Despite concerns about foreign interference, the 2018 U.S. midterm election launched to a relatively uneventful start Tuesday morning with federal monitors reporting no attempted disruptions.

While still early in a pivotal voting day that will shape the direction of the country for the next two years, absent were reports of a much-feared cyber assault on election systems by Russia or other foreign actors. By all accounts, ballot casting in the country’s 170,000 voting centers was free from major hiccups or interference.

A Department of Homeland Security official said intelligence agencies had seen no sign of a “coordinated campaign” to disrupt Tuesday’s election. There has been “run of the mill” cyber activity during the day but “certainly nothing that could be attributed back to Russia,” the official said.

“We’re not aware of any substantial impacts on voting,” the official said during a press briefing with reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, there were reports of long lines and malfunctioning election machines during the early hours of voting, with some of the biggest problems reported in Georgia.

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s vote, there were persistent worries that U.S. adversaries might attempt to disrupt the election in a reprise of Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential vote. As early as August, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned that the threat of Russian interference was “real” and “continuing.

U.S. agencies logged some 160 reports of suspected foreign interference in recent months, and social media networks have taken down hundreds of suspicious accounts. But the incidents have not risen to the level of 2016, when Kremlin-linked cyber actors targeted the election systems of at least 21 U.S. states and orchestrated one of the largest influence operations in history to sway the outcome of the vote.

“We haven’t seen anything that is alarming,” said John Gilligan, executive chairman of the Center for Internet Security, which has deployed intrusion detection sensors into the election systems of 43 states, said last week.

Decentralized voting leaves security to local officials

The United States has a highly decentralized election system, with virtually all elections administered by state and local governments.  However, in the two years since the Russian attack, U.S. states have worked closely with a host of federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Directorate of National Intelligence to boost their cyber defenses and the integrity of their election systems.The DHS has conducted on-site threat assessments in 21 states while network intrusion detection sensors have been deployed.

“We realize this is a complicated issue, with high interest from malicious actors, but together we have collaborated with IT professionals, the private sector, the federal government and others to do everything in our power to safeguard election infrastructure and restore voter confidence,” Jim Condos, Vermont Secretary of State and president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said in a statement on Friday.

Top U.S. security officials have offered similar assurances in the run-up to Tuesday’s vote.

“At this time we have no indication of compromise of our nation’s election infrastructure that would prevent voting, change vote counts, or disrupt the ability to tally votes,” said the DNI’s Coats, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a joint statement released late Monday.

Still, the officials warned that “Americans should be aware that foreign actors and Russia in particular continue to influence public sentiment and voter perceptions.”

Voter suppression, fraud concerns

Although potential foreign interference has drawn the most attention, allegations of voter suppression and potential voter fraud emerged as partisan issues in what is a recurring controversy in U.S. elections.

A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimated that in the last two years, at least eight states have adopted “more stringent voting laws” while in the last eight years, 23 states have tightened voting rules such as instituting stricter ID requirements.

Concerned that these laws disenfranchise voters, the Brennan Center, the ACLU, the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and other civil rights organizations have taken the states to court.

“This has been a year [in] which we have been fighting an aggressive and relentless campaign of voter suppression across the country,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. 

Conservative critics and President Donald Trump say the focus on voter suppression is a distraction from what they see as a greater concern: voter fraud.

Earlier this year, Trump disbanded his voter fraud commission that was created to study alleged election fraud in the 2016 vote. The commission had no success validating the president’s claims that millions of fraudulent ballots were cast in the 2016 election.

Aging voting systems

Aging voting machines and election systems that produce no paper trail have been another source of concern during the current elections  and cause of voting irregularities reported during early voting in several states.

Forty-three states use voting machines that are no longer made, according to the Brennan Center. Five states – Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and South Carolina rely exclusively on touchscreen systems that produce no paper trail while eight others use them in some of their jurisdictions.

