Stephanie Saul

The report by The Associated Press quoted one candidate for the Iowa state Senate, Tom Courtney, as saying he had “a bad taste in my mouth” after he was approached by the aide, Pat Murphy, a former Iowa House Speaker.

Reached by telephone, Courtney, from Burlington, Iowa, declined to comment on the report.

The AP article, which said that other candidates for state office had been offered similar deals, prompted swift denunciation from two of Steyer’s rivals in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey tweeted a link to the article, writing, “This ain’t it.”

And Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana tweeted: “You buy your way to the debate stage. You try to buy your endorsements. @TomSteyer, we won’t be bought.”

In a statement, the Steyer campaign denied it had made contributions to Iowa politicians as inducements for them to endorse him.

“Tom has not made any individual contributions to candidates in Iowa this year, and he will not be making any contributions,” the statement said, adding: “Our campaign policy is clear that we will not engage in this kind of activity, and anyone who does is not speaking for the campaign or does not know our policy.”

But the news release also included a statement from Murphy offering an apology for any misunderstanding.

“As a former legislator, I know how tricky the endorsement process can be for folks in Iowa. It was never my intention to make my former colleagues uncomfortable, and I apologize for any miscommunication on my part,” he said.

The controversy was the second this week for Steyer’s campaign. His South Carolina director resigned Monday after allegations that he stole volunteer data collected by the campaign of Sen. Kamala Harris of California. He downloaded the information by using an account obtained when he worked with the South Carolina Democratic Party. The Steyer campaign suggested the download was inadvertent.

Steyer, a Californian who made his fortune in the hedge fund industry, has said he has $100 million to spend on his campaign. But only three months before the pivotal Iowa caucuses, he remains in single digits in polls there.

It was not clear whether Steyer’s groups — NextGen America, For Our Future or Need to Impeach — had supported any Iowa candidates this year.

This article originally appeared in

Steyer Aide Apologizes for 'Miscommunication' on Endorsement Solicitation

Tom Steyer’s presidential campaign apologized Thursday for “any miscommunication” it might have conveyed following a report that a top aide had privately offered campaign contributions to local candidates who would endorse Steyer.

Asked whether he would resume President Barack Obama’s deportation rate — which outpaced the first two years of the Trump administration — Biden said, “Absolutely not.” But he defended Obama’s record.

“To compare him to Donald Trump, I think, is absolutely bizarre,” he said.

The exchange over immigration began when Julián Castro, who served as Obama’s housing secretary, defended his proposal to decriminalize border crossings, which he has called the only way to end the Trump administration policy of separating children from their parents at the border.

Biden — who seemed to raise his finger during the June debate to indicate he favored Castro’s plan — has since disavowed that position.

“I have enough guts to say this plan doesn’t make sense,” Biden said Wednesday. “The fact of the matter is that when people cross the border illegally, it is illegal to do it unless they’re seeking asylum. People should have to get in line. That’s the problem.”

Biden called for a plan to “flood the zone” to process asylum-seekers and to significantly “increase the number of legal immigrants who are able to come.”

As for Castro, a Cabinet member under Obama, Biden said, “I never heard him talking about any of this when he was secretary.”

Other Democrats, siding with Castro, joined in piling on Biden, the front-runner.

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York repeatedly asked whether Biden had tried to stop deportations during the Obama administration.

“I didn’t hear your response. You were vice president of the United States. I didn’t hear whether you tried to stop them or not, using your power, your influence in the White House,” de Blasio said.

He was joined by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who has released a plan that he said would “virtually eliminate” immigration detentions, who told Biden, “You invoke President Obama more than anyone in this campaign. You can’t do it when it’s convenient and then dodge it when it’s not.”

Americans view immigration as the country’s top problem at the moment, their concern prompted in large part by images of children separated from their parents at the border. Yet there is broad disagreement over a solution.

The Trump administration’s crackdown at the border — and the reaction by many Americans who believe migrants have been harshly treated — have pushed Democrats left on the issue. A number of the Democratic candidates have embraced not only decriminalization but also a plan to provide health care benefits to migrants in the country illegally.

Democratic political advisers worry that the candidates have moved too far left of center and that it will play into Republican hands by alienating general election voters. In memos, they have urged Democrats to embrace a more moderate message, one that emphasizes reforming immigration but also securing the border.

Before Tuesday night’s debate, when Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts argued for decriminalizing border crossings, President Donald Trump’s campaign released a new ad blasting Democrats on immigration, calling their ideas radical and socialist.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/us/politics/joe-biden-immigration.html" id="2239eefb-0735-3c5f-aa4f-dee5e4b94a36">The New York Times</a>.

