN/ORC and
Fox News.

*Poll: Trump’s favorability increasing, but not with Hispanics
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/poll-donald-trump-favorability-increasing-120139.html?ml=tl_21>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015*

Americans have increasingly positive views of Republican presidential
candidate Donald Trump since his remarks on immigration, though many more
still dislike him by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, according to a new ABC
News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable view of
the billionaire real-estate mogul, while 61 percent said they did not.
Still, that is an improvement from the last ABC News/Washington Post poll
conducted in May before Trump’s campaign announcement, when 71 percent
viewed him unfavorably and just 16 percent said they had a favorable
impression of him.

Among Hispanics, however, his negatives are soaring. Just 13 percent said
they have a positive opinion of Trump, who last month decried undocumented
immigrants who are “rapists” and “killers” coming across the border from
Mexico and other countries. More than eight-in-10 (81 percent) of Hispanics
said they have an unfavorable impression of him.

The only groups that see Trump favorably are Republicans and strong
conservatives, according to the poll. Republicans view Trump favorably by a
margin of 57 percent to 40 percent, while those identifying as very
conservative view him favorably, 55 percent to 37 percent. Among all
whites, 53 percent see him unfavorably, along with 74 percent of nonwhites,
58 percent of independents and 60 percent of moderates.

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating (52 percent to 45
percent) tops that of Bernie Sanders’ (27 percent to 28 percent), though a
plurality (45 percent) of those surveyed said they had no opinion of the
independent Vermont senator.

The poll was conducted July 8-12 via landline and cellphones in English and
Spanish, surveying a random national sample of 1,011 adults. The results
carry a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.5 percentage points.

*The Trump Litmus Test
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/the-trump-litmus-test>
// Bloomberg // Sahil Kapur – July 14, 2015 *

In the course of 24 hours, two of Donald Trump's Republican presidential
rivals have said two very different things about him that had the benefit,
for both, of attracting a bit of the media attention that follows the
self-described billionaire candidate.

Jeb Bush has generated quite a bit of chatter with a comparison he made
Tuesday at a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, a city on the western edge of
Iowa.

"We need to stop tearing—separating ourselves by race and ethnicity and
income. We need to focus on the things that tie us together. And whether
it's Donald Trump or Barack Obama their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong,"
the former Florida governor told the crowd. "A Republican will never win by
striking fear in people’s hearts."

Ted Cruz had a markedly different take. While in New York on Wednesday for
a financial conference, the Texas senator planned to meet with his
Republican competitor. Before the session, he described to NBC himself as
"a big fan" of Trump and adding: "I think he brings a bold, brash voice to
this presidential race."

The real estate mogul has drawn widespread condemnation for recently
likening Mexican immigrants to "rapists" that are "bringing drugs; they're
bringing crime" to the United States. His unrestrained attacks on illegal
immigration have poured gasoline on an already explosive debate that has
divided the party. Some conservatives have praised his focus on an issue
they say the Republican Party isn't sufficiently concerned about.

The Trump schism reflects the divide within the crowded Republican
field—Bush fares best among establishment figures and moderate Republicans
who detest Trump and fear his ascent will damage the party. Many of his
rivals, meanwhile, are competing the for the anti-establishment
conservative base that Trump is effectively channeling. Retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina—who
have said favorable things about Trump tapping into anger about illegal
immigration.

Bush's broadside wasn't an off-the-cuff moment. His campaign clipped a
45-second video of those remarks and distributed them widely to reporters.

But by comparing Trump to Obama, Bush is leveling a critique calculated to
resonate with conservatives. Among Republicans, it's an article of faith
that Obama is one of the most divisive presidents in history, if not the
most divisive. Their evidence for this generally focuses on his calls for
upper income people to pay higher taxes. To his critics, that amounts to
"class warfare." So the assertion is hardly novel. But the comparison to
Trump—loved and hated for his incendiary, unrestrained rhetorical
style—certainly is. Bush's campaign didn't respond to a message asking how
he ranks Trump's divisive rhetoric against Obama's.

"The strategy is to show just how negative Trump is with his campaign and
in order to effectively lead, there must be a positive vision going
forward," said Ron Bonjean, a Republican operative who isn't working for
any of the presidential candidates. "It's effective because it calls out
how negative Trump really is with his sensationalist comments and takes it
a step further by tying him to Obama's anti-Republican rhetoric."

One Democratic strategist speculated that Bush was trying to disqualify
Trump with Republican voters by comparing him to Obama. That's more likely
to sway Republicans than labeling Trump a racist, the theory goes.

A poll by Suffolk University and USA Today released Tuesday, the same day
Bush made his remarks, found Trump leading the Republican primary field
with 17 percent. Bush came second with 14 percent.

*Donald Trump Claims Net Worth Over $10 Billion as He Files Disclosure
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/trump-claims-net-worth-over-10-billion-as-he-files-disclosure>
// Bloomberg // Richard Rubin – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump claimed a net worth
exceeding $10 billion and a 2014 income of $362 million as he filed his
financial disclosure with the U.S. government.

“This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his
campaign said in a news release. “For instance, they have boxes once a
certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of
these boxes have been checked.”

Trump, a real estate developer, property owner and media personality,
claimed a net worth of $8.7 billion last month. In Wednesday’s statement,
Trump’s campaign said that number was actually more than a year old.

The Trump campaign didn’t release the actual form that he filed with the
Federal Election Commission, and campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks referred a
reporter to the FEC. The FEC has 30 days to release forms publicly after
they are filed and reviewed. It won’t confirm whether Trump’s has been
received.

When it’s released, the form will show that Trump has “almost 500 business
entities” and that 91 percent of them are fully owned by him, according to
the campaign statement.

The $8.7 billion statement from last month included an assumption that
Trump’s brand was worth more than $3 billion. That was before companies
including Macy’s Inc. severed ties with Trump over his comments calling
immigrants from Mexico “rapists.”

Real Estate

“Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami and many other
places where he owns property have gone up considerably during this period
of time,” the campaign said. “His debt is a very small percentage of value,
and at very low interest rates.”

Wednesday’s statement didn’t include a precise number, instead describing
his net worth as “in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.”

The campaign also released a list of stock transactions, showing that Trump
made $6.7 million in profits from selling shares of Bank of America Corp.
and $3.9 million from Facebook Inc.

It also said that Trump has more than $9 million invested in hedge funds
run by Paulson & Co.

The Trump campaign said he made $213,606,575 from NBC during the 14 years
that his show “The Apprentice” was aired.

“First people said I would never run, and I did,” Trump said in the
statement. “Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy
with the FEC, and I did. Next, they said I would never file my personal
financial disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am
allowed two 45 days extensions.”

*Donald Trump Says He'll Release Financial Disclosure by Thursday
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/donald-trump-says-he-ll-release-financial-disclosure-by-thursday>
// Bloomberg // Ali Elkin – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Wednesday that his
personal financial disclosure form will come out by Thursday, and “the
numbers will be far in excess of what anybody thought.”

Calling into MSNBC's Morning Joe show, Trump also confirmed he plans to
meet with primary rival Ted Cruz. The Texas senator called him asking for
the meeting, Trump said, and he doesn't know what it will be about.

“I respect him, I like him,” Trump said of Cruz, noting the senator's
support during the fallout from Trump's comment about Mexican immigrants
being “rapists.” (The Washington Post first reported on plans for the
meeting, set for the Trump Tower in New York, citing Republicans familiar
with the campaigns. Cruz aides declined to comment for that report,
according to the newspaper, and his campaign did not immediately respond to
a request for comment on Wednesday.)

Also on Bloomberg Politics: Just How Rich Is Donald Trump, Exactly?

During the interview, Trump also derided the Iran nuclear deal as a
“disgrace” and, turning to immigration, said he had five sources supporting
his claim that the Mexican government intentionally sends criminals across
the border.

Asked by Bloomberg Politics' Mark Halperin to name those sources, Trump
said, “I'll reveal my sources when you reveal your sources, Mark.”

Trump edged out former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for the top spot in a
nationwide USA Today/Suffolk University poll of Republicans released
Tuesday.

*Donald Trump: I’m worth $10 billion
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/donald-trump-financial-disclosure/index.html>
// CNN // MJ Lee – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump -- to quote the businessman himself -- seems to be a "very
rich" man.

His campaign boasted Tuesday that the Republican presidential candidate's
net worth is "in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS," and that his income in
2014 was $362 million.

The campaign sent out a release to press Tuesday afternoon saying it had
filed Trump's financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission --
the FEC confirmed receipt of the disclosure. When asked for a copy of the
full disclosure, campaign officials told CNN to request it from the FEC.

For Trump, who has never held public office, his financial disclosure would
offer the most comprehensive public look yet into his massive wealth.
Submitting this document to the FEC is also a requirement for any
presidential candidate that intends to participate in the first GOP primary
debate hosted by Fox News in August.

"This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," the
press release said. "As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is
worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is '$50,000,000 or more.'"

The amount of cash Trump has on hand will be particularly significant,
showing how much money Trump has at his disposal to potentially put towards
his own campaign.

His campaign previously released a summary of Trump's finances as of June
2014. It put Trump's net assets at $9.2 billion, and with approximately
$500 million in liabilities, the businessman's net worth was stated as $8.7
billion.

"[T]hey said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I
filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days
extensions," Trump said in a statement. "Now I have surged in the polls and
am fighting to Make America Great Again."

Trump's White House campaign, now just a month in, has been a costly affair.

His controversial comments that some people illegally crossing into the
United States from Mexico are "rapists" and "criminals" have drawn
widespread backlash. Numerous corporations including Macy's and NBC
subsequently announced that they were severing business ties with Trump.

Macy's said earlier this month that it is phasing out the Trump-brand
menswear line. And with NBC, there's more than one business venture at
risk: Trump was the host of the popular reality TV show "The Apprentice,"
and the network also decided it would no longer broadcast the Miss USA
pageant, which Trump partly owns.

Tuesday's press release claims that Trump was paid $213 million over the
course of 14 seasons of "The Apprenftice."

Trump's business deals with the city of New York have also come under
scrutiny: Mayor Bill de Blasio said he is reviewing the real estate mogul's
contracts with the city, including for a recently opened Trump golf course
in the Bronx.

But Trump has downplayed whatever financial hit he's taken so far.

"Here's the good news. I'm very rich," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper
earlier this month. "The money you're talking about is a lot but it's
peanuts for me."

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's campaign and a pro-Bush super PAC announced
raising more than $114 million.

*Donald Trump claims he’s worth $10 billion
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-claims-hes-worth-10-billion> //
MSNBC // Carrie Dann – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump’s campaign claims that he is worth over $10 billion and that
he made $362 million in income last year.

His campaign made the estimate in a press release announcing that he has
filed his personal financial disclosure information with the FEC. But in
the statement, Trump’s campaign itemized only about $50 million of his
assets, including profits from stock sales and hedge and mutual fund
investments.

Trump’s team also made a point to lament that the FEC’s personal financial
disclosure form doesn’t allow for a full reflection of Trump’s cash.

“This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” the
press release stated. “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number
is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have
been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5
billion, the box checked is “$50,000,000 or more.”

Trump did not make the entirety of his personal financial disclosure
available to the public or to NBC News, although his campaign indicated
that it was filed to the FEC Wednesday. The FEC has 30 days to release the
information to the public.

When he announced his presidential candidacy last month, Trump cited his
net worth as $8.7 billion. The campaign says that figure was out of date
and that the increase is due in part to increasing real estate values in
New York City, San Francisco and Miami.

But analysts have suggested that the real number is likely much less than
that. Forbes, which has been tracking his finances for more than 30 years,
estimates that his net worth is closer to $4.1 billion, less than half of
Trump’s figure.

*CPAC Chairman: Trump a plausible president
<http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/cpac-chairman-trump-plausible-president> //
MSNBC // Jesse Bergman – July 15, 2015 *

In his some of his strongest language defending Donald Trump’s candidacy,
the head of the influential American Conservatives Union says Trump has a
reasonable shot for the Oval Office.

When asked by “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews if Trump is a “plausible
President,” Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservatives Union,
said “Yeah. Definitely. Definitely.”

“Being an outsider at this particular time in American politics sure seems
to be an advantage,” said Schlapp, who also serves as the chairman of CPAC.

Trump has risen to the top of the polls for the Republican Presidential
primary. Whether his candidacy has staying power has been the subject of
debate among analysts.

According to Trump, rival candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called him
requesting a meeting. Cruz responded in a joking tone when asked by John
Harwood at CNBC’s “Delivering Alpha Conference” if his motive for the
meeting was to inherit Trump’s followers in the event of a campaign
collapse.

“I’m running to win,” Cruz said.  “I expect everyone to collapse and I want
to inherit everyone’s votes, so at the end of the day, I will readily plead
guilty to that.”

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown echoed a sentiment expressed by
many Democrats that Trump’s candidacy would be a boon to Hillary Clinton,
the likely Democratic nominee.

“I think Mrs. Clinton is just hoping the Republican Party continues with
its insanity towards Donald Trump, and nominates Donald Trump, that will
almost ensure that we’ll have the first woman President in the history of
the country,” Brown said on “Hardball”.

In response to Schlapp’s argument that Trump’s outsider status is an
advantage in the current political environment, Brown said that in order to
be taken seriously, a candidate must show talent, skill, humanity and
common sense.

“Trump provides none of those things,” Brown said.

*Donald Trump's Team Says His 'Massive' Net Worth Is More Than 'TEN BILLION
DOLLARS'
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-net-worth_55a6a342e4b0c5f0322c1726?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Igor Bobic – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump usually can't go more than a minute without reminding everyone
about his huge crowds, his huge poll numbers and his hugely opulent wealth.
And on Wednesday, the day presidential candidates were required to disclose
their fundraising with federal regulators, Trump's campaign issued perhaps
the biggest brag yet about the real estate mogul.

In a statement announcing his filing with the Federal Election Commission,
Trump aides said that the FEC report "was not designed for a man of Mr.
Trump's massive wealth."

"For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is reached that simply
state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have been checked," the
statement says. "As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth
$1.5 billion, the box checked is '$50,000,000 or more.'"

During his presidential announcement in New York last month, Trump
estimated his own net worth to be nearly $9 billion, adding that it was
probably even higher. However, financial experts, including those at
Forbes, have cast doubt on that claim, because Trump had evidently not
factored in his estimated $5 billion in liabilities.

Trump's campaign said Wednesday that when the candidate initially brought
up the $9 billion figure, it was based on data that was, in fact, more than
a year old. Trump's net worth has gone up since then, the campaign's
statement said, possibly because of higher property values on Trump's
holdings in several cities.

"His debt is a very small percentage of value, and at very low interest
rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump's net worth is in excess of TEN BILLION
DOLLARS," the statement reads.

The Huffington Post has not been able to verify that claim, because Trump's
official form is not yet available on the FEC's website.

Trump has risen steadily in the polls since he announced his bid for
president in June, despite widespread public condemnation of his remarks
about undocumented immigrants. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll released
Tuesday showed the celebrity hotelier in first place among a very crowded
Republican presidential field, with 17 percent support from likely GOP
voters. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) trails Trump with 14 percent.

Trump touted his own ascent in the statement provided by his campaign, and
thumbed his nose at critics who'd been skeptical about his presidential run.

“First people said I would never run, and I did. Then, they said, I would
never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did. Next, they
said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms. I filed
them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days [sic]
extensions," he said in the statement. "Now I have surged in the polls and
am fighting to Make America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of
winning the presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will
make the United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a
country with a 'big heart' toward the care of our people.”

Trump loaned his campaign more than $1.8 million since announcing his bid
for the White House, according to an FEC report that was posted online
Wednesday evening. He raised a mere $96,298, while spending more than $1.4
million of the total sum on operating expenditures. His campaign has
$487,736 cash on hand.

*Donald Trump Exaggerates Crowd Size At Phoenix Rally
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-crowd-size_55a56d2de4b04740a3de3d26?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Jacob Kerr – July 15, 2015 *

Despite Donald Trump's assertion that the crowd at his Saturday campaign
event in Phoenix was the largest of any presidential candidate so far in
the race, all other estimates put the number of attendees significantly
below what the Trump campaign said.

The campaign moved the rally from the Arizona Biltmore hotel to the Phoenix
Convention Center to allow more people to attend. When Trump arrived at the
podium, he claimed the crowd was larger than those at Sen. Bernie Sanders'
(I-Vt.) presidential campaign events.

"This blows away anything Bernie Sanders has gotten," Trump said.

By comparison, Sanders' largest crowd was 10,000 in Madison, Wisconsin.

In a tweet, which has since been deleted, Trump said he was "[s]peaking to
20,000+ patriots in Arizona." A post on his Facebook page claimed 15,000.
After the event, a campaign press release also had the crowd at 15,000 and
called the event "the largest campaign event of any presidential candidate
this cycle."

But the Washington Post report on Trump's event put the audience at 4,200
individuals, less than a third the size of Trump's estimate. The Phoenix
Fire Department said the crowd was capped at that number in accordance with
the fire code for the ballroom.

Trump, who is now leading opinion polls in the Republican presidential
primary race, has a theory on why no one agrees with his estimates.

This isn't the first time Trump's crowds have come under question. After
his announcement speech last month, a Hollywood Reporter article said Trump
paid audience members $50 to cheer for him.

*Donald Trump’s ‘Miss USA’ Pageant Earns Record-Low Ratings
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/15/donald-trump-miss-usa-ratings_n_7801426.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics>
// HuffPo // Gabriel Arana – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump’s "Miss USA" pageant has set a record -- but, uh, not a very
good one.

The show, which networks Univision and NBC recently dropped after the
Republican presidential candidate decided to stake out a position about
Mexican immigrants being rapists, garnered its lowest ratings ever after
airing on the little-known Reelz channel on Sunday.

A mere 925,000 people tuned in to the pageant, according to the ratings
agency Nielsen. For Reelz, which reaches less than 60 percent of
TV-watching homes, that's actually a pretty good number. But it’s a far cry
from the roughly 5.5 million viewers who tuned in to the pageant on NBC
last year. It's even a major step down from 2013, when the show’s
viewership reached a then-record low of 4.6 million people.

Trump, who is currently kicking up dust on the Republican primary field,
has sued Univision for $500 million for dropping the show.

The larger question here, as The Onion recently pointed out, is why, nearly
a century after women won the right to vote, we still have these pageants
where they're paraded around like farm animals at an auction -- and why any
network would be willing to air them.

*That Time Im 1988 Trump Told Oprah What Was Wrong With America’s Foreign
Policy
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-in-1988-trump-told-oprah-what-was-wrong-with-ameri#.xh0dpB0Re>
// BuzzFeed // Ilan Ben-Meir – July 15, 2015 *

In the final months of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Donald Trump appeared on
The Oprah Winfrey Show to discuss the advertisement criticizing U.S.
foreign policy that he spent nearly $100,000 to place in three major
newspapers the previous fall — and the possibility that he might run for
president, himself.

Trump told Winfrey in April of 1988 that he was “tired of seeing what’s
happening with this country,” and said that America was supporting its
foreign allies at the expense of its own citizens’ well-being.

Winfrey began by asking Trump about the “open letter” to the American
public that he had paid to place in the New York Times, Washington Post,
and Boston Globe a few months before, at a time when some were speculating
that Trump was planning to enter the race for the Republican nomination to
succeed Reagan in 1988.

Trump’s advertisement was a sharp critique of American foreign policy,
including the claim that “[t]he world is laughing at America’s politicians
as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil we don’t need, destined for
allies who won’t help.”

After Winfrey pointed to the advertisement to ask what Trump would “do
differently,” the tycoon reiterated many of the arguments contained in the
letter, telling Winfrey that he would “make our allies pay their fair
share.”

“We’re a debtor nation,” Trump said. “Something’s going to happen over the
next number of years with this country, ‘cause you can’t keep going on
losing 200 billion.”

Trump argueed that the Japanese “are beating the hell out of this country,”
because “[t]hey come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs, they
knock the hell out of our companies” — all while taking advantage of
American largesse.

The solution, he suggested, was to require countries like Japan and Kuwait
to pay the United States for it’s ongoing support.

