"I will eat for many days!"

N.J. Gov. Christie announces 2016 Republican presidential bid

By Luciana Lopez

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie launched an uphill run for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday with his trademark bluster, offering up his blunt talk and willingness to tackle tough issues as the cure for an ailing country.

Christie, once seen as a top 2016 White House contender but now viewed as a long shot, said his dose of New Jersey straight talk could fix a dysfunctional political system and erase the partisan divide in Washington.

"I mean what I say and I say what I mean, and that's what America needs right now," Christie told friends, family and supporters at a launch rally at his old high school in suburban Livingston, New Jersey. "Truth and hard decisions today will lead to growth and opportunity tomorrow."

The 52-year-old governor criticized the leaders of both parties, and derided what he called Democratic President Barack Obama's "hand-wringing and indecisiveness and weakness in the Oval Office."

"Both parties have failed our country," said Christie. "Both parties have led us to believe that in America, a country built on compromise, that somehow compromise is a dirty word."

The campaign launch gave Christie a chance to rejuvenate his sagging poll numbers and recast his battered image after last year's "Bridgegate" lane closure scandal.

Christie is the 14th Republican to enter the race for the nomination ahead of the November 2016 election. He faces a difficult challenge regaining his former status near the top of the heap.

He has seen his standing in national polls in the Republican race dip to the low single digits. His approval ratings in his home state have fallen to new lows amid a series of credit downgrades and weak job growth.

Conservatives, a key force in the early Republican primaries, have been suspicious of Christie's record of working at times with Democrats in Democratic-leaning New Jersey. They still resent his hug and warm words for Obama after superstorm Sandy in the final days of the 2012 presidential race.

But Christie has cultivated his in-your-face image, once telling a heckler to "sit down and shut up" and getting into frequent shouting matches with New Jersey residents who challenge him.

Following the announcement, he headed out on the campaign trail to New Hampshire, where he will hold the first of what is expected to be a series of town hall sessions he hopes will help turn his reputation for plain speaking into an asset.

"You're going to get what I think whether you like it or not," Christie said during his launch rally, which did not feature a prepared text or a teleprompter.

Christie's approval ratings began falling during the controversy over lane closings orchestrated by his aides in September 2013 for the approach to the George Washington Bridge connecting New Jersey and New York City, the busiest bridge in the country.

Some critics said the closings were political retribution against a Democratic New Jersey mayor who refused to endorse Christie's re-election campaign. Christie has disavowed knowledge of the closures.

A former ally of the governor pleaded guilty to federal charges in the scandal in May, and two others were indicted.

Cruz is insane...

Ted Cruz Wants to Subject Supreme Court Justices to Political Elections

What could possibly go wrong?

By AJ Vicens

Last week was a tough one for conservatives. In the course of two days, the US Supreme Court upheld a major part of the Affordable Care Act and effectively legalized same-sex marriage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it "some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation's history," and he's not going to take it lying down. The presidential candidate and former Supreme Court clerk says he is proposing a constitutional amendment that would force Supreme Court justices to face retention elections.

"[S]adly, the Court's hubris and thirst for power have reached unprecedented levels. And that calls for meaningful action, lest Congress be guilty of acquiescing to this assault on the rule of law," Cruz wrote in the National Review after the court's Friday ruling on same-sex marriage. "And if Congress will not act, passing the constitutional amendments needed to correct this lawlessness, then the movement from the people for an Article V Convention of the States—to propose the amendments directly—will grow stronger and stronger."

Cruz's plan calls for the justices to face retention elections beginning with the second national election after their appointment, and every eight years after that. "Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court," Cruz wrote.

In defending his plan, Cruz wrote that 20 states already have judicial retention elections. What he didn't mention was that many of those states have taken steps to compensate for a major problem that tends to arise when judges' jobs get politicized. Of the 39 states that have some form of judicial elections (whether retention or otherwise), 30 have bans on judges personally soliciting donors for money to avoid conflicts of interest. Those bans were recently upheld by the Supreme Court itself, which ruled in April in Williams-Yulee v. the Florida Bar that states can legally prohibit judicial candidates from directly soliciting money. Why?

"Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's 5-4 majority opinion in Yulee.

And there's a good reason for Roberts' reluctance to lump judges in with other politicians. In writing about the Yulee decision in April, Mother Jones reported:

[J]udicial elections have quietly become a major battleground in American politics over the last decade. State judicial candidates raised a combined $83 million in the 1990s, a total that was surpassed by roughly $30 million in the 2011-12 election cycle. More than $200 million has been donated to state supreme court candidates since 2000, and independent (and often unaccountable) spending on state judicial races has increased nearly sevenfold in that same time. Sue Bell Cobb, the retired chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, recently likened judicial elections to "legalized extortion."

A major problem with all of this money is that more and more of it is independent and unaccountable spending, some of which comes from people who appear before the very judges they're donating to. Even when judges don't actively fundraise, outside groups pour funds into attack ads, putting money at the center of what was once a fairly sleepy and restrained electoral process. And that's just on the state level. Imagine the national campaigns to retain (or unseat) Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"If the justices themselves couldn't raise the money, who would step forward to [run] campaign contributions?" asks Liz Seaton, the campaign deputy executive director of judicial watchdog group Justice at Stake. "Why? And to what end?"

Seaton says political attacks on the Supreme Court after controversial decisions aren't new, and that the Founding Fathers gave federal judges lifetime tenure to protect them from exactly the kind of political pressure Cruz is hoping to apply.

"What kind of political campaigning and spending would there be if such a system would be put in place?" Seaton asks. "It's just hard to imagine just how much that would blow the system out of the water."

Campaigning for Bernie

Elizabeth Warren Won't Rule Out Campaigning for Bernie Sanders

The Massachusetts senator says it's "too early to say."

By Patrick Caldwell

The activist liberal wing of the Democratic Party was heartbroken when Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren decided to pass on running for president in 2016. Since then, some hard-core lefties have shifted their attention to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has been drawing massive crowds across the country. He's still a long shot to beat front-runner Hillary Clinton, but Sanders has been inching up in the polls in New Hampshire, coming within eight points of Clinton in a recent survey.

Will Warren support the new favorite son of the left and hit the campaign trail for him? "Too early to say," she told the Boston Herald on Monday. Warren has so far refrained from endorsing any Democratic presidential candidate, but she sure sounded enthusiastic about Bernie when speaking with the Herald. "These are people who care about these issues, and that’s who Bernie’s reaching," she told the paper. "I love what Bernie is talking about. I think all the presidential candidates should be out talking about the big issues."

Warren has been cagey about her feelings on Hillary Clinton since the former secretary of state announced her presidential campaign in April. In 2013, Warren signed a letter written by the Democratic women in the Senate encouraging Clinton to enter the race, and last year Warren called Clinton "terrific" and said she hoped Clinton would run for president.

The two met last December, with Warren working to sway Clinton on her pet issues while withholding an endorsement. Warren's advisers have spent the spring figuring out ways to maximize the attention on Warren to pressure Clinton on policy. So far, in the early days of her campaign, Clinton has been eager to associate herself with Warren's image, but when pressed on the policy specifics Clinton has so far remained vague about where she stands.

Pot Raid

Police Say the Biggest Pot Raid in Years Wasn't Really About Pot

Forget the drug war—the main battle now in the Emerald Triangle may be drought.

By Josh Harkinson

There were helicopters, SWAT teams, and nearly 100,000 marijuana plants yanked out of the ground, but last week's massive raid in Northern California's rugged Emerald Triangle was not your father's pot bust. Carried out by county law enforcement with no help from the DEA, it targeted private landowners—and not just because they were growing pot, police say, but because they were illegally sucking some 500,000 gallons of water a day from a section of the nearby Eel river that is now stagnant and moss-ridden.

In short, the cops say this was as much a water raid as a pot raid. One certainly could imagine, in this era of evolving attitudes toward marijuana, a shift in enforcement focus toward environmentally problematic grows on steep wooded hillsides or above sensitive salmon streams in an increasingly dry climate. These are not isolated issues: Among the growers targeted in last week's raid, according to the Lost Coast Outpost, were members of California Cannabis Voice Humboldt, a group working to bring growers into compliance with state and federal environmental laws.

A leading advocate for Northern California pot growers scoffs at the notion that the raid was environmentally motivated. "This isn't about the environment; this is about business as usual," says Hezekiah Allen, director of the Emerald Growers Association. Allen challenges the authorities' water use estimates, pointing out that the extensive reservoirs discovered at the grow sites could be eco-friendly ways of storing winter runoff for use during the summer growing season. He also questions the value of criminal raids at a time when the California Water Board is drafting a system of water-use permits and civil fines for pot farmers.

"There are 2,200 un-permitted water diversions for wine grapes in the Central Valley," he points out, citing a state report, "so I am curious when we are going to see the sheriff show up and chop down un-permitted vines. If we are agnostic about what the crop is, the same crime should lead to the same activity. That is all we are asking, just to be treated like any other crop."