At Debate, Democrats Challenge Biden Over Obama's Deportation Record

The topic of immigration was, once again, a major point of contention during the fourth Democratic debate, with former Vice President Joe Biden under attack from hecklers as well as his fellow Democrats over the Obama administration’s deportation record.

Many of those voters also express strong views opposing illegal border crossings, often rooted in their own family stories of coming to America. If you want a chance at the American dream, they say, you should play by the rules.

“I think everybody should come in the right way, just like our ancestors did,” said Christy Cowles, 59, a retired city worker who is a fan of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Voters like Cowles present a conundrum for Democrats on the sensitive topic of immigration. While many Democrats express a desire to ease the way for aspiring immigrants, party leaders also worry that an immigration agenda that shifts too far left could alienate voters in tightly contested states like Wisconsin, ranging from avowed liberals like Cowles to coveted swing voters.

In the first round of Democratic debates in June, candidates staked out aggressively liberal positions on immigration, with near-unanimous support for decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

The idea was first advanced by Julián Castro, a former secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who is among those scheduled to be onstage Wednesday night in the second set of debates. Jeh Johnson, the head of homeland security during the Obama administration, criticized the concept as tantamount to permitting open borders. Since then, another candidate, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, also slated to appear Wednesday night, said he would virtually eliminate immigration detention.

In a sign of the escalating concerns within the party, several Democratic governors this month expressed alarm about open-borders rhetoric. And a document recently circulated to House Democrats from party consultants advised a more moderate approach — suggesting the party emphasize a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants who “work hard and pay their taxes” but also stress the importance of secure borders.

“Beyond policy, the best frame on immigration acknowledges the problem and talks about solutions — both addressing border security and a path to earned citizenship,” read the memo, which was addressed to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

A recent Gallup poll found that immigration tops the list of issues that Americans view as important. Trump’s demands for a wall at the Mexican border, as well as tighter restrictions on immigration, have emerged as an emotional issue in the presidential campaign. The president and his supporters have called Democrats soft on enforcement; Democrats counter that the wall and inhumane treatment of those seeking asylum are antithetical to core American values.

There are few places where the topic is more contentious than in Wisconsin, a swing state where it has been used as a cudgel against Democrats, even in local races for positions with no role in federal immigration policy.

Rob Grover, a Democrat who ran for the state Assembly last year, said he was surprised when a flyer paid for by the Wisconsin Republican Party suggested he wanted to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Grover, who describes himself as conservative on immigration issues, said he had never expressed such a view. He lost his race in western Wisconsin.

Immigration has also emerged as an issue in other state races, with right-leaning appeals that appear designed to inflame anti-immigrant passion, according to Ben Wikler, chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, who blamed huge last-minute spending around immigration and other issues for defeating the Democratic candidate in this year’s Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Special interest groups on both sides of the race reported spending more than $4 million in an effort to sway its outcome.

With its Democratic city center and a surrounding rural area that skews Republican, Racine County often swings from one party to another, serving as a national bellwether in predicting the outcome of presidential races. In 2016, the county voted for Trump.

And in this swing district, some local Democrats have speculated that immigration helped torpedo their efforts last year to win the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Paul Ryan, according to Fabi Maldonado, a Racine County supervisor and immigration advocate.

The Democratic candidate, Randy Bryce, had been arrested while protesting Ryan’s position on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which delays deportation and allows work permits for immigrants brought into the country illegally as children.

“There was internal fighting in the Democratic Party over whether he was too open about supporting illegal immigration,” Maldonado said. “Some of that might be true, but you have to be for immigration rights if you want Latinx voters to turn out.”

Cowles, the retired city worker, said that her forebears arrived in Racine a century ago from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Germany, joining a wave of European immigrants who settled this lakefront city 30 miles south of Milwaukee. African Americans arrived during the Great Migration and, more recently, the Latino population has swelled to about 20%. The city has largely embraced its multiethnic mosaic. Tortillas are sold on the same block as kringles, the Wisconsin state pastry introduced by Danish immigrants. The Racine City Council recently endorsed the idea of permitting driver’s licenses for unauthorized residents.

Interviews with more than a dozen Democrats and left-leaning voters revealed disagreement on immigration. Some favored more relaxed policies and others urged caution, recalling stories passed down through generations about how their ancestors struggled to find sponsors before arriving on Ellis Island.

Kevin Hughes, who retired from a factory that makes shampoo, said he favored more liberal policies. “Everybody is going somewhere else to try to make a better life for their family,” said Hughes, 59. “Why would you want to criminalize that?”

Maria Haenel, 35, who was born in Illinois to Mexican parents, held a similar view. “Even if immigrants that have come over the border, even if they don’t have papers, they should be given a chance to get a work visa, or a student visa, or some type of help to stay here and be able to live the American dream,” said Haenel, a caregiver for older adults.