When Winfrey asked Trump if he would consider a run for the White House,
the billionaire said he “probably” wouldn’t do it.

“I just probably wouldn’t do it, Oprah,” said Trump, “I just don’t think I
really have the inclination to do it. I love what I’m doing, I really like
it.”

“But I do get tired of seeing what’s happening with this country,” Trump
continued. “And if it got so bad, I would never want to rule it out
totally, because I really am tired of seeing what’s happening with this
country — how we’re really making other people live like kings, and we’re
not.”

Trump offered praise for all three of the major candidates in the race.

“I think that probably George Bush has an advantage, in terms of the
election,” said Trump. “But I think Jesse Jackson’s done himself very
proud, I think Michael Dukakis has done one hell of a job. […] I think
people that are around all three of those candidates can be very proud of
the jobs they’ve done.”

Asked by Winfrey if he believed he could win, Trump said he “would have a
hell of a chance.”

“I would say that I would have a hell of a chance of winning, because I
think people — I don’t know how your audience feels — but I think people
are tired of seeing the United States ripped off,” Trump argued, promising
that if he were in charge, “[t]his country would make one hell of a lot of
money from those people that for twenty-five years have taken advantage” of
the United States.

Trump concluded by insisting that he would abandon an unacceptable status
quo.

In Donald Trump’s America “[i]t wouldn’t be the way it’s been,” Trump
declared. “Believe me.”

*Trump To USA: Look How Rich I Am!
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/trump-to-usa-look-how-rich-i-am.html>
// Daily Beast // Olivia Nuzzi – July 14, 2015 *

On Wednesday, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump announced in a press
release that he was too rich for the Federal Election Commission forms but
he filed them anyway.

“This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” the
release began, lest you had forgotten that Trump is, in his own words,
“really rich.”

“For instance,” the release helpfully explained, “they have boxes once a
certain number is reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of
these boxes have been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr.
Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is ‘$50,000,000 or more.”

Prior to his campaign, pundit wisdom surrounding Trump was that he would
never really run for office because if he did, it would mean admitting he
wasn’t as rich as he said he was. That was why, it was believed, he’d
chickened out of formally announcing for close to twenty years.

But, according to the press release, the pundits were wrong.

The financial disclosure is not yet available from the FEC, but Trump
claims his net worth “is in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” (Caps his, of
course).

He also claims that in 2014 he made “$362 million (which does to include
dividends, interest, capital gains, rents and royalties).”

Trump’s compulsory declarations of wealth are his defining characteristic.

During his June 16 announcement, he made sure to clarify “I’m really rich.”

“Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America Great
Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and doing
a fantastic job for our country.”

In total, he uttered the words “rich,” “money” and “net worth” 30 times in
45 minutes. He also claimed his exact net worth was $8,737,540,000.

Trump, whose corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy over 10
times, is highly sensitive to accusations that he is not as wealthy as he
claims.

In 2006, when Trump claimed to be worth $2.7 billion, he sued Timothy L.
O’Brien, author of TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald and its
publisher, Warner Books, for saying Trump was worth $150 million to $250
million. The suit was dismissed.

In 2011, when MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell mocked Trump by suggesting he was
worth fewer than $1 billion, Trump responded on Twitter by threatening a
lawsuit and claiming to be worth “substantially more than 7 billion
dollars” with “very low debt, great assets.”

In an interview with The Daily Beast about the downfall of Atlantic City in
2014, Trump declared, without prompting, “I made a lot of money in Atlantic
City” over half a dozen times—five of which made their way into print. At
one point, he said, “I hope you can say in your article that Mr. Trump sold
out a long time ago and did well. I made a lot of money.”

Having defied expectations, the tone of Trump’s release was jovial.

“First people said I would never run, and I did,” he said in a statement.
“Then, they said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the
FEC, and I did. Next they said I would never file my personal financial
disclosure forms. I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two
45 day extensions. Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make
America Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the
presidency and doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the
United States rich and strong and respected again, but also a country with
a ‘big heart’ toward the care of our people.”

*GOP Gives Up on ‘Dump Trump’
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/15/gop-gives-up-on-dump-trump.html>
// Daily Beast // Tim Mak – July 15, 2015 *

Republican grief over Donald Trump’s all but assured presence on the debate
stage next month seems to be entering it’s final stage: acceptance.

Whether it’s the winery-owning mega donor, or the Koch-backed Hispanic
outreach group or the former head of the American Conservative Union, there
is a distaste for the abrasive reality television star and businessman.

But although there was preliminary chatter about finding a way to
marginalize Trump or keep him off the debate stage in Cleveland, Ohio, the
unhappiness with his recent insulting comments about Hispanics has yielded
to mere condemnation and an unhappy acquiescence to his presence in the
race.

“They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some,
I assume, are good people,” Trump said recently.

John Jordan, the multi-millionaire winery owner and the third largest donor
to super PACs in the country in 2013, had originally contemplated gathering
signatures to keep Trump off the debate stage.

“Someone in the party ought to start some sort of petition saying, ‘If
Trump’s going to be on the stage, I’m not going to be on there with him,’”
Jordan told the Associated Press last week. “I’m toying with the idea of
it.”

But several days later, Jordan was thinking differently. He told The Daily
Beast that he would not be putting together a petition effort.

“I’m content right to let the process play out, that is for the party and
the candidates to figure out,” Jordan said. “I have one concern, and one
concern only, and that is next November. I want to make sure that the
nominee has the possible chance to win.”

“He’s a lunatic, but we’ve had other lunatics run for president. The
problem is not that he’s on stage—it’s if you don’t respond and rebuke
him,” Alfonso Aguilar said.

Al Cardenas, the former chairman of the American Conservative Union and
Florida’s first Hispanic GOP state chairman, said he hoped the primary
process would naturally weed out Trump’s candidacy, rather than a top-down
effort to push Trump out.

“[A]s distasteful as his comments have been to me, we should let the
process play out. Hopefully, it’s the rejection by the voters, not a group
of party leaders ,that should determine his fate as a presidential
candidate,” Cardenas said. “I respect the feelings of a number of our
colleagues who feel differently—and strongly—about this and argue that his
continuation in the race is detrimental to our party and to our brand. And
they may be right, but the end does not justify the means in this case.”

“It’s a mild form of censorship to say that because we disagree with his
tone or comments about the immigrant community, [he] should leave the
race,” added Daniel Garza of the Koch-backed Libre Initiative, which seeks
to appeal to Hispanic voters. “You allow him to mouth off… He has the right
to speak, and we have the right to disagree with him… calls to have him
leave the race are ludicrous.”

Alfonso Aguilar, the head of the conservative American Principles Project’s
Latino Partnership, views Trump’s “insulting and baseless” comments as
creating pressure on other presidential candidates to step up their
Hispanic outreach.

“Instead of seeing him as a problem, I see it as an opportunity—but one
that requires strong leadership,” he told the Beast. “He’s a lunatic, but
we’ve had other lunatics run for president. The problem is not that he’s on
stage—it’s if you don’t respond and rebuke him.”

“He has shaken up the primary in a way that might not be welcome. But now
that you have it, if you’re smart and astute, maybe you can use it in your
favor,” agreed Garza. “Obviously you have to draw the contrast. If Donald
Trump is showing how not to do Latino outreach, you show the way to do it
effective.”

As for the Republican National Committee, it wants no part in any effort to
sideline Trump. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had called Trump to preach
civility after the businessman’s controversial comments—then got mired into
a he-said, he-said with the Donald over the contents of the call.

Asked about whether Republicans or big-dollar donors were making an effort
to keep Trump off the debate stage, an RNC official merely said that, per
Federal Election Commission guidelines, the networks and debate sponsors
were responsible for setting up the guidelines for the presidential
debates.

Meanwhile, a small plurality of Republican voters are favoring Trump. In a
USA Today/Suffolk University poll released this week, Trump leads the field
with 17%. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is close behind him with 14%.

Two polls out last week showed him leading the field of Republican 2016
candidates, receiving 15 percent in a Economist/YouGov poll and 16 percent
in a PPP poll.

Aguila, who was in Arizona to counter-message an event Trump was having
with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said the key to convincing
Republican primary voters to steer clear of Trump, was to point out the
businessman’s prior positions like Trump’s praise of Bill Clinton and his
donation to the Clinton Foundation.

“Before he was friends with Hillary, now he’s friends with Joe Arpaio,” he
said. “Are you really sure he’s conservative?”

*Donald Trump Claims $10 Billion Net Worth After Filing Election Forms
<http://time.com/3959314/donald-trump-wealth-net-worth-billion/> // TIME //
Zeke J. Miller – July 15, 2015 *

Business mogul Donald Trump claimed a personal net worth of over $10
billion after filing a personal financial disclosure form with the Federal
Election Commission, a key procedural hurdle for his presidential campaign.

The filing clears the way for Trump to appear on the first GOP debate stage
on Aug. 6 in Cleveland, and comes as he has risen to the top of polls of
Republican voters. Trump reported earning more than $362 million in 2014,
according to his campaign — dwarfing the rest of the GOP field’s net worth
by a significant margin.

In typical Trump fashion, the campaign released a statement full of
braggadocio to commemorate the occasion.

“This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump’s massive wealth,” his
campaign said “For instance, they have boxes once a certain number is
reached that simply state $50 million or more. Many of these boxes have
been checked. As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5
billion, the box checked is “$50,000,000 or more.”

The filing reportedly shows that Trump is affiliated with nearly “500
business entities of which 91% are owned 100% by him.” According to his
campaign, he earned $213,606,575 during the 14 seasons of The Apprentice,
the NBC reality show which was renewed in May without Trump’s participation.

Last month, Trump filed a preliminary financial statement claiming a net
worth of about $8.7 billion.

“Mr. Trump’s net worth has increased since the more than one year old
financial statement produced at his presidential announcement,” his
campaign said. “Real estate values in New York City, San Francisco, Miami
and many other places where he owns property have gone up considerably
during this period of time. His debt is a very small percentage of value,
and at very low interest rates. As of this date, Mr. Trump’s net worth is
in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS.” (Emphasis theirs.)

In a statement, Trump needled those who said he would never file the
official forms, which must be certified by the candidate as “true, complete
and correct to the best of [their] knowledge.”

“First people said I would never run, and I did,” Trump said. “Then, they
said, I would never file my statement of candidacy with the FEC, and I did.
Next, they said I would never file my personal financial disclosure forms.
I filed them early despite the fact that I am allowed two 45 days
extensions. Now I have surged in the polls and am fighting to Make America
Great Again. I look forward to the challenge of winning the presidency and
doing a fantastic job for our country. I will make the United States rich
and strong and respected again, but also a country with a ‘big heart’
toward the care of our people.”

*Heat on GOP Candidates Paul, Rubio to Derail Iran Pact
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/14/heat_on_gop_candidates_paul_rubio_to_derail_iran_pact.html>
// Real Clear Politics // Caitlin Huey-Burns and Rebecca Berg – July 14,
2015 *

As the Obama administration and most Democrats celebrated a nuclear deal
with Iran as a historic achievement, Republicans running for president
uniformly denounced it as a historic failure.

The swift opposition was expected; it’s become something of a rallying cry
on the campaign trail as part of slamming the administration’s foreign
policy and, by virtue, Hillary Clinton’s, as weak and caving. But the
formalized terms place a spotlight on the presidential pool’s contenders
from the U.S. Senate, particularly Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, whose hopes
of standing apart from a crowded field rest in part on their foreign policy
bona fides.

The freshmen senators both sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, which
will take the first crack at the Iran deal, and have publicly sparred over
their differences in this arena, most notably over the administration’s
thawing of relations with Cuba. Paul, the libertarian from Kentucky, has
focused more on domestic policy issues like government surveillance and
privacy, but has also mostly maintained a more anti-interventionist view.
Rubio, from Florida, has taken an approach to foreign policy that has been
among the most hawkish in the GOP field.

In a sign of how politically untenable support for this particular deal is
in this Republican primary, the two senators came out on the same side on
this issue.

“It will be very hard for the GOP candidates to support this deal and still
argue they are tough on national security,” said Danielle Pletka, senior
vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American
Enterprise Institute. “It is not simply that Hillary Clinton’s resume is
foreign policy heavy -- it is the fact that this president will bequeath a
world in such disorder that any pretense of comfort with the world Barack
Obama built will be viewed by voters as an abdication of leadership.”

While Paul has said he would be open to diplomacy with Iran regarding its
nuclear capabilities instead of waging war, he ultimately opposed the deal
that will come soon before Congress for review. But he was not as quick
with a response as his rivals‪.

In a statement, Paul argued that sanctions would expire before evidence of
compliance and that it still leaves Iran with significant nuclear
capability. Additionally, Paul said, the agreement will lift an arms
embargo with Iran (the administration argues that the ban will remain for
the next five years).

“While I continue to believe that negotiations are preferable to war, I
would prefer to keep the interim agreement in place instead of accepting a
bad deal,” Paul said, noting he would vote against it.

For Rubio, who has staunchly opposed an agreement with Iran from the start,
the deal presents an opportunity to further elevate rhetoric he has
embraced on the campaign trail for months.

In March, Rubio was among 47 Republican senators, along with Paul, who
signed an open letter to Iranian leaders noting that “the next president
could revoke ... an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen.” That
same month, during a political event in New Hampshire, Rubio suggested that
the proliferation of Iranian weapons might even warrant military
intervention by the U.S.

“We may have to decide at some point what is worse: a military strike
against Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran,” Rubio said, according to a Politico
report at the time. “I am not cheerleading for war. I don’t want there to
be the need to use military force, but a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable
risk for the region and the world.”

On Tuesday, Rubio indicated in a statement that he would undo the agreement
with Iran if he were elected president.

“It will then be left to the next president to return us to a position of
American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until
it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a
threat to international security,” Rubio said.‪

And, almost immediately, Rubio’s political network sprang into action to
capitalize on the deal. An ad released Tuesday by a nonprofit group
supporting Rubio for president said he “is leading the fight” in the Senate
against the deal with Iran, and pressed people to urge their senators to
”join Marco Rubio and defeat Obama’s deal with Iran.

In large field of candidates, a rivalry has emerged between
executive-minded governors and legislatively experienced senators. The
difference becomes especially relevant, the senators argue, when it comes
to foreign policy, as congressional lawmakers have more intimate knowledge
and experience with classified information and international affairs.

While the GOP field is largely united around foreign policy — with Rand
Paul as an outlier — the nuances lie in style and past experiences.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has also made his foreign affairs
experience a centerpiece of his campaign. He came out in perhaps the
starkest of terms against the Iran deal in various cable news interviews on
Tuesday, calling it “the most dangerous and irresponsible step I’ve ever
seen” and one that would ensure that Iran becomes “a nuclear nation.”
Graham said he fears “that we’ve set in motion a decade of chaos.”‪

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz also vehemently condemned the deal that he argued
“legitimized” Iran’s nuclear program, taking special objection to the fact
that the negotiations did not bring about the release of three American
captives held in Iran.

“We owe it to our fellow Americans to elevate, not ignore, their plight, to
demand their swift and unconditional release by the implacably hostile
regime that holds them,” Cruz said in a statement.

Relative to the former and sitting governors running for president,
Republican senators will be able to more directly affect the party’s path
forward on this issue from their perch on Capitol Hill. That might lend
some advantages, but also adds the responsibility of potentially presenting
some legislative alternative to the agreement with Iran.

“Your Iran policy can’t just be issuing the most hyperbolic press release,”
said Tommy Vietor, a former spokesman for the president on national
security. “If you disagree, you need to propose a viable alternative that
can unite the international community the way Obama has and actually move
us closer to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.”

Vietor added, “I haven’t heard any of these guys articulate a viable
alternative.”

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator challenging
Hillary Clinton for the nomination, called the deal “a victory for
diplomacy over saber-rattling.” He said it “could keep the United States
from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East.”

Sanders crossed paths with Clinton on Tuesday as she spent the day on
Capitol Hill meeting with Democrats, with a special focus on Iran. For her
part, Clinton, who worked to bring the negotiations about as secretary of
state, called the agreement “an important step in putting the lid on Iran’s
nuclear program.” Clinton, who will play a key role in persuading lawmakers
to support the agreement, also said the deal will enable the United States
in further negotiations over Iran’s other “bad actions,” including the
detainment of American citizens, threats to Israel, and state-sponsored
terrorism.‪

Lawmakers have 60 days to review the agreement before voting on it. With
Republicans opposed and a handful of Democrats with constituent ties to
Israeli interests skeptical of the accord, the president will have to work
to win over his party and get enough support to sustain a veto if need be.

President Obama will make a public address on Wednesday about the Iran
deal, while Vice President Joe Biden will go to Capitol Hill to discuss the
agreement with Democratic lawmakers. Administration officials warned that
stepping away from the accord would only unravel the sanctions placed on
Iran: “A vote to kill this deal could potentially be a vote to kill the
sanctions regime.”

*Trump Swears He’s Not Running For President As A Democratic Plant
<http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-carlos-curbelo-democratic-plant>
// TPM // Catherine Thompson – July 15, 2015 *

Real estate mogul Donald Trump on Wednesday brushed off speculation that
the Democratic Party orchestrated his presidential run to disrupt the GOP
primary process.

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) said in a recent local radio interview that he
thought there was a "small possibility" Trump could be a Democratic plant
in the Republican presidential field.

"I think there's a small possibility that this gentleman is a phantom
candidate," Curbelo said, as quoted by The Miami Herald. "Mr. Trump has a
close friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were at his last
wedding. He has contributed to the Clintons' foundation. He has contributed
to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaigns. All of this is very suspicious."

Trump shot down that theory on Fox News' "Fox & Friends."

"Believe me -- from Hillary's standpoint, the one person she doesn't want
running against her is Donald Trump," he said of the Democratic
presidential frontrunner.

The former reality TV star argued that contributing to the Clintons and
others was just the price of doing business prior to entering the political
arena.

"I'm a businessman. I contribute to everybody," Trump said. "When I needed
Hillary, she was there. If I say 'go to my wedding,' they go to my wedding."

In his presidential announcement speech, Trump had emphasized his ability
to self-fund his campaign and eschew donors.

"That's part of the problem with our system," he said on "Fox & Friends."
"They're going to do for me and all their donors things that aren't
necessarily good for the country, but that are good for their donors."

*Republican Voters Like Trump More Than Boehner, McConnell
<http://morningconsult.com/2015/07/republican-voters-like-trump-more-than-boehner-mcconnell/>
// Morning Consult // Reid Wilson – July 15, 2015*

Republican voters have a higher opinion of billionaire real estate magnate
Donald Trump than they do of their party leaders in Congress, according to
a new Morning Consult survey.

Forty-nine percent of self-described Republican voters said they view Trump
favorably, higher than the 36 percent who have a favorable view of House
Speaker John Boehner and the 31 percent who said they see Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell in a favorable light.

But Trump’s favorable ratings have actually slipped in the month since he
announced he is running for president — both among Republican voters and
the electorate as a whole. In an early June survey, 54 percent of
Republican voters said they viewed Trump favorably, five points higher than
his rating today.

And the number of those who see Trump in a very unfavorable light has
spiked, from 14 percent of Republicans in June to 26 percent today. The
number of registered voters who view him unfavorably is also up
considerably, from 34 percent a month ago to 46 percent today.

Still, Trump is running high among Republican primary voters. A new Suffolk
poll conducted for USA Today show he leads the Republican field with 17
percent. The Morning Consult poll also showed Trump as the top choice of 17
percent of Republican primary voters, up from 5 percent the previous month,
though running second behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who took 19
percent.

Bush and Trump run far ahead of the rest of the Republican field, in which
no other candidate tops 10 percent. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) finishes a
distant third, at 9 percent, just ahead of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), at 8
percent. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) clocks in at 7 percent, with New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former Arkansas
Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) clustered at 6 percent. Thirteen percent of the 762
Republican voters surveyed said they didn’t know who they would support.

While Trump’s presidential candidacy has led the national news for weeks,
Boehner and McConnell have gone about their work more quietly.
Consequently, fewer Americans have formed an opinion about the two most
powerful men in Congress.

