Cameron Joseph is Talking Points Memo's senior political correspondent based in Washington, D.C. He covers Capitol Hill, the White House and the permanent campaign. Previous publications include the New York Daily News, Mashable, The Hill and National Journal. He grew up near Chicago and is an irrationally passionate Cubs fan.
In a few hours, we’ll see whether President Trump has knocked former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore off his high horse.
Moore, an inflammatory religious conservative who has twice been kicked off his state’s highest court for refusing to honor court orders regarding the separation of church and state, is the front-runner in a crowded GOP primary field to win Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ old Senate seat from Alabama.
But Trump’s late endorsement of appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) — as well as millions in ad spending from super PACs aligned with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — have sought to boost Strange to second place ahead of Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), a firebrand from the economic conservative rather than social conservative wing of the party, ahead of what’s expected to be a primary runoff.
Moore spent election day riding a horse to the polls — an election-day tradition for the traditionalist — before delivering one of his trademark religious right quips in an interview with Vox.
“There are communities under Sharia law right now in our country. Up in Illinois,” Moore declared before backtracking some when asked exactly where there were American communities living under Muslim law.
“Well, there’s Sharia law, as I understand it, in Illinois, Indiana — up there. I don’t know,” he continued.
Trump, in between tweeting attacks on the CEOs dropping out of his business council and taking impromptu questions where he defended the alt-right and blamed the left for the Neo Nazi-triggered violence in Charlottesville, VA last weekend, heaped praise on Strange in a Tuesday morning tweet. The president remains immensely popular with Alabama Republicans, and his last-minute boost could push Strange into a runoff and could help him stop Moore down the line.
Big day in Alabama. Vote for Luther Strange, he will be great!
No candidate is expected to win an outright majority to avoid a primary runoff, though Moore might have a slim outside shot of pulling off an outright win. McConnell’s allies have turned some of their fire on Moore in recent weeks after concentrating on tearing down Brooks, though they say that was designed to start softening him up for the next round of votes rather than because they were worried he might surge to a majority of the vote.
Democrats are quietly hopeful that if Moore wins the primary they might be able to put the race in play — but admit they have a big hurdle in their own primary.
The Democratic establishment has rallied around former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, who has endorsements from former Vice President Joe Biden and civil rights icon and Rep. John Lewis (D-GA). But he’s facing a challenge from a random dude named Robert Kennedy, Jr. (no, not that one), who on name recognition alone is polling strong. If Jones can beat Kennedy he has an outside chance at defeating Moore, but that’s no sure thing. With other candidates in the race, Democrats may be looking at a primary runoff as well.
Polls close at 8 p.m. ET. If no candidate wins a majority, runoff elections will occur on Sept. 26.
Next year’s midterm elections could help answer a major question dividing Democrats: Should they focus more on winning back Obama-Trump voters, or lean hard into traditional Republican voters who went for Clinton last election?
The Trump era has injected new urgency in the years-old party fight about whether Democrats should focus on regaining the ground they’ve lost in older, whiter, less educated and more rural areas or push to boost their numbers in the diversifying, largely suburban areas that have been trending their way.
The bad news for Democrats: They need to improve significantly in both places to win back any real power in Washington. The good news: The next election will test both theories, with House and Senate strategists facing nearly opposite approaches.
‘Weird Accident Of History’
The competitive Senate map is tilted heavily towards more rural, less educated, poorer, whiter states this election cycle, where Democrats were a dying breed through the Obama era. On the flip side, many of House Democrats’ best targets are in traditionally Republican districts where well-educated white voters abandoned Trump in droves, and where fast-growing minority communities are quickly changing the landscape.
“We’re just in this weird accident of history,” said Democratic strategist John Hagner, who is working on both House and Senate races this cycle. “The party isn’t choosing to fight these type of seats, the map is giving them to us. We have no choice.”
The underlying ideological question that drives much of the current party split is whether Democrats should stress cultural or economic liberalism to get back to power — and how much to stomach moderates on those issues.
The Bernie Sanders wing of the party wants a much heavier emphasis on a populist economic agenda, and many downscale Democrats agree, with an emphasis on trade and other pocketbook issues and avoiding the hot-button social fault lines that have hurt them in those places for decades.
Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), all facing reelection, sound more like their party when they’re talking about Social Security and health care than the NRA or immigration.
But people in wealthier, better educated, more diverse and urban parts of the country are especially livid at Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric, his hesitance to condemn white supremacists, his ditching the Paris climate accords, his threats to pull transgender soldiers out of the military, and the GOP’s attempts to defund Planned Parenthood — not to mention Russia.
Senate Democrats need to run up their numbers with the former group, while House Democrats plan to emphasize the latter, largely out of necessity.
Even with Trump’s plunging numbers, Democrats still need a lot of things to break the right way to overcome a maxed-out Senate map with few targets and a heavily gerrymandered House map.
House Dems Can Sprawl Into Suburbia On Social Issues
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has ranked 29 Republican-held House seats that Democrats have at least a decent chance of winning — either pure tossups or races that lean Republican.