Yet if state and local officials are to be believed (they did not respond to requests for comment), the raid suggests that even the most eco-conscious Emerald Triangle growers could face a reckoning once California (probably inevitably) legalizes cannabis and starts subjecting pot farms to agricultural inspections. Even with the the best land-use practices, many Emerald Triangle farms likely draw too much water from sensitive mountain streams and headwaters. Growers may find that it's cheaper and more eco-friendly to relocate to the Central Valley.

Or why stop there? Cannabis, indigenous to moist river valleys in Central and South Asia, uses about six gallons per day per plant. That's more than many other thirsty crops, such as cotton, which uses 10 gallons per plant for the entire growing season. Which suggests that cannabis should be grown somewhere wet—somewhere other than California.

Allen doesn't see that happening. He argues that cannabis farming in the Emerald Triangle can be sustainable when farmers cultivate drought-tolerant Kush varieties from Afghanistan, and irrigate entirely with rainwater stored in tanks onsite. After all, no crop offers a greater financial yield per gallon of water. "If we step back and take a look at this industry and the jobs that it creates, California cannot afford not to grow cannabis in the 21st century," he says. "It's one of the most adaptable, resource-efficient ways of generating revenue on small farms."

Right-Wing Extremism

The Rise of Violent Right-Wing Extremism, Explained

Experts say attacks like the mass shooting in Charleston have been a growing threat.

By Jaeah Lee, Brandon Ellington Patterson, and Gabrielle Canon

The US law enforcement community regards homegrown violent extremists, not radicalized Islamists, as the most severe threat from political violence in the country, according to a new study from the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Released late last week, the report comes amid renewed focus on the problem ever since a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist carried out a mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina. There is a growing body of research highlighting the threat from right-wing extremists, but who or what exactly does that term encompass, and how big really is the problem? Mother Jones examined various reports and contacted experts to find out more.

What are "far-right" or "right-wing" extremists?

While there is no uniform definition, these terms loosely encompass individuals or groups associated with white supremacist, antigovernment, sovereign citizen, patriot, militia, or other ideologies that target specific religious, ethnic or other minority groups. (Meanwhile, how to determine which violent attacks constitute an act of terrorism has been a subject of renewed debate.)

The available data on violent attacks perpetrated by right-wing extremists ranges widely, explains Michael German, a former FBI agent who is now a national security expert at the Brennan Center for Justice. Researchers at the US Department of Homeland Security, New America Foundation, Southern Poverty Law Center, University of Maryland, and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point have all compiled data on right-wing extremist violence using varying criteria over different periods of time, most of them going back to the mid 1990s, when the Oklahoma City bombing riveted attention on the problem. (The exception is the University of Maryland's data, which dates to 1970, during a surge in violent far-left extremism.)

The various studies have all led to the same general conclusion: The threat from homegrown right-wing extremists has grown in recent years. "Since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating in the far-right of American politics," Arie Perliger, the director of terrorism studies at the Combating Terrorism Center, wrote in a 2012 report.

How often do right wing violent extremists attack?

The University of Maryland's Global Terrorism Database registered 65 attacks on American soil associated with right-wing ideologies since 9/11, versus 24 attacks by jihadist extremists. The New America Foundation, meanwhile, tallied 48 deaths from attacks by non-jihadist extremists over the same time period—including the Charleston shooting—compared with 26 deaths from attacks by jihadist extremists, including the one at Fort Hood in 2009, in which 13 were killed.

The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, which compiles data on "all violent attacks that were perpetrated by groups or individuals affiliated with far-right associations," counted an average of 337 annual attacks by right-wing extremists in the decade after 9/11, including a total of 254 fatalities, or an annual average of about 18 deaths.

Daryl Johnson, a former DHS domestic terrorism intelligence analyst who now heads the consulting firm DT Analytics, says that attacks from far-right extremists "increased dramatically" after 2008. Johnson, who began tracking domestic terrorism while at DHS, estimates that there is currently an average of one plot or attack every 40 to 45 days. "We are in a heightened period right now," he says.

Johnson's view is supported by a 2012 report from Perliger at the Combating Terrorism Center: "Since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating in the far-right of American politics," it notes.

How organized are these extremists?

As former Mother Jones staffer Adam Serwer reported in August 2012 when a neo-Nazi carried out a massacre at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, the number of American extremist groups has also risen overall in recent years.

How is law enforcement responding?

About three quarters of the 382 state and local law enforcement agencies surveyed by the Triangle Center listed anti-government extremism as a top threat in their jurisdiction, compared with 39 percent that listed violence connected with Al Qaeda or related groups.

In 2014, the Anti-Defamation League documented an upswing in far-right attacks against law enforcement. But those numbers should be put into perspective, the report's authors Charles Kurzman and David Schanzer note, since terrorism of all kinds represents a small fraction of total violent crime in the United States. The number of homicides in the US since 9/11 totaled more than 215,000.

And because the data on right-wing violence varies so much, "it's hard to get a true understanding of the threat," German says, adding that the FBI—whose number one priority is to protect the United States from a terrorist attack—does not publish data on domestic terrorism. "Instead, we rely on these private groups that are doing a public service by compiling and publishing information," he says. The FBI does collect and publish limited data on hate crimes, which it defines as criminal offenses "against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." But German as well as researchers at the Southern Poverty Law Center point out that data relies on voluntary reporting and thus undercounts those numbers.

So what is the government doing about it?

The federal and local governments had ramped up efforts to combat domestic terrorism of all kinds in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people. A few months following the 9/11 attacks, FBI official Dale Watson testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "Right-wing groups continue to represent a serious terrorist threat." But Johnson, German, and others assert that federal counterterrorism programs since 9/11 have focused overwhelmingly on the perceived threat from Islamic extremism. That includes the Obama administration's "countering violent extremism" strategy, which "revolves around impeding the radicalization of violent jihadists," according to a 2014 Congressional Research Service report.

The attack in Charleston underscored "the failure of the federal government to keep closer tabs" on right-wing extremists, argues Gerald Horne, a historian and civil rights activist at the University of Houston.

But the focus may soon increase. In February, CNN reported that US Homeland Security circulated an intelligence assessment that focused on the domestic terror threat posed by right-wing extremists. Kurzman and Schanzer also point to a handout from a training program sponsored by the US Department of Justice, cautioning that the threat from antigovernment extremism "is real."

Who and where are the perpetrators of far-right extremist attacks? 

According to Perliger's research at West Point, 54 percent of such attacks since 1990—in which the perpetrators were caught or identified—were carried out by a single individual. About 75 percent of all perpetrators identified were 29 years old or younger.

Perliger also notes that attacks have moved beyond states in the South—the birthplace of groups such as the KKK and the site of major attacks during the 1960s—to places including California, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. "The existence of significant minority groups in the different states appears linked with the level of far-right violence they experience," Perliger says. In a recent editorial, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Morris Dees and J. Richard Cohen argued that far-right extremism is gaining ground beyond state boundaries: "Unlike those of the civil rights era, whose main goal was to maintain Jim Crow in the American South, today's white supremacists don't see borders; they see a white tribe under attack by people of color across the globe...The days of thinking of domestic terrorism as the work of a few Klansmen or belligerent skinheads are over."

What factors might explain the latest rise in this kind of extremism? 

Experts suggest that several factors may have played into it. Researchers commonly attribute the spike in right-wing attacks, around 2008, to the election of an African-American president. Around the time of Obama's election, Johnson notes how the white supremacist web forum Stormfront had less than 100,000 registered users. "Today, it is over 300,000," he says. Scholars have also debated the role that the 2008 financial crisis, a heightening debate over immigration, and other socioeconomic changes may have had. The Combating Terrorism Center's Perliger points out that past spikes in far-right attacks also corresponded with the passing of landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and firearm restrictions during the 1990s.

Was the Charleston shooting a hate crime or an act of terrorism?

It had the marks of both, according to Horne, German, and others. FBI Director James Comey came under fire for saying the Charleston shooting did not appear to be an act of terrorism based on the available evidence. German adds that Roof's racist comments about black people, his photos with flags invoking racist ideologies, and the fact that he killed a state senator, make clear that his attack on the church was both targeted and political.

Could the Charleston shooting have been prevented?

Violent attacks by extremists are difficult to predict, but both the government and researchers could be doing a better job of working to understand them, German says. "You have to understand both how the movement works and what parts are dangerous and what parts aren't, as well as understanding how the particular terrorist activity starts," he explains, adding that most research on terrorist attacks has fixated on their ideological roots, rather than on their methodologies. "That's where you'll see terrorism studies completely lacking, despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been thrown into terrorism research. They're not studying the right things."

Bridgegate bully... Another one...

Chris Christie Is Officially Running for President. Here Is Everything You Need to Know About Him. 

Bridgegate, bullying, and battles with journalists—Chris Christie has a colorful past. 

By Allie Gross

New Jersey's brash and outspoken Gov. Chris Christie is expected to officially launch his presidential campaign today, making him the 13th contender in the crowded GOP field. Christie will launch this effort in his hometown of Livingston, New Jersey, at Livingston High School, where he was class president for all four years he went there.