Yet some members of Racine’s Mexican American community said they worried about opening up borders too liberally. Lewis Mendoza, 68, takes pride in the contribution of Mexican people to the Wisconsin economy, particularly in the dairy industry, where a high percentage of workers are believed to be unauthorized.

“There was a time when blue-eyed, blond-haired people did that job,” said Mendoza, a Democrat who voted for Clinton. “You don’t see any white people anymore. It’s all Mexican people. What are you going to do if you send them back?”

But Mendoza, a veteran who has worked as a dishwasher in Racine restaurants alongside unauthorized workers, also expressed skepticism about migrants who enter the country illegally. “As far as just jumping over a fence or something, I don’t know about that. I’m a little leery about that,” he said.

Racine is known for its ethnic festivals, many held on the shore of Lake Michigan.

A lakefront fair last week sponsored by the Roma Lodge, an Italian welfare association, featured fireworks, Frank Sinatra music and a dinner of mostaccioli and ravioli. Jim Faraone, a former board member of the organization, was in charge of selling lottery tickets to raise money for local health charities.

Faraone, a Vietnam veteran, is a swing voter, having supported both Barack Obama and Clinton, but also Ryan, a Republican. He also expressed skepticism about an overly broad border policy.

“They shouldn’t be here unless they came in legally; it’s the only way,” said Faraone, 77, whose father immigrated from Italy and developed the home building business that Faraone later operated. Echoing Trump, Faraone expressed fear that other countries were offloading “murderers and other criminals” into the United States.

Ginny Ziolkowski, 70, also said she swung from one party to another, most recently supporting Obama and Clinton, but before that President George W. Bush. As for Trump, “I personally can’t stand him,” she said as she took in the view at Racine’s lakefront.

But Ziolkowski, whose husband was a Racine County executive — a lakefront park here bears his name — said she leaned conservative on immigration issues and opposed providing health care benefits to unauthorized migrants, another idea some candidates endorsed during the first debates. It’s clearly an issue the Trump campaign thinks works in its favor; on Tuesday, it released a new advertisement blasting Democrats for supporting the idea.

“I feel they need to come in legally if they want to live here,” Ziolkowski said. “And they should not be getting education, health care and other benefits.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/politics/wisconsin-democrats-immigration-policy.html" id="52247fff-ff77-3737-a18d-2c6143927f52">The New York Times</a>.

In Wisconsin Swing District, a Range of Views on Immigration

RACINE, Wis. — In this old manufacturing city that supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, dislike for President Donald Trump runs wide and deep. Images of crying children at the Mexican border typically serve as Exhibit A on the list of grievances that Democratic voters cite against the president.

Plame, 55, is running for the northern New Mexico seat being vacated by Rep. Ben Ray Luján. Luján, who had been regarded as a possible successor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has announced that he plans to run for Senate to replace retiring Sen. Tom Udall.

Plame, who moved to Santa Fe after leaving Washington more than a decade ago, has recently worked as a speaker and writer, but she is best known for the circumstances of her departure from the CIA, where she had served for two decades.

When her husband, U.S. diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, wrote an opinion essay in The New York Times in 2003 raising questions about a central underpinning for the invasion of Iraq — that President Saddam Hussein was acquiring nuclear weapons there — Plame’s identity was leaked to the media.

Columnist Robert Novak disclosed Plame’s undercover status in The Washington Post, quoting unnamed administration officials, in what was regarded as an effort by some in the administration to discredit Wilson’s opinions.

No one was ever prosecuted for the leak, but the ensuing investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis Libby Jr., a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby, who goes by Scooter, was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2018.

In congressional testimony, Plame said she blamed the Bush administration for intentionally disclosing her identity and undermining her career. And in a news release Thursday, she repeated that contention.

“My career in the CIA was cut short by partisan politics, but I’m not done serving our country,” she said.

In the news release, Plame indicated that health care would be a central focus of her campaign.

“The high cost of health care and prescription medicine is hitting everyone,” she said. “Everyone is losing under the health care system we have today except for insurance and drug companies.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/valerie-plame-2020.html" id="b0b38a0f-d18a-38fd-afea-91f94b938f09">The New York Times</a>.

Former CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose cover was blown in a leak that touched off a political scandal during the George W. Bush administration, said Thursday that she plans to run for Congress as a Democrat.

Valerie Plame, Outed CIA Agent, Will Run for Congress in New Mexico

The allegations stand in contrast to Gillibrand’s record as an advocate for women’s causes who has battled sexual harassment in the workplace, a message she has made central to her candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The staff member’s resignation, first reported Monday by Politico, included a letter she wrote to Gillibrand and two top aides in July in which she describes frustration over the office’s response to allegations of harassment and intimidation against the co-worker, Abbas Malik, a former special assistant to the New York senator.