In more than two-thirds of those seats (20 of 29), a higher percentage of people have a college degree than the national average of 30.6 percent, with many of the targeted districts well above that figure, according to Census data analyzed by TPM. Many are in the Sun Belt suburbs, like Reps. Darrel Issa (R-CA), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and the retiring Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
Republicans only hold 41 seats that are more diverse than the national average, a tiny fraction of their 240-seat majority. Ten of those are top Democratic targets, including 6 of the 17 GOP-held seats that are at least one-third Hispanic.
Eighteen of these 29 districts have fewer people 65 or older than the national average of 15.2 percent.
The most important driver of all: Clinton carried 18 of these 29 seats last fall, and Trump was held below 50 percent in all but three of them. Democrats need to net 24 seats next fall to take back the House.
“Out of necessity we are competing hard in the 23 districts that Hillary Clinton carried as well as districts where President Trump did well,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman Tyler Law told TPM. “Clearly, there are many highly educated suburban areas that have become more diverse, more Democratic, and where voters are disillusioned with today’s Republican Party.”
Senate Dems Stake Their Fate On Populism
The Senate, where Democrats are mostly playing defense, is a very different picture.
There are a dozen Senate seats in play at this point: A pair of GOP-held seats in Arizona and Nevada and 10 Democrat-held seats in states Trump won.
Those states are mostly less diverse, less educated and older than the nation as a whole.
In all 12 of those states, fewer people have a college degree than the national average.
Nine of the 12 are whiter than the national average — and in all nine of those at least 75 percent of the population is non-Hispanic white, compared to the national share of 61.3 percent. Nine of the twelve states also have more than the average number of senior citizens.
In 11 of the 12 states, Clinton underperformed Obama, and in five (Indiana, Missouri, Montana North Dakota and West Virginia) she won less than 40 percent of the vote.
On issues like trade and Social Security, Democrats often sound more like Trump than Clinton in those places.
“Taking a populist view of the issues and making sure you’re sticking up for Main Street, that works,” said one Senate Democratic strategist. “Trump joined the fight that Senate Democrats on many issues had been working on for a long time. The way he talks about trade and outsourcing is the cleanest cut example of that.”
‘All Of The Above’
Democratic strategists all argue they need to push hard to win both types of places — and that issues like Obamacare repeal help them across the country. Democrats are already up with ads hammering Republicans for trying to charge people more for insurance while giving tax cuts to the rich.
But they say party loyalists and major donors must embrace diversity of opinions, especially after heated intra-party fights about whether the Democratic establishment should back candidates who oppose abortion rights.
“Anyone who says we can focus only on Romney-Clinton seats or only on Obama-Trump seats hasn’t looked at the 2018 landscape. We have to push on both,” said Jesse Ferguson, an alum of the Clinton campaign and House race veteran. “An all-of-the-above approach is going to mean that there will be candidates on both economic issues and on social issues who may not agree with the party platform all the time. And we have to be comfortable with that.”
Democrats are cautiously optimistic about early returns.
While they’re still smarting over an expensive loss in an upscale open Georgia House seat and a missed opportunity to seriously contest an open seat in populist Montana, there have been signs of a shift towards Democrats, especially in more rural populist areas — like a big special election win in an Iowa statehouse seat last week that Trump had carried by 20 points.
For now, Democrats are taking an all-of-the-above approach. But if money gets tight near next year’s election, it will be telling to see which type of terrain they spend more heavily on.
“There’s been this huge bounce back in some of the battleground rural areas,” said Hagner. “Right now the answer is invest in all of them, get the best candidates you get in all of them. Next year it’ll be an interesting question of which of them are better targets.”
The biggest thing in between controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (R) and the U.S. Senate is Donald Trump.
Heading into election day on Tuesday, the question is whether the president and the GOP establishment have been able to do enough to push their favored candidate, appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL), into a runoff where they think they can defeat a man best known for his anti-gay and religious right stances.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his donor network have gone all-in for Strange, a former state attorney general and lobbyist who was appointed to the Senate after Jeff Sessions left to become attorney general.
With $4 million in negative ads attacking Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) for his earlier criticism of Trump and the president’s last-minute support in a state where he’s immensely popular with the GOP base, they’re feeling confident that they’ve put their man into the top two in the race ahead of a likely runoff on Sept. 28.
But public and private polling indicates Moore is likely to finish in first place in Tuesday’s election. If Strange does manage to edge Brooks on Tuesday — a likelihood but no guarantee, as some polls show a tight race between them — his allies are ready to spend at least as much for him in what they expect to be a competitive runoff.
“I’m not inclined to believe Moore can’t win this race,” said Ford O’Connell, a national GOP strategist who did some work on Strange’s 2010 race for attorney general. “A lot of folks in Alabama are looking for someone who’s a lot more fiery. They’re looking beyond the usual business conservative wing, they’re looking for ideologues who represent them.”
Strategists involved in the race say Trump has been a huge boon to Strange as he looks to push past Brooks in the first round. The president tweeted his support last week, did so again on Monday, and according to Strange allies he recorded a last-minute robocall ahead of the primary.