In 2011, Christie was widely considered a leading presidential contender. The Koch Brothers were early supporters, and David Koch was "inspired" by him, describing him as a "hero" and "my kind of guy." Christie didn't end up running in that campaign cycle and backed Mitt Romney instead. Still, even after his lackluster and Christie-centric speech at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa, Christie, though not embraced by the conservative wing of the GOP, was seen as a strong potential candidate for the 2016 race.

Then in 2013 Christie became entangled in the Bridgegate Scandal. An internal investigation cleared the New Jersey governor of any direct connection to the politically motivated traffic jam (two political aides took the fall), but he could not shake suspicions that he used his office (or allowed his underlings to use his office) to inconvenience thousands of people in order to punish political foes. More importantly, the episode raised questions about Christie's dealings in other matters and prompted investigations that are still under way.

Now Christie consistently ranks toward the back of the pack in polls, and the Koch brothers have found other "heroes." However, as Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum put it, he "could maybe catch on if something really lucky happens." But it might have to be really, really lucky.

From Bridgegate to bullying to battles with journalists, here is what you need to know about Christie:

*Christie is currently waging 23 court battles to keep state documents secret. What does the New Jersey governor not want you to know?

*His Social Security proposal is cruel and callous. 

*Here's a look at his bridge scandal, explained. (In short: Emails indicate that a senior aide ordered a nasty traffic jam in Fort Lee as political payback.)

*He has denied a bridge for political revenge nine times.

*Good news! He actually believes in global warming :) 

*That said, he also believes parents should have a "choice" when it comes to vaccines. 

*Check out this audio of Christie letting loose at a 2011 Koch Brothers confab. 

*Here's how the right will try to destroy him.

*Christie once endorsed the use of cruel pig crates. Jon Stewart proceeded to skewer him on the Daily Show. 

*Mother Jones DC Bureau Chief David Corn spoke with MSNBC's Chris Matthews about what Christie's bridge scandal means for 2016.

*Here are some reasons why Christie will NOT be our 45th president.

*Watch eight videos of Christie yelling, belittling, and name-calling.

Ginsburg’s decision

Supreme Court Breakfast Table 

Ginsburg’s redistricting decision could be the most important one of the term.

By Mark Joseph Stern

Dear Dahlia, Walter, Judge Posner, Kenji, and Marty,

Justice Antonin Scalia may have been the worst-behaved justice in the courtroom this morning, Dahlia—but the chief was the most obnoxious on paper. The Arizona redistricting case brought out the worst in Chief Justice John Roberts, the petty jibes and scornful mockery that this usually staid justice strives to avoid.

Like King v. Burwell, the Arizona case is, at bottom, really a political dispute. It began when voters in the state passed a ballot initiative that took congressional redistricting out of the state legislature’s hands—and handed the task over to an independent, nonpartisan commission. Before the initiative, partisan legislators gerrymandered districts to favor their own party. Once it passed, the commission created fairer districts that led to more competitive elections.

But the Republican-dominated Arizona legislature sued to stop this progress. It argued that the commission violates the Constitution, which states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for … Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Arizona legislators insist that this provision gives elected lawmakers exclusive power to determine the “manner of holding elections.” Thus, the independent commission should be invalidated, and the legislature should be permitted to gerrymander the state.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected this argument by an unnervingly close 5–4 vote. In a masterful opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid waste to the Arizona legislature’s faux originalist arguments. The “animating principle” of our Constitution, Ginsburg explains, is “that the people themselves are the originating source of all powers of government.” And while we may today define “legislature” solely as a state’s legislative body, that’s an anachronistic reading of the Constitution. Dictionaries from the founding era, Ginsburg writes, “capaciously define the word ‘legislature,’ ” usually as “[t]he power that makes laws” or “the Authority of making Laws.” Among other pieces of historical evidence, Charles Pinckney—a key player at the Constitutional Convention—defined a “republic” as a place “where the people at large” may “collectively … form the legislature.”

These persuasive originalist sources lead Ginsburg to conclude that legislature here actually means legislative power—which can be exercised by the people through direct democracy. This reasoning strikes me as obviously correct. The idea that all political power is derived from the people is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system. Arizona legislators’ argument—that the founders would have somehow wished to deprive the people, acting collectively, from exerting control over a fundamentally political process like redistricting—is simply implausible. Just because ballot initiatives didn’t exist at the founding doesn’t mean that they are out of line with the framers’ vision of democracy.

Yet Roberts, joined by the other three conservatives, latches onto an anachronistic definition of the word legislature and sinks in his teeth. The court’s definition, he writes, contradicts the “plain meaning” of the word and “makes nonsense” of its history. He calls the decision “a judicial error of the most basic order.” The court’s position, he says, “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

That’s pure applesauce. Ginsburg carefully tracks the framers’ debate over the clause in dispute, proving that the “dominant purpose of the Elections Clause” was to “empower Congress to override state election rules, not to restrict the way States enact legislation.” Her evidence is comprehensive and sweeping; Roberts’ is cherry-picked. Yet the court’s two staunchest originalists, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, join Roberts’ opinion spurning Ginsburg, as does Justice Samuel Alito. To them, apparently, it is more important to preserve gerrymandering than to interpret the Constitution evenhandedly.

Perhaps the most galling aspect of Roberts’ dissent, though, is his casual dismissal of both democracy and federalism—the two cornerstones of his marriage equality dissent. Ginsburg writes that “our federal system” allows states to “retain autonomy to establish their own governmental processes.” She also explains that “all political power flows from the people.” To those arguments, the conservatives respond: So what? The same justices who were so devoted to democracy Friday—even a form of democracy that allows voters to trample on fundamental rights—now decide that democracy is overrated. If Arizonans are truly frustrated with gerrymandering, Roberts writes, they should pass a constitutional amendment. Never mind that the legislators who would vote on that amendment would be beneficiaries of gerrymandering and would likely see no reason to curtail it.

But enough carping about the dissents. Ginsburg’s opinion is now the law, and I suspect that, in a few decades, this case will be considered one of the most important of the term. Thus far, only California has copied Arizona and created an independent redistricting commission. But with the court’s blessing, more states are likely to follow suit. These commissions have been hugely successful thus far, a real boost for representative democracy and a cure for the notoriously stubborn problem of gerrymandering. Had Justice Anthony Kennedy swung away from Ginsburg and aligned with his fellow conservatives, America would be facing down a distressingly undemocratic future.

Ceres mountain

What created this large mountain on asteroid Ceres? No one is yet sure. As if in anticipation of today being Asteroid Day on Earth, the robotic spacecraft Dawn in orbit around Ceres took the best yet image of an unusually tall mountain on the Asteroid Belt's largest asteroid.

Visible at the top of the featured image, the exceptional mountain rises about five kilometers up from an area that otherwise appears pretty level. The image was taken about two weeks ago from about 4,400 kilometers away. Although origin hypotheses for the mountain include volcanism, impacts, and plate tectonics, clear evidence backing any of these is currently lacking.

Also visible across Ceres' surface are some enigmatic light areas: bright spots whose origin and composition that also remain an active topic of investigation. Even though Dawn is expected to continue to orbit Ceres, officially dubbed a dwarf planet, for millions of years, the hydrazine fuel used to point Dawn's communications antenna toward Earth is expected to run out sometime next year.

SpaceX loss..

NASA Administrator Statement on the Loss of SpaceX CRS-7

The following is a statement from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on the loss Sunday of the SpaceX Commercial Resupply Services 7 (CRS-7) mission.


“We are disappointed in the loss of the latest SpaceX cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station. However, the astronauts are safe aboard the station and have sufficient supplies for the next several months. We will work closely with SpaceX to understand what happened, fix the problem and return to flight. The commercial cargo program was designed to accommodate loss of cargo vehicles. We will continue operation of the station in a safe and effective way as we continue to use it as our test bed for preparing for longer duration missions farther into the solar system. 


“A Progress vehicle is ready to launch July 3, followed in August by a Japanese HTV flight. Orbital ATK, our other commercial cargo partner, is moving ahead with plans for its next launch later this year.


“SpaceX has demonstrated extraordinary capabilities in its first six cargo resupply missions to the station, and we know they can replicate that success. We will work with and support SpaceX to assess what happened, understand the specifics of the failure and correct it to move forward. This is a reminder that spaceflight is an incredible challenge, but we learn from each success and each setback.

Today's launch attempt will not deter us from our ambitious human spaceflight program.”  

Silver-Spoon Dick...

Jeb Bush dogged by decades of questions about business deals

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Tom Hamburger

In early 1989, seven weeks after his father moved into the White House, Jeb Bush took a trip to Nigeria.

Nearly 100,000 Nigerians turned out to see him over four days as he accompanied the executives of a Florida company called Moving Water Industries, which had just retained Bush to market the firm’s pumps. Escorted by the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, Bush met with the nation’s political and religious leaders as part of an MWI effort to land a deal that would be worth $80 million.

“My father is the president of the United States, duly elected by people that have an interest in improving ties everywhere,” he told a group of dignitaries in a private meeting, according to a video documenting the visit. “The fact that you have done this today is something I will report back to him very quickly when I get back to the United States.”

Just days after Jeb Bush returned home, President George H.W. Bush sent a note to Nigerian President Ibrahim Babangida, thanking him for hosting his son. “We are grateful to you,” President Bush wrote on White House stationery.