Among all registered voters, Boehner’s favorable rating sits at just 23
percent, while 48 percent view him unfavorably. Even among Republicans, 31
percent don’t know enough about the three-term speaker to have formed an
opinion.

McConnell, who took over as Majority Leader after Republicans won control
of the Senate last year, is even less well-known. Just 19 percent see him
favorably, while 39 percent see him unfavorably, and 41 percent of voters –
including 44 percent of self-identified Republicans – don’t know enough
about him to form an opinion.

The Morning Consult survey polled 2,019 registered voters between July
8-13, for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.

*UNDECLARED*

*OTHER*

*Paul Singer, Top Republican Donor, Is Still on the Sidelines
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/>
// NYT // Alexandra Stevenson – July 15, 2015 *

The billionaire Paul E. Singer, one of the most sought-after donors in the
Republican Party, said Wednesday that he was not committed to any political
candidate yet.

Speaking at hedge fund conference in Manhattan, Mr. Singer said he was “not
on the verge of committing to anyone,” adding that he liked several
candidates, including Senator Marco Rubio and former Gov Jeb Bush, both
from Florida, and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who formally announced
his presidential campaign on Monday.

Mr. Singer also added, “We like Carly Fiorina, as well.”

In recent months, Mr. Singer, founder of the $26 billion investment firm
Elliott Management, has held a series of dinners to introduce associates to
the vast array of Republican candidates.

*Candidate Forum Planned in New Hampshire Before First Republican Debate
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/marco-rubio-has-missed-most-votes-this-year-of-senators-running-for-president/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015 *

Local news outlets in states with early primaries are teaming up to hold a
Republican candidate forum in early August amid complaints that subsequent
full-fledged debates are excluding candidates based merely on polling.

The New Hampshire Union Leader, along with news organizations in Iowa and
South Carolina and C-Span, are sponsoring a candidate forum in Manchester,
N.H., on Aug. 3. The forum, which will give each candidate five minutes to
respond to questions, would come before the Aug. 6 debate hosted by Fox
News, which is limiting the stage to the 10 Republicans leading in recent
national polls.

“Fox says only the ‘top’ 10 candidates, as judged solely by national
polling, will be allowed on its stage,” the news organizations said in a
joint statement. “That may be understandable later, but the first votes are
half a year away and there are a lot more than 10 viable candidates.”

The forum is not technically a debate but is expected to give candidates an
opportunity to stand next to one another on stage and spontaneously answer
questions.

With 15 Republican candidates currently announced, television networks and
the Republican National Committee have been fearful that early debates will
become chaotic unless participation is limited. However, lower-tier
candidates worry that they will not have the chance to showcase themselves
if they are shut out from competing so early in the election cycle.

So far Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; Ben Carson; Senator Ted Cruz of
Texas; Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana; Carly Fiorina; Senator Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina; Gov. John Kasich of Ohio; and former Gov. George
Pataki of New York have agreed to attend the forum. Representatives for
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said they
did not yet know if they could make it.

Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the R.N.C., said the party was allowing
the forum because the candidates would be speaking one at a time.

*Sniping Intensifies Between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush
<http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/15/sniping-intensifies-between-donald-trump-and-jeb-bush/>
// NYT // Alan Rappeport – July 15, 2015 *

Donald J. Trump and former Gov. Jeb Bush have been deadlocked in recent
polls and sniping between the two Republican presidential candidates is
getting increasingly personal.

Mr. Trump said on Wednesday that the former Florida governor lacks energy
and will not deliver on his promises because he is beholden to the big
donors who are filling his campaign war chest.

“Somebody that’s reliant on all of these lobbyists and special interests
and donors, they have no power,” Mr. Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

He added, “The $100 million that he raised is a bad thing, not a good
thing.”

Mr. Bush is leading the crowded Republican field in fund-raising so far,
and Mr. Trump, a billionaire businessman, argues that his personal wealth
empowers him as a candidate. He also said that he will file the required
personal financial disclosure forms on Wednesday or Thursday.

“Every single person is expecting something for that money and that’s not
good for the country,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Bush. “That means you can’t
make deals that are good for the country.”

Mr. Bush has taken issue with Mr. Trump’s comments in recent weeks,
particularly his remarks that undocumented immigrants from Mexico are
criminals and “rapists.” Mr. Bush also took offense to Mr. Trump’s
suggestion that he has an affinity for Mexicans because his wife is
Mexican-American.

“A Republican will never win by striking fear in people’s hearts,” Mr. Bush
said in Iowa on Tuesday, suggesting that his rival was preying on people’s
angst.

Mr. Trump continues to stand by his remarks, but said that they have been
distorted and blown out of proportion. He vowed again on Wednesday that he
will win the Hispanic vote because he employs thousands of them and knows
how to create jobs.

“The Hispanics love me,” he said.

*Trump, Carson, and Santorum burn through campaign cash fastest
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/trump-carson-and-santorum-burn-through-campaign-cash-fastest/>
// WaPo // Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy – July 15, 2015 *

The so-called burn rate -- comparing money raised with money spent --
showed Trump in the lead, spending 74 percent of  the campaign funds he has
raised so far in his official campaign account.  The New York real estate
and entertainment magnate is running ahead of other candidates in recent
polls.

Carson, the Baltimore neurosurgeon, burned through 64 percent of the money
he has raised to date, putting him close to Rick Santorum, who had a 62
percent burn rate, according to numbers filed Wednesday with the Federal
Election Commission.

Trump spent heavily on travel and staff, including more than $506,486 on
private jet services. In total, Trump's campaign reported spending about
$1.5 million dollars as of June 30 from his mostly self-funded campaign.

Typically candidates hold on to the funds they raise early in a campaign.
But this year there is enormous pressure on candidates  to maintain
visibility and credibility in an unusually crowded GOP field.

Despite Trump's recent rise in polls, burn rate is not necessarily an
indication of success. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who also ranks at the
top of recent polls, reported a burn rate of 27 percent.

The Bush campaign spent slightly more than $3 million in the two weeks
after Bush announced his campaign in mid-June, primarily on operational
fees, including around $400,000 on legal consulting fees. Expenditure
reports showed large payments went to political consultants, including more
than $350,000 to FP1 Strategies, the firm founded by Bush campaign manager
Danny Diaz. Senior adviser Sally Bradshaw was paid $25,550, including
$13,300 for her work while Bush was “testing the waters.”

Bush, who touted support for Uber in face of warnings from Hillary Clinton
about economic questions raised by the "sharing economy," spent $1,396 on
Uber rides.

Hillary Clinton's filing revealed a burn rate of 39 percent compared with
20 percent for her nearest challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Clinton, who raised the largest sums of any official campaign, was quick to
start spending money. Her committee raced through nearly $19 million in
less than three months, even before beginning expensive TV buys. Millions
went to hire hundreds of staffers, a sign of how rapidly it has sought to
ramp up a national infrastructure.

A quick review of spending by Carson and Santorum showed that the three
were spending a lot on fundraising efforts.

This spending appears to have paid off in one way way for Carson, who
reported a large number of small donors. All told, Carson received $5.7
million from donors  contributing less than $250 each. His high proportion
of small donors was exceeded only by by Sanders, whose small-donation haul
topped $10.4 million, about 68 percent of his entire campaign receipts.
Overall, Sanders reports show a burn rate of 20 percent.

Another GOP candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, collected a
little more than $2 million this cycle, and spent $1.1 million, giving him
a burn rate of 56 percent.

Huckabee’s spending for his 2016 run so far includes consulting fees and
salaries for a lot of familiar names from his 2008 bid. Other than the
campaign’s American Express bills, Huckabee paid the Wickers firm, where
his son-in-law Bryan  Sanders is a partner, the biggest single check:
$55,586 for media consultant services.

Firm CEO Bob Wickers is Huckabee’s political and media consultant.
Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is managing her father’s
campaign this time around. She advised Tom Cotton in his winning Senate
campaign last year and managed John Boozman’s 2010 Senate bid against
incumbent Blanche Lincoln.

Another sizable payment went to the Political Law Group, Doug Chalmer’s
political law firm in Georgia, which received $52,773. Next came Unisource
Direct, a Wisconsin firm, which collected $39, 459 for direct mail
services.  The campaign  also wrote checks totaling $20,107 to J. Hogan
Gidley and $18,524 to Alice Tadlock, both of whom worked on Huckabee’s 2008
campaign and are leaders in Huckabee’s 2016 communications strategy. Gidley
also directed HUCK PAC, Huckabee’s political action committee.

Huckabee's close rival for support from Christian conservatives, Texas Sen.
Ted Cruz, was behind Huckabee in his rate of spending with a burn rate of
54 percent.

Rubio, who filed late in the evening Wednesday, showed a burn rate of 35
percent and a hefty total of $9.9 million cash on hand.

*As Jindal and Huckabee struggle with fundraising, super PACs bolster
tallies
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/as-jindal-and-huckabee-struggle-with-fundraising-super-pacs-bolster-tallies/>
// WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 *

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s campaign raised just $579,000 in the second
quarter, according to a Federal Election Commission filing submitted
Wednesday, an underwhelming campaign finance report that in past elections
would have seriously called into question his ability to finance a national
campaign.

But that meager sum is bolstered by more than $8.7 million raised by his
allied outside groups this year – including a super PAC and a political
nonprofit organization – which dwarfed his campaign’s fundraising tally
while highlighting the disproportionate role allied campaign committees are
already playing in the 2016 election.

So it goes in the 2016 election: with bottom-tier candidates struggling to
fundraise among broad bases of voters, astronomical super PAC hauls can
prop up candidates as they find their footing in an exceptionally crowded
2016 presidential field. And the campaigns and their allies have gladly
publicized those numbers alongside each other -- either through closely
staggered media disclosures or blatantly coordinated press releases -- to
demonstrate  they have the money they need to compete.

Jindal’s fundraising is particularly striking: his allied super PAC raised
$3.7 million throughout 2015, according to a report published Wednesday by
the Washington Examiner. In addition to that sum, an allied political
nonprofit – classified as a tax-exempt 501(c)4 by the IRS -- raised an
additional $4 million. Yet another group, American Future Project, a 527
political committee, raised an additional $1 million.

That brings the governor’s war chest to more than $9 million, of which
about 5 percent actually came from official campaign. His allies' decision
to release the numbers at the same time serves the goal of silencing
criticism over his fundraising power.

That approach has become the strategy du jour for campaigns. Former Texas
governor Rick Perry last week reported raising $1 million around the same
time his super PAC disclosed it had released $17 million. And it's not just
back-of-the-pack candidates; financial frontrunner Jeb Bush's campaign and
super PAC released their tallies on the same day, prompting stories about
his unprecedented $114 million haul that combined both sets of numbers.

The coordinated release of fundraising records has raised eyebrows among
campaign finance watchdogs but does not necessarily indicate any
wrongdoing. Although super PACs -- which can accept unlimited sums of money
-- are legally barred from coordinating on strategy with campaign
officials, they are not specifically prevented from communicating directly.
In that sense, conversations between outside groups and official campaign
advisers frequently fall into grey zones that even legal experts disagree
over. The 2016 is in that sense the wild west on campaign finance reform,
with campaigns and outside groups continually pushing the boundaries of
what is appropriate and what is questionable.

Consider former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, whose advisors on Tuesday
night released the campaign's total contributions alongside tallies for
several outside groups, which also included a super PAC and a political
nonprofit. That moved Huckabee’s fundraising tally from $2 million to a
significantly more robust $8 million.

The key importance super PACs are playing this cycle has run amok of laws
that prohibit coordination between campaign committees and super PACs in
other areas. The Post's Matea Gold reported some examples last week:

Before former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R) announced his bid in mid-June,
the Right to Rise super PAC filmed footage of him that the group plans to
use in ads. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is collaborating directly
with Correct the Record, a super PAC providing the Democratic hopeful’s
team with opposition research.

Top advisers to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) have been positioned at two
big-money groups as they await his presidential announcement next week. GOP
candidate Carly Fiorina has gone even further, outsourcing core functions
such as rapid response and event preparation to her allied super PAC, the
aptly named CARLY for America.

As Matea noted last week: It's bold, but it's legal.

*2016 fundraising shows power tilting to groups backed by wealthy elite
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016-fundraising-shows-power-tilting-to-groups-backed-by-wealthy-elite/2015/07/15/4c915a74-2b05-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html>
// WaPo // Matea Gold – July 15, 2015 *

A small cadre of super-wealthy Americans are dominating the fundraising for
the 2016 Republican presidential nominating contest, doling out huge sums
to independent groups that overwhelm total contributions to the candidates.

Nearly $4 of every $5 raised so far on behalf of GOP White House contenders
has gone to independent groups rather than the official campaigns. Outside
groups have already amassed more than $235 million — more than four times
the $60 million raised collectively by the Republican field through June
30, according to reports filed Wednesday with the Federal Election
Commission.

So far, the dynamic is different on the Democratic side, with 80 percent of
the nearly $78 million raised so far to support Hillary Rodham Clinton and
her competitors flowing to their campaigns.

The lopsided war chests on the right underscore how the financing of
political campaigns has been fundamentally rewired in the five years since
federal courts loosened restrictions on political spending by corporations
and rich individuals.

Those decisions triggered a rush of big donations and political operatives
to independent groups that can accept unlimited donations, a trend that has
dramatically accelerated this year. This election cycle has already seen
bolder collaboration between super PACs and campaigns than previous races,
as well as a proliferation of nonprofit groups aligned with individual
candidates.

The 2016 elections are now poised to mark a tipping point: the first time
outside groups outstrip the clout and resources of many campaigns.

“It’s pretty clear that the super PACs are playing an unprecedented role,”
said Michael Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance
Institute, which tracks political contributions.

“This whole development to me is staggering,” he said. “You’re in a
fundamentally different system than 12 years ago or eight years ago.”

The huge pack of well-funded independent groups flanking the Republican
candidates has fueled anxiety among party elders that the GOP is in for a
drawn-out, bloody primary fight — one that could possibly roll into the
nominating convention in July.

“It could end up with the Republican vote split up in a lot of different
ways,” said Ron Weiser, a former finance chairman of the Republican
National Committee, who is neutral in the 2016 race. “No one is going to go
away if they have a lot of money in their super PAC.”

“There are people who are concerned that this could end up a long and very
extensive primary that could allow the opponent to gain substantial
advantage,” Weiser added.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is far aheada of his rivals in the money
race with $119.4 million raised by various entities supporting his bid. In
second place, Sen. Ted Cruz is being bolstered by $51.2 million raised by
his campaign and aligned super PACs, while supporters of Sen. Marco Rubio
have donated $45 million between his campaign, a super PAC and a nonprofit.

Strip away their outside allies and the top contenders are more evenly
matched. Cruz, who jumped in the race first in late March, has raised $14.2
million for his campaign. Rubio pulled in about $12 million, while Bush
collected $11.4 million in just two weeks as a declared candidate. Retired
neurosurgeon Ben Carson is not far behind, with $10.5 million.

Even longer-shot candidates are able to tout big fundraising hauls by their
outside allies. Former Texas governor Rick Perry raised just $1 million for
his campaign, but has generated more than $16 million in super PAC money,
largely from three wealthy backers. The biggest sum came from his campaign
finance chair, oil pipeline executive Kelcy Warren, who donated $6 million.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who pulled less than $600,000 during his first
official week as a candidate, will benefit from three different groups — a
super PAC and two nonprofits — that have collected more than $8 million so
far.

Brad Todd, the GOP strategist running the pro-Jindal Believe Again super
PAC, said an expanding universe of donors has helped fuel the big takes.

“It used to be that once you went through the Bush ambassador list, you
were at the end of the rainbow,” he said. “But there are people who are
very engaged in this presidential contest who were never a Ranger or a
Pioneer,” the titles given top bundlers for former president George W. Bush.

The biggest campaign haul in the second quarter was by Clinton, who pulled
in $45 million in 2-1/2 months. Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing
her, raised another $15.6 million.

One of her challengers for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders
of Vermont, also posted a strong showing, raising $15.3 million — the vast
majority from small donors who gave less than $200.

But other contenders on the left lagged behind. Former Maryland governor
Martin O’Malley announced he pulled in $2 million, while former Rhode
Island senator and governor Lincoln Chafee reported that he had raised just
$30,000 from donors, in addition to lending his campaign $364,000.

Several contenders — including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie — declared their runs after the close of the last
quarter, so will not file their finance reports until mid-October.

*The Trump-Bush feud: Frontrunner edition
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/the-trump-bush-feud-frontrunner-edition/>
// WaPo // Jose A. DelReal – July 15, 2015 *

Last week, Jeb Bush said he was done talking about Donald Trump. What he
meant was "done for the week": on Tuesday, he took a major swing at the
mogul, who has surged to the top tier in recent GOP national polls.

Trump, of course, never pledged to hold his fire. On Wednesday, he again
took aim at Bush.

"[Bush] doesn't have the energy, he's not going to produce, and I will tell
you that when he raises $100 million -- nobody knows about campaign
contributions more than me because I've probably given more than almost
anybody," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Wednesday morning. "When you
give $100 million to Bush, he's got his $100 million sitting there, every
single person that he gave every single dollar is expecting something for
that money. Every single person."

He added: "And that's not good for the country. You know, that's a problem.

Bush on Tuesday jabbed Trump by name during a Tuesday event in Iowa,
suggesting that the presidential candidate's brand of politics are toxic
and saying he doesn't "want to be associated with the kind of vitriol that
he’s spewing out these days.”

“On our side, there are people that prey on people’s fears and their angst.
I don’t know about you, but I think it is wrong," he said. "I believe we
need to unify our country. ...And whether it’s Donald Trump or Barack
Obama, their rhetoric of divisiveness is wrong. A Republican will never win
by striking fear in people’s hearts."

Later, Bush's campaign highlighted the comments about Trump, emailing them
to reporters and posting a clip of those remarks to the Web. Bush himself
didn't seem to mind either, as The Post's Ed O'Keefe reported:

On Tuesday, the same day a Suffolk University/USA Today survey showed Trump
atop the fractured Republican presidential field, Bush walked into an
overheated sports bar here and took a direct shot at his surging rival.

With a group of Trump supporters picketing outside, Bush seemed to relish
the chance to call out the mogul’s attacks on Mexican immigrants and to
cast himself as an adult alternative.

Trump, for his part, said Wednesday that Clinton and Bush are worried about
his surge in the polls and insinuated they are in cahoots to play down his
candidacy.

"Look, Hillary was the worst secretary of state in the history of our
country. I think that the person she doesn't want to run against is me
because I say it, and Bush doesn't say it, nobody says it. I don't know if
they have, like, a deal, these politicians...they don't speak truly about
others. But they have some kind of a deal," he said.

Trump also said he wasn't sure exactly why Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), one of
the only presidential candidates to speak in his defense in the wake of his
controversial comments about Mexican immigrants, was coming to visit him at
Trump Tower Wednesday.

“Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest,
but I do have respect for him,” Trump said. "I respect the fact that along
with a couple of others, he came out and he came out very strongly and
agreed with what I said on illegal immigration. And he came out very
strongly and he came out early, and I respect that. I like him."

Earlier this year, Trump took a more skeptical stance on Cruz, saying there
were real questions about the Canadian-born senator's eligibility to run
for president, despite his U.S. citizenship and U.S.-born mother.

"[His birthplace is] a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very
seriously," he told a Fox affiliate in March. "He was born in Canada. If
you know, and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to
be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts will rule on
this."

Trump also hinted that one of Cruz's main campaign themes was borrowed.
From him.

"The line of 'Make America great again' -- the phrase, that was mine, I
came up with it about a year ago and I kept using it, and everybody's now
using it, they are all loving it," Trump said then. "I don’t know, I guess
I should copyright it. Maybe I have copyrighted it."

*Bush, Walker to reveal top presidential money-raisers
<http://bigstory.ap.org/urn:publicid:ap.org:12ed09f1e6fe4dffad8dae4ff6cf0539>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

Jeb Bush's campaign is promising to reveal the names of top money-raisers
in October, making him the first Republican presidential candidate since
2008 to take such a step.