Moore has built a base of ardent evangelical Christian support in his two decades of attacking gay people and refusing to follow other court rulings. Strange allies think Moore has a hard ceiling of support, as evidenced by his poor showing in a pair of past gubernatorial runs. But they’re not taking any chances: The Senate Leadership Fund, the super-PAC aligned with McConnell, has already begun airing ads tearing apart Moore for taking a $1 million salary from the Christian non-profit he runs.
“Our goal has always been to make the runoff. We’ve been playing for second place all along, to get Luther Strange into the runoff and take it from there,” said Senate Leadership Fund spokesman Chris Pack.
Trump’s endorsement is huge, as his favorable numbers remain in the 80s among Alabama Republican primary voters.
“The fact that the president endorsed him I think is a huge game-changer. Going into this election tomorrow the whole goal was to get into the runoff with Roy Moore, he has this solid base of support,” Perry Hooper Jr., a Strange backer who was the Alabama chairman of Trump’s 2016 campaign, told TPM.
Moore, a former judge, is best known for his pair of high-profile stances against “activist judges” — both of which cost him his own robes.
In 2003, he was removed from Alabama’s Supreme Court after installing, then refusing to remove, a two-and-a-half-ton monument to the Ten Commandments outside his courthouse. After a pair of disappointing runs for governor, he won back his state Supreme Court seat in 2012 over a recently appointed judge.
He was soon suspended from court once again after ordering state judges to disobey the U.S. Supreme Court and refuse to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“Is there such a thing as morality anymore?” Moore said at the time. “Sodomy for centuries was declared to be against the laws of nature and nature’s God. And now if you say that in public, and I guess I am, am I violating somebody’s civil rights? Have we elevated morality to immorality? Do we call good, bad?”
In between, he said Congress should bar Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) from office because he’s a Muslim, and declared that when the Founding Fathers talked about God-given rights of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” they were talking about a Christian God. “Buddha didn’t create us, Mohammed didn’t create us, it was the God of the Holy Scriptures,” he said.
He’s hardly softened his tone in this race. In a recent op-ed, he pledged to stop “Obama-era policies of using our troops as social experiments and keep them focused on what they do best” and called liberal judges “the single largest threat to our country’s existence.”
In an interview just last week, he defended Russian strongman Vladimir Putin while criticizing the U.S. for allowing same-sex marriage.
Republicans quietly say that if Moore wins the nomination it might actually put the seat in jeopardy, though they’re skeptical any Republican could lose statewide in Alabama. A Moore win, however, might not be any more pleasant for McConnell over the next few years.
Strange is no moderate squish himself. As state attorney general, he was involved in many lawsuits against the federal government, including a push to overturn federal rules protecting transgender students in the classroom and battles against Obama-era EPA standards. But Republicans acknowledge his ties to McConnell aren’t helpful — nor are his longstanding connections to the country club wing of the Alabama GOP, including disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley (R), who appointed him to the seat shortly before resigning.
And it’s no guarantee that the voters who back Brooks in the first round will gravitate towards Strange over Moore. Many supporters of Brooks, a hardline fiscal conservative, are just as anti-establishment as Moore’s. And it remains to be seen whether Brooks’ high-profile right-wing pundit backers including Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham decide to fall in line or back Trump’s pick in the second round.
“I think it doesn’t matter if Roy Moore gets caught shooting someone tomorrow, he’s still going to get that base support of 30 to 35 percent. I’m not sure where the Mo Brooks supporters will go,” said Hooper. “But I do think Donald Trump is a major part of this.”
Democrats have landed their top recruit to challenge Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), according to a local report, with Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) planning to jump into the race in the coming weeks.
Phoenix’s NBC affiliate reports that Sinema, a centrist congresswoman who Democrats have been courting for a statewide run for years, will indeed take the plunge against Flake, one of the two incumbent Republicans that Democrats think they can beat this election cycle besides Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV).
Sinema is doing little to push back on that report.
“I’ve heard from many Arizonans encouraging me to run for the United States Senate. It is something I am seriously considering. When I make any decisions, Arizonans will be the first to know,” she said in a Friday statement.
Sinema has an interesting background. She’s the first openly bisexual member of Congress in history, and in the Arizona statehouse was known as a fiery liberal. But she’s shifted to the center in recent years, joining the moderate Blue Dog coalition, and is one of only a handful of Democrats who the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has endorsed in recent years.
She has managed to lock down a Democratic-trending suburban Phoenix, winning the once-competitive seat in 2012 and holding off a tough challenge in the 2014 GOP wave before cruising in 2016. The district was drawn to be a tossup, and President Obama would have won it by just 4 percentage points in 2008, but it’s trended strongly Democratic and President Trump lost it by almost 15 points last fall.
That trend has helped move the state from a GOP lock towards competitiveness — Trump carried Arizona by less than 4 points. And Flake faces the double-whammy of a potentially tough primary campaign where he’ll face a pro-Trump candidate before a general election that’s shaping up to be a real challenge.