MWI eventually got the deals it was seeking. Former employees said Bush’s participation was crucial. “There’s no question about it: ‘Here is the son of the president of the United States.’ It was a big deal,” Cornelius Lang, MWI’s former controller, told The Washington Post in a recent interview. “He could open doors we couldn’t.”

Today, as he works toward his run at the White House, Bush touts his business experience as a strength that gives him the skills and savvy to serve as the nation’s chief executive. He has said he “worked my tail off” to succeed. As an announced candidate, Bush soon will be making financial disclosures that will reveal recent business successes and show a substantial increase in his wealth since he left office as Florida governor in 2007, individuals close to the candidate told The Post.

But records, lawsuits, interviews and newspaper accounts stretching back more than three decades present a picture of a man who, before he was elected Florida governor in 1998, often benefited from his family connections and repeatedly put himself in situations that raised questions about his judgment and exposed him to reputation-anal risk.

Years after Bush’s visit to Nigeria, MWI was found to have made dozens of false claims to the U.S. government about its dealings in Nigeria, according to a civil jury verdict in a case brought by the Justice Department. MWI has denied the allegations and appealed the verdict. Bush was not a party to the lawsuit.

Five of his business associates have been convicted of crimes; one remains an international fugitive on fraud charges. In each case, Bush said he had no knowledge of any wrongdoing and said some of the people he met as a businessman in Florida took advantage of his naiveté.

Bush, now 62, has said that he has learned to be more careful about vetting his associates, telling the Miami Herald during his first, failed run for Florida governor in 1994 that getting “burned a couple of times” made him “better at deciphering people’s motives.”

He has been involved in myriad business ventures dating back to the early 1980s, taking time out to run for governor three times, winning the first of two terms in 1998. He has brokered real estate deals in Florida, arranged bank loans in Venezuela, marketed industrial pumps in Thailand, wholesaled shoes in Panama, promoted abuilding-materials company to Mexican interests and advised transnational financial services firms. He sat on more than a half dozen corporate boards. Since leaving office in 2007, Bush’s income has soared from speeches, service on corporate boards, consulting and managing investments for others.

“Jeb Bush had a successful career in commercial real estate and business before serving as Florida’s governor,” said Kristy Campbell, a Bush spokeswoman. “He has always operated with the highest level of integrity throughout his business career.”

Before he became governor in 1999, he was comfortable but not rich. He did not earn the kind of fortunes that his dad and brother George did as young men. In his late 20s, George H.W. Bush started a successful oil company in Texas. In his 40s, George W. Bush made an investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team that eventually earned him nearly $15 million.

At first glance, Jeb Bush’s dual biography as a businessman-
politician can be hard to reconcile. Bush the politician presents the image of a man who is appealing, well-disciplined, intelligent and moderate. Bush the businessman has sometimes lent his name and credibility to money-making ventures that involved dubious characters.

He and his friends have explained this seeming incongruity by saying that he has been the victim of people who took advantage of his good nature.

“The only documented allegations come down to the fact that he did business with people that later turned out to be deadbeats and crooks,” said Tom Feeney, who was on the ticket as lieutenant governor during Bush’s 1994 campaign.

Bush’s business activities and missteps have been widely covered over the years, by the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg (now Tampa Bay) Times, the Wall Street Journal, Mother Jones magazine and other publications, along with books by political scientists and journalists.

Bush declined to be interviewed for this article. Campbell suggested that reporters contact Armando Codina, a real estate developer in Miami and a Bush family friend who helped launch his career.

“I have a very high regard for Jeb and consider him a very insightful and intelligent businessman,” Codina said. “He is a workaholic and in my opinion he was a great governor, and would make a great president.”

One morning in March, Bush framed himself as a businessman for a Chamber of Commerce audience in Greenville, S.C.

“I’ve signed the front side of a paycheck,” Bush said. “I’m proud that I’ve been in business and know how it works.”

During a speech in New Hampshire in April, he underscored his business philosophy.

“Anybody in business knows that it’s not all the way the progressives decide it for us — kind of the top-down, driven approach where we are all supposed to get in line and it’s just going to happen because it’s all planned out,” he said.

“America at its best is an America that is dynamic, that embraces the unforeseen, that takes risks; that when there’s a failure, you dust yourself off and go at it again, and again and again. And the interaction of all of us together creates more prosperity, more potential, more innovation, more creativity than any government program ever created.”

It is the free-market credo that serves as Bush’s guiding light: No reward without risk.

John Ellis Bush, the third of six children, has always followed a prescription for success passed on by his father: Make enough money to take care of your family before going into public service.

He graduated from the University of Texas in 1974, in less than three years, with honors and a degree in Latin American studies. Married at 21, he took a job as a loan officer at a bank in Houston founded by the family of James A. Baker III, who later managed George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign and served as his chief of staff.

Bush left banking in 1979, later professing boredom with the work, and moved his young family to Miami, a melting pot of intrigue and economic activity.

Soon after he arrived, he began volunteering on his father’s presidential campaign in the state and met Codina, a Cuban exile who had become a wealthy real estate developer and now managed the Bush campaign in Dade County.

After Ronald Reagan won the election and George H.W. Bush became vice president, Codina offered the 27-year-old Jeb a remarkable opportunity: to partner in a real estate brokerage firm. Bush would receive 40 percent of the fees from what became the Codina Bush Group.

Bush would consider his work with Codina to be the defining experience of his business career.

“I formed a business with my friend Armando Codina in Miami,” he said in his recent New Hampshire appearance. “It started with three people . . . and we built it into the largest full-service commercial real estate company in South Florida.”

One of his endeavors involved a high-rise office building that Codina was developing on Flagler Street in Miami, called Museum Tower. Starting in 1984, Bush negotiated leases and recruited tenants for the building.

He eventually received about $340,000 in bonuses for his work.

“Jeb played an important role in the success of Museum Tower,” Codina recently told The Post.

One of Bush’s real estate associates described him as an impatient, driven man who sometimes put in 16-hour days — and then got up to run before dawn.

“Jeb Bush is a gazelle,” Hank Klein told the St. Petersburg Times. “He’s running through life.”

As he came of age in the hothouse Miami real estate market, Bush associated with some people who later ran afoul of the law. One of them was a tenant in Museum Tower, a high-rolling young Colombian named Alberto Duque, who had somehow secured
$124 million in loans to finance a small bank and a coffee company. Duque drove around town in a Rolls-Royce and hosted Bush and other Miami luminaries at a lavish dinner. He once flew Bush to Costa Rica on his private jet to attend the presidential inauguration.

In 1986, Duque was convicted on 60 counts of bank fraud involving up to $100 million in loans. After serving seven of 15 years in prison, he fled from a halfway house and remains a fugitive.

Duque put Bush in an uncomfortable spot. Reporters covering his first campaign for governor in 1994 asked why someone as prominent as Bush would associate with such a person. Bush said Duque had simply fooled him.

“It just goes to show that the hallmark of a great confidence man is effortless deception,” Bush told the Herald.

From 1984 to 1986, as he pursued his career, Bush also served as chairman of the Dade County Republican Party, where he met people who would become business associates.

Among them was Miguel Recarey Jr., a wealthy health-care entrepreneur who had once served time for tax evasion and boasted that he knew Santo Trafficante Jr., a Florida mobster. Recarey owned International Medical Centers, or IMC, a health-maintenance organization in Miami that grew rapidly in the 1980s through hundreds of millions of dollars in payments from the Medicare system.

In 1985, he retained Bush to find office space for IMC, eventually paying him $75,000, though a lease was never signed.

Recarey needed approval from the Department of Health and Human Services to continue to receive new business from Medicare patients. He asked Bush if he would intercede on his behalf with regulators in Washington, according to congressional testimony. At the time, his father was vice president.

C. McClain Haddow, then chief of staff to the HHS secretary, told The Post recently that Bush’s intervention “certainly altered the trajectory of the decision” in Recarey’s favor.

In 1987, IMC was shut down as regulators searched for $200 million in missing federal funds. Recarey fled the country. He remains a fugitive in Spain.

Bush said he was unaware of wrongdoing at IMC and said he was not paid by Recarey to lobby HHS on his behalf. He said he was only doing a favor for a fellow Florida businessman.

“At the time, I didn’t feel I was doing business with a crook,” he later told the Herald. “Unfortunately, I didn’t give it a whole lot of thought.”

Campbell recently told The Post, “As Governor Bush has said multiple times, he only recollects making a call to HHS and simply asking for a fair shake for Mr. Recarey as other Florida leaders did as well. It is unfortunate that he turned out to be a bad actor.”

Matthew Corrigan, a political science professor at the University of North Florida and the author of “Conservative Hurricane: How Jeb Bush Remade Florida,” described Bush’s attitude in these years as “a little bit of damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.”

“His judgment on who to associate with is lacking,” Corrigan said.

Bush provided another favor that later raised questions, this time for Camilo Padreda, a Cuban immigrant and real estate developer who was the Republican Party’s finance chairman in Dade County. In 1985, Padreda had landed on the front pages of Miami newspapers for allegedly having a role in a scheme to bribe a city zoning official, but he was never charged.