Nine states with toss-up or competitive House, Senate or gubernatorial races still use paperless voting machines, according to the Brennan Center. Those states include Georgia, where Democrat Stacey Abrams is running against Republican Brian Kemp, and Texas where Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke is challenging Republican Senator Ted Cruz. 
…

…

President Donald Trump said on Monday he would nominate a new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by the end of the week and that more changes in his Cabinet may be coming.

Trump said last week he was seriously considering naming U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert to the post to succeed Nikki Haley, who said on Oct. 9 she would resign at the end of the year.

“I’ll announce before the end of the week the U.N. ambassador,” Trump told reporters before leaving Washington for another series of campaign rallies a day before the congressional midterm elections.

“Administrations make changes usually after midterms, and probably we’ll be right in that category, too,” Trump added. “I think it’s very customary. No timeline. For the most part I love my Cabinet. We have some really talented people.”

Haley was the latest in a string of senior Trump administration figures to quit, although she made her announcement in the Oval Office sitting next to Trump, who praised her for doing “an incredible job.”

White House counsel Don McGahn’s departure was announced in August and he has left. Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, resigned on July 5 under fire over ethics controversies.

In response to reporters’ questions as he left for a rally in Cleveland, Trump said he was not planning to replace Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Last month, Trump said Mattis “may leave” and that he regarded him as “sort of a Democrat.”

He also said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was doing a “good job.” Zinke has been under at least three probes by the Interior Department’s inspector general over ethics questions. Last month, the inspector general sent one of the probes to the Justice Department, increasing the chances that Zinke could face a criminal investigation.

Trump did not answer when asked about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom he has frequently criticized.
…

President Donald Trump said on Monday he would nominate a new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by the end of the week and that more changes in his Cabinet may be coming.

Trump said last week he was seriously considering naming U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert to the post to succeed Nikki Haley, who said on Oct. 9 she would resign at the end of the year.

“I’ll announce before the end of the week the U.N. ambassador,” Trump told reporters before leaving Washington for another series of campaign rallies a day before the congressional midterm elections.

“Administrations make changes usually after midterms, and probably we’ll be right in that category, too,” Trump added. “I think it’s very customary. No timeline. For the most part I love my Cabinet. We have some really talented people.”

Haley was the latest in a string of senior Trump administration figures to quit, although she made her announcement in the Oval Office sitting next to Trump, who praised her for doing “an incredible job.”

White House counsel Don McGahn’s departure was announced in August and he has left. Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, resigned on July 5 under fire over ethics controversies.

In response to reporters’ questions as he left for a rally in Cleveland, Trump said he was not planning to replace Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Last month, Trump said Mattis “may leave” and that he regarded him as “sort of a Democrat.”

He also said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was doing a “good job.” Zinke has been under at least three probes by the Interior Department’s inspector general over ethics questions. Last month, the inspector general sent one of the probes to the Justice Department, increasing the chances that Zinke could face a criminal investigation.

Trump did not answer when asked about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom he has frequently criticized.
…

Sharply divided U.S. voters head to the polls Tuesday to elect a new Congress and to render a midterm judgment on President Donald Trump. The results of Tuesday’s election could shift the balance of power in Washington and alter the next two years of Trump’s presidency, as we hear from VOA National correspondent Jim Malone.
…

Using Air Force One as a campaign shuttle, U.S. President Donald Trump traveled to Ohio, Indiana and Missouri on Monday, the eve of midterm balloting that is perceived as the biggest referendum yet on his presidency.

Trump acknowledged as much earlier in the day on a conference call with supporters, saying the media views Tuesday’s election as a referendum on him.

“If we don’t have a good day, they will make it like it’s the end of the world,” Trump said. “Don’t worry. If we do have a good day, they won’t give us any credit.”

There were 200,000 people listening on the call, according to Brad Parscale, the Trump/Pence campaign manager.

“There’s a great electricity in the air,” Trump told reporters just before boarding Air Force One for the flight to Ohio. “I think we’re going to do very well.”