Flake may not have made things easier on himself by penning a book and op-ed excoriating Trump, a move that has infuriated the president and added fuel to the fire of the primary challenge against him. Former state Sen. Kelli Ward (R), who was crushed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in a primary challenge last cycle, is already in the race against him, but Trump allies are working to recruit one of a pair of much more serious allies to challenge him as well, and the president himself is threatening to get involved.
Republicans have privately said for months that Flake faces a tough path to reelection, and private polling indicates that he has a tightrope to walk if he wants to return to office after 2018.
The ongoing public feud between President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) threatens to spill over onto the 2018 elections, leaving Republicans with a series of nasty primaries that could hurt them in races across the country and damage their slim majority.
Trump is going full berserker on McConnell following the Kentucky Republican’s relatively muted Monday criticism that the president held “excessive expectations about how quickly things happen in the democratic process” and was hurting Republicans by setting artificial deadlines. Trump’s response has been to lash out with attacks on McConnell’s capabilities as leader and hint that he might ask McConnell to step down if he doesn’t speed up his work.
After a tense Thursday morning phone call to McConnell and a series of furious tweets, Trump told reporters Thursday afternoon that it was “a disgrace” that McConnell had failed to push Obamacare repeal through the Senate. He warned if the Senate can’t pass that legislation, tax reform and infrastructure soon, reporters “can ask me that question” of whether he’d want the Senate majority leader to step down.
McConnell seems to be looking to deescalate the fight. He’s been radio silent since Monday, and his office directed TPM to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which did not respond to calls and emails.
McConnell isn’t going anywhere anytime soon — he has strong support from his own conference. But the public spat with Trump threatens the size of his majority, complicating the elections of both incumbents and challengers as well as dividing an unhappy donor class. And the more they fight, the worse Republican strategists say things will go for the party next fall.
“Everybody knows we are going to have a tough cycle in the best of circumstances in 2018, the political winds are in your face when you’re the party in power,” said Republican strategist Rob Jesmer. “If [Trump] thinks the solution is to get his voters so mad that they stay home that could be a gigantic problem. Does he think this is going to be easier with oversight committees controlled by Democrats? That’d be an unmitigated disaster for us.”
When he worked at the NRSC in 2010 and 2012, Jesmer saw the party blow winnable races in a number of states because fatally flawed candidates won brutal primaries. While establishment outside groups and the NRSC’s decision to fight hard for its favorites in primaries have kept that from happening the last two election cycles, putting them in the majority, they’ve never faced a president of their own party undercutting their efforts.
“It’s in everyone’s interest to work together, including the president’s,” Jesmer said. “When he’s attacking members, all he’s doing is hurting himself in the long run. He’s not doing himself any favors at all.”
A friendly map likely insulates McConnell from a true threat to the majority — 10 Democrats in states Trump won face reelection, compared to only one Republican from a state he lost. But Democrats are starting to buzz that they might be able to fight the GOP to a draw, and even potentially gain a seat or two, though even the most optimistic say the majority is likely still out of reach.
Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Dean Heller (R-NV), by far the two most vulnerable Republicans facing reelection next fall, are both facing threats from the populist right by candidates who’ve slammed them for not showing enough loyalty to Trump. Flake has been particularly outspoken against Trump, penning a book and op-ed flaying the president, and Trump and his allies have responded with fury.
The president has privately threatened to spend $10 million to defeat Flake. While that’s likely bluster, White House aides have met with former state Treasurer Jeff DeWit and former state GOP Chairman Robert Graham, both top Trump surrogates, to discuss primary challenges. They’ve also gotten together with Flake’s fringe-favorite primary opponent, former state Sen. Kelli Ward (R). One of Trump’s top donors, billionaire Robert Mercer, just cut a $300,000 check to Ward’s super-PAC this week (he spent even more to help Ward in her failed effort to beat Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) last cycle).
Heller, on the other hand, has awkwardly danced all over the place on Trump and his top priorities, trying to please everyone and infuriating voters left and right in the process. After saying he wouldn’t back the Obamacare repeal bill crafted by McConnell and demanded by Trump, Heller voted to move forward on that legislation, irritating just about everyone in his home state. Earlier this week, businessman Danny Tarkanian, who has run (and lost) many races in the state before, launched a bid against Heller, slamming him for not carrying more of the president’s water.
Both senators are still favorites to win their primaries — and both the NRSC and the Senate Leadership Fund, a well-funded super-PAC run by former McConnell staffers, are ready to go to war for them. But divisive, nasty primaries could wound them both as they head into already-tough general elections. Trump allies say he’s at least as angry at the pair as the Democrats who have so far thwarted his legislative agenda.
“The president spotlighting Heller and Flake is an example of why he came here to Washington, D.C.: To disrupt the status quo. He sees a culture of empty promises,” a strategist close to the White House told TPM. “He gets frustrated when he sees Republicans who have benefited from these promises break those promises. … The president’s going to hold them accountable.”