Called "bundlers," these fundraisers gather up many $2,700 checks — the
maximum legal limit for the primary contest — from fellow donors, making
them critical players in any campaign. There's no legal requirement to make
bundler names public, except in the case of registered lobbyists.

After Bush announced his plan, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's campaign
indicated he'll also disclose bundlers. The other Republican candidates
have either declined to follow suit or not responded to requests for
comment.

The Republican moves come after Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham
Clinton said she'll be releasing names of top fundraisers on Wednesday.

*Cruz sets meeting with Trump, praises ‘bold, brash voice’
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/513fb8d6ac38420590857576a9473c94/cruz-sets-meeting-trump-praises-bold-brash-voice>
// AP // Erica Werner – July 15, 2015 *

Two of the most outspoken Republican presidential candidates on illegal
immigration — Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and businessman Donald Trump — are set
to talk.

Cruz, who requested the Wednesday meeting, told reporters at the U.S.
Capitol that Trump "is bringing a bold, brash voice to this presidential
race."

"One of the reason you're seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their
way to smack Donald Trump is they don't like a politician that speaks
directly about the challenges of illegal immigration," said Cruz.

"Many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack Donald
Trump have for years or even decades been vocal advocates of amnesty," he
said. "I for one am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these
issues, they're critical issues, they're issues I've been fighting for a
lot of years."

Trump has drawn controversy for calling immigrants arriving illegally from
Mexico "criminals" and "rapists."

Many GOP contenders including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco
Rubio have criticized the comments, and Republican National Committee
Chairman Reince Priebus called Trump to ask him to tone it down, which
Trump said he would not do.

Cruz declined to offer details on the purpose of the meeting. Trump said
earlier in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he doesn't know what
the meeting is about.

"He came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal
immigration, and he came out very strongly and he came out early, and I
respect that," Trump said. "I like him. He called me, he wanted to meet,
and we are going to meet. What it's about, I have absolutely no idea."

*Early-state newspapers plan GOP forum before Fox debate
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3f2f85e234634653a73abe9bc07cbe4a/early-state-newspapers-plan-gop-forum-fox-debate>
// AP // Kathleen Ronayne – July 15, 2015*

A trio of newspapers in the early presidential nominating states is pushing
back against the plan by Fox News to allow only 10 Republican candidates on
stage in its Aug. 6 debate, the first of the 2016 campaign.

The New Hampshire Union Leader plans to host a candidate forum Aug. 3 at
the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, in partnership with The Post and
Courier of Charleston, South Carolina, and The Gazette of Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. The event will be live on C-SPAN as well as TV stations in Iowa and
South Carolina and a New Hampshire radio station.

All 15 candidates now in the Republican pack have been invited to
participate and about half have committed so far.

The Union Leader initially threatened to host a forum on the same day as
the Fox debate after more than 50 prominent New Hampshire Republicans wrote
to Fox protesting the network's debate format.

Fox plans to limit its debate to 10 candidates based on their national
polling averages. Most contenders at risk of not making the debate stage
have committed to the newspaper event, including South Carolina Sen.
Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George
Pataki and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has yet to declare his candidacy.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former technology
executive Carly Fiorina, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie also are coming, according to the Union Leader. No details
were released about the format.

The publishers of the three newspapers said it's important for early-state
voters to have a look at each candidate on a level playing field.

"There are a lot more than 10 viable candidates," they said in a statement.
"The early primary process gives all candidates a chance to be heard. If
networks and national polls are to decide this now, the early state process
is in jeopardy, and only big money and big names will compete."

The Republican National Committee has authorized nine debates, from August
through March. It is up to the organizations holding the debates to decide
the entry criteria and format. Party rules say any candidate who
participates in an unapproved debate will not be eligible for the approved
ones. Allison Moore, speaking for the committee, said participation in the
New Hampshire newspaper forum will not exclude candidates from the
authorized debates.

The campaigns of other candidates — among them former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Kentucky
Sen. Rand Paul — did not immediately say whether those candidates would
join the New Hampshire forum.

The first presidential caucuses are in Iowa. The first primaries are in New
Hampshire and South Carolina respectively.

*Charleston massacre, flag debate put Haley in 2016 spotlight
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b5dc7baa2b014050863aa78b38a9b0a7/charleston-massacre-flag-debate-put-haley-2016-spotlight>
// AP // Bill Barrow and Meg Kinnard – July 15, 2015 *

From her public statements of grief to removing the Confederate battle flag
from outside her Statehouse office, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has
drawn wide praise since the massacre of nine black churchgoers from a
historic Charleston congregation.

Now the 43-year-old looks to her next role as the self-described host of a
key early presidential primary, with the national attention feeding chatter
about her potential as a running mate and as a voice for a Republican Party
that needs more votes from women and minorities.

Just how prominent she remains in 2016, though, depends on factors well
beyond this latest chapter in Haley's intense, complicated rise from state
representative to her tenure as South Carolina's first female and minority
governor, a five-year stretch that has rankled many of her fellow
Republicans.

"There are sometimes events in an elected official's life that transcend
politics, and this certainly was one for Gov. Haley," said Ted Newton, who
helped lead the research team that vetted vice presidential prospects for
Mitt Romney in 2012.

Newton praised Haley's "skill and grace" in recent weeks. Yet, he said,
"The fact that she's in the headlines briefly doesn't guarantee anything.
If she stays on a short-list (for vice president), it will be because she
survives more intense scrutiny."

Besides, he said, more often than not, the deciding factor for a nominee
picking a running mate is quite simple: personal and political
compatibility.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina for
the first time since formally launching his bid, the first out-of-state
Republican candidate to visit since the Confederate flag came down Friday.

According to her aides, Haley has met in recent months with Walker, Rick
Perry, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal,
Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and her hometown senior Sen. Lindsey Graham,
fully 10 of the GOP's 15 prominent declared candidates.

Haley refuses to discuss the massacre at Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in the context of her future, and she maintains that her
change of heart on the battle flag — she had steadfastly sidestepped
questions about the banner despite longstanding calls for its removal — was
not a political calculation.

"If people are talking about that, then I'm not working hard enough to talk
about the (Emanuel) families," Haley said in a recent interview with The
Associated Press. "I don't want to think about it or talk about it or even
acknowledge it at this point."

South Carolina's place as the first Southern presidential primary next
February, weeks after Iowa and New Hampshire open the nominating process,
offers a different reality.

"Everybody was going to covet Nikki's endorsement already," said Katon
Dawson, a former state Republican Party chairman who backs the White House
candidacy of Perry, the former Texas governor. "Now business is really
going to pick up for her."

Haley, the daughter of Indian immigrants, first garnered national attention
in 2010, when she won a bruising Republican primary and a competitive
general election.

She has sought to define her administration on job creation, primarily
through the decisions by BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Boeing and a host of
tire makers to establish or expand plants in South Carolina. But she's also
had to fend off ethics complaints and routinely battles with her fellow
Republicans in the Legislature on tax and budget issues.

In the weeks leading up to 2012 presidential primary, Haley endorsed
Romney, who went on to lose South Carolina. The move angered tea party
conservatives critical to Haley's 2010 election, but established her as a
team player for the national party.

State Rep. Rick Quinn, who has aligned with Haley in her fiscal fights,
said the governor faces "jealousy" in the Republican-controlled state. But
he said presidential candidates should take note of the governing skill she
demonstrated in cajoling lawmakers to remove the battle flag.

"To get 170 politicians to come along with her was a tough task," Quinn
said, adding, "She did a lot more than just go have press conferences. She
brought us in. ... She showed that she's more than just a talking head or a
mouthpiece."

The decision also helps presidential candidates who now won't have to
answer uncomfortable questions about the banner, as candidates have faced
in previous election years.

Recalling a conversation she had with Walker about the flag after the
church attack, Haley said she told him, "If you have any uncomfortable
things, we'll help you get through it, but I'm going to take care of this."

*GOP candidates slam Iran deal, but will it play in 2016?
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7b607b8507a844dda85625f996070b5e/gop-candidates-slam-iran-deal-will-it-play-2016>
// AP // Nicholas Riccardi – July 15, 2015 *

Republican White House hopefuls are already vowing to overturn President
Barack Obama's deal with Iran.

The stance may help Republicans score political points among the
conservatives who dominate the GOP presidential primary electorate. But
Tuesday's unanimous opposition could be less effective among general
election voters in the fall of 2016.

Politically speaking, experts predict the issue could be a wash.

Republicans are seizing on American voters' deep distrust of Iran, while
Democrats say that the deal is much better than another war in the Middle
East.

The contrast was clear as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham
Clinton quickly embraced the deal. At the same time, several Republican
candidates, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and
former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush vowed to rescind the agreement.

*Officials say Cleveland on track for 2016 GOP convention
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39fbd81b1b9f4c5895e549d7f8b16027/cleveland-needs-25m-more-cover-gop-convention-expenses>
// AP // Mark Gillispie – July 15, 2015 *

Organizers say Cleveland must secure 4,000 more hotel rooms and raise an
additional $25 million to meet its money commitment for the 2016 Republican
National Convention next July, but preparations are nevertheless on pace.

About 50,000 people, including 15,000 members of the media, are expected to
attend the convention and more than 1,000 related events.

Officials from Cleveland 2016 Host Committee see the four-day event as
Cleveland's opportunity to show the world how the city has been transformed
in the past decade. Mayor Frank Jackson said at a news conference Wednesday
that the hope is to "present Cleveland in the greatest light that we can."

MILLIONS TO BE RAISED

Cleveland's winning bid included a commitment to raise $64 million in cash
and in-kind services to pay for convention-related expenses. Most of the
money will be spent preparing Quicken Loans Arena for the convention, David
Gilbert, head of the host committee, said in an interview last week.
Cleveland has raised about $39 million, mostly from within Ohio.
Fundraising efforts will now focus nationally on corporations and
individuals, Gilbert said. Philadelphia is expected to raise $84 million
for next year's Democratic convention.

GIVE THEM SHELTER

The host committee's effort to secure the 16,000 hotel rooms required by
the RNC stumbled in recent months after some hotels reneged on voluntary
agreements to provide about 1,500 rooms. Those rooms, Gilbert said,
represent a big chunk of the 4,000 rooms that still need to be secured.
Gilbert said some of the hotel rooms could be located outside the 35-mile
radius from Quicken Loans Arena established in the host committee's
agreement with the RNC.

THE BUS STOPS HERE

Gilbert is mindful of the transportation problems that plagued the 2012
Republican convention in Tampa, Florida. Some delegations had to endure
long waits for buses taking them to and from the convention site. A
transportation consultant is being hired to help Cleveland figure out how
best to move thousands of people in and out of downtown. Gilbert hopes that
the 5,000 downtown hotel rooms will help reduce traffic snarls. Parking
will be at a premium and shuttle buses will be needed for lots situated
outside of downtown, he said.

SECURITY MINDED

The city will be responsible for administering a $50 million federal grant
to pay for a security plan created by the U.S. Secret Service. A good chunk
of that money will be spent on uniforms, housing and food for thousands of
law enforcement officers who will be hired for the convention. A security
perimeter will be established around Quicken Loans Arena where only those
with credentials will be allowed inside. An area will be established
outside that zone for protesters.

LONG-TERM BENEFITS

While the convention will result in hundreds of millions of dollars being
spent in Cleveland in the coming months, local officials like Gilbert, who
is also president and CEO of the region's tourism agency, see the
convention as a prime opportunity for the city to shine. Roads are being
resurfaced and streetscapes are being gussied up. A $30 million makeover of
iconic Public Square is expected to be completed. Gilbert said the
convention's biggest benefit would be a boost in tourism and convention
bookings that will help sustain the city and region for years to come. "We
want people to understand that it's not only about that one week," he said.
"We think this will position us incredibly well for the future."

*George Pataki’s official haul: $256k //
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/george-patakis-official-haul-256k-120199.html?ml=tl_5>
Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 *

Former New York Gov. George Pataki’s campaign reported on Wednesday that it
had raised just under $256,000 in the second quarter of this year.

Pataki, who launched his campaign on May 28, is a long-shot candidate for
the Republican presidential nomination. His hopes are pegged to New
Hampshire, where his more moderate stances on issues such as gun control
and the environment might be better received than in Iowa.

He is currently not polling among the top 10 candidates and is not expected
to make the cut for the first nationally televised Republican debate next
month.

Below is a breakout of the campaign’s finances as of the end of June:

Total raised: $255, 794.96

Total spent: $48,174.71

Total cash on hand: $207,620.25

Total debt: $0

*Donald Trump changes tune on Cruz
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-changes-tune-on-cruz-120182.html?ml=tl_28>
// Politico // Ben Schreckinger – July 15, 2015 *

All of a sudden, Donald Trump is a lot less willing to question Ted Cruz’s
fitness for the presidency.

After raising questions in March about the Canada-born senator’s
eligibility to run for president, Trump told POLITICO on Wednesday that he
didn’t know if Cruz’s birthplace affected his eligibility and had not paid
attention to it.

Trump’s remarks came hours before he was set to hold a private meeting with
the Texas senator.

“I don’t know. I mean I haven’t looked at it. I have not looked at it at
all,” Trump said in an interview, when asked whether Cruz, who was born in
the Canadian province of Alberta, should be eligible for the presidency.

When asked in March by a local New York television station about Cruz’s
birthplace, Trump said, “It’s a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it
very seriously. He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied
our history lessons, you are

While many Republican candidates have condemned Donald Trump’s comments
about the alleged criminality of undocumented Mexican immigrants, Cruz
defended Trump recently on Fox News, saying, “I like Donald Trump. I think
he’s terrific, I think he’s brash, I think he speaks the truth.” Cruz also
took issue with NBC’s decision cut ties with Trump over the comments,
calling it “silly” and “wrong.”

On Wednesday, Trump told POLITICO that he appreciated Cruz’s defense of his
comments. “I have great respect for him,” said Trump.

Cruz was born to an American mother, making him a United States citizen at
birth. Most experts agree that this means he meets the Constitution’s
requirement that the president be a “natural born citizen,” though the
Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on the question.

Trump has been a leading proponent of the theory that President Obama was
born in Kenya, despite the overwhelming evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

Cruz called the planned Wednesday evening meeting with the real estate
magnate, but Trump said Wednesday morning that he did not know the purpose
of the sit-down.

*Donald Trump: I don’t know why I’m meeting Ted Cruz
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-meet-ted-cruz-2016-120138.html?ml=tl_22>
// Politico // Nick Gass – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump is meeting with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Manhattan on Wednesday,
though he claimed in an interview on MSNBC that he does not know why.

“Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest,
but I do have respect for him,” Trump said on “Morning Joe” in a
wide-ranging interview in which the Republican presidential contender
commented on issues foreign, domestic and everything in between.

“I respect the fact that along with a couple of others, he came out and he
came out very strongly and agreed with what I said on illegal immigration.
And he came out very strongly and he came out early, and I respect that. I
like him,” he added.

Asked about Tuesday’s announcement of a nuclear agreement with Iran, Trump
said “it’s a ridiculous deal” and “a disgrace.” The United States, he said,
“should have doubled up the sanctions.”

“Well, they didn’t read The Art of the Deal. Most people did; they didn’t,”
he said. “I have seen the deal. I’ve seen it broken down in every newspaper
you can imagine, and I think I know the deal quite well,” he added, when
pressed about whether he had read the deal himself.

Trump also had harsh words for the political media discussing his first
month on the campaign trail.

One thing he has learned is “how dishonest … some of the political media”
is, in contrast to the financial journalists with whom he normally
interacts.

“They don’t want to print the truth. They don’t want to say what you said.
They don’t want to say what you mean. They know what you said, they know
what you mean, and they put it in totally different words. It’s like you
didn’t say it, it’s incredible to me,” Trump said, noting that he has
become “more careful” in dealing with some people in the media as a result.

One such media distortion, Trump said, stemmed from the reaction to reports
of his remarks about undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. illegally
from Mexico. Trump cited “five different sources” at the border telling him
that Mexico is sending its worst. “They’re almost crying,” he said.

Pressed to provide the sources by Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin, Trump
demurred.

“I’ll reveal my sources, Mark, when you reveal your sources,” he countered.

He also took the opportunity to slam Republican rival Jeb Bush on jobs and
once again claim that he would win the Hispanic vote.

“The Hispanics love me,” Trump said, adding that he would open up more jobs
for everyone in the economy. “Jeb Bush wouldn’t know where to go to create
a job,” he declared, telling host Joe Scarborough that Bush “only can
follow you or a pollster. I can only go with what’s right.”

Trump, who came out on top of a recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll of
GOP contenders, also trailed former secretary of state Hillary Clinton
badly in a head-to-head matchup.

“I think that the person that she doesn’t want to run against is me,” he
said.

*Rivals Cruz, Trump play nice en route to 2016
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html>
// CNN // Eric Bradner – July 15, 2015 *

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and their wives were scheduled to have
lunch in New York City in June, before the real estate mogul became a
candidate for president.

Senate votes intervened and Cruz couldn't make it and the two postponed.

A month later, the two Republican presidential candidates -- this time,
without their wives -- finally got together Wednesday afternoon at Trump
Tower. Trump said Cruz had called him Tuesday to ask for the meeting.

And in that time, what would have been a low-key meeting took on new
importance. Trump surged to first place in the GOP primary polls, and
Cruz's warm words toward Trump separated him from a crowd of candidates
denouncing the real estate mogul over his controversial remarks about
undocumented immigrants.

From the outside, Wednesday's meeting made it look like a calculating Cruz
was actually betting against Trump -- cozying up to him in hopes of earning
an endorsement if Trump's campaign ultimately collapses.

But after the meeting, Cruz said that wasn't happened at all.

"We had a conversation about the race," Cruz said. "He's running, I'm
running and we both agreed that we started out as friends and will end as
friends."

"Donald and I have gotten together and visited a number of times before he
was a presidential candidate, and it was a good visit. It was the first
time we've really sat down since he launched, and so we had a good
conversation," Cruz said. "And I enjoy Donald. He's one of a kind."

The two have praised each other on the campaign trail in recent weeks.

Before heading to New York, Cruz said on Capitol Hill Wednesday that he's
"a big fan of Donald Trump."

He praised Trump as a "bold, brash voice" and criticized -- though not by
name -- other GOP contenders who "go out of their way to smack Donald
Trump."

Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said the fact that the two got
together -- despite other GOP candidates like Jeb Bush turning against
Trump -- shouldn't be surprising, since during the 2012 campaign most
Republican candidates, and some non-candidates like Sarah Palin, sought
meetings with Trump.

"They are both anti-Establishment candidates unafraid to shake up the
system," Conway said. "Cruz's approach is different. He has said he will
level no personal insults against other candidates. Clearly, in going
foursquare after Jeb and (Karl) Rove, Trump has not made a similar promise."

Trump had met with many other GOP presidential hopefuls, including Cruz, in
the months before he decided to launch his own bid. Trump also donated
$5,000 to Cruz's political action committee last year.

Other political observers said Cruz's meeting -- highly publicized after
Trump announced it would happen during an appearance on MSNBC -- was a
savvy play for conservative hardliners' support in case those voters
ultimately decide against supporting Trump.

"Politically this is a smart move by Cruz. While no one can know for sure,
there is a fair to good chance Trump will drop out or cease active
campaigning at some point," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for
Politics at the University of Virginia.

"Who will inherit Trump's backers? Certainly not Jeb Bush. And Trump has
criticized others by name, too," he said."Should Trump leave the field, Ted
Cruz would be a likely beneficiary. He is considered an immigration
hardliner, like Trump. And Cruz is showing Trump respect, and Trump has
already shown us that he has a good memory for respect and slights."

*Donald Trump meeting with Ted Cruz on Wednesday
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/donald-trump-meeting-ted-cruz/index.html>
// CNN // Jeremy Diamond – July 15, 2015 *

Donald Trump will meet Wednesday with fellow Republican presidential
contender Sen. Ted Cruz.

Trump said Wednesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Cruz called him to set
up the meeting, but said he didn't know what the Texas Republican wanted to
discuss.

The meeting comes amid Trump's rise in the polls to second and first place
in the latest national polls and as Cruz has played weeks of defense for
Trump amid the billionaire's controversial comments likening some Mexican
immigrants to "killers" and "rapists."