The aide had accused Malik of making unwelcome advances toward her, as well as inappropriate misogynistic remarks about female colleagues and potential hires, Politico said. The woman was not identified by the news organization, and her name was redacted from the letter.

“I felt defeated, not just from the humiliation and pain that the harassment had brought me, but that in attempting to seek appropriate disciplinary actions for my harasser, my experience was devalued. I was devalued,” the aide said in her resignation letter in August.

The former staff member could not be immediately identified by The New York Times. Malik, who served primarily as a driver for Gillibrand, could not immediately be reached for comment. His recent firing followed the emergence of a new allegation, according to a member of Gillibrand’s staff.

In a statement Monday, Gillibrand defended her office’s handling of the complaint. “As I have long said, when allegations are made in the workplace, we must believe women so that serious investigations can actually take place, we can learn the facts, and there can be appropriate accountability,” the statement said. “That’s exactly what happened at every step of this case last year.”

Gillibrand’s communications director, Whitney Mitchell Brennan, also defended the office’s handling of the complaint. “At every step of the process, immediate action was taken by the office,” she said in a separate statement Monday. “A full and thorough investigation into the evidence revealed employee misconduct that, while inappropriate, did not meet the standard for sexual harassment.'’

Taking an unyielding stand against sexual misconduct has been central to Gillibrand’s political profile since late 2017 when she was the first Democratic senator to call for the resignation of Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota after allegations that eventually led to him stepping down from his Senate seat.

The allegations from the former aide included claims that Malik called a woman fat, called someone ugly, rated women’s appearances and said that a woman working at the Senate as an intern was “into him.”

Malik had served two tours in Iraq and was at one point assigned a title related to military affairs, but his primary responsibility remained as a driver.

The former aide initially indicated she thought the investigation was fair but later complained in her letter that she felt retaliated against for making the complaint.

One senior staff member commented to her that Malik could have been fired for “a number of reasons but isn’t going to. So he should consider himself lucky,” the letter said. The woman then that she was “deeply confused and saddened by this.'’

An aide to Gillibrand, who asked not to be identified in order to discuss internal matters, said an investigation into the staffer’s complaint was initiated within 42 minutes after she filed it last July. Seven staffers were subsequently interviewed.

That investigation concluded that while inappropriate, Malik’s specific conduct did not meet the standard for sexual harassment, but the investigation confirmed unprofessional behavior including derogatory comments. The office rescinded Malik’s promotion and warned him that any additional behavior would result in his firing.

He was fired recently, after Politico began working on its story, when new information emerged.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/politics/kirsten-gillibrand-sexual-harassment.html" id="fa0ec798-0821-3cfd-a444-35fa030e0b10">The New York Times</a>.

Gillibrand Aide Resigned Over Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claim

A former aide to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand resigned last year after accusing top aides to the senator of mishandling a sexual harassment complaint she filed against a colleague. Gillibrand’s office investigated the claim and kept the worker on staff but dismissed him last week after Politico presented new details about the allegations to her Senate office.

The staff member’s resignation included a letter she wrote to Gillibrand and two top aides last July in which she describes frustration over the office’s response to allegations of harassment and intimidation against the co-worker, Abbas Malik, a former special assistant to the New York senator.

The aide had accused Malik of making unwelcome advances toward her, as well as misogynistic remarks about female colleagues and potential hires, Politico said. The woman was not identified by the news organization.

“I felt defeated, not just from the humiliation and pain that the harassment had brought me, but that in attempting to seek appropriate disciplinary actions for my harasser, my experience was devalued. I was devalued,” the aide said in her resignation letter last August.

Malik, who served primarily as a driver for Gillibrand, could not immediately be reached for comment. His recent firing followed the emergence of a new allegation, according to a member of Gillibrand’s staff.

Former Gillibrand Aide Complained About Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claim

The staff member’s resignation, first reported Monday by Politico, included a letter she wrote to Gillibrand and two top aides last July in which she describes frustration over the office’s response to allegations of harassment and intimidation against the co-worker, Abbas Malik, a former special assistant to the New York senator.

The allegations from the former aide included claims that Malik called a woman fat, called someone ugly, rated women’s appearance and said that a women working at the Senate as a fellow was “into him.”

Fresh from his defeat in the race for Kansas governor, Kobach, the former Kansas secretary of state, is involved in a audacious new project — a privately funded wall along the Mexican border.

Kobach, a hard-line ally of Trump known for his strident stand on immigration, has long advocated a tough border policy.

He is currently an advisory board member of “We Build the Wall Inc.” a nonprofit group that has collected more than $12 million toward the effort. Kobach said the group has obtained the presidential seal of approval for the private initiative.