It remains unclear whether this is a temporary tantrum from Trump, a la his primary attacks against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, or whether he’ll follow through on his threats. Shortly before he went on his McConnell meltdown, Trump tweeted his support for Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL) in his hard-fought primary, giving a big boost to McConnell’s preferred candidate against two challengers. Republicans warn that Roy Moore, one of his opponents, could actually put the seat at risk if he wins the primary.
But the mercurial and unpredictable president is hurting in a lot more ways than he’s helping, and GOP strategists are pulling their hair out.
“If you’re someone who’s trying to expand the majority, you do that by defeating Democrats, not Republicans. It’s a pretty simple concept,” griped one top Senate Republican strategist. “We were one vote short of repealing Obamacare in the Senate last month. The best way to increase the number of votes is to increase the number of seats.”
Democrats are making an early push for older voters in their bid to take back the House, slamming congressional Republicans for voting for a plan to repeal Obamacare that included higher insurance premiums for older voters.
The House Majority PAC and Priorities USA, a pair of heavy-hitting Democratic outside groups, are launching a fleet of digital ads against 10 GOP congressmen who voted for the repeal bill and its “age tax that could devastate retirements.”
The message of the ads, first shared with TPM, is clearly aimed at older voters whose premiums could have spiked dramatically if congressional Republicans’ plans had become law. The House GOP plan would have loosened the current law’s limit on insurance companies only being able to charge older people three times what they charge younger people to a limit of five times as much.
House Majority PAC Executive Director Charlie Kelly said House Republicans “decided to throw their constituents under the bus by voting for a disastrous healthcare bill that imposes a devastating ‘Age Tax’ on older Americans,” while said Priorities USA Executive Director Patrick McHugh called it “simply unforgivable” that they backed a plan that does so while “cutting taxes for millionaires.”
Their target list is a mix of Republicans in Democratic-leaning districts, like Reps. David Valadao (R-CA) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), congressmen from older, heavily blue-collar areas like Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), and some where both factors are at play, like Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), who represents one of the more senior-heavy areas in the country and one of the most Democratic-friendly. One fifth of her district’s constituents are over the age of 65, and Trump lost the district by 5 percentage points.
The ad buy is part of a six-figure effort from Democratic outside groups to make Republicans pay for their Obamacare repeal votes.
Democrats are hopeful that the GOP’s deeply unpopular bills have given them an opening with older and blue-collar voters, groups that have moved away from them in recent election cycles and helped deliver President Trump to the White House last election, much as their fight against President George W. Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security paid big dividends the last time they retook the House in 2006.
Jared Kushner owned a stake in his brother’s Obamacare-dependent health insurance company when it hired lobbyists to fight repeal of the law shortly before he divested from it earlier this year.
Kushner’s younger brother, Joshua Kushner, co-founded Oscar Health Insurance to capitalize on Obamacare’s individual insurance markets by offering a web-friendly insurance option aimed mostly at younger and urban consumers. The company is heavily dependent on Obamacare’s private insurance exchanges.
Joshua Kushner’s heavy involvement in the company has been widely reported. But his older brother’s partial ownership, through a stake in Joshua’s technology investment firm Thrive Capital, has been little noticed.
Jared Kushner did not list his holdings in Oscar Health Insurance on his personal financial disclosure form because he was not required to do so, as he included Thrive. But that company’s ownership, through a company called Mulberry Health, Inc., was highlighted by the White House’s own attorneys as a reason he needed to divest in Thrive around the time President Trump was sworn into the White House.
“One major holding of multiple Thrive Capital funds is Oscar Health Insurance. Mr. Kushner’s continuing interest in Oscar could require his recusal from a variety of particular matters that will have a direct and predictable effect on the health insurance industry,” White House Deputy Counsel Stefan Passantino wrote to the Office of Government Ethics in a letter explaining what Kushner would sell to avoid potential conflicts of interest and why. That letter is dated Jan. 25, 2017, less than a week after Trump’s inauguration.
Passantino’s letter was posted on the OGE’s website among documents that it has released pursuant to Freedom of Information Act requests.
It’s unclear exactly how much money Jared Kushner, who is Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, had tied up in Oscar Health. His personal financial disclosure doesn’t break out the individual investments held by Thrive Capital, which Kushner had between $6 million and $11 million tied up in.
But while that appears to be far from Kushner’s largest venture, he wasn’t just a minor investor in the company, which in early 2016 received a $2.7 billion valuation.
A 2013 report to the New York State’s Department of Financial Services on Oscar’s corporate organization stated that the Kushner brothers were “deemed the ultimate controlling persons in Oscar’s holding company system because they are the only members of Thrive Partners III GP, LLC, which is the general partner in Thrive Capital Partners III, L.P.”
A flow chart of Oscar Insurance Corporation’s holding company system from the New York State Department of Financial Services’s 2013 report on the company’s corporate structure.
Three weeks before the White House wrote to the Office of Government Ethics outlining Kushner’s divestment plan, Oscar’s parent company hired lobbyists to prepare for the coming GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare. It is unclear if Jared Kushner had any involvement in the parent company’s hiring of the lobbyists during the Trump transition, though a White House source said that he had no involvement in Mulberry Health hiring lobbyists and no dealings with those lobbyists.