In 1986, Bush accepted $75,000 from Padreda to work as the leasing agent on an office building Padreda had financed with help from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Padreda asked to reach out to regulators at HUD on behalf of a friend who wanted HUD to provide loan insurance on an apartment building south of Miami.

The friend, Hiram Martinez Jr., obtained the loan but later defaulted. Both Martinez and Padreda were eventually convicted of fraud for inflating the value of the property.

The cavalcade of Florida crooks would be a recurrent irritant as Bush pursued his political career. But in a statement to The Post, Codina said Bush’s “record for having only a few clients who ultimately turned out to be less than truthful is remarkable, and that record would compare favorably with any firm in this business, either in Miami or another city.”

Sanders rocks

Sanders rocks Denver crowd, calls for ‘political revolution’

By Vic Vela

Neil Young's music was blasting inside the University of Denver on Saturday night — but he wasn't the rock star the frenzied crowd had come to hear.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders electrified supporters with a fiery, populist message that resonated with the thousands that packed DU's Hamilton Gymnasium.

Not long after stepping up to the podium to Young's “Rockin' in the Free World” — and to chants of “Bernie, Bernie!” — the Vermont senator took aim at a national economic system that he feels benefits the rich and leaves the poor and middle-class behind.

“There is something profoundly wrong when the top tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent,” Sanders said. “What we are doing tonight is, we are sending a message to the billionaire class, and that is: You can't have it all.”

Income inequality. Climate change. Big money in politics. Rising college costs. Health care.

These were just a handful of the issues that Sanders addressed during a speech where he urged supporters to “create the political revolution that this country needs.”

Sanders is one of only two declared rivals to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, along with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“Let me begin by telling you what no other candidate for president is going to tell you,” Sanders said. “And that is that this campaign is not about me, it's not about Hillary Clinton, it's not about Jeb Bush. It's not about any other candidate. This campaign is about you, your kids and your parents.”

“It is about creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up and loudly and proudly proclaim that this nation and our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires.”

The Denver visit was Sanders' first to Colorado since he announced his presidential run in April. Organizers estimated the overflow crowd at between 4,800 and 5,000 — the largest since his campaign kicked off.

It was no small turnout for a candidate who urged his supporters to think big.

“We have been thinking small for too many years,” he said. “We are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Now is the time to think big and to understand all that we can accomplish for all of our people.”

Big ideas

Sanders is certainly not proposing small ideas, whether or not one agrees with them. Among them is a plan called the College For All Act, which would provide free tuition for any student who attends a public college or university.

“It is not a radical idea,” he told the audience at DU, which is a private university. “It is the most common-sense idea we can think of.”

Sanders said every person in the country deserves an opportunity to attend college, “regardless of the income of their family.”

“What kind of insanity is it that we say to these people, 'We don't want you to become scientists or engineers or doctors or nurses because you just don't have the money’?”

The tuition plan would cost $70 billion per year. To pay for it, Sanders proposes a tax on Wall Street transactions.

Wall Street, big corporations and banks make up Sanders' favorite targets — and he appears to take great pride in being their enemy.

“I suppose that means I won't get too much money for my campaign, but we will survive without them,” he said to cheers.

Sanders called income inequality “the great moral issue of our time.” He said household wages are lower than they were 16 years ago and that youth unemployment, especially among minorities, is staggeringly high.

The federal minimum wage, he said, is more like a “starvation wage,” and he blasted the income disparity between men and women.

While the poor and middle-class struggle to make a living, those with big bucks can spend them freely in a political campaign system that is destroying democracy, he said.

Sanders received a huge reaction when he took aim at the Supreme Court's controversial 2010 decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. The court ruled that political spending is protected under the First Amendment, a decision Sanders said has paved the way for the wealthy “to own the United States government.”

Sanders made a promise to supporters about campaign finance reform.

“I have so far made one promise in this campaign ... and that is, I will have a litmus test for my nominees for the Supreme Court,” he said. “And that litmus test is, that anyone I nominate, will make it clear to this country that they will re-hear Citizens United and vote to overturn it.”

Sanders backs universal health care and proposes allowing everyone, regardless of age, to have access to a “Medicare-for-all, single-payer health care program.”

Sanders also blasted Republican-led budget efforts to upend what he termed the “modest” insurance coverage gains under Obamacare.

“You tell me if it is a good idea that millions of men women and children are thrown off of health insurance,” he said, drawing an instant chorus of “no”s from the audience.

But Sanders is no supporter of another major Obama policy initiative, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed trade agreement Sanders called “disastrous.”

Sanders also said the country needs to get serious about climate change. The senator lauded recent calls on the part of Pope Francis — the Pope has called climate change a global problem particularly affecting the poor — to combat the problem.

“God bless Pope Francis,” Sanders said.

Sanders said it's time for conservatives to stop denying the overwhelming science on climate change.

“The debate is over, maybe with the exception of Fox (News) television,” he said.

Supporters revved up

Sanders' message resonated with supporters who say they are disillusioned with the current political and economic system.

They included Ed Waddell, who made the drive from Cheyenne to see Sanders speak.

“It's only 100 miles to see Bernie?” he quipped. “I'd drive 200.”

Waddell said he is drawn to the senator's populist message.

“All the growth in the country goes the top,” he said. “The people in the middle and lower income brackets aren't getting it. People have lost their homes and are working for less than ever.”

Sanders may be 73, but his message resonates with 22-year-old Thomas Tarlar, who just graduated from DU with a degree in economics and mathematics.

“I feel like he understands what the millennials want and need,” Tarlar said. “We see where the world is going. We see global warming and we see a lot of issues. We see poverty in America and, quite frankly, it's rather depressing.”

While the mention of Sanders's name brought smiles to the faces of his supporters, the same couldn't be said of Hillary Clinton's.

“Hillary is a nice lady,” said 21-year-old Allie Coulter, a DU economics major. “I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I respect her as a human being, but I don't see her as an electable candidate.”

Brooke Belson of Denver said Clinton doesn’t excite her, either, the way Sanders does. She said that Sanders is the only presidential candidate who is addressing the real issues the country faces.

“When I was a child, this is what I remembered what America used to be,” she said of Sanders' message. “It was for America. It was for the middle class. It wasn't the corporations. It wasn't how much money is donated. It wasn't buying the candidates.”

“It was the issues.”

To-lose...

Chris Christie's nothing-left-to-lose campaign

The New Jersey governor’s campaign is far less ambitious than anyone could have predicted a year ago. But that also makes him an unpredictable force in the GOP presidential primary.

By Alex Isenstadt

When Chris Christie launches his presidential campaign Tuesday, it won’t look anything like the one he once envisioned.

Gone is the idea of an expansive, state-by-state primary election strategy. Iowa, despite the early visits and Christie’s cultivation of a relationship with Gov. Terry Branstad, is probably out the window, too. And forget about the prospect of a cash-flush campaign: The New Jersey governor is now expected to raise just a fraction of what his top opponents will rake in.

In a sign of how far Christie’s fortunes have fallen, he spent part of this weekend personally calling around to home state Republican legislators to nail down their support for his now long-shot presidential bid.

In place of the original plan — the one in place before the governor was battered by Bridgegate and the bottom fell out of his poll numbers — is a bank-shot strategy, a narrowly tailored approach that leaves Christie with little room for error.

The hope, according to advisers — who spent the weekend in a flurry of last-minute planning meetings — is that by exceeding expectations in debates and town hall events, and by performing well in a few select primary contests, he can re-establish himself as a top-tier candidate.

“Once he gets that momentum,” said Dale Florio, a leading Republican lobbyist in New Jersey and a staunch Christie ally, “you’ll see the whole dynamic of the race change.”

There is no state more central to the governor’s strategy than New Hampshire. It’s famous for its tradition of town hall meetings, which happen to be the governor’s signature event back home — and the preferred format he’s used throughout his two terms to promote his agenda. The state’s politics also work in Christie’s favor: It’s a Northeastern locale with a long history of favoring more moderate, independent-minded Republicans like Christie, and also has an open primary system, allowing independents and members from other parties to vote in the GOP primary.

To underscore the state’s importance to his prospects, Christie will hold a campaign event there on Tuesday evening, just hours after formally announcing his bid in New Jersey. He will remain in New Hampshire for most of the remainder of the week. Christie, who has dispatched a trusted aide, Matt Mowers, to run his New Hampshire campaign, has visited the state more than any other Republican candidate with the exception of former New York Gov. George Pataki, according to a count compiled by U.S. News & World Report.

“He’s been very popular in New Hampshire, and he’s going to spend a lot of time there,” said Ray Washburne, Christie’s finance chairman.

“I think this is where he’s going to cut his teeth, and be a state that, I believe, will be make or break for him,” said Walt Havenstein, a New Hampshire Republican who as the 2014 gubernatorial nominee developed a friendship with Christie.

After New Hampshire holds its primary in early February, Christie’s advisers are hoping for a strong showing in a trifecta of blue states — Vermont, Massachusetts and Illinois — an unorthodox path that reflects his dire circumstances. Though at one time it was thought his plainspoken political style would win over Republicans across the nation, he’s fallen far behind in the polls in Iowa, which those close to Christie increasingly consider a reach. He’s also expected to tread lightly in Florida, which is likely to be dominated by two favorite sons, former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio.