Trump gave the undertaking his “blessing” in a telephone conversation Wednesday night, according to Kobach.

The White House press office did not respond to requests for comment.

Kobach, 52, said the group will begin construction soon on its first section of the wall on donated property, likely in Texas, and that the work can be completed cheaply and efficiently by the private sector.

The private wall idea is an outgrowth of a plan started in December as a GoFundMe campaign by Brian Kolfage, a disabled Air Force veteran living in Florida who said the impetus for his project was mounting public frustration over the government’s failure to reach an agreement on border protection.

After raising nearly $20 million, the organization was forced to contact donors because it hadn’t reached its initial goal of $1 billion. At that point, contributions would be automatically returned to donors unless they opted back in. Kobach said that efforts to retain contributors had been very successful, with 94 percent of those contacted transferring the money into the new effort.

Kobach, who is considering a 2020 run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Pat Roberts, said he is currently an unpaid adviser to the organization but added that he might take a major administrative role as the project grows. Asked whether he would be compensated at that point, Kobach said he was not sure.

The New York Times caught up with Kobach this week by telephone. His remarks were condensed and edited for clarity.

Q: I understand that you’re on the board of an organization that’s promoting a private wall. Can you tell me what the goal is?

A: The goal is to facilitate construction of a border wall on private land with private funds along the southern border in conjunction with federal government efforts to construct the wall.

Q: Have you done any work to see how much that’s going to cost?

A: We believe we can build the wall, or build sections of the wall, for well under half the price that the federal government is projecting and perhaps as low as a quarter of the price. Quite often the federal government purchases things at prices higher than individuals in the private marketplace.

Q:Do you have a location in mind right now? Do you have landowners who will donate land for this?

A: We have landowners who are inviting us already. We’ll be hopefully breaking ground within weeks, but I don’t want to give the names yet. We haven’t selected where we’re going to start. It doesn’t require the donation of a large amount of land. The landowner retains the land. It’s not like we build the wall and take possession of the land.

Q: Do you think there’s a groundswell of support for this?

A: I do think there’s a groundswell of support. It’s an objective that people conceive of very easily. It’s not rocket science. It’s not super high technology to construct border barriers.

Q:Democrats have proposed other kinds of mechanisms for securing the border — technology, drones, radar.

A: We already have drones and sensors on the border, and they seem to think that having more is adequate. Drones don’t stop people from coming across the border; they merely tell you that someone is coming across the border. I don’t think the people who are proposing the drones only are serious about stopping the flow of illegal immigration.

Q: What are people in Kansas telling you?

A: In Kansas, support for the wall is very strong. We haven’t done any polling or outreach on the specific question of “We Build the Wall” organization, but certainly support for building a wall or a series of barriers on the border is very high.

Q:Have you reached out to people at Homeland Security? Are they on board with this idea?

A: I have not personally, but I believe others in our organization have. We intend to cooperate and to the extent possible collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security. The objective is to assist and to create a system of sections that ultimately connect and serve one another.

I talked with the president, and the “We Build the Wall Effort” came up. The president said, “The project has my blessing, and you can tell the media that.”

Q: Do you see this as an alternative to a federal project?

A: I see it as a supplement to a federal project. The $5.7 billion would not secure the entire border, even if Democrats gave the president everything he’s asking for in the current discussion. There will be hundreds of miles of gaps collectively that still wouldn’t be secured. So these private efforts will help supplement and fill in the gaps that still exist after, if and when the president is able to complete the sections of wall that he’s proposing.

Q: Some people might say securing the border is a government function just like air traffic control.

A: It is correct that securing the border is a government function, but when the government fails, it has a specific and significant impact on individual landowners. So the failure to secure the border affects me in Kansas indirectly, and it affects you in New York indirectly. But the landowner who has the ranch right on the border is affected in a way that is 1,000 percent greater than what you and I would experience. The biggest effects are litter and security. The traffickers, as they’re bringing their migrants through, they’re constantly dumping clothing, food containers and trash on the ranchers’ land. And then there’s an environmental impact. But the biggest impact for individual landowners is security.

Q:Sounds like you’re looking at this from the standpoint of private property rights and the rights of private landowners?

A: Exactly. In this project the rights of private landowners intersect perfectly with the objectives of the U.S. government. Ostensibly, members of both parties say they want to secure the border. The landowner needs to secure the border because of the damage being done in terms of litter and in terms of public safety and in terms of trespassing.

Q: I have heard stories of landowners who like the open border because they’ve made friends with people who live on the Mexican side and they’re neighbors.

A: In that case if a landowner doesn’t want to have any fencing or barriers on his project, he wouldn’t be someone we would be working with.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/us/politics/kris-kobach-wall-funding.html" id="404eed88-bbea-3e0b-a99d-82d0f60b83e4">The New York Times</a>.