"I do respect the fact that along with a couple of others he came out very
strongly," Trump said of Cruz's backup on the illegal immigration saga.

Cruz and Trump have both locked heads with the Republican establishment,
with Cruz fighting the status quo in Congress with unorthodox tactics,
while Trump has locked horns with party elites over whether his comments
about illegal immigrants have hurt the party's outreach to Latino voters.

Trump had met with many other GOP presidential hopefuls, including Cruz, in
the months before he decided to launch his own bid.

Trump also donated $5,000 to Cruz's political action committee last year.

Cruz's campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

*Cruz defends Trump’s ‘bold, brash voice’ ahead of private meeting
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-dodges-question-mysterious-trump-meeting>
// MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz again defended
fellow White House hopeful Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on illegal
immigration Wednesday, though offered no details about what the two will
discuss in a private meeting later in the day.

“I’m a big fan of Donald Trump’s,” Cruz told reporters in Washington, D.C.,
Wednesday, following a press conference on the Export-Import Bank of the
United States. “I think Donald Trump is bringing a bold, brash voice to
this presidential race.”

Among the crowded GOP presidential pack, Cruz was virtually the only one to
not condemn Trump’s remarks on immigration – specifically that “when Mexico
sends its people,” they bring drugs and crime. Quite to the contrary, Cruz
said on Fox and Friends last month that Trump “speaks the truth” and later
“salute[d]” him on Meet the Press “for focusing on the need to address
illegal immigration.”

Trump said on msnbc’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning that Cruz had called
him for a meeting, but that he didn’t know what it would be about. The Cruz
campaign has not responded to msnbc’s request for comment or confirmation,
but Trump’s spokesman told msnbc the sit-down in New York City would be
private.

Cruz is also scheduled to sit down Wednesday afternoon with CNBC’s John
Harwood at the network’s Institutional Investor Delivering Alpha conference
in New York City. Earlier in the day, Cruz appeared alongside fellow
Republican lawmakers in Washington, D.C., to praise Congress’ decision last
month to allow the charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United States
to expire. The 81-year-old institution, commonly known as Ex-Im, acted as
the export credit agency for the U.S. government and has been criticized
for disproportionately supporting big business.

Cruz called Ex-Im a “classic example of corporate welfare” and vowed to use
“any and all procedural tools” to ensure it stays dead.

“When it comes to campaign season, every Republican is a conservative,”
Cruz said. “Well now, when push comes to shove, we discover if people are
merely ‘campaign conservatives,’ or if they actually are going to be
practicing conservatives, consistent conservatives.”

Asked about his meeting with Trump, Cruz demurred: “Let’s keep the
questions on Export-Import bank.”

Following the press conference, however, Cruz was more receptive to
speaking about Trump, whom he suggested was being unfairly maligned by
fellow White House hopefuls.

“One of the reasons you’re seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their
way to smack Donald Trump is they don’t like a politician that speaks
directly about the challenges of illegal immigration. They don’t like a
politician who speaks directly about sanctuary cities about the law
enforcement and safety and security issues that are raised,” Cruz said.
“Indeed, many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack
Donald Trump have for years or even decades been advocates of vocal
amnesty. I for one am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these
issues.”

*Cruz dodges question on mysterious Trump meeting
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-dodges-question-mysterious-trump-meeting>
// MSNBC // Emma Margolin – July 15, 2015 *

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has a busy day
ahead of him on Wednesday, delivering public remarks on two separate
occasions followed by a mysterious meeting with fellow White House hopeful
Donald Trump.

“Ted Cruz called me. And I don’t know why I’m meeting him, to be honest,”
Trump said on msnbc’s “Morning Joe”  Wednesday. “I do have respect for
him,” he added.

The Cruz campaign has not responded to msnbc’s request for comment or
confirmation on the meeting, but Trump’s spokesman told msnbc the sit-down
in New York City would be private.

Among the crowded GOP presidential pack, Cruz was virtually the only one to
not condemn Trump’s controversial remarks on immigration – specifically
that “when Mexico sends its people,” they bring drugs and crime. Quite to
the contrary, Cruz said on “Fox and Friends” last month that Trump “speaks
the truth” and later “salute[d]” him on NBC’s “Meet the Press” “for
focusing on the need to address illegal immigration.”

In addition to his alleged meeting with Trump, Cruz is scheduled sit down
Wednesday afternoon with CNBC’s John Harwood at the network’s Institutional
Investor Delivering Alpha conference in New York City.

Earlier in the day, Cruz appeared alongside fellow Republican lawmakers in
Washington, D.C., to praise Congress’ decision last month to allow the
charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to expire. The
81-year-old institution, commonly known as Ex-Im, acted as the export
credit agency for the U.S. government and has been criticized for
disproportionately supporting big business.

Cruz called Ex-Im a “classic example of corporate welfare” and vowed to use
“any and all procedural tools” to ensure it stays dead.

“When it comes to campaign season, every Republican is a conservative,”
Cruz said. “Well now, when push comes to shove, we discover if people are
merely ‘campaign conservatives,’ or if they actually are going to be
practicing conservatives, consistent conservatives.”

Asked about his meeting with Trump, Cruz demurred: “Let’s keep the
questions on Export-Import bank.”

*How much money have Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee raised for 2016?
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-much-money-have-bobby-jindal-and-mike-huckabee-raised-for-2016-bids/>
// CBS // Reena Flores – July 15, 2015 *

During his first week as a presidential candidate, Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal hauled in nearly $579,000 in direct donations -- though outside
groups backing the 2016 contender say they have another $8.6 million to add
to that number. He only spent $65,044 in that first official week, leaving
him with over half a million cash on hand at the end of the second quarter
fundraising period.

Jindal, who entered the White House race in the last week of the
fundraising period, drew in $578,758 from just over 2,000 individual
donors, according to a Washington Examiner report. About 87 percent of
donations were under $100 each.

But with the support of a super PAC, a 501(c)4 nonprofit, and a 527
committee, the Louisiana Republican's presidential treasure chest is
effectively much larger. Jindal's super PAC, Believe Again, has raised $3,7
million since January, while the America Next nonprofit has raised nearly
$4 million. That's in addition to Jindal's 527 group, the American Future
Project, which has raised $1 million.

Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will report raising $2
million in this past quarter, with related super PACs drawing in an
additional $6 million.

The $8 million dollars nearly matches Huckabee's fundraising numbers from
his first White House bid in 2008. His last presidential campaign, which
predated the arrival of the super PAC on the political scene, only had $9
million to spend.

In the Republican presidential field, the fundraising totals of other
candidates easily dwarf the money raised by Huckabee's and Jindal's
operations. In the second fundraising quarter alone, Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio announced that his campaign had raised $12 million, with a leadership
PAC bringing in $1.2 million. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, meanwhile, has just over
$50 million from his presidential committee, with $37 million from outside
PACs. At the top of the pack, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has raised a
whopping $103 million since January, via his Right to Rise super PAC.

*Republican Presidential Candidates To Disclose Bundlers For First Time
Since 2008
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-campaign-bundlers_55a6d992e4b04740a3def166?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Paul Blumenthal – July 15, 2015 *

For the first time since 2008, two Republican presidential candidates will
publicly disclose the names of campaign bundlers raising money for them.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, according to The New York Times, and
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, according to The Associated Press, will
disclose their bundlers in October. They join former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, a Democratic presidential candidate, in agreeing to
disclose the big-money fundraisers who collect contributions for the
campaigns.

The decision by Bush and Walker to disclose their bundlers comes after no
Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election volunteered to
reveal the identities of their top fundraisers. In 2008, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), a proponent of campaign finance reform, released names of his
bundlers. George W. Bush revealed bundler names in both the 2000 and 2004
elections.

Other Republican presidential candidates, however, are not on board with
transparency. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), won't
voluntarily disclose their bundlers, spokespeople told the Times.

It isn’t yet clear how much information the candidates who will disclose
their bundlers will reveal. In 2008 and 2012, President Barack Obama
released bundler names in ranges, from a low of $50,001 to $100,000, to
$500,001 and above. When Clinton disclosed her bundlers in the 2008
Democratic primary, she released only those raising $100,000 or more.

*Ted Cruz Defends Donald Trump On Immigration Before Their Dinner Date
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-donald-trump_55a688b9e4b0896514cff587?utm_hp_ref=politics>
// HuffPo // Michael McAuliff and Elise Foley – July 15, 2015 *

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday offered another passionate defense of
Donald Trump, while also attacking a number of fellow Republican
presidential hopefuls who have criticized the real estate mogul's views on
immigration.

"I'll say this: I think Donald Trump is bringing a bold, brash presence to
this presidential race," Cruz told reporters on Capitol Hill. "It's one of
the reasons you're seeing so many 2016 candidates go out of their way to
smack Donald Trump. They don't like a politician who speaks directly about
the challenges of immigration. They don't like a politician who speaks
directly about sanctuary cities, about the law enforcement and safety and
security issues that are raised."

Trump drew condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum when he
suggested during his presidential campaign launch that undocumented Mexican
immigrants were criminals and rapists. Among the GOP presidential
candidates who spoke out against Trump's remarks were Florida Sen. Marco
Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"Indeed, many of the politicians who are running out of their way to smack
Donald Trump, have for years or even decades been vocal advocates of
amnesty," Cruz said on Tuesday, likely referring to Rubio's and Bush's
criticisms. Rubio helped craft an immigration reform bill that offered a
pathway to citizenship, and anti-immigration conservatives accuse Bush of
favoring "amnesty."

"I, for one, am grateful that Donald Trump is highlighting these issues,"
Cruz continued. The senator made similar remarks last month, saying he
didn't think Trump "should apologize for speaking out against the problem
that is illegal immigration."

Cruz's defense of The Donald appears to have won him some love from the
big-mouthed billionaire: The two candidates are expected to dine together
later on Wednesday at Trump Tower in New York.

The conservative Texas senator went on to blast the Obama administration's
immigration policies and to suggest that Democratic presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton should answer for them. Cruz repeated claims -- which
fact-checkers deem "half-true" -- that the administration inappropriately
released some 36,000 criminals in 2013 who were undocumented immigrants.

"One question anyone should ask President Obama, or especially Hillary
Clinton: Does Hillary Clinton think it is appropriate for the federal
government to release 116 murderers who are illegal aliens? I don't," Cruz
said. "Does Hillary Clinton think it's appropriate that in 2013 the Obama
administration released over 15,000 illegal aliens who had drunk driving
convictions?"

Cruz was citing figures from a 2014 report from the Center for Immigration
Studies, which advocates for reducing immigration levels. The report said
that Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 36,007 convicted
criminals in fiscal year 2013, including about 16,000 people with
convictions for driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

ICE officials have said their hands are tied with regards to releasing some
undocumented immigrants. Some are released by court order, while others are
set free because of a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that the government can't
hold people for deportation indefinitely when another country refuses to
take them back.

In fiscal year 2014, ICE carried out 177,960 deportations of convicted
criminals. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson defended the agency's
record on Tuesday.

"It is a fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law," Johnson said.

Cruz did not concern himself on Wednesday with the laws requiring releases.
"People are fed up with this," he said, "and I think that frustration with
politicians in both parties who say one thing and do another -- I think
that's going to be front and center in the 2016 election."

It's true that Democrats are likely to focus on Trump's comments during the
election season -- though not for the reason Cruz predicted. The remarks
are almost certain to come up time and again as Democrats make the case to
voters that the Republican Party is hostile toward Latinos.

This, Democrats believe, should encourage Latinos to get out and vote. Rep.
Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said on the House floor Tuesday that the 4.5
million Latinos who are eligible for citizenship but have not yet applied
should fill out their paperwork so they can vote against Trump.

"Let me fill you in on a little secret: With fee waivers for up to 20
percent of those applying, it is absolutely free," Gutierrez said.
"Becoming a citizen for free so you can make it clear that you are offended
by Donald Trump. It is poetic and patriotic."

*C-SPAN to preempt first GOP debate
<http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/247923-c-span-to-preempt-first-gop-debate>
// The Hill // Jonathan Easley – July 15, 2015 *

C-SPAN is partnering with a handful of regional newspapers in early-voting
states for a nationally televised forum with the Republican presidential
candidates just days before Fox News Channel’s first scheduled debate.

The network has invited all 17 of the GOP presidential hopefuls to the Aug.
3 Voters First Forum in New Hampshire.

Publishers at the New Hampshire Union Leader, South Carolina Post and
Courier, and Iowa Gazette say the forum was  prompted in part by Fox News
Channel’s controversial decision to cap the number of candidates in their
Aug. 6 debate at 10.

“Fox says only the ‘top’ 10 candidates, as judged solely by national
polling, will be allowed on its stage,” the publishers said in a joint
statement. “That may be understandable later, but the first votes are half
a year away and there are a lot more than 10 viable candidates.”

“The early primary process gives all candidates a chance to be heard,” they
continued. “If networks and national polls are to decide this now, the
early state process is in jeopardy and only big money and big names will
compete.”

The statement reflects the concerns of many Republicans, who say the
national media and unreliable early polls shouldn’t play a role in
determining the top tier of candidates in a year when the GOP has a deep
and diverse field.

So far, Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Louisiana
Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and former New York Gov.
George Pataki have committed to the C-SPAN forum.

Of those, only Carson is currently a lock to participate in the Fox News
debate. The rest of the candidates will be scrapping to raise their poll
numbers to qualify for the final spots on the debate stage.

The C-SPAN forum will be hosted by WGIR radio’s Jack Heath, who hosts the
“New Hampshire Today” show. The candidates will take turns answering
questions in five minute segments.

To accommodate for those who will be left off the stage, Fox News will hold
a nationally televised forum earlier in the day for those who don’t qualify.

The Republican National Committee has sanctioned nine debates and signed
off on the formats, but it’s been a struggle for the national party to deal
with the huge number of candidates running for the presidential nomination.

The C-SPAN event is not a sanctioned RNC debate, but rather one of more
than a dozen forums and cattle calls this cycle that have materialized as
demand for access to the candidates has skyrocketed.

*OTHER 2016 NEWS*

*What Campaign Filings Don’t Show: Super PACs’ Growing Sway
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/politics/election-2016-fundraising-campaign-filings.html?ref=politics>
// NYT // Eric Lichtblau and Nicholas Confessore – July 15, 2015 *

Presidential contenders are set to provide a glimpse inside their campaign
war chests on Wednesday, releasing financial statements that will give the
first detailed accounting of how the candidates are raising and spending
hundreds of millions of dollars in pursuit of elected office.

But while the reports, to be filed with the Federal Election Commission,
provide an early look at the campaigns’ financial operations, they promise
to tell only part of the story because they do not include any of the money
being raised by the “super PACs” and other outside groups supporting many
of the candidates. In many cases, the money raised by those groups is
likely to dwarf what the campaigns bring in.

The Republican presidential candidates are almost uniformly relying on
these groups, which can tap unlimited corporate and individual
contributions, to amass the financial firepower they need to break through
a crowded primary field, as long as they do not coordinate with candidates.
This is a stark departure from past campaigns and has made most of the
candidates deeply reliant on a small handful of ultra-wealthy donors.

The new fund-raising model has already altered the landscape of a campaign
that is still months away from the first votes.

Without super PACs, four Republicans — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and
Ben Carson — would have raised roughly the same amount of money, between
$10 million and $12 million during the second quarter of 2016. A fifth,
Rand Paul, would be close behind, while several others, including Rick
Perry, would be trailing.

Instead, the field has rapidly separated into three distinct financial
tiers. Mr. Bush has raised about $114 million with the help of a super PAC.
Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio and their super PACs occupy the next-highest tier, with
each having raised more than $40 million.

Lagging them is a third tier of candidates, including several who declared
their bids near or after the end of the fund-raising quarter and others who
have been slow to raise money.

Mr. Perry, who began a second presidential bid in June, provides another
illustration of the imbalance.

A fund-raising powerhouse during his years as Texas governor, Mr. Perry has
not yet lived down his aborted 2012 campaign, and many big Republican
donors who supported him in the past have not yet flocked to get behind him
for 2016. His campaign announced last week that in about a month of
fund-raising, he brought in just over $1 million from regular donors,
leaving him near the back of the Republican pack. Individual donations are
capped at $2,700.

But a constellation of super PACs backing Mr. Perry brought in many times
that amount from megadonors — almost $12.8 million through the end of June,
according to Austin Barbour, a senior adviser to the groups. Another $4
million check — four times what Mr. Perry’s campaign raised — came in a few
days later, he said.

More than half the group’s total came from just two donors: Kelcey Warren,
an energy company executive who is also the finance chairman of Mr. Perry’s
campaign, and Brint Ryan, a Dallas businessman.

“Rick Perry’s had an impressive few months,” Mr. Barbour said. “Some of the
hesitation I know has softened up a lot.”

On the Democratic side, the picture is the reverse. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
who is far outpacing her rivals on the fund-raising front, has raised
almost four times as much as the super PAC supporting her candidacy. Her
campaign expects to report raising about $45 million so far in her White
House bid.

The 2016 campaign could prove to be the most expensive on record, with the
candidates, political parties, super PACs and special-interest groups
spending perhaps $10 billion under fund-raising rules made much looser by
the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010. That
ruling paved the way for the emergence of super PACs.

The early fund-raising hauls have already prompted complaints to the
election commission and the Justice Department from citizen watchdog
groups. One of them, the Campaign Legal Center, charges that Mr. Bush and
other candidates skirted the law by raising large amounts of money before
they officially declared their candidacies.

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the watchdog group, said he will be
looking at the filings on Wednesday to determine whether the candidates
complied with the law.

“If not,” Mr. Ryan said, “the Campaign Legal Center will be filing
complaints.”

*Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are set to barnstorm New Hampshire.
Here’s what to watch.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/16/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-are-set-to-barnstorm-new-hampshire-heres-what-to-watch/>
// WaPo // Sean Sullivan – July 16, 2015*

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- The clear front-runner for the Democratic presidential
nomination and the Republican candidate who has become a headache for many
in his own party as he surges in the polls will descend on this key early
voting state on Thursday, giving voters here a glimpse of two contenders
who have received widespread attention in recent weeks.

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton (D) will make two campaign stops
here as she looks to expand on ideas she offered in her Monday economic
policy speech: an early afternoon town hall in Dover then an organizing
event in Windham. The town hall meeting will be Clinton's first of the
campaign.

Not far away will be Donald Trump (R), the real estate mogul who has become
a sharply polarizing figure in Republican circles. Trump will hold a
campaign rally and field questions in Laconia.

Two other candidates will also be in the state to campaign: Wisconsin Gov.
Scott Walker (R) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R). Walker, who
officially kicked off his campaign on Monday, is sweeping through the early
voting states this week.

But the presence of Clinton and Trump here presents each party with key
early tests in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

For Clinton, who has faced criticism for Republicans that she has not
opened herself up to enough scrutiny, the town hall will serve as a chance
to field questions from voters in an unscripted setting. It's also a chance
for Clinton to speak in more detail about the corporate profit-sharing
proposal she spoke about in general terms in her Monday speech.

An impressive showing could blunt some of the momentum Clinton's Democratic
rival from neighboring Vermont, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has picked up in
recent weeks. But a rocky one could spur more interest from voters here in
the liberal firebrand.

Trump, who comes to New Hampshire as polls show he has climbed into the top
tier of Republican hopefuls, will have a chance to to address criticism
from those who say he is hurting his own party. His visit is a chance to
convince skeptical Republicans in a crucial state that he is a serious
candidate for president -- or to fall flat trying.

Some Republicans have praised Trump's blunt style, but others have
expressed concern that his brash rhetoric and controversial comments about
illegal immigrants from Mexico -- he said they are "rapists" who are
bringing "drugs" and "crime" into the country -- have harmed the Republican
Party, which has struggled in recent elections to win Hispanic voters.

Those looking to see Clinton and Trump in the same state will have another
chance the next two days. Trump is the feature speaker at a Republican
dinner on Friday in Arkansas. On Saturday, Clinton will speak at a
Democratic dinner in the state, where she was first lady when husband Bill
Clinton was governor.