Oscar’s founders have been upfront about the importance of Obamacare to the company’s creation — and ongoing success.
“I don’t think we could do this without Obamacare,” Mario Schlosser, one of the company’s co-founders and one of Joshua Kushner’s college friends, told the Washington Post in 2013.
In the election’s wake, Schlosser and Kushner co-wrote a blog post on the company’s website in November 2016 arguing for the law’s importance and calling for it to be tweaked, not dismantled.
“While the ACA has significant flaws, we believe the majority of this pain [from rising insurance rates] is a result of the preexisting faults of our healthcare system,” the pair wrote, mentioning some of the law’s “serious shortcomings in design” but calling for relatively minor changes in the program rather than a dramatic overhaul.
Oscar’s parent company hired lobbyists to help make sure that vision was put to practice — three weeks before the White House officially announced Kushner’s plans to divest from the company. On Jan. 3, Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, Inc. filed a lobbying disclosure form announcing their hiring by Mulberry Health, Oscar’s parent company. As of March, Mulberry had paid the lobbying firm $60,000 for its work, according to lobbyist disclosure filings.
Calls and emails to Oscar Health Insurance, Thrive Capital Partners and Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas were not returned. The White House declined to respond on the record for this story.
Jared Kushner seems to harbor similar views as his brother about Obamacare repeal. Sources confirm to TPM multipleoutlets‘ reports that he was deeply skeptical ofcongressional Republicans’ push for Obamacare repeal from the start and called the push for the repeal a mistake — criticism that led Trump at one point to blow up at Jared Kushner and say he fully understood his position, according to Politico.
Jared Kushner’s involvement in the internal Obamacare debate included an early spring meeting he attended with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Trump, senior White House officials and House members, and Zeke Emanuel, the Democratic architect of Obamacare who Kushner played a role in bringing in to discuss the law with his father-in-law. A source in the room told TPM that Jared Kushner was vocally critical of the House Republicans’ plan for replacing the law during the meeting.
Capitol Hill sources tell TPM that Jared Kushner wasn’t intimately involved in the congressional push to repeal Obamacare. Ryan has talked to him multiple times since the election but only once about health care, according to a source familiar with the conversations. Jared Kushner was skiing with his family in Aspen when the House had to cancel its first vote on the Obamacare repeal bill due to lack of support. Senate Republicans said they’d had little contact with him.
But he didn’t completely step away from the issue, according to sources. He was at the table during a White House meeting between Trump and top Congressional Republicans to discuss health care in early June, when Trump joked on-camera that his son-in-law had “become much more famous than me.”
A photo from Joshua Kushner’s Instagram account
Jared Kushner’s involvement on health care concerned some government ethics experts, who suggested it violated the spirit if not the letter of Trump’s own executive order barring people from working on issues “involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related” to former employers or former clients for two years. The OGE’s guidance on the matter says that broad topics like health care reform legislation don’t qualify because “it is not focused on the interests of specific persons, or a discrete and identifiable class of persons.” To further parse Trump’s order, Kushner may not fall under these circumstances since he was the owner and not an employee of the company.
“From a public interest perspective, the whole things reeks. From a black and white reading of the executive order it’s a little more gray. But it certainly goes against any claims to draining the swamp,” said Stephen Spaulding of the good government advocacy group Common Cause. “We shouldn’t be in a position where we have to be parsing the order, there should be a clear separation.”
While other insurers have scaled back on offerings on the individual health care exchange markets due to uncertainty around the law and Trump’s threats to stop making cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers, Oscar has actually increased its offerings this year.
Photo illustration of Jared Kushner, left, and Joshua Kushner by Christine Frapech/TPM). Photo credits: picture alliance / Kai-Uwe Wärner via AP Images, Chris Kleponis/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images.
Russia’s favorite congressman is claiming that a months-old report proves “the so-called hacking of the Democratic National Committee before last year’s elections could not have been done by Russians, but was instead an inside job made to look like Moscow’s handiwork.”
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) famously said was one of “two people I think Putin pays” besides President Trump, has long been Russia’s leading defender in Congress. He’s now out touting a report from retired intelligence officials released back in January, claiming it shows that Russia couldn’t have been involved.
“The findings of these specialists destroy the credibility of the charges that Russia hacked the system, disclosed the emails, and thus greatly impacted the outcome of the last election,”Rohrabacher said in a press release from his congressional office. “These bogus charges have done great damage to our ability to work with Russia and have distracted the American people from the real threat of radical Islamic terrorism. This phony campaign has been used to disrupt the right of our new president to accomplish his goals and set the policies approved by the American voters.”
Rohrabacher said in his Thursday press release that he’d circulated the report by retired intelligence officials among his GOP colleagues to push back on the bipartisan consensus that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.
That report, however, came out months ago, before Trump was even inaugurated. And rather than offer any evidence that the entire U.S. intelligence community’s analysis that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election to help boost Trump over Hillary Clinton was wrong, it only questions those findings and called on Trump to get to the bottom of things.