Christie’s team believes he could yet surprise in some conservative parts of the country. A strong finish in New Hampshire, they argue, could position him to compete several days later in South Carolina, a state rich with Northeastern transplants. There, he’s maintained a relationship with the Republican governor, Nikki Haley, with whom he occasionally texts.

At the same time Christie is narrowing his political map, he’s preparing a campaign that will be more tightly budgeted than previously thought. Once a national fundraising powerhouse who hoped to convert his Republican Governors Association chairmanship into a financial launching pad for a presidential bid, Christie’s camp now estimates that he will raise only $20 million to $30 million by the end of the year, according to several sources briefed on the plans — an amount that is expected to pale in comparison to what Bush, Rubio, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz are expected to raise. Already, Bush is believed to have taken in around $100 million; Rubio, Walker and Cruz are said to have banked around $20 million to $30 million apiece.

In the weeks leading up to the launch, Christie’s aides have been scrambling to fill his coffers. Last week, they sent supporters a fundraising solicitation asking them to raise up to $54,000 by July 17, and offering rewards such as invitations to a debate watch party, a fall retreat and a private, Christie-hosted reception. Much of the funding for Christie’s campaign is expected to come in the form of large contributions from such benefactors as Ken Langone, the Home Depot co-founder, and Paul Fireman, the former Reebok CEO.

Christie has turned to an assortment of tactics to address his fundraising struggles. In some meetings with top donors, said a source close to Christie, he’s sought to slow Bush’s momentum by pointing out that the former Florida governor had endured a rocky rollout. He’s also turned to his wife, Mary Pat, a former Wall Street bond trader who’s been wooing prospective donors. On Saturday morning, some supporters received emails from the New Jersey first lady informing them that a campaign website had been established.

Christie’s team doesn’t deny that he’ll be financially outgunned, and they acknowledge that his political operation will be considerably leaner than those of his rivals. But they note that the governor, a scrappy campaigner, has been in this position before: In his successful 2009 unseating of Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, a self-funding former investment banker, he won despite being outspent by $12 million in a strongly Democratic state.

“He had a message, and he had the discipline to get the message out. I think you’ll see him do the same thing nationally,” said George Gilmore, the influential chairman of New Jersey’s Ocean County Republican Party and a Christie loyalist.

The governor retains a tight grip on his state’s GOP, but he’s also watched some power players drift away. Two longtime Christie friends, Joe Kyrillos, a state senator who chaired Christie’s 2009 campaign, and Woody Johnson, the New York Jets owner, have endorsed Bush, who will host two fundraising events in New Jersey in July. Another former Christie ally, investment manager Joe Schmuckler, recently gave his support to Carly Fiorina.

In the final days leading up to his campaign launch, Christie has had to work to get his state’s political establishment behind him. During one meeting with Republican legislators about the state’s budget last week, the governor said that he’d love to have their endorsements; over the weekend, Christie and his top aides followed up with phone calls asking them to get on board. Many, however, have remained undecided.

With so little to lose, the governor is something of an unpredictable force. As Christie — who even by the standards of New Jersey’s rough-and tumble political culture has distinguished himself for his willingness to go negative — tries to make up ground in polls, advisers say he’s prepared to attack his rivals. Earlier this month, during an appearance at a Republican cattle call in Utah, the New Jersey governor castigated his senatorial rivals for knowing little about how to govern — especially Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. “He’s made America weaker and more vulnerable,” Christie said, ripping into Paul’s opposition to the PATRIOT Act, “and he’s done it for his own personal and political gain.”

Even with the odds stacked against him, Christie’s allies are fond of pointing something out: He’s a political warrior.

“Never,” said Gilmore, “underestimate Chris Christie.”

Chatter

Supreme Court Breakfast Table

Where was all this “five unelected judges” chatter when they handed down Citizens United?

By Dahlia Lithwick

I was also quite struck, as you were, Mark, by the language in the various dissents in Obergefell, not just for their vehemence, but for the ways in which each dissent feels like a kind of Rorschach test of each justice’s own anxieties.

Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t want people to hate him, and he doesn’t want them to hate judges. (See, for example, his decision in Williams-Yulee, the Florida judicial speech case from earlier this term.) Then there’s Justice Samuel Alito: He doesn’t want to be called a bigot, and he doesn’t want people with strong conscience objections to marriage equality to be called bigots, either. And Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t want the government to be in the business of conferring and taking away his dignity, or the dignity of others. He also doesn’t want his religious liberty trammeled.  So everyone writes about how this opinion will hurt them and people like them.

And Justice Antonin Scalia? Well, one friend of mine suggested that between “applesauce” and “fortune cookies,” he might just really need a nap and a snack. But his dissent in Obergefell—whatever else it may be—is a piece of performance art by the guy who will never relinquish the claim to being the smartest guy in the room. This vitriol—personal, slashing, and relentless—is the kind of thing that reportedly pushed Sandra Day O’Connor from the right to the center of the court. And why wouldn’t it? It disputes whether the scorned one even deserves to be on a court in the first place. (Scalia on Friday, directed at Justice Anthony Kennedy: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began, ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.”)

I mention this because one striking commonality in most of the dissents Friday is that weird vein of professional judicial self-loathing the dissenters choose to mine when they really want to go for the jugular. Whether it’s the chief justice’s jarring “Just who do we think we are?” to Scalia’s odd discursion on the lack of evangelical justices or real Westerners on the Supreme Court. (“Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner [California does not count]. Not a single evangelical Christian [a group that composes about one-quarter of Americans], or even a Protestant of any denomination.”) Scalia is just dripping with contempt for this “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine.” He takes a whack at his colleagues—and, I guess, himself—for separate and concurring opinions loaded with “silly extravagances.” He invites his readers to feel as impotent in the face of this judicial tyranny as he feels.

Thomas also rails at the fact that a “bare majority of this court” is able to “grant this wish, wiping out with the stroke of a keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 states.” And all I could keep thinking was, “Where was all this five unelected judges chatter when you all handed down Citizens United? Or Shelby County? Why does this rhetoric about five elitist out-of-touch patrician fortune-cookie writers never stick when you’re in the five?”

Recall back at oral argument when Elena Kagan said, “We don’t live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy.” Isn’t that the answer to the dissenters’ political process questions? Or is that only the answer on campaign finance reform?

Mark, I wonder if you would talk more about the failure of the majority holding to lay down any coherent doctrine. Kenji writes so powerfully about what Kennedy is doing at the interstices of Equal Protection and Due Process, but I wonder what your dream Obergefell would have said, and how it would have applied the 14th Amendment.

Destroys Dissenting Justices

Stephen Colbert Destroys Dissenting Justices In Same-Sex Marriage Decision

By  Andy McDonald  

We have a feeling his monologues are going to be pretty great.

Not even into his "Late Show" tenure yet, new host Stephen Colbert can't wait to dig into the current events and find the funny.

With the landmark 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in all 50 states, Colbert justifiably tore into the four dissenting justices.

As for which of the judges wrote the dissenting opinion, Colbert said, "I'll let you guess which ones." He then broke into a Frankenstein monster impression with an "ARGH, GAY BAD!" thrown in for good measure.

The four judges voting against legalization were Justice Antonin Scalia (gasp!), Chief Justice John Roberts (no!), Justice Clarence Thomas (shock!) and Justice Samuel Alito (what?!).

But Colbert insists the ruling is not great for everyone: "My condolences to gays with commitment issues who are asking their partner IF WE CAN JUST PLEASE TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN I GET HOME FROM WORK TODAY."

In the end though, it's great news, even if it took longer than it should have.

"It's hard to believe that gay Americans achieved full constitutional personhood just five years after corporations did," said Colbert.

Judicial retention

Ted Cruz calls for judicial retention elections for Supreme Court justices

By Katie Zezima

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has proposed a constitutional amendment that would subject Supreme Court justices to periodic judicial elections in the wake of rulings that upheld a key portion of the Affordable Care Act and affirmed gay couples' right to marriage.

“I am proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would subject each and every justice of the United States Supreme Court to periodic judicial retention elections," Cruz said Saturday, during a speech in Des Moines, Iowa. He also called for such elections in the National Review on Friday.

The proposal from Cruz, who once served as Supreme Court clerk, comes as he is trying to position himself as the presidential candidate of choice for conservatives and evangelicals who disagree with the court's decisions this week. The Texas Republican is using the rulings to paint himself as a stalwart defender of religious freedom, opponent of same-sex marriage and reaffirm his pledge to abolish the Affordable Care Act should he win the presidency.

Cruz is also using the rulings to reemphasize his assertion that he tacks far to the right of the rest of the 2016 GOP field when it comes to social issues, a point he started making in the wake of a controversial religious freedom law Indiana passed in March.

"Sadly we’ve seen several 2016 candidates in response to yesterday’s decision saying it is the law of the land, we must accept it and move on," Cruz said as the Des Moines audience booed. "When Republican candidates are standing up and reciting Barack Obama's talking points things have gone seriously wrong."