Kobach Wants to Build the Wall His Way, and Says He Has the President's Blessing

With President Donald Trump’s border wall tied up by his fight with congressional Democrats, and public opinion about the wall mixed, Kris Kobach wants to take matters into his own hands.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts fired several shots after entering the race last week, denouncing “campaigns that are funded by billionaires, whether it goes through super PACs or their own money.” When Rachel Maddow of MSNBC asked if billionaire Democrats like Bloomberg and Tom Steyer should not run for president, Warren made a distinction.

“I just mean people should not be self-funding,” she said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist who is eyeing 2020, inveighed against “the billionaire class” last week, and left-wing activists heckled Bloomberg over his wealth when he visited Iowa last month. Even Connie Schultz, the wife of Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, mocked suggestions that Bloomberg would spend $100 million or more on his own possible presidential campaign.

“'I want a man who wants to buy himself a presidency,’ I’ve thought precisely never,” wrote Schultz, whose husband is eyeing a 2020 run.

As three dozen Democrats consider a 2020 run, potential candidates are taking populist positions on capitalism, income inequality, taxes and health care and embracing the favored label of the moment: “progressive.” Many of them have little interest in the pragmatic politics and big-donor appeal of Hillary Clinton, the 2016 nominee. But with Democrats needing to define themselves in what will likely be a crowded field, the most liberal candidates are making an issue of wealth even though some of these billionaires have liberal policy views themselves.

On Wednesday, Steyer took himself out of the 2020 running after weeks of hinting that he might enter the race. A fierce advocate of impeaching President Donald Trump and a longtime environmentalist, Steyer sidestepped a question about Warren and self-financed campaigns as he announced he would focus his time and money on trying to get Trump impeached.

“I believe in the grassroots, just as Senator Warren does,” he said. “What we have pushed for is the broadest possible democracy, power to the people, at all times. What we’re saying is — what counts in this is the voice of the American people.”

Warren has moved out front quickly to use wealth as a cudgel against potential opponents and try to establish herself early with voters as a vanguard of middle-class and working-class concerns — a kind of “people-not-the-powerful” message that Democrats like Al Gore tried in the past. If they run, liberals like Sanders, Brown and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke are likely to advance similar arguments, as well.

Anti-billionaire populism is convenient for both Warren and Sanders. Neither has the financial wherewithal to fund their own campaign, and both have well-developed lists of online donors. With ideological leftists ascendant in the party — like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her call for much higher taxes on the wealthy — their attacks on billionaires may appeal particularly to liberal millennials and middle-class workers in early caucus and primary states.

“If you look at the entire period since the financial crisis, the resentment of corporations — and particularly how they failed to work for their own companies and their own workers — that resentment is strong,” said Stan Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster. “People really do believe they’ve been buying influence. They think there’s a nexus of CEOs, corporations, big business and politicians that’s corrupt.”

Warren repeated her criticism of self-funded campaigns last Saturday in Iowa, on her first campaign swing to the early caucus state. “None of us want super PACs to help us and none of us believe the billionaires should be able to self-finance,” she told a crowd in Des Moines.

Rob Hogg, a state senator and 2016 Democratic convention delegate, said the message could resonate with some Iowa voters. “You have the reaction from activists in both political parties that we’re not sure we want this campaign to be bought,” Hogg said.

In South Carolina, an early primary state, a candidate’s extreme wealth could be a turnoff to a state party membership that skews poorer than Democrats in the rest of the country, said Gibbs Knotts, a professor of political science at the College of Charleston. Many voters are fed up with the concentration of political power among the wealthy, he said.

“For Democrats, given the unique character of the South Carolina Democratic electorate, I think that would be something that could be hard to overcome,” said Knotts, who is writing a book about the South Carolina primary.

Self-funding can cut both ways. Not only do candidates with vast resources have the ability to weather campaign setbacks that can dry up donations, they also can argue that they are not beholden to unpopular corporate interests.

Laura Belin, a close Iowa caucus observer, said she doesn’t think being a billionaire self-funder is necessarily a deal-breaker.

“I don’t think of Iowans as automatically rejecting a billionaire candidate,” said Belin, an author on the Bleeding Heartland blog. “I feel like there are bigger issues for people that are more like litmus test issues, like Medicare for All.”

Rather than accepting contributions from special-interest PACs whose backers fuel disgust, Bloomberg can point out that he made all the money himself — via his company that pioneered providing computerized data to investors — and owes nothing to anyone.

“He’s never taken a dime of any special interest money,” said Howard Wolfson, a top adviser to Bloomberg. “That fact has allowed him to act independently, totally on the merits, without ever having to wonder what donors or other special interests expect or want from him. Mike is somebody who did not grow up with privilege. He made all of his money on his own.”