Rohrabacher has long been a strident Russia defender — and the FBI reportedly warned him back in 2012 that Russian spies were trying to recruit him as an asset. The congressman brags that he once lost a drunken arm-wrestling match with now-Russian President Vladimir Putin back in the 1990s, and has defended many Russian actions viewed as dangerous by other politicians, including its invasion of Ukraine and meddling in Syria.
But what once seemed like oddball views have taken on a new light in the wake of the past election — and Rohrabacher’s once-safely Republican seat has moved rapidly away from his party. Trump lost Rohrabacher’s district by a narrow margin last year, and House Democrats have named him as a top target in the 2018 elections.
Democrats were quick to pounce on Rohrabacher’s latest bear-hug of Russia.
“Congressman Rohrabacher’s representation of Russia instead of his constituents has long been seen as a comical distraction by Republican leadership in Washington. But with the American intelligence community having already stated that Russia attempted to influence our election, and a mounting pile of evidence showing that he has done Vladimir Putin’s bidding in Washington, Congressman Rohrabacher’s peddling in conspiracies and lies to protect his Russian puppeteers is outrageous,” a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman said in a statement.
Gen. John Kelly sailed through his Senate confirmation to head the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump’s next nominee isn’t likely to be so lucky.
Democrats raised few objections when Trump picked Kelly to head DHS at the beginning of his presidency, viewing him as the best they could hope to oversee the implementation of Trump’s controversial plans on undocumented immigrants and refugees and deciding to use their efforts to battle other more vulnerable cabinet picks.
Many knew Kelly from his time as a high-ranking marine, and hoped he would stand up to Trump on some of his most draconian and unrealistic demands. He cruised through his committee hearing and was confirmed by the full Senate on an 88-11 vote as Senate Democratic leaders left him off their list of Trump nominees to target for defeat.
Since then, however, Democrats have been sorely disappointed that Kelly hasn’t done more to fight Trump’s worse impulses or rein in his ICE agents as they dramatically ramped up deportations and split up families. With his exit to become Trump’s chief of staff, there are signs that whoever the president names is in for a battle.
The Senate Homeland Security Committee isn’t exactly set up to be a home for the anti-Trump resistance — four of the committee’s seven Democrats hail from states Trump won, and three of them face reelection next year. But some of those Democrats indicate they’re ready to show more backbone this time around.
“There’s going to be an opportunity to recap what they’ve done and why they’ve done it and see if we can make it so that families aren’t torn apart,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), who backed Kelly’s nomination in the committee and the full Senate, told TPM Monday evening. “It gives us an opportunity to make the process work better. We’ll see in the end, but it gives an opportunity to ask some important questions.”
While there have been reports that Kelly has stood up to the president on certain issues including the Muslim ban, many Democrats have been dismayed by his company man attitude and his fierce defense of ICE agents as they executed wholesale roundups of undocumented immigrants, split up families and dismissed normal protocols for prioritizing the deportation of violent criminals ahead of otherwise law-abiding border-crossers. Kelly fired back hard at any criticism of his agents or his department, telling lawmakers in public and private that if they didn’t like how his agents were doing their jobs they should change the law.
“A number of my colleagues have said to me they regretted their vote for him,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), one of the 11 Democrats who voted against Kelly, told TPM.
The big question is who Trump will nominate. Rumors have flown that Attorney General Jeff Sessions could be moved over to the department.
“We’ll see what happens with the attorney general, that’s certainly a matter of major interest right now. There’s been talk about him taking Homeland Security. That would be extremely contentious,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said.
But that seems unlikely since Trump has even less trust in Sessions’ deputy than his former close ally turned punching bag, and the move would set up a huge fight over Sessions’ replacement, as well as an eventual battle to confirm Sessions himself (that would be delayed since Sessions has already been confirmed by the Senate fir his current post).
Democrats also say they know little about Elaine Duke, Kelly’s former deputy and now the acting head of the agency. Duke could be the pick, sidestepping a bigger confirmation fight since she’s already in charge. House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), a Trump loyalist but one that is respected across the aisle, could also face less of a fight.
But controversial Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has long pined for the position and has been rumored to be in the mix as well. A Kobach nomination would likely spur a brutal confirmation fight focused on his long involvement in anti-immigration efforts (he wrote Arizona’s draconian immigration law and many other states’) as well as his crusade against voter fraud.
Democrats say that they’re bracing for a fight over the nomination, planning to use it to reevaluate how the department is being run and spotlight Trump’s anti-immigrant crusades, which many say have flown under the radar as other Trump scandals and the GOP’s Obamacare repeal fight have dominated the headlines.
“We should take a look at exactly what has happened as opposed to just the words people speak about their intentions. There was a lot of what happened in the confirmation hearings writ large that was about ‘who will speak truth to power’ and I think the time that has passed since that first wave of confirmations has given us the chance to really see whether people really speak truth to power and walk truth to power in terms of their actions,” said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the lone Democrat to vote against Kelly’s confirmation on the committee.