Earlier this year Cruz filed legislation that would protect states that prohibit same-sex couples from getting married.

Cruz said last week in Iowa that some Republican presidential candidates chose to "rearrange their sock drawers" in the wake of the Indiana decision. After a backlash to the initial law, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed a revised version of the religious freedom bill making it clear that businesses cannot use the legislation as the basis to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The Texas Republican, who had a tepid start in Iowa, tried to use Saturday's speech, titled "Believe Again" as a way to both solidify his presence in the state and as the uncompromising conservative in the 2016 field. Cruz has come up with a new phrase for the institution he said he is fighting: the "Washington cartel," which he said is comprised by members of both parties, lobbyists, and now Supreme Court justices.

"This week's assault was but the latest in a long line of judicial assaults on our Constitution and Judeo-Christian values that have made America great," he said. The Supreme Court "has now forced the disaster of a health-care law called Obamacare on the American people and attempted to redefine an institution that was ordained by God."

Cruz's strategy is to coalesce the support of his conservative base and draw in support from evangelical Christians and conservative libertarians, all but ignoring the Republican establishment and moderates. Cruz said he is the only candidate in the field who is bucking Republican leadership, and said those leaders have been "embarrassed" to stand up for traditional marriage. He said both Democrats and Republicans were "popping Champagne" after the court's rulings because it spared them from having the government "actually follow the law."

The candidate also hit 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who held a Republican summit earlier this month, for inviting all of the candidates who are "pro-amnesty" on immigration to Utah.

Affected By Ruling

One-Third Of Congressional Districts Could Be Affected By Supreme Court Ruling

Jessica Taylor

On the final day of the Supreme Court's term on Monday, they will issue a ruling that could affect as many as one-third of congressional districts — possibly dramatically remaking the partisan makeup of the next Congress ahead of the 2016 elections.

The case at hand, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting, was brought by the Arizona legislature to try to be able to redraw their congressional districts. That task was instead given to an independent redistricting commission after a state referendum passed in 2000 in an effort to try to take political and partisan concerns out of the map-making process.

But because other states also use similar commissions to redraw their congressional lines after each decennial reapportionment, states and districts far beyond the borders of Arizona could be affected.

Here's an explainer on what could happen after the ruling on Monday:

Why is Arizona suing?

In 2011, Arizona was awarded an additional House seat because of population growth in the 2010 census, largely due to the state's Hispanic growth. The state's independent commission — created by a referendum in 2000 that was designed to take politics out of the redistricting process — was tasked with redrawing the new lines. But much to the frustration of the GOP-controlled state legislature, the new nine-seat map included four safe Republican districts, two safe Democratic districts and three swing districts — both currently held by Democrats.

The map GOP lawmakers would have liked to have enacted, according to National Journal, would have given Republicans an additional fifth safe House seat, making Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema's district now a GOP stronghold.

There has long been tension between the legislature and the commission, made up of two Republicans, two Democrats and chaired by an independent. In 2011, when the new district lines were first approved, the legislature and then-Republican Gov. Jan Brewer actually moved to remove the commission's chairwoman, charging she hadn't been transparent and had skewed the resulting lines toward Democrats. The state Supreme Court reinstated her just days later. Now the Supreme Court will decide the legality of the independent commission.

What is the legal argument?

The Elections Clause of the Constitution says that the "times, places and manner of holding elections" for Congress "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The question is whether the legislature referenced there only gives the state legislature the power to draw congressional boundaries, whether they simply need to have some hand in it, or if a legislature could also be interpreted as any voter referendum.

The latter is the point the lawyers for the redistricting commission made earlier this year, to a somewhat skeptical Supreme Court. NPR's Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg had the full breakdown of the arguments before the court back in March.

What other states would be affected?

California also adopted an independent redistricting commission thanks to a 2008 statewide referendum. Their commission included 14 members — five Democrats, five Republicans and four members from neither party. According to election law professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine, who runs ElectionLawBlog.org, further legal action would likely have to be taken for California's to be struck down, too.

That could be the case for other states that have commissions involved in their redistricting process, too. According to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, five states — Hawaii, Montana, Idaho, Washington and New Jersey — legislators appoint at least some of the commission members, but aren't involved in drawing district lines. In Indiana and Connecticut, backup commissions draw maps if the legislature deadlocks on how to redraw lines.

And in Iowa, Maine and New York, commissions submit maps to legislatures for approval, while in Ohio the commission helps the legislature with the lines.

How expansive or narrow the ruling on Monday is could impact some or all of these states as well — up to as many as 152 districts.

Does this mean these districts could become more GOP-leaning or Democratic-leaning?

It's not clear yet. For Arizona, its GOP legislature would likely try to pass through a similar redistricting plan that they had envisioned in 2012 that would have put at least one more seat solidly in their column. In California, however, where Democrats are in power, they could try to use the advantage, if theirs is struck down as well, to draw a friendlier 53-district map for their members. But that might be hard to do with the map essentially already maxed out for Democrats.

If the ruling is more expansive and endangers other states' advisory commissions too, additional legal action could come, too. But for many legal scholars and good-government groups, the biggest fear is that if the court strikes down Arizona's commission, it could be a death blow to hopes of removing politics and gerrymandering from the redistricting process.

"The more important thing," Hasen said, "is that what it would be doing is taking away a tool that tries to deal with the problem of self-interest in redistricting."

No surprise here.... Kill the Estate Tax for Wealthiest Families

Nation’s Wealthiest Families Behind the Effort to Kill the Estate Tax

Legislation Introduced to Ensure These Billionaires Pay Closer to Their Fair Share

From Public Citizen

Just nine families could dodge $25.7 billion in taxes, and perhaps as much as $54.7 billion, if the estate tax were repealed. Half of these families have spent more than a million dollars apiece lobbying Congress to repeal the tax between 2012 and the first quarter of 2015, a new Public Citizen report shows.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the estate tax in April. The bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), had more than 100 co-sponsors. A frequently used argument in support of the bill was that repeal is necessary to save family farms and small businesses.

However, few, if any, family farms would be subject to the estate tax. Only an estimated 0.2 percent of American estates are subject to the tax, and rules give farmers and small businesses more time to pay the tax. In fact, only 660 taxable estates included farm assets, and the average value of those estates was $2.8 million, far below the level at which those assets are exempt from the tax.

Instead, it is the nation’s richest of the rich who stand to lose from the tax.

The families behind the eight companies pushing to repeal the tax include the Mars, Wegman, Cox, Taylor, Van Andel, DeVos, Bass, Schwab and Hall families. The Mars and Wegman families alone, who have a combined net worth of more than $63 billion, spent more than $3.5 million to lobby solely for the repeal of the estate tax during the time period studied. The report, “Billionaires’ Bluff: How America’s Richest Families Hide Behind Small Businesses and Family Farms in Effort to Repeal Estate Tax,” also details the more than $6.9 million that the other seven billionaire families spent lobbying on issues that included the estate tax but that were not possible to separate out from other issues on which the groups lobbied.

Public Citizen and other members of the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition endorsed legislation introduced today by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) that would close loopholes in the existing tax regime that allow billionaire families like the ones highlighted in the report to escape paying the 40 percent maximum tax on estates.

“Like a zombie, the myth of the estate tax killing small businesses and family farms refuses to die,” said Susan Harley, deputy director for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and co-editor of the report. “Given the mounting public pushback to income inequality in this country, it’s not surprising that the nation’s richest families are hiding behind that false argument since they stand to avoid tens of billions of dollars in taxes if the tax were repealed.”

“The lengths to which these billionaire families will go to avoid paying their fair share of taxes is appalling,” said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. “Instead of helping build an economy that works for everyone, these billionaires are investing their money in high-priced lobbyists whose sole purpose is to help the super-rich get even richer.”

The U.S. Senate version of legislation to repeal the estate tax (S. 860) is sponsored by U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and has 38 co-sponsors but has yet to be considered. President Barack Obama’s administration has signaled that he would be advised to veto the legislation should it reach his desk.

“Even though the fate of the estate tax repeal is thankfully doomed at this point, it’s important that the American public understands that it’s really billionaire families who stand to lose from the repeal of the estate tax and they’re the ones behind the push to repeal it,” said Harley. “Instead of trying to kill the tax, members of Congress should support the proposal to close loopholes in the estate tax and make those who can afford to pay more, do so.”

Targets Sanders

Pro-Martin O’Malley Super PAC Targets Bernie Sanders

By Sam Frizell

A super PAC supporting Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley released a video Thursday attacking liberal rival Bernie Sanders’ gun control record, marking the first critical advertisement of the 2016 primary for the Democratic nomination.

In the 15-second ad released on YouTube Thursday morning, the pro-O’Malley super PAC Generation Forward points to Sanders’ 1993 vote against the Brady Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases and his later vote to protect gun manufacturers from victim lawsuits.

The ad also points out that the National Rifle Association paid for ads attacking a Sanders opponent in a 1990 congressional race.

“Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns,” intones a voice in the ad.

It’s a small, yet significant move in the Democratic primary race. Until now, none of the candidates or their proxies have put forward ads attacking their Democratic competitors’ records. O’Malley has implicitly criticized Clinton, but generally refrained from direct attacks.