*Bush, Clinton dominate early 2016 presidential fundraising
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ca2fadb3109a40679f480e738b9f4146/presidential-election-already-fueled-377-million>
// AP // Julie Bykowicz – July 15, 2015 *

The two presidential candidates whose immediate families include former
presidents loom large in early fundraising for 2016.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Jeb Bush account for almost half the roughly
$377 million that presidential groups for all the expected 22 candidates
say they've raised. Most campaigns, including Clinton's and Bush's, were
required to file their initial reports with the Federal Election Commission
by midnight Wednesday.

Those document financial activity between April 1 and June 30 and will list
the names of everyone who gave at least $200. The maximum contribution for
the primary is $2,700. The FEC reports also will show how candidates are
spending their money — on consultants, office space, advertising, polling
and more.

Wednesday's reports provide only a glimpse of all the money that donors are
handing over. The candidates also benefit from super PACs created
specifically to help them. Those groups, which accept contributions of any
size and are subject to legal limits on how closely they can work with the
campaigns, file their FEC reports at the end of the month.

Ahead of the deadlines, many candidates and their super PAC boosters have
publicized their fundraising totals.

The AP tallied those numbers and found that donors have handed over a third
of a billion dollars. That's more than the presidential candidates raised
for the entire primary election of 2000, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, a group that tracks election spending.

Dominating the cash haul are Clinton and Bush.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has raised $45 million in checks of
$2,700 or less for her campaign. Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that
counts on seven-figure donors, raised an additional $15 million.

Bush's money looks different. Before he officially declared his candidacy,
the former Florida governor spent the first six months of the year raising
huge sums of money for Right to Rise, a super PAC that's boosting his bid
to win the Republican nomination. That group says it has raised a record
$103 million. Bush's presidential campaign, which officially began on June
15, collected $11.5 million from contributors.

Outside groups are furthering the ambitions of at least four other
Republican presidential aspirants: Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas
Gov. Rick Perry and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In each case, the fundraising
for the outside groups helping them is outpacing the fundraising for their
own campaigns.

Rubio's overall take from donors — $44.7 million to his campaign and two
outside groups — includes $15.8 million for a nonprofit that won't file any
public budget information until at least next year and keeps its donors
secret.

Meanwhile, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a conservative GOP candidate,
and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal candidate seeking the Democratic
nomination, have harnessed grassroots enthusiasm to fill campaign coffers
with small donations. Carson's campaign says it has raised more than $10.4
million, and Sanders has brought in $15 million. Because the money is
coming directly to them, they have tighter control over how it is used.

Wednesday's filings will shed more light on how the others are doing with
small donors, defined as individuals who give $200 or less. On the other
side of the spectrum, the end-of-July super PAC filings will provide a
snapshot of who's doing the best with the biggest donors, those writing
six-figure checks or more.

By mid-day Wednesday, campaigns for just two of the major presidential
candidates had filed their reports, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
and Democratic former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. Both are longshots
who reported six-figure fundraising totals. Chafee is mostly funding his
own bid.

A few major Republican candidates will be missing from the initial campaign
finance reports. Kasich, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and New Jersey Gov.
Chris Christie made their campaigns official too recently to file
second-quarter FEC reports, although a Christie-allied super PAC said on
Tuesday that it has raised $11 million. The first look at their campaign
numbers will come in mid-October.

*Fundraising - and spending- shatter records
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/fundraising-and-spending-shatter-records-120211.html#ixzz3g31HZZXR>
// Politico // Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti – July 16, 2015*

The crowded field of 2016 presidential candidates spent $48 million through
the first half of the year –nearly twice as much as their counterparts had
at this point in the 2012 cycle – reflecting the new realities of fast,
expensive campaign launches.

The dramatic spending spike – detailed in Wednesday’s reports to the
Federal Election Commission covering the beginning of April through the end
of June – was underwritten mostly by fewer donors each giving more money.

But overall, fundraising increases did not keep up with spending inflation,
leading to spending ratios that in past elections might have provoked worry
among campaign finance operatives. Such early-campaign “burn rates” appear
to be becoming more common in an age when races start earlier, pivotal
digital and data tools cost more, consultants fetch huge salaries and
campaigns rely on mega-donor-funded super PACs to fill many traditional
functions.

A handful of Republican presidential candidates who brought in at least $1
million-a-piece in the last three months each spent more than half of their
haul – from the mid-50-percent burn rates of Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Mike
Huckabee to the 74-percent rate of Donald Trump.

All but Trump, who provided nearly his entire $1.9-million haul from his
own pocket, are expecting big-money super PACs to come to their aid.
Reports detailing the unlimited contributions and spending of super PACs
aren’t due with the FEC until the end of July.

But perhaps no candidate personified big early spending like Democratic
frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Her campaign, which cast itself as a
penny-pinching operation that relied heavily on small donors, revealed
itself to be something quite different in its FEC report.

While the campaign brought in $47.6 million – three times more than the
next most prolific fundraiser and more than any other presidential campaign
had posted in its first quarter – it also spent more than three times as
much as the next biggest spender, $18.7 million, amounting to a burn-rate
of 39 percent.

In fact, Clinton’s juggernaut spent more on payroll for her massive staff –
$6 million – than any other candidate spent in total. Her staff worked out
of more than 20 offices for which the campaign paid $540,000 in rent –
including about $106,000 for a Manhattan office space where Clinton herself
often works, miles from her main campaign headquarters in hip Brooklyn.

It also spent heavily on cutting-edge campaign tactics, including investing
$276,000 in an envelope-pushing relationship with a supportive super PAC
called Correct the Record, which plans to coordinate research activities
with Clinton’s campaign. The campaign also spent nearly $500,000 on voter
data and data services, and $1.4 million on online advertising through a
firm Bully Pulpit Interactive that shaped the pioneering digital marketing
effort behind Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Unlike Obama’s 2008 bid, which at first leaned heavily on low-dollar online
contributions and boasted that it was ushering in a small-donor revolution
in American politics, neither Clinton, nor the GOP’s top fundraising
presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, raised significant portions of their cash
from small donors.

Only 17 percent of Clinton’s cash came from donors contributing $200 or
less, while 65 percent of it came from donors who gave the primary maximum
of $2,700 or more.

Of the $11.4 million Bush raised since announcing his campaign in mid-June,
3.2 percent came from donors who gave $200 or less. An overwhelming 85
percent came from donors who gave $2,700 or more.

Both leaned on networks of well-connected donors to collect, or bundle,
collections of checks from other donors. Clinton’s campaign voluntarily
released a list of more than 100 top bundlers. including Democratic
mega-donors like billionaire media moguls Fred Eychaner and Haim Saban and
a handful of current and former lawmakers such as Reps. Joaquin Castro,
Grace Meng and Jim Himes. Bush’s bundlers included lobbyist power players
like Al Cardenas, Dirk Van Dongen and former Rep. Tom Loeffler.

Clinton and Bush also helped seed their own campaigns as they considered
entering the race, reporting spending $279,000 and $389,000, respectively,
from their own pockets on staffing and services. And both made use of
private jets to hop-scotch the country. Clinton paid nearly $180,000 to a
charter plane company and Bush paid $281,000 for private jet use, including
$153,000 to “The Johnson Co.,” apparently for the use of mega-donor Woody
Johnson’s jet for a European trip.

Both Clinton and Bush – as well as Cruz, Marco Rubio and other candidates –
have deep-pocketed super PACs that raised tens of millions to support their
campaign.

On the far other end of the finance spectrum is the campaign of Democratic
insurgent Bernie Sanders, which is not supported by a super PAC and has not
courted big donors, yet managed to raise the second-biggest haul of the
second quarter: $15.2 million.

An overwhelming 76 percent of Sanders’ money came from donors giving $200
or less, while only four percent came from max donors – perhaps
unsurprising from a candidate whose campaign centers partly on reducing the
influence of big-money in politics.

Yet, more than populist zeal is powering Sanders’ impressive fundraising.
His campaign paid $1.3 million for digital consulting and advertising
services from Revolution Messaging, which has helped lead the senator’s
digital fundraising and social media effort.

Other candidates also seemed to view data as the key early-campaign
investment. Cruz spent more than $1.4 million renting voter and email lists
from a handful of digital consulting firms, including Campaign Solutions,
Mustard Seed Media, Pinnacle List Co., Targeted Victory, Lukens Co. and
Active Engagement. The Texas senator also reported owing $556,000 to
Cambridge Analytica for “survey research” and “donor modeling.” The firm is
owned by the family of New York hedge fund magnate Bob Mercer, POLITICO
revealed last week. Mercer and his family are among the biggest donors to a
network of super PACs supporting Cruz that combined to raise $37 million
and at least one of the super PACs is in discussions with Cambridge
Analytica about retaining the firm’s services.

The firm, which is relatively new to the competitive world of U.S.
political data, provides nontraditional “psychographic” analyses of voters
to try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages. The Cruz
campaign’s FEC report does not reveal any payments to the firm, just debt.
The total owed would seem to indicate that Cruz is relying heavily on the
firm for critical data work, but it also is an unusually large debt for a
campaign to owe a single vendor early in the cycle.

Other candidates carrying significant debts included Clinton (who owed
$574,000, including more than $553,000 to pollster John Anzalone’s firm),
Bush (who owed $401,000, including $148,000 to a Michigan firm for a list
he purchased) Republican Rick Santorum (who owed $125,000 after raising
only $608,000).

Not including the debt, the candidates who finished June with the most in
the bank were Clinton ($29 million), Sanders ($12 million), Rubio ($10
million), Cruz ($8.5 million), Bush ($8.4 million), Carson ($4.7 million),
Rand Paul ($4 million) and Lindsey Graham ($2.6 million).

Burn rates:

Donald Trump 74.30%

Ben Carson 64.00%

Rick Santorum 61.80%

Mike Huckabee 55.80%

Ted Cruz 54.20%

Rick Perry 52.40%

Carly Fiorina 41.90%

Rand Paul 39.97%

Hillary Clinton 39.32%

O’Malley 34.50%

Lindsey Graham 30.40%

Jeb Bush 26.93%

Marco Rubio 23.80%

Bernie Sanders 20.20%

Bobby Jindal 11.20%

*Chart: The 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Time in Elected Office, Ranked
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/chart-the-2016-presidential-candidates-time-in-elected-office-ranked>
// Bloomberg // Andrew Feather – July 15, 2015 *

In poll after poll, Americans say they want their presidents to have
experience.

But what, exactly, is experience, and does it extend to work history
outside of elected office? Should, for instance, Donald Trump’s real estate
and reality television success count?

In a 2013 survey conducted by Des Moines Register pollster J. Ann Seltzer,
voters said they prefer business experience to experience in any political
office. However, Selzer says whether or not experience matters depends on
the candidate and how effectively he or she is able to sell what experience
they do have.

“It is a piece of the puzzle,” Selzer said. "It is not the puzzle all by
itself, and really depending on the candidate’s ability to make the case
why he comes to run for the presidency with a unique history."

Although voters say they value experience, the frontrunners in both parties
have had some of the shortest terms in elected office. While some of the
longest serving candidates have struggled to gain traction in the polls.

*Candidates Show First Glimpse in Historic 2016 Money Race
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-15/candidates-show-first-glimpse-in-historic-2016-money-race>
// Bloomberg // Zachary Mider – July 15, 2015 *

If money equals speech, then in the U.S. presidential race right now it's
millionaires and billionaires who are doing most of the talking.

The campaign fundraising efforts of the 22 major declared or
all-but-declared contenders are coming into focus this week as campaigns
and related groups disclose the amounts they've raised so far, and the
numbers point to a historic shift. For the first time in decades,
contributions of unlimited size from deep-pocketed donors—as much as $6
million from a single person—are eclipsing the amounts raised from
thousands of smaller contributors.

Today is the day when most candidates are required to disclose to the
Federal Election Commission the fundraising totals for their official
campaigns if they haven't already done so. Super-PACs don't have to report
until the end of the month, although many of them have already allowed
their numbers to trickle out, along with the names of some of the biggest
contributors.

The Republican primary, where 17 candidates are seeking the party's
nomination, may end up being financed mostly by a handful of wealthy
donors. Some $235 million has been raised by super-PACs and other
unlimited-contribution groups backing particular GOP candidates, a
still-incomplete tally shows, compared with only $58 million raised in
smaller amounts by the campaigns themselves.

“Outside money has been taken to a new level, beyond, I think, anybody's
reasonable expectations,” said Kenneth Gross, a political-law partner at
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom who has counseled campaigns for both
parties.

With the exception of Donald Trump, a billionaire who has said he plans to
pay his own way, every major Republican contender has an allied outside
group working on his or her behalf. By comparison, at this point in 2011,
only one of the 12 Republican contenders had a super-PAC. That was Mitt
Romney, whose super-PAC's $12 million haul was less than the $18 million
raised by his official campaign at that point. Super-PACs never represented
more than a small fraction of the total spending in the race.

American elections are being transformed by a series of court rulings,
including the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, which
loosened decades-old limits on money in politics by declaring that
political spending was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.
For proponents of the changes, the current fundraising cycle is a sign of a
reinvigorated democracy, and may help explain why so many candidates are
throwing their hats in the ring.

“More speech freedom means more candidates, and more choices for voters,”
said the Center for Competitive Politics' David Keating, who helped bring
about another key court decision, Speechnow V. FEC, that laid the
groundwork for super-PACs in 2010. “We may end up with best informed
primary electorate ever.”

But Gross called the prominence of the outside groups “unhealthy” to the
system. “Candidates who are not viable can be propped up by a handful of
donors,” he said.

Thanks to the court rulings, super-PACs can raise unlimited amounts from
individuals and corporations, and can spend money directly on campaign
advocacy, as long as they don't coordinate spending with a candidate.
(Direct campaign contributions are still limited to $5,400 between the
primary and general election.) Although some super-PACs were around in the
2012 race, they were newer and campaign lawyers were cautious about using
them. This time around, they are not only starting earlier and with better
funding, but in some cases they are taking over functions traditionally
handled by campaigns, such as fielding press inquiries and organizing
volunteers in early primary states.

The head of the PACs so far is Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, who
founded and raised millions for his super-PAC months before he officially
declared his candidacy. The PAC's $103 million haul is about 9 times what
his actual campaign has raised.

Bush faces a field of GOP contenders with similarly deep-pocketed backers.
Groups backing Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, and Senators Marco
Rubio and Ted Cruz have all indicated they've got $25 million or more to
spend.

“In the era of super-PACs, as long as you have even just one or two donors
who are willing to write large checks to support a candidate, that may be
enough to keep a candidate in the race,” said Anthony Corrado, a professor
of government at Colby College in Maine. He said this year's Republican
field is the largest for either party since at least the 1970s.

The story is different on the Democratic side, where front-runner Hillary
Clinton has focused her fundraising efforts on her official campaign. She's
raised $45 million, compared with about $24 million gathered by allied
outside groups. Bernie Sanders has discouraged super-PACs from backing his
campaign and has raised about $15 million through traditional means.

Former hedge-fund manager George Soros, the media mogul Haim Saban, and the
DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg are among those mentioned in
media reports as having written large checks to groups backing Clinton. The
Florida car dealer Norman Braman, the pipeline billionaire Kelcy Warren,
and the hedge-fund executive Robert Mercer are among those said to be
already backing various Republicans.

The only Republican candidate unlikely to be dependent on outside money is
Trump, the real-estate mogul and television personality who pegs his own
net worth at almost $9 billion. “I'm not using donors,” he said when he
declared as a candidate last month. “I don't care. I'm really rich.”

*Trump's Popularity Rises, Still 2-1 Negative, While Clinton Regains
Positive Territory
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-popularity-rises-negative-clinton-regains-positive-territory/story?id=32450539&singlePage=true>
//ABC // Gregory Holyk – July 15, 2015 *

Positive views of Donald Trump have doubled since his controversial
comments on immigration, although many more Americans still dislike rather
than like him, now by nearly a 2-1 margin — and his negatives have soared
among Hispanics, a sought-after group in national politics.

Thirty-three percent of Americans see Trump favorably; that’s doubled from
16 percent in a pre-candidacy ABC News/Washington Post poll in late May.
Sixty-one percent see him unfavorably, down from 71 percent but still
leaving him deeply under water in popularity overall.

Among Hispanics, negative views of Trump have jumped by 21 percentage
points, from 60 percent in May to 81 percent today. That’s a potential
challenge for the Republican Party, which has struggled to win support
among racial and ethnic minorities, with Hispanics a prime target.

Trump’s not alone with popularity challenges. While Republican fundraising
leader Jeb Bush has gained some ground, just 38 percent of Americans see
him favorably – a scant 5 points more than Trump’s rating — while 47
percent rate Bush unfavorably.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating has improved
to a majority after a sustained fall from her heights as secretary of
state. The much less well-known Bernie Sanders, while drawing crowds on the
campaign trail, gets a split decision, 27-28 percent.

Trump’s positive ratings are up very sharply among Republicans and strong
conservatives, by 34 and 30 points, to 57 and 55 percent, respectively.
He’s also gained 26 points among seniors and 24 points among whites, to 38
and 42 percent in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates.

That said, Republicans and strong conservatives are the only groups in
which majorities see Trump favorably. He’s seen unfavorably, for example,
by 53 percent of whites, rising to 74 percent of nonwhites; 58 percent of
independents; and six in 10 political moderates. And far more people
strongly dislike than like Trump, 45-14 percent.

Fifty-two percent see Clinton favorably, up 7 points from late May, while
45 percent see her negatively – putting her popularity back above water, if
not broadly so. The result reverses a 22-point drop in favorability from
her peak in January 2013.

Clinton’s improved the most since May among minorities, including Hispanics
(up 17 points) and blacks (+12 points), as well as a mix of other groups,
including Northeasterners (+16), “somewhat” conservatives (+14) and young
adults (+12).

Positive ratings of Bush are up 6 percentage points from late May, albeit
just to 38 percent; the 9-point gap between his favorable and unfavorable
ratings has narrowed from 19 points in late May. Still, Bush has been stuck
in the 30s in favorable ratings all year.

His improvement is broadly based, highlighted by 18- and 11-point advances
in favorable scores among Midwesterners and Westerners and double-digit
gains among Hispanics (+14 points), Democrats (+12), conservatives (+10)
and men (+10).

Sanders, for his part, remains little known: Forty-five percent of
Americans have yet to form an opinion of him. As noted, he breaks even
among others, 27-28 percent, favorable-unfavorable, with his best ratings
among liberals (45 percent), high-income earners (42 percent), college
graduates (41 percent) and Democrats (36 percent).

Groups

Clinton’s popularity in a comparatively uncluttered Democratic field
reflects her better performance relative to Bush and Trump among her
partisan and ideological base, as well as some key demographic groups.
She’s viewed positively by 82 percent of Democrats, for example, while 63
and 57 percent of Republicans like Bush and Trump, respectively.

Further, while Clinton’s seen favorably by 76 percent of liberals, there
are greater ideological divisions on the GOP side. Bush is seen favorably
by just 43 percent of strong conservatives (vs. 52 percent of somewhat
conservatives). That flips for Trump – 55 percent favorability among strong
conservatives vs. 40 percent among somewhat conservatives.

Clinton essentially breaks even among independents, while Bush and Trump
are under water by 13 and 23 points, respectively, in this group. Bush is
much closer to Clinton among moderates, while Trump’s popularity is well
behind.

Clinton also gets at least as good a favorability rating as Bush or Trump
among men, whites and seniors — more GOP- than Democratic-leaning groups —
as well as scoring much better among women, nonwhites and young adults.
Notably, two-thirds of Hispanics view Clinton positively, compared with 46
percent for Bush and, for Trump, 13 percent.