“The solution here is not rounding people up who are undocumented in this country and deporting them,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) said. “I’m looking for somebody who is fair and balanced … who understands that on the front lines the men and women in [ICE] have discretion and they need to be given guidance on how to use that discretion.”
Still dazed from the spectacular collapse of their efforts to repeal Obamacare, Republicans are now confronted with the question of whether they’ll seek to help Americans in states where insurers are pulling out of the individual marketplaces and premiums are rising without trying to gut the program.
Until now, most Republicans have been happy to watch some state-level individual health insurance exchanges sputter along, using those struggles as their main talking point for how Obamacare is failing under its own weight as the Trump administration exacerbated some of the exchanges’ problems.
They assumed they’d be able to execute a broader policy change rather than worry about shoring up the markets. But after admitting defeat (at least for now) on a broad overhaul of the law, Republicans are beginning to come to grips with what to do going forward.
“We’ve got to do something. The repeal effort’s dead so I think the next logical thing is we have to try to reach out and figure out where we can make health care better,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) told TPM Friday, just hours after the Senate failed to pass a placeholder bill to keep Obamacare repeal efforts moving. “This is kind of all new territory for us, we’re getting our sea legs under us.”
Democrats are hopeful that their GOP brethren will be ready to move forward and craft a plan to stabilize the exchanges in the states that have been struggling.
“I think at the very beginning we should stabilize the system. We should make permanent a cost sharing, which keeps people’s premiums down and keeps the counties that are covered up,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a press conference Friday morning, a few hours after the GOP bill failed on the Senate floor. “We should look at reinsurance.”
But it’s unclear if Republicans are ready to move on and help fix the very real problems of some state-based exchanges in places like Iowa and Missouri where parts of states are left with just one, or even zero, health care options.
President Trump, the man with by far the most power over that issue, has indicated he’s happy to let the exchanges continue to struggle — and threatened over the weekend to intentionally torpedo them.
If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!
Trump has said many things he’s failed to follow through on. But the Trump administration has sought to undercut the Affordable Care Act ever since he was sworn in, from kneecapping efforts to get more people enrolled in the programs (and consequently bring down costs) to signing a vague executive order on his first day in office implying the IRS might not enforce the individual mandate’s tax penalties to removing any references to the ACA on the Health and Human Services Department website, making it harder for people looking for information on how to get enrolled to find it.
Their biggest potential sabotage may still be to come — and will be the first major test for whether Republicans are ready to work in a bipartisan way to help Americans after their efforts collapsed, or whether they’ll look to hurt the markets for political reasons to try to force Democrats to the table, as Trump has threatened.
The administration faces a deadline next month to pay out subsidies to insurers known as “cost-sharing reductions,” which were the target of a 2014 GOP House lawsuit and Trump has threatened to halt in order to implode the individual market.
Past those basic payments, some state individual exchanges do need support — be it more federal subsidies or program tweaks — to get them functioning better. And while lawmakers in both parties aren’t crazy about the idea of just throwing more money at insurers to entice them back into those markets, most admit they need to do something going forward.
Republicans are split on whether to do either, though most believe that pulling the CSR payments would be policy malpractice, intentionally hurting Americans to make a political point, and carry big political risk.
“I have said since December that while the CSR payments are not constitutional they need to be made in a legal way so that the market does not collapse. I have not changed my mind on that. We have to put the consumer first,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), whose committee is responsible for large chunks of healthcare policy, told TPM Friday morning. “If we don’t make the CSR payments, it’s the consumer that suffers.”
Still, as they woke up to the realization that they may be stuck with Obamacare in spite of holding unified control of Washington, plenty of Republicans weren’t feeling as charitable.
“This is not the day to talk to me about putting more money into a system that’s failing,” grumbled Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), Walden’s predecessor as Energy and Commerce Chairman. “We don’t want them to fail but everybody that’s been voting no needs to come up with a plan that doesn’t cost more money and lowers premiums. If they can do that then come see me, but don’t come to me with more federal subsidies. That dog doesn’t hunt.”
There are some positive signs of bipartisan efforts. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate committee tasked with dealing with the largest chunks of healthcare, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have expressed interest in working in a more bipartisan way to handle legislation on the topic going forward.
“I voted to take the next step toward what I believed was our best opportunity to repeal and replace Obamacare. The Senate’s failure to do this leaves an urgent problem that I am committed to addressing: Tennessee’s state insurance commissioner says our individual insurance market is very near collapse,” Alexander said in a statement after the vote failed.
And a bipartisan group of House lawmakers are slotted to unveil a plan to help stabilize state health exchanges while shrinking the employer mandate on Monday.
But even those Republicans who say they want to work in good faith to improve things in the short term aren’t sure what can be accomplished, given a deep distrust that Democrats will work with them in good faith to make changes in spite of repeated overtures from across the aisle. And they hint they’d been so focused on repealing Obamacare, they weren’t prepared with plans if it stood.
“I haven’t really thought about this very much,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) told TPM Friday when asked what to do to stabilize the markets, before thinking out loud about his options. “I’m not for letting things fail but … throwing good money after bad indefinitely is not going to work either.”