After the ad was posted on YouTube, Sanders tweeted a response from his personal account.

A spokesperson for O’Malley’s campaign said the former governor was not aware of the ad before it was released and that he doesn’t currently fundraise for Generation Forward.

O’Malley’s super PAC is a scrappy operation without the fundraising firepower of the pro-Hillary Clinton Priorities USA or Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise operations. The governor’s long shot chance in winning the primary and his anti-Wall Street rhetoric don’t help attract donors, and many donors that do contribute to his nascent campaign will do so directly, not to outside groups.

Damian O’Doherty, who runs Generation Forward, recognizes as much.

“We have to do the things that the Ewoks taught us in Return of the Jedi,” said O’Doherty, referring to the furry, technologically backward animal species that helps defeat the powerful Galactic Empire in the third Star Wars movie. “If I think I’m running some slick TV effort—no way.”

Instead, O’Doherty says the strategy is to run a ground-based grassroots operation in the early states and targeting voters through digital efforts. Generation Forward is hiring staff and has already rented out office space in Des Moines. “It’s knocking on doors,” he said. “It’s old-time and online.”

Part of the strategy involves testing ad models on voters in Iowa to test messaging, and finding areas in which O’Malley differs from Clinton and Sanders.

“We’re going to constantly encourage debate, and that’s what this ad is intended to do,” said O’Doherty about his group’s ad criticizing Sanders’ gun positions.

Sanders—a staunchly left progressive who supports single-payer healthcare and sweeping tax reforms—has a moderate record on gun rights. While he supports basic gun control including an assault weapons ban and background checks, he has expressed skepticism about the effects of gun control.

“Obviously, we need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it,” Sanders said in an interview with NPR. “But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not.”

O’Malley, by contrast, enacted as Maryland governor some of the toughest gun laws in the country, banning high-capacity magazines and assault rifles and tightening background checks.

Without Speaking trick...

Jeb Bush Tries to Win Without Speaking to His Favorite Strategist 

All the major candidates in the 2016 race will have super PACs working on their behalf, but Jeb Bush and Mike Murphy are trying something unprecedented in U.S. presidential elections. 
 
by Michael C. Bender

The singular failure of Jeb Bush’s political career was his 1994 loss in the Florida governor’s race by less than two percentage points. The defeat cast Bush, a rising Republican star, into the political wilderness just as his older brother, George, won an upset victory over Ann Richards in Texas, putting him on the path to the presidency. When Jeb ran again in 1998, he brought in Mike Murphy, an ad man credited with helping John Engler and Christine Todd Whitman win governorships in Michigan and New Jersey. Bush won by more than 10 points. He had Murphy at his side as he cruised to reelection in 2002. Now he’s trying to win the presidency without his favorite strategist whispering in his ear.

Murphy is in charge of Right to Rise, a super PAC created to get Bush elected. Because of regulations requiring a separation between candidates and super PACs, they can’t formally coordinate their efforts between now and the election. All the major candidates in the 2016 race will have super PACs working on their behalf, but Bush and Murphy are trying something unprecedented in U.S. presidential elections: building a separate, and better-funded, organization that will in some ways eclipse the official campaign as a vehicle for promoting the candidate. Murphy’s Los Angeles-based team will produce digital marketing, television ads, and opposition research on behalf of Bush, whose campaign headquarters are across the country in Miami. “He’s a good friend, and I’m going to miss him,” Bush says. “I hope to see him on election night and give him an embrace. But from here on out, I won’t be talking to him.”

Unlike the campaign, the super PAC can accept unlimited contributions. Bush spent the months before announcing his candidacy on June 15 taking in tens of millions of dollars for the group, which will report how much it’s raised in mid-July. He has been the featured guest at least 39 times for Right to Rise fundraisers, according to invitations compiled by the Sunlight Foundation. The list includes events where the suggested donation was $100,000 a person in Chicago, Miami, and New York. Going forward, he’ll be allowed to appear at the group’s events as a guest, but he can’t discuss strategy or coordinate with Murphy directly.

For Murphy, who declined to be interviewed, the setup offers some clear benefits. For one thing, he’ll be the autonomous ruler of the super PAC staff, free of the office politics of the campaign. He plans to use his own Virginia-based consulting company, Revolution Agency, to produce TV ads and a digital marketing effort to reach voters via social media and text messaging. In a June 17 conference call with donors, Murphy said he was no longer coordinating with the campaign but was “well informed as of a week ago” about Bush’s strategy. He said Right to Rise would focus on fundraising this year, holding on to most of its cash until primaries begin in early 2016—though Murphy said Right to Rise would “do a few frugal, highly targeted things to help boost the governor’s narrative” this summer, as the candidate travels around the country meeting voters.

The call, which was reported by BuzzFeed, illustrates the limits of the no-coordination rules. In the midterms, candidates and super PACs devised numerous tactics for telegraphing their strategies. One was tipping off mainstream news organizations to ad buys or strategic shifts. American Crossroads, a major Republican super PAC, and other groups used Twitter to share polling data with party committees, posting tweets filled with cryptic strings of data—in one case from an account named for a West Wing character. Aides to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee tweeted a link to ad scripts devised by New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s campaign that were used by Senate Majority PAC, the largest outside Democratic group. “If Bush’s chief strategist is doing conference calls to lay out exactly what the plan is and how that’s part of the campaign, then there is no independence,” says Bill Burton, a co-founder of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC created in 2012 to support President Obama’s reelection that’s now working for Hillary Clinton. (Burton is no longer involved.) “That’s not to suggest Mike Murphy and the Bush campaign or anyone is breaking the laws. It’s just that the law is really stupid.”

Bush says his campaign and Right to Rise are on parallel tracks. “I don’t think we’re exporting any responsibilities,” he says. The campaign already has staff on the ground in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Right to Rise staffers have been trailing Bush and his events for months, stockpiling footage for ads. “The super PAC? We’ll see what they do,” Bush says. “I hope it enhances the message that I hope to bring.”

Bush’s top adviser on the campaign is Sally Bradshaw, who has been working with him since his father’s presidential campaign in 1992. Murphy, who also worked on the 1992 campaign, is a foil for Bush, who sometimes struggles to tell a joke but has a keen appreciation for the role humor can play in buoying or tanking a campaign. In the 1998 governor’s race, when Bush faced off against a Democrat named Buddy MacKay, Murphy came up with a simple tag line: “He’s not your buddy.” The line, or a version of it, was used in every possible ad. “That’s a great example of Mike’s creativity,” says Cory Tilley, a Tallahassee political operative who handled communications for Bush in his Florida races. “That took the edge off some so it didn’t look like a down-in-the-gutter attack.” One TV spot accused MacKay and Florida Democrats of being soft on crime because they’d relaxed sentencing laws to address prison overcrowding. “Thanks, Buddy,” said a burglar in the commercial.

Along with Bradshaw, Murphy has been able to tell Bush when he’s strayed off course—or help him regain focus after campaign setbacks. “Murphy is one of the few people that Jeb can hear that from and believe it,” says Brian Crowley, a Florida political analyst.

Pro-Iran?? Not

Pro-Rubio nonprofit to launch seven-figure ad campaign on Iran

By Sean Sullivan

A nonprofit created by allies of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is preparing to launch a more than $1 million+ advertising campaign highlighting the presidential candidate's resistance to an emerging Iranian nuclear deal, marking its first commercials since Rubio launched his campaign in April.

The ad campaign, which will include cable TV, radio and online components, will run at a time when the Senate is preparing to focus on Iran as the deadline for securing a deal approaches.

“President Obama is negotiating a bad deal with Iran. Senator Marco Rubio is fighting to stop it," says the narrator of the TV commercial.

The effort, campaign, shared with The Washington Post, comes from Conservative Solutions Project, a nonprofit organization established by J. Warren Tompkins, who also started a pro-Rubio super PAC with a similar name. This effort will have more than $1 million behind it in the first week, according to the nonprofit.

Both super PACs and nonprofits can accept unlimited contributions. But nonprofits, which must spend most of their money on non-political matters, do not have to disclose their donors while super PACs do.

The TV commercial from Conservative Solutions Project is technically an issue ad. But it mostly highlights Rubio in his own words.

“Let me tell you about negotiations," Rubio is shown saying in the ad. "It is a tactic that Iran is using and here’s the why: in 2003 the world told Iran ‘You cannot have any enrichment capability.’ Then it became ‘Okay you can enrich but only up to twenty percent.’ Then it became ‘Okay you can enrich over twenty percent but you have to ship it overseas.’ Now it’s ‘Okay you can enrich at twenty percent but you can only use it to a research reactor.’ At this pace, in five years we are going to build the bomb for them.”

The ad also shows footage of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking. Netanyahu has clashed sharply with Obama over Iran, aligning himself with congressional Republicans.

The narrator of the ad concludes: “Tell your senators to join Marco Rubio. Vote against Obama’s deal and stop Iran from getting the bomb.”

Rubio is campaigning in New Hampshire Thursday, where he held a pair of town halls in the morning and will hold a third event in the evening.