*Bernie Sanders Won’t Accept Money From Billionaires. Donald Trump Donated
$100,000 to Hillary Clinton.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-wont-accept-money-from-billionaires-donald-trump-donated-100000-to-hillary-clinton_b_7799576.html>
// HuffPo // H.A. Goodman – July 15, 2015 *

American politics today is a battle for the trust and loyalty of not only
rank and file Democrats or Republicans, but also for the ever-elusive swing
voter. In 2016, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Virginia will be what
POLITICO refers to as "super-swingy states" and with their total of 75
electoral votes up for grabs, the next president will have to convey an
image of trustworthiness before reaching the White House. Therefore, it's
tough to say "Basta" when it comes to rhetoric, but not around $100,000
from a controversial billionaire. According to The Clinton Foundation,
Donald Trump is listed as contributing somewhere between $100,000-$250,000,
making it difficult to believe (if one correlates values to refusing money
from people they oppose ideologically) the verbal sparring match between
Clinton and Trump.

In terms of honesty from a new perspective in American politics, POLITICO
published a piece titled "Bernie Sanders Doesn't Follow the Money" and
quotes Vermont's Senator as boldly stating, "I don't want money from the
billionaires." Sanders wants to break up the banks, enact a modern-day
Glass Steagall, thinks that we've entered an era that could lead to
oligarchy, and believes the "Billionaire Class" has too great a control of
our political system.

The man is honest. He says things that simply aren't said in today's jaded
political environment. Furthermore, not since the days of Theodore
Roosevelt or William Howard Taft has a political figure spoken and acted in
such a bold manner towards Wall Street and big business. Speaking of
Roosevelt, the University of Virginia's Miller Center describes the
Republican icon in the same manner people today speak of Bernie Sanders:

At the turn of the 20th century, Americans had begun to look for ways to
address some of these problems. As chief executive, Roosevelt felt
empowered by the people to help ensure social justice and economic
opportunity through government regulation.

One of Roosevelt's central beliefs was that the government had the right to
regulate big business to protect the welfare of society.

Judging by America's wealth inequality, it seems that we have more in
common with the Gilded Age than Clinton, Trump, or Bush would like to
admit. Also, comparing Roosevelt to Sanders is not only apt, but also
addresses the key issues that make Vermont's Senator so popular. It's also
important to note that if Fox News were around during Roosevelt's time, the
conservative news station would refer to TR as a "socialist."

Sanders speaks his mind, and his actions back up both his value system and
political philosophy. If it's too big to fail (even after the horrendous
2008 financial crisis), then it's too big to exist. For this reason, Bernie
Sanders raises money primarily from his website and not investment banks
like other candidates.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will not propose a new Glass-Steagall,
her foundation is linked to ethical scandal, and Mother Jones estimates
that Clinton has earned $5 million from speaking engagements to "corporate
heavyweights." In terms of Donald Trump's latest xenophobic comments, it's
admirable that Clinton has condemned the Donald's racist remarks, but
donations from the billionaire raise questions as to the sincerity of their
recent sparring match. According to a Daily Caller article titled Donald
Trump Donated At Least $100K to Clinton Foundation, the same people
claiming to vehemently disagree with one another seemed to have agreed in
the past on campaign donations:

Potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and attention-seeking
businessman Donald Trump has donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton
Foundation, despite his criticism of the foundation's dealings.

...What Trump neglected to mention was his own donations to the foundation.
Trump is listed on the Clinton Foundation's donor page as having given
somewhere between $100,001 and $250,000.

Perhaps the donation shouldn't be so shocking considering Trump also
donated to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate campaign, before selling
himself as conservative firebrand.

The Washington Post states that not only did Trump donate to Clinton, but
"The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign
Committee of New York."

As for the history between both Trump and Clinton, POLITCO published a
piece titled Donald Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems,
and while they might be sparring politically at the moment, they've had a
political association in the past:

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had
some say over policy that could have impacted Trump's vast business
dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on
separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and
federal disclosure records.

Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least
$100,000, according to the non-profit.

...Trump defended his donations to New York Democrats in an interview with
Fox News' Sean Hannity that April, proclaiming that in the state, "everyone
is Democratic" and implying that to donate otherwise would be waste of his
money.

In 2016, there's one question that all voters should ask: Why would Trump
imply "that to donate otherwise would be waste of his money," and what
utility did he derive from not "wasting" his money and donating to Clinton
and other Democrats?

On the other side of the political spectrum, Bernie Sanders doesn't need
the money of billionaires, since most likely they'd be "wasting" money on
donating to his campaign. After all, Sanders is quoted in The Washington
Post as saying things that no other politician in America would dare utter
during an election cycle:

The American people do not want an economy dominated by a handful of
gigantic Wall Street firms who live in their own world... These guys have
engaged in a whole lot of illegal activity and highly complicated financial
tools designed to enrich themselves. That has gotta be broken...

Let me give you some interesting news. I announced yesterday. In 24 hours,
100,000 people have signed up to join the campaign. We have received 35,000
donations. You know what the average donation was? $43. We raised a million
and a half dollars in 24 hours with an average donation of $43.

That is where most of our money is going to come from...I will not be part
of any Super PAC.

Throughout my career I have not taken any corporate PAC money. That will
remain for this race as well.

Can I raise a billion dollars? Probably not. But the question is, can I
raise enough money to run a grass roots campaign and utilize millions of
people? I think we can raise that kind of money.

In contrast to Clinton, Bush, Trump and America's political establishment,
Bernie Sanders sounds more like the protagonist in an old Hollywood film
than a jaded politician eager to cater to all sides of the political
spectrum.

Bernie Sanders can easily defeat any GOP nominee because he stands for the
exact opposite of Jeb Bush or Donald Trump. For the Clinton campaign,
donations from Trump and Wall Street could be a factor in why CNN published
a piece titled Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing
states. While Clinton, Bush and others will have to be all things to all
people, Bernie Sanders simply needs to be himself.

For swing voters in swing states like Ohio or Florida, the trustworthiness
of our future president will be partially linked to how they finance their
campaigns. It's 480 days from Election Day, and Bernie Sanders has already
stunned Washington's establishment and the country. It's likely that his
refusal to accept money from people like Donald Trump will continue to help
him, especially in swing states. It might also send an invaluable precedent
and enable him to achieve a title once thought impossible for Vermont's
Senator: Mr. President.

*Bush Hails Uber, While Clinton Criticizes
<http://time.com/3960082/uber-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton/> // TIME // Jay
Newton-Small – July 15, 2015 *

Uber hitched an unexpected ride on the 2016 campaign trail this week.

During a rollout of her economic plan Monday, Democratic frontrunner
Hillary Clinton took companies like Uber to task for not giving drivers
benefits. On Friday morning, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush
plans on hailing an Uber in San Francisco to show his support for the
ride-sharing company and others like it.

For some Republicans, the contrast made Clinton an easy target.

Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to
Congress, argued the former Secretary of State was out of touch with the
younger generation. “If you look at millenials, we love those companies
[like Uber], we love consumer choices,” she said. “It’s a big mistake, I
think, that Secretary Clinton chose to go after those companies that are
really disrupting those industries for the better.”

But the politics of Uber aren’t so clear cut for either side.

While Republicans love the idea of breaking taxi unions, GOP support for
the sharing economy isn’t so clear-cut. Most of the sharing economy
vanguard—companies like Uber, AirBnB and Lyft—were born in California, a
big blue state, and their corporate blueprints assume the kind of large
social safety net favored by Democrats.

As Uber CEO Travis Kalanick told reporters in Washington in November, the
Affordable Care Act was “huge” for his company because the “democratization
of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make
a living.” In other words, his company didn’t have to provide health
insurance because drivers could buy it on their own through Obamacare.
(That was eight months before a California court ruled that Uber drivers
are, in fact, employees and thus were owed typical benefits, a decision the
company is appealing.)

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, who built a fortune in cell phone
technology, calls it “the gig economy.” Part-time or temporary workers
already account for 40.4% of the workforce, up from 35.3% in 2006. Many of
these workers have several jobs doing things like driving for Uber, renting
out their couch through Airbnb or doing freelance journalism, software
coding or videography. These jobs provide workers with flexibility and give
them an alternative to unemployment, but the drawback is that they don’t
come with the standard package of benefits most full-time workers have long
enjoyed.

Despite Clinton’s harsh words for Uber, Jake Sullivan, one of her top
policy advisors, told a group of Washington journalists at a breakfast
Tuesday organized by the Christian Science Monitor that there’s no easy
answer. “It’s a huge question and a very hard one,” he said.

While Clinton faces the risk of looking uncool by criticizing Uber, Bush
faces an even tougher question. After all, repealing Obamacare is at the
top of every 2016 Republican candidates’ list. It’s one thing to ride in an
Uber, but quite another to figure out how to fix its business model if the
safety net shrinks.

But if the 2016 candidates are just skirting around the edges of the issue,
Congress has barely touched it.

A self-described pro-business moderate, Warner is just about the only one
on Capitol Hill thinking about these issues. He’s exploring legislation
that would help freelancers, such as creating an Obamacare-type program for
retirement benefits or building off the model that some trade unions have
for contract workers to receive benefits. He also is looking to revamp the
tax code to create a category for “dependent workers,” a hybrid between a
contractor and a full-time employee that would end the debates, if not the
legal challenges, on exactly what kind of an employee gig economy workers
are.

But Warner is months, if not years, away from legislation and little is
likely to pass before the election, regardless. Which leaves the issue open
for debate among the 2016 field. Where should workers in the gig economy
get benefits: from their employers or the government?

*OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/BLOGS*

*Jim Webb: A respectable alternative to Hillary Clinton
<http://www.newsday.com/opinion/jim-webb-a-respectable-alternative-to-hillary-clinton-1.10645450>
// Newsday // July 15, 2015 *

Jim Webb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, likes to joke that he
is probably the only person ever elected to statewide office in the Old
Dominion who has "a union card, two Purple Hearts and three tattoos."

Now, as the fifth candidate to vie for the 2016 Democratic presidential
nomination, Webb is aiming to become the first commander in chief with
those possessions -- along with many other credentials. The highly
decorated combat veteran, who led a Marine Corps platoon and company in
Vietnam, went on to serve as assistant defense secretary and secretary of
the Navy. His other medals include the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two
Bronze Stars. He has also written 10 books (including six novels), taught
literature at his alma mater (the United States Naval Academy), won an Emmy
Award in 1984 for reporting he did on U.S. Marines in Beirut in as a
journalist for PBS, and earned a law degree at Georgetown University. He's
the real deal.

Yet, when I was asked recently by a television producer what I thought Webb
brought to the presidential race, the last thing on my mind was his resume.
Rather, what occurred to me were the various constituencies -- including
Democrats and independents -- that Webb might appeal to that are being
ignored, feel they have no voice or haven't found a candidate they can
support.

The media don't get it. The narrative I've seen is that Webb speaks for
"Southern whites" -- the kind of folks who, the rest of the country
assumes, want to roll back affirmative action and save the Confederate
battle flag.

It's much more complicated than that. There are at least five different
constituencies that might embrace someone like Webb:

-- Blue-collar workers. If you're in a union and you worry about being
pushed out of your job by a trade deal that undermines American workers or
you fear having to compete with newly legalized immigrants who take jobs
and lower wages, then you're going to be leery of Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic establishment. You want someone who fights for you. Webb could
step into that role.

-- Those who want a "Plan B." Even if you support Clinton, you might still
worry that she can't go the distance. Polls show that many Americans don't
trust her, which is a likely response to multiple scandals involving
everything from deleted emails to questions surrounding the killing of four
Americans in Benghazi, Libya. If you feel like the revelation that
torpedoes the Clinton campaign is just around the corner, you might
consider Webb a safer bet.

-- Conservative Democrats. While our politics are polarized, we used to
have liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Webb is the latter.
Among Democrats, Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont are racing to
the far left. Conservative Democrats might feel as if they have no good
choices. Webb gives them an option to stay in the party.

Opinion

-- The ABH ("Anyone But Hillary") crowd. There are Democrats who are not
anxious to usher in another Clinton era. They want fresh blood, and so
they're now supporting other candidates. For Democrats who are tired of
dynasties and think the way to beat someone like former Florida Gov. Jeb
Bush is to nominate a candidate who believes the presidency should be
merited not inherited, Webb could be appealing.

-- Finally, the strategists. In 2012, Democrats defined Mitt Romney as
rich, privileged and detached from reality. Now, if Clinton wins the
nomination, it will be the Democratic candidate who -- with her husband --
is estimated to be worth between $100 million and $200 million. Meanwhile,
on the Republican side, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is the son of a
bartender and hotel maid. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the son of a
pastor and part-time secretary. And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
had parents who ran a restaurant and pool hall. Democrats need a candidate
who can counter the populist appeal that this crop of Republicans could
generate. That's not Clinton. It could be Webb, who grew up in a military
family.

For the media to ignore all this, and boil down Webb's candidacy to crass
racial politics and an attempt to give voice to Southern whites is an
insult -- not just to Webb but to the remarkable country that he has spent
much of his life serving and defending.

*Democratic poll shows Nevada Senate race a dead heat, Hillary up in the
state
<http://origin.ralstonreports.com/blog/democratic-poll-shows-nevada-senate-race-dead-heat-hillary-state>
// Ralston Reports // Jon Ralston – July 15, 2015 *

The U.S. Senate race in Nevada is a dead heat while every Republican
candidate would lose today to Hillary Clinton in Nevada, according to a
poll conducted by a Democratic-leaning pollster for a Democratic SuperPAC.

The numbers for the Senate Majority PAC actually make sense despite what
some will criticize as the source, especially because the partisan
breakdown is reasonable (the pollster used the actual 39-34, D-R split,
although performance usually favors the GOP to cut into that edge) and past
crosstabs have shown the pollster, Public Policy Polling, knows the state.
PPP, though, has had mixed results in Nevada, botching last cycle's LG race
but besting other pollsters at times, including during the 2010 U.S. Senate
race that most others had Sharron Angle winning.

Here's what the numbers show from this month, with a margin of effor of
just under 5 percent:

►Catherine Cortez Masto, 42 percent; Joe Heck, 41 percent

►Clinton is up 48/43 on Marco Rubio, 48/42 on Donald Trump, 48/41 on Scott
Walker, and 49/37 on Jeb Bush.

Six points on Trump! My God.

Those presidential numbers are not that surprising, considering the voter
registration edge (55,000-plus) the Democrats have and the performance in
2008 and 2012 here.

The survey also shows the federal minimum wage could be an effective wedge
issue for the Democratic contender, as you will see from the memo below.

By the way, the PPP poll is much more credible than the U.S. Chamber survey
that showed Heck winning in a landslide and had questionable demographics.
(The chamber, which started running ads for Heck this week, also refused to
release any more information when I asked.)

Also, let's be clear: Any poll taken in July of 2015 does not mean all that
much, and its release is designed to help fundraising and little more.
Also, this race has always been destined to be close unless something
unforeseen occurs, and the presidential contest in Nevada is a mystery
wrapped in a conundrum surrounded by an enigma until we see who the nominee
is.

And did I mention the election is 481 days away?

Here's the polling memo:

From: Tom Jensen, Director of Public Policy Polling

To: Interested Parties

Subject: Nevada Senate Race Tight; Clinton Well Positioned in State

Date: July 15, 2015

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that the open race for the Senate
in Nevada is a toss up, with Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto leading
Republican Joe Heck by a single point. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is well
positioned in the Presidential race, leading the top Republicans by 5-12
points in the state. Key findings from the survey include:

-For now the Senate race is about as close as it can be, with Cortez Masto
leading Heck 42/41. There are indications within the numbers of Cortez
Masto having more room for growth though- the undecideds voted for Barack
Obama by 24 points in 2012 and they support Hillary Clinton over the trio
of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker by an average of 11 points.
Those folks are likely to end up voting Democratic for the Senate too in
the end.

-Hillary Clinton is the clear favorite for President in Nevada, and her
coattails are likely to benefit Cortez Masto in the Senate race as well.
Clinton’s up 48/43 on Marco Rubio, 48/42 on Donald Trump, 48/41 on Scott
Walker, and 49/37 on Jeb Bush. If Clinton’s winning the state by those
kinds of margins, she’s likely to bring Cortez Masto along with her.

One issue that gives Cortez Masto a decided advantage over Heck is
increasing the federal minimum wage. 59% of voters support doing that to
only 34% who are opposed. Heck’s conservative stance on that issue may
prove untenable in a state that’s becoming increasingly Democratic in
Presidential elections.

The Nevada Senate race starts out about as tight as it can be. But Hillary
Clinton’s strength in the state and the continued growth of voters in
Democratic friendly demographic groups leave Catherine Cortez Masto pretty
well positioned for next year.

Public Policy Polling surveyed 677 Nevada voters on July 13th and 14th on
behalf of Senator Majority PAC. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.8%.
39% of those surveyed were Democrats, 34% were Republicans, and 27% were
independents or members of other parties.

*TOP NEWS*

*DOMESTIC*

*Senate clears way for final vote on No Child rewrite
<http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c87b4b9dac334274866e37fb46d4b9b5/senate-clears-way-final-vote-no-child-rewrite>
// AP // Jennifer C. Kerr – July 14, 2015 *

The Senate has cleared the way for a vote by Thursday on a bipartisan bill
to rewrite the George W. Bush-era No Child Left Behind education law.

Lawmakers have been considering the bill since last week. They voted
Wednesday to limit additional debate on further changes to the legislation
and move forward to a vote on final passage.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray,
D-Wash., would narrow the federal role in public schools by giving states
and school districts more control over assessing the performance of
schools, teachers and students.

It would keep No Child Left Behind's requirement for annual math and
reading tests but prohibit the federal government from requiring or
encouraging specific sets of academic standards, such as Common Core.

Common Core was drafted by the states with the support of the Obama
administration, but the standards become a rallying point for those who
want a smaller federal role in education

Senators intended to spend the next day discussing dozens of amendments
before a final vote. Any bill that emerges from the Senate would then have
to be reconciled with a more conservative version that the House passed
last week.

The House bill, sponsored by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., also lessens the
federal role in education policy by turning more power over to the states
to assess school performance and by preventing the administration from
pushing Common Core on the states.

This bill also allows federal money to follow low-income children to public
schools of their choice, an issue known as portability. Democrats do not
support it.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said the White House would veto the
House measure. Duncan has been more supportive of the Senate bill, but has
urged changes that would require states to identify their lowest-performing
schools and require those schools to have plans for improvement.

No Child Left Behind, which had bipartisan support and was signed into law
by Bush in 2002, mandated annual testing in reading and math for students
in grades three through eight and again in high school. Schools had to show
student growth or face consequences. But critics complained there was too
much testing and the law was too punitive on schools deemed failing.

The law has been up for reauthorization since 2007.

*Obamacare Fines Paid by 6.6 Million Taxpayers, More Than Planned
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/obamacare-fines-paid-by-6-6-million-taxpayers-more-than-planned>
// Bloomberg // Anna Edney – July 15, 2015 *

About 6.6 million U.S. taxpayers paid a penalty imposed for the first time
this year for not having health insurance, about 10 percent more than the
Obama administration had estimated -- though a portion didn’t need to.

The penalty of as much as 1 percent of income was implemented under the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and was meant to
encourage people to sign up for health insurance. The Treasury Department
had said in January that as many as 6 million taxpayers would pay the fine.

The average penalty was $190, the Internal Revenue Service said Wednesday
in a report. About 300,000 taxpayers overpaid the penalty by a total of $35
million. Most should have been exempt for their low income, according to
the agency.

The average overpayment was a little more than $110. The IRS hasn’t decided
yet whether to issue a refund for the overpayments.

“Since the majority of taxpayers use paid tax-return preparers, most would
probably spend more than the roughly $110 average overpayment amount in
preparer fees if amended returns are required,” the agency said.

About 10.7 million taxpayers filed for an exemption from the penalty.

For those who did gain health-care coverage under new marketplaces created
by Obamacare, 2.6 million filed for premium tax credits to help them afford
insurance, adding up to $7.7 billion in subsidies. The average tax credit
was $3,000, the IRS said.

About 8 million people purchased health coverage through the government-run
marketplaces in 2014.

*INTERNATIONAL*

*Clearing Hurdles to Iran Nuclear Deal With Standoffs, Shouts and
Compromise
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/world/middleeast/clearing-hurdles-to-iran-nuclear-deal-with-standoffs-shouts-and-compromise.html?ref=world>
// NYT // David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordon – July 15, 2015 *

One by one, the roadblocks to a nuclear accord between Iran and the United
States had been painstakingly cleared. But as the negotiations went into
their third week in the neoclassical Coburg Palace hotel this month, a
major dispute lingered: whether a ban on Iran’s ability to purchase
conventional weapons and missile technology would remain in place.