Matt Mackowiak, an Austin-based Republican strategist, pointed to another advantage for Bloomberg.

“In Bloomberg’s case, he’s been extremely generous in philanthropy over his life. It’s hard to make a case that he’s been selfish,” said Mackowiak, suggesting that Bloomberg could counter criticism of his wealth by emphasizing his record of promoting the public good.

While casting billionaires like Bloomberg as plutocrats may resonate among some Democrats, longtime party advisers point out that the strategy is tricky and that, by embracing it, Warren and Sanders are ignoring historical reality: Several of the party’s wealthiest leaders have been among its most progressive.

“If you look at the last century, the people who did the most, in many ways, to advance progressive politics in the country — FDR and the Kennedys — all came from great wealth,” said Bob Shrum, a longtime adviser to Democratic candidates.

Even so, Shrum, who teaches at the University of Southern California, said that almost any viable Democrat running this year will talk in some way about having a president who is there to serve the people, not the powerful, the theme that Shrum coined for use in Gore’s 2000 campaign.

Susan E. Howell, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of New Orleans, said that even in an era of populist backlash against the wealthy, the message could backfire.

“What’s working against Warren and Sanders is that, let’s face it, we are a capitalist country with a capitalist culture,” she said. “And I think the working class in a large part, over time, has bought into this. This has been our culture, that you can work hard and become a Bloomberg.”

Bloomberg, a businessman regarded as an economic centrist, was a loyal ally of Wall Street while he was mayor of New York City, but he has nevertheless embraced the liberal side of some of the country’s most pressing social issues — including climate change and gun control. As mayor, he was known for fighting the tobacco and soft drink industries.

He is rated 10th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, with a net worth of about $40 billion, and he has become a deep-pocketed force in progressive politics. Organizations controlled and funded by Bloomberg recently spent more than $100 million promoting two dozen Democratic congressional candidates in the 2018 midterm elections. Of those, 21 won.

Wolfson pointed out that Bloomberg has been criticized before for self-funding his campaigns, but still won in his three successive mayoral races — in which he spent close to $300 million. Running as an independent in 2009, he outspent his opponent, Bill Thompson, by 14 to 1. Despite wide speculation that he is running, Bloomberg has not entered the race.

Paradoxically, in an era of populist backlash against the wealthy, more and more candidates are self-funding, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. There is evidence, though, that self-funders generally don’t win in political campaigns, although it’s not entirely clear why.

Of 73 general-election candidates for governor who spent $1 million or more on their campaigns since 2000, only 25 won, according to data collected by National Institute for Money in Politics.

Among the Democrats mulling a 2020 run, at least one other billionaire could potentially self-fund a campaign — former Starbucks chief Howard Schultz. He has been sharply critical of Trump, and indicated last year that he might consider running for the White House.

Schultz, whose net worth is estimated at $3.6 billion, did not respond to requests for comments on whether or when he would announce plans for 2020. But in a move that could help set the stage for a bid, Schultz is set to begin a national tour to promote his new book, with the first stop scheduled for Jan. 28 in New York.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/politics/democrats-2020-self-funding-billionaires.html" id="778aa4a3-53db-3921-ae66-7633d9f0bc09">The New York Times</a>.

Democrats Find a Foil for 2020 Primary: Billionaires (Even Liberal Ones)

With populism making a strong comeback on the Democratic left, liberals have found an early, enticing foil in the party’s 2020 presidential primary: billionaires like Michael R. Bloomberg who could bankroll their own campaigns or finance others.

Speaking at a downtown rally near the border with Mexico, O’Rourke said that his hometown, El Paso, its embrace of immigration and its rich ties with Mexico represented the best of the American experience, adding that the challenges facing the country presented “a moment of truth.”

Quoting King, he said El Paso and its Mexican neighbor of Ciudad Juárez were “caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”

He added, “This is a campaign for America, for everyone in America.”

His words and the setting on the street that connects El Paso with Ciudad Juárez symbolized what his campaign said would be one of O’Rourke’s themes — a “unifying vision for bridging divides” to unite Americans from all walks of life.

But the speech by O’Rourke, a former three-term member of Congress, comes at a time of extraordinary discord over immigration, with a surge of migrants trying to enter the United States and President Donald Trump threatening to seal off the border in the coming week.

El Paso has been a flashpoint for much of that unrest, with hundreds of migrants now being held in a makeshift encampment under a bridge near where O’Rourke was speaking.

The encampment, where immigration officials are detaining people behind razor wire with little hot food, was set up last week when El Paso’s main border processing center reached overflow capacity following the largest influx of migrants in years.

Acknowledging the plight of the migrants, O’Rourke said, “Let us remember that every single one of us, including those who are just three or four blocks from here detained under the international bridge — behind chain-link fence and barbed wire — they are our fellow human beings and deserve to be treated like our fellow human beings.”

O’Rourke, who also had rallies scheduled for Houston and outside the state’s Capitol in Austin, stressed not only immigration but also health care, education, climate change, criminal justice reform, the economy, voting rights and racial inequality, all topics that have emerged as major issues in the effort by Democrats to unseat Trump in 2020.

“This is our moment of truth and we cannot be found wanting,” he told the enthusiastic crowd. “The challenges before us are the greatest of our lifetimes. An economy that works too well for too few and not at all for too many more. A health care system where millions are unable to see a doctor or be well enough to live to their full potential, and the last, best hope of averting the catastrophe that will follow climate change, fading before our very inaction. We must overcome these challenges.”

O’Rourke was introduced by his wife, Amy O’Rourke, an educator. The couple’s three children also attended.

O’Rourke has been campaigning for two weeks, often in impromptu sessions in cafes or intimate town halls. But this was billed as his first major public event and opportunity to present the broad themes of his campaign.

Speaking extemporaneously for 34 minutes, gesticulating as he walked around a stage set in the middle of the street, O’Rourke hit particularly hard on access to health care and prescription drug costs.

“When one of the largest providers of mental health care services is a county jail system, and in a nation that is in the midst of a maternal mortality crisis — three times as deadly for women of color — let us ensure that universal health care means we can see a primary care provider, all of us can get mental health care, and that universal health care means that every woman makes her own decisions about her own body,” he said.

He also called for better pay for teachers — “let’s pay them what they’re worth” — and a “world-class public school system from pre-K to 12.”

The crowd of several thousand supporters included Marta Lopez, 71, a retired state worker from El Paso, who had come wearing a black-and-white BETO T-shirt.

“We’ve lived here all our lives, and I feel we don’t need a wall,” said Lopez, adding that she admires O’Rourke’s positions on immigration as well as his pledge not to accept PAC money.

Several supporters of O’Rourke said they were intimidated by a gantlet of pro-Trump protesters blocking their way to the rally.

“They were just very confrontational and yelling scary stuff at us,” said Thelma Ramos, 38, of El Paso, who came with her 13-year-old daughter.

O’Rourke, 46, grew up in this border town, the son of a local political figure and a furniture store operator. He had little name recognition until last year, when he became a national figure during his unsuccessful effort to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican.

With a progressive sheen and grassroots appeal, O’Rourke set fundraising records in that Senate campaign. He continued that record-setting pace in the 24 hours after announcing his White House ambitions two weeks ago, raising more than $6.1 million online in one day. That outpaced the $5.9 million collected by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in his first day.

Some recent polls place O’Rourke at third in popularity among Democrats expected to be in the race, behind former Vice President Joe Biden, who has not yet announced his intentions, and Sanders.

And if his style is entirely different from Sanders, he hit many similar themes.

“For too long in this country, the powerful have maintained their privilege at the expense of the powerless,” he said. “They have used fears and division in the same way that our current president uses fear and division.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/us/politics/beto-rally.html" id="2b511a76-1228-3924-aea9-aa870c5ff36a">The New York Times</a>.

Immigration at Core as O'Rourke Starts Campaign

EL PASO — Beto O’Rourke officially kicked off his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination Saturday morning, quoting Martin Luther King Jr., raising populist themes and praising the way immigration has enriched El Paso and the nation.

Stephanie Saul

Articles written by the author

Steyer Aide Apologizes for 'Miscommunication' on Endorsement Solicitation

At Debate, Democrats Challenge Biden Over Obama's Deportation Record

In Wisconsin Swing District, a Range of Views on Immigration

Valerie Plame, Outed CIA Agent, Will Run for Congress in New Mexico

Gillibrand Aide Resigned Over Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claim

Former Gillibrand Aide Complained About Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claim

Former Gillibrand Aide Complained About Handling of Sexual Misconduct Claim

Kobach Wants to Build the Wall His Way, and Says He Has the President's Blessing

Democrats Find a Foil for 2020 Primary: Billionaires (Even Liberal Ones)

Immigration at Core as O'Rourke Starts Campaign

Immigration at Core as O'Rourke Starts Campaign

Immigration at Core as O'Rourke Starts Campaign

Immigration at Core as O'Rourke Starts Campaign

The Education of Elizabeth Warren

Poll Shows Biden Sliding to 3-Way Tie Atop the Field

New 2020 Poll Shows Tightening Race Between Sanders, Warren and Biden

Kris Kobach announces bid for Kansas Senate seat

Harris' secret weapon: The sisterhood of Alpha Kappa Alpha

Sara Gideon to challenge Susan Collins for Maine Senate seat

Immigration at core as O'Rourke starts campaign