The American delegation, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, insisted on
extending the ban. But Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister
and his country’s chief negotiator, was opposed. Backing him were the
Russians and Chinese, equal parties in the talks, who saw a lucrative
market in selling arms to Tehran.

A compromise was struck that fully satisfied neither side: a five-year ban
on the sale of conventional weapons and an eight-year ban on ballistic
missiles.

As Mr. Obama made clear again Wednesday, the alternative he saw to the deal
was a steady slide toward another war — perhaps, aides thought, in just a
year or two as Iran’s nuclear abilities accelerated. Throughout the talks,
he had one goal: to diminish the prospect that Iran could develop an atomic
bomb — or could race for one before the United States and its allies could
react.

For the president, everything else — Iran’s support for terrorism, its
imprisonment of dissidents and even some Americans, its meddling in Iraq
and Syria, its arms trade — was secondary.

For the Iranians, this was a negotiation first and foremost to get rid of
what Mr. Zarif often called the “unjust sanctions” while trying to keep
their nuclear options open. But while they treasured their nuclear program,
they treasured the symbolism of not backing down to American demands even
more. But Mr. Zarif was walking his own high-wire act at home. While he had
an important ally in Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, hard-liners did not
want to reach any deal at all; many were making a fortune from the
sanctions because they controlled Iran’s black markets.

And conservatives around the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were
looking for any signs that their Americanized chief negotiator, who studied
at the University of Denver, was ready to give away too much nuclear
infrastructure without getting Iran the sanctions lifted in return, as the
ayatollah had decreed.

There was no single event, no heart-to-heart conversation between
adversaries or game-changing insight that made the Iran deal happen.
Instead, over a period of years, each side came to gradually understand
what mattered most to the other.

For the Americans, that meant designing offers that kept the shell of
Iran’s nuclear program in place while gutting its interior. For the
Iranians, it meant ridding themselves of sanctions in ways they could
describe to their own people as forcing the United States to deal with Iran
as an equal, respected sovereign power. And it happened because a brief
constellation of personalities and events came into alignment:

A sultan in Oman who convinced the White House that he could establish a
back channel to the Iranians. The election of Mr. Rouhani, who Mr. Obama
thought would be more receptive to his overtures than Iran’s aging supreme
leader. A series of insights from the Energy Department’s nuclear
laboratories that allowed the physics of enrichment to create new space for
compromise among the political leaders. And the presence of two top
diplomats, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif, driven by the conviction that they
could break an ugly 35-year history.

At one point last week the simmering tension between the two negotiators
boiled over when Mr. Zarif felt his American counterpart was pressing too
hard. “Never threaten an Iranian!” he shouted. At the other end of the
table Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, who has had his share
of disputes with Mr. Kerry, tried to break the tension. “Or a Russian!” he
said, as the room broke out in nervous laughter.

But during a break on one particularly discouraging March day in Lausanne,
Switzerland, where negotiations were held before adjourning to Vienna, Mr.
Zarif struck a different tone as he invoked the names of the key figures on
two sides, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the top energy
officials of the United States and Iran, Ernest J. Moniz and Ali Akbar
Salehi.

“We are not going to have another time in history when there is an Obama
and a Biden and a Kerry and a Moniz again,” he said, according to notes of
the conversation. “And there may be no Rouhani, Zarif and Salehi.”

Barack Obama came to office hoping for a dialogue with Tehran but focused
on the problem of nuclear proliferation. After Ayatollah Khamenei responded
to Mr. Obama’s private letters with long diatribes about America’s efforts,
the president turned to squeezing the country economically.

“Obama seemed very comfortable with the shift to sanctions after the
Iranians failed to reciprocate to his overtures,” Gary Samore, then a
senior White House aide. He pressed the Russians to delay selling the
S-300, a sophisticated air defense system, to Iran, and sent a delegation
to persuade Beijing to reduce China’s purchases of oil.

But when an offer to help get secret talks started with the Iranians came
from Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman, the president was intrigued.
Eventually the White House turned to a trusted ally to tease out the
possibilities: Mr. Kerry, then a senator from Massachusetts. Meeting in
Oman on Dec. 7, 2011, the sultan said an accord could be reached.

There was a high likelihood, the sultan said, that a deal could be reached
if the Obama administration showed its seriousness about a diplomatic
solution. But making a point that would recur time and again — down to the
last days of the Vienna talks — he said that a way would need to be found
to allow the Iranians to “keep their honor.”

It took seven months — until July 2012 — before secret envoys sent by Mr.
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met with the Iranians,
and that meeting went poorly. Then, in June 2013, came the election of Mr.
Rouhani, whom the supreme leader had allowed to run, largely on a platform
of ridding Iran of the sanctions that were squeezing the elite and middle
class.

“The president said we had to work up a letter to him right away,” one of
Mr. Obama’s senior aides said. “He sensed it was a moment we had to seize.”

As Mr. Obama’s aides sketched out how the negotiations might play out, they
faced a threshold decision: Would they abandon the Bush administration’s
mantra that “not one centrifuge spins,” a position they knew the Iranians
would never accept? Or were they willing to allow a token Iranian program —
a face-saving one — if the trade-off was two decades or so of restrictions?

A consensus quickly emerged that a contained program was far better than a
smoldering confrontation that seemed headed toward a military strike. “The
idea was that if we accepted enrichment it would be at a very small level,”
said Dennis B. Ross, who served on the National Security Council during Mr.
Obama’s first term. “By being very limited, it would be a manifestation
that they really had a peaceful nuclear program.”

But it became clear that Iran envisioned something different: a sizable
nuclear infrastructure that would take a pause of a few years, the price of
ending sanctions, but then resume its march to “industrial scale” uranium
enrichment. The gap between the American numbers of acceptable centrifuges
and the Iranian numbers seem unbridgeable.

Looking for a way to break the deadlock without forcing the Iranians into a
corner, the nuclear experts at the Energy Department began to present
other, more complex options. The focus, they suggested, should not be
simply on the number and type of centrifuges, but the “breakout time,” the
amount of time it would take for Iran, under a “best reasonable” estimate,
to produce a single weapon’s worth of material. Put simply, Iran could have
centrifuges running if it agreed to a far smaller stockpile of fuel.

“There were many intense meetings on this,” recalled Antony J. Blinken, Mr.
Obama’s deputy national security adviser at the time, and now the deputy
secretary of state. “We had to present a lot of permutations to the
president to meet his bottom lines.”

The military said it could live with a “breakout time” of a year; that was
plenty of time to launch a strike to destroy Iran’s production facilities.
But the optics of allowing thousands of centrifuges to remain was not good.

“Throughout this process,” Mr. Blinken said, “we’ve been faced with a
choice between what is politically feasible and what is practically
necessary.”

It would be the first of many such choices.

Progress Is Halting

A series of secret negotiations with the Rouhani team, led by Mrs.
Clinton’s top aide, Jake Sullivan, and one of America’s most experienced
diplomats, William J. Burns, explored the possibilities.

“I have about six months to get this through,” Mr. Zarif said in New York
in September 2013, on his first trip to the United Nations as foreign
minister after many years of academic exile. After that, he feared, the
opponents of dealing with the United States would rise again. He was wrong:
It turned out the process went on for another 22 months.

A first agreement, just to get Iran to freeze its current nuclear activity
and blend down some stockpiles of fuel that the West feared was approaching
weapons-grade, took months to negotiate. Then came halting progress, as the
Americans began to realize that at every stage the Iranians were fighting
to preserve every major nuclear facility. “It was all about perception,”
one negotiator said. “They fought to keep the buildings and tangible
equipment. It was easier for them to give up fuel or parts of the equipment
people didn’t see.” That preserved a narrative that nothing had been
surrendered.

Last summer, Iran’s supreme leader made the problem even harder,
pronouncing in a speech (which took Mr. Zarif by surprise) that Iran should
eventually have an industrial-scale enrichment program — with 190,000
centrifuges — to provide fuel for power reactors. The logjam was not broken
until several extensions of the talks, and a marathon set of meetings in
Lausanne, where a critical treaty had been negotiated at the end of World
War I. By this time, Mr. Moniz and Mr. Salehi, a former foreign minister
and now head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, joined the talks to
work out the nuclear details — in a less political, more scientific
environment.

The officials working under Mr. Salehi “were mostly hard-liners, and they
would give on nothing,” one American official said. But when Mr. Salehi,
who got his nuclear training at M.I.T. before the Iranian revolution,
showed up and developed a rapport with Mr. Moniz, the secretary of energy
and a former chairman of the M.I.T. physics department, the Iranian
bureaucrats were often sidelined, or overruled. (Mr. Moniz played the
connection to the hilt, showing up one day with M.I.T.-logo baby gifts for
Mr. Salehi’s first grandchild.)

Over intense days, in which proposals were sketched out on rolling white
boards so that nothing was on paper, where it might have to go back to
Tehran for approval, they worked out a framework.

The two scientists found ways to achieve the one-year breakout time, at
least for the first 10 years, by reducing low enriched uranium stocks to a
mere 660 pounds, down from about nine tons that Iran has now produced. In
return, Iran would be allowed over 6,000 centrifuges, and an agreement to
keep 1,000 of them in Fordo, the deep underground enrichment site that
worried Israeli officials because it was impermeable to Israeli bombing.
But no fissile material — the stuff of enriched uranium — would be allowed
at Fordo, and last week the Iranians agreed to pull most of the piping out
of the facility, making it even harder to restart operations.

Still, Mr. Obama had talked about the need to close the facility when he
revealed its existence in 2009. There were other compromises. One Western
diplomat said an initial hope among some of the nations involved in the
talks was that the central provisions of an agreement would last 20 years.
They got 10, with restrictions on how much of a stockpile Iran could
maintain that last for 15 years.

“By the time we left Lausanne, most of the nuclear issues were solved, we
just had to work out the specific wording,” one of the negotiators said.

But tellingly, in the ensuing two and a half months, the two sides
described their agreements in very different terms. Mr. Kerry described an
Iranian capability that had been neutralized; the Iranians a capability
that had been preserved. That set up a collision course for the last
negotiations, in Vienna.

Political Requirements Differ

Mr. Kerry arrived in Vienna on June 28, hobbling on crutches after breaking
his femur in a bicycle accident in France. His chief negotiator, Wendy
Sherman, a tenacious, detail-oriented diplomat who had broken two or three
bones of her own during the negotiations, had already been in Vienna for a
week.

The Iranians, she reported, were intent on getting bigger, faster relief
from sanctions, claiming Mr. Rouhani’s political survival depended on it.

The United States also had its requirements. On the nuclear side, it needed
to cut off all three of Iran’s pathways to a bomb: obtaining uranium,
producing plutonium and the covert manufacture or purchase of a weapon.
Each of those carried enormous complexities. Politically, it needed to show
that Iran met all its major obligations before sanctions were lifted, and
that there was a mechanism to reimpose them quickly if Tehran stopped
cooperating.

Mr. Obama had already given ammunition to critics of a deal when he said in
an April interview that after year 13 of the accord Iran’s breakout time
could be down to nearly zero. That seemed to acknowledge the main critique
of the emerging agreement — that it constituted the medium-term management
of the Iranian program, not its elimination.

American negotiators believed the deal was better than that, but to
constrain Iran’s ability to emerge from the accord as a nuclear threshold
state they had to pin the Iranians down on some of the technical details,
including the development of more efficient centrifuges.

The problem was that the principal Iranian interlocutor for settling
precisely that issue, Mr. Salehi, was missing: He had undergone three
abdominal operations in the previous two months, and on a conference call a
few weeks before Mr. Moniz thought he sounded weak. “We didn’t know if
Salehi was reluctant to come, or too weak,” said one senior American
official. But without him, “we were getting nowhere.”

Two days after Mr. Kerry arrived, Mr. Zarif took a quick trip to Tehran,
ostensibly for consultations. Most important, he returned with Mr. Salehi
on his plane. The atmosphere at the Coburg Palace was tense. But on July 4,
the Iranians broke the ice by inviting the Americans for lunch, at which
Mr. Zarif complained about ads in Tehran that were inveighing against the
deal. Mr. Kerry talked about complaints he was getting from critics at
home, who he said were attacking an agreement without even bothering to
learn the details.

But the talks dragged on.

The Iranians appeared to think they could exploit a deadline for submitting
a finished accord to Congress for a 30-day review. The deadline was July 9.
“It was working against us,” one diplomat said. “The Iranians saw that
deadline and they were convinced we would give in on key details to avoid
the longer review.”

At the White House, Mr. Obama, monitoring the talks every few hours, was
getting concerned about a narrative that he and Mr. Kerry wanted a deal too
much — three mornings in a row Mr. Obama reminded his aides, “I don’t need
this.” They were not certain what he meant, but they had a theory: After
big victories in the Supreme Court on health care and the gay rights, he
could afford to be patient.

The days ticked by, with halting progress. Mr. Moniz finished the nuclear
details, often in meetings in the impressive stone basement of the Coburg,
built from the ramparts of old Vienna. The Iranians called it Fordo —
because, if you ignored the 60,000 wine bottles, it looked like their
underground enrichment center.

The last stretch was taken up largely with the wording of a United Nations
Security Council resolution that would lay out the terms of the arms
embargo. Finally, on Tuesday, the agreement was announced.

When the photo ops were over, the seven foreign ministers who had
negotiated it met for the last time. Each spoke briefly about the
importance of the moment. Mr. Kerry spoke last, but then added a personal
coda. Choking up, he recalled going off to Vietnam as a 22-year-old naval
officer and said he never wanted to go through that again. He emerged
committed, he said, to using diplomacy to avoid the horrors of war.

*Greece, Its Back to the Wall, Adopts Austerity Steps
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/business/international/imf-greece-debt-relief.html?ref=world>
// NYT // Suzanne Daley and James Kanter – July 15, 2015 *

Under threat from the nation’s creditors to move quickly or lose any chance
of obtaining a desperately needed new bailout package, Greece’s Parliament
approved painful new austerity measures early Thursday, virtually
guaranteeing that life would get harder for millions of Greeks.

With banks closed and the economy on the verge of collapse, Prime Minister
Alexis Tsipras had urged the adoption of the measures, saying that while it
was a difficult deal the creditors were offering, it was the only one
available and would avert a humanitarian and fiscal disaster.

The measures passed easily, with a vote of 229 to 64, with six abstentions.
Yet much of the support came from opposition parties. Thirty-two members of
Mr. Tsipras’s own Syriza party voted no, including three of his ministers,
throwing the stability of his left-wing coalition government into question.

The vote came a day after the International Monetary Fund signaled that it
might not back the new bailout unless the pact substantially reduced the
debt burden on Athens. That stance aligned it with Mr. Tsipras on the
question of debt reduction and provided him with new ammunition to argue
that the bailout plan did not do enough to get the Greek economy back on
its feet.

But with the country teetering on the edge of insolvency, Athens moved
ahead with the vote. It needed to begin unlocking the aid necessary to meet
a debt payment on Monday, put its banks on sounder footing and negotiate a
three-year package that would provide it with as much as 86 billion euros,
or about $94 billion, in assistance.

Mr. Tsipras was given only two days to begin to pass the creditors’
proposals. And as the vote neared, many in his party expressed profound
dismay that they were being asked to approve measures that would reduce
pensions and raise a wide array of taxes. One minister resigned before the
vote.

In his address to the deputies, the prime minister made no secret of his
unhappiness with the offer, which had forced him to backtrack on virtually
every campaign promise he made and which many leading economists have
condemned as unworkable.

But Mr. Tsipras said the alternative — exile from the eurozone — was the
greater evil.

“We took on powerful opponents, we clashed with international financial
system,” he said. “And in that sense it was an uneven battle. But I’m proud
of our fight.”

But some members of his party had argued earlier that more austerity
betrayed all that the party stood for and could not be accepted, especially
after 60 percent of Greek voters had already rejected less harsh terms in a
referendum just 10 days before.

“The people spoke,” said one Syriza member, Zoi Konstanpopoulou, the
speaker of Parliament. “We have a duty to defend their decision because our
power is sourced from them.”

Whether Mr. Tsipras will have to fashion a new coalition is unclear. Some
party members suggested that with no one calling for a vote of confidence
or a new election, he might be able to hang on.

Other analysts said that he would no doubt eventually have to form a new
unity government with other parties.

While Mr. Tsipras signed an agreement with his creditors on Monday, there
are still many potential pitfalls, including the fact that the accord must
win parliamentary approval in each of the other eurozone countries. France
has already given its approval, and German legislators could take up the
issue by Friday. On Thursday, finance ministers are to discuss bridge
financing for Greece until the terms of a longer agreement can be worked
out.

Members of Syriza welcomed the I.M.F. report. Dimitrios Papadimoulis, a
member of the European Parliament who is close to the prime minister, said
that the fund’s position could be helpful in the long run but that did not
make Wednesday’s parliamentary vote any less urgent.

He said the fund’s position had provided an “additional argument” for
reducing his country’s debt payments, but that right now Greece needed to
“stay alive” and approve the measures demanded by its European creditors.

The I.M.F.’s signal on Tuesday that it supported steps like forgiving some
of the debt or putting a three-decade moratorium on debt payments put it in
conflict with Greece’s European creditors.

Under the terms of the agreement, reached after a weekend of contentious
negotiations, the creditors would not forgive any debt and offered only a
general assurance of further discussions about reducing annual debt
payments by stretching out payment periods or reducing interest rates.

The bailout would be the third for Greece in five years and would involve
new loans from the other countries that use the euro, the European Central
Bank and the monetary fund.

The fund’s decision to go public with its position suggested that the draft
agreement would be only the starting point for further negotiations about
the sustainability of the debt and the willingness of lenders to recognize
that they might not get all their money back.

In Athens, tensions flared as Parliament prepared to vote. When the
controversial former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, took the floor to
compare the deal reached over the weekend in Brussels to the Treaty of
Versailles, which imposed harsh conditions on a defeated Germany after
World War I, one member of the center Right Democracy Party interrupted him
to shout, “You ruined the country.” Mr. Varoufakis, who along with Mr.
Tsipras had taken a confrontational stance with the creditors, said he
would not vote for the legislation.

Opposition party members took turns blaming Mr. Tsipras for the current
state of affairs, but vowed to vote for the measures anyway. Harry
Theoharris, of the centrist To Potami party, said that 10 years from now
students would be studying the events of today and “how we shot ourselves
and then started whining for a disability benefit.”

If nothing else, Greeks took some solace from the idea that the I.M.F.
report would help keep attention focused on the issue of the debt, which
Greece had long maintained was so heavy a burden that it choked off hope of
any economic recovery and forced unjustifiably deep cuts in government
spending.

“Certainly this issue is also going to be part of the discussions,
negotiations when we’ll be discussing the memorandum of understanding, when
we will be really preparing the third Greek program,” Valdis Dombrovskis, a
vice president of the European Commission responsible for the euro, told
the news media in Brussels.

The I.M.F.’s position highlighted a rift between European countries. Some,
including Germany, are adamantly against writing off any of Greece’s debt
of more than €300 billion, or about $330 billion. Others, including France,
have stressed the need to reduce Greece’s debt payments to a more realistic
and sustainable level, if not by forgiving any of the debt then by
extending the payment schedule or cutting interest rates.

The French government, which has played a central role in efforts to keep
Greece in the eurozone, said it welcomed the fund’s comments.

“The I.M.F. is saying the same thing that we are,” Michel Sapin, the French
finance minister, told BFM television on Wednesday. “That we have to help
Greece, but that we can’t do it if we maintain the same repayment burden on
the Greek economy.”

Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister, has been one of the most
hard-line opponents of debt relief for Greece.

He indicated on Tuesday that there was continued resistance in the German
government to the deal forged last weekend and a willingness to consider
whether it might be better for Greece to leave the eurozone.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has ruled out writing off any of the
Greek debt, but has left the door open to renegotiating the terms for
paying it back, suggesting that there remain grounds for a compromise.