Speaking in Cleveland — where he labeled candidates of the Democratic Party as “socialists” — Trump told the crowd that Tuesday is their chance “to send a message to the Democrat mob” and “stop the radical resistance in its tracks.” 

At a second rally of the day in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the president continued that theme, asserting that “if the radical Democrats take power, they will take a wrecking ball to the economy and the future of our country.” He also called on the attendees to vote for Republicans “to end the assault on America’s sovereignty” by Democrats.    

Trump then traveled to Cape Girardeau in the state of Missouri for a third, similar political event.

“It really is unprecedented,” said political science professor David Cohen at the University of Akron in Ohio. “No president has ever campaigned as much in the midterms as Trump has.”

Cohen told VOA that Trump’s strategy is unwise.

“His controversial remarks — all it does is energize the base of the Democrats and the independents to get out there and vote against him,” Cohen said.

Others see the Trump events — where Air Force One serves as the backdrop for appearances in airport hangars — of significant value to the governing party.

“The kind of people that come to them are not typical Republicans. They are Trumpsters. Getting that segment of the electorate out in 2016 was critical to Trump’s win in 2016, and getting them out to vote in 2018 can only help Republicans,” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Andrew Smith.

“Midterm elections are all about differential turnout,” Smith, who is also director of the UNH Survey Center, told VOA. “Democrats have been motivated to vote ever since Trump won in 2016, while Republicans have been far less motivated. Anytime Trump goes anywhere, he commands media attention and is therefore driving the news cycle.”

Obama appearances

Trump has been getting some competition for media attention in recent days from his predecessor, Barack Obama.

The two-term Democrat has been making campaign appearances on behalf of state and congressional candidates, a break with tradition where former presidents are rarely active in midterm elections so soon after leaving office.

“President George W. Bush has been largely absent from all politics, as was his father. And Bill Clinton waited some time after he left office before he got on the campaign trail. And when he did, it had the additional benefit of helping his wife’s campaign,” Smith noted. “Obama’s barnstorming is something that we have not seen, and I think it is an indication that he takes the Trump presidency as a rebuff of his own performance as president.”

In northern Virginia on Monday, Obama said “how we conduct ourselves in public life is on the ballot,” a lightly veiled criticism of Trump and some prominent Republican candidates.

“What I’m seeing all across the country is this great awakening,” Obama added, standing alongside incumbent Senator Tim Kaine and congressional nominee Jennifer Wexton in a campaign office. “In that great awakening, I feel hopeful.”

Predictions

Prominent pollsters predict the Republicans will retain control of the Senate. While cautioning some key congressional races are statistical dead heats, pollsters note more House districts trending toward the Democrats in recent days and expect Republicans will lose their majority in that chamber.

Such an outcome would halt the president’s ability to get key legislation approved, and would put the chairpersons’ gavels of committees in the hands of Democrats certain to launch an array of investigations into the Trump administration.

While Obama will deserve some of the credit for helping to drive turnout for the Democrats, according to Cohen, “it was going to be a bad election, anyway, for the president just based on his unpopularity throughout the country.”

Thus, if Republicans lose control of the House on Tuesday, Cohen contends, “the blame should fall squarely on Trump’s shoulders.”
…

Using Air Force One as a campaign shuttle, U.S. President Donald Trump traveled to Ohio, Indiana and Missouri on Monday, the eve of midterm balloting that is perceived as the biggest referendum yet on his presidency.

Trump acknowledged as much earlier in the day on a conference call with supporters, saying the media views Tuesday’s election as a referendum on him.

“If we don’t have a good day, they will make it like it’s the end of the world,” Trump said. “Don’t worry. If we do have a good day, they won’t give us any credit.”

There were 200,000 people listening on the call, according to Brad Parscale, the Trump/Pence campaign manager.

“There’s a great electricity in the air,” Trump told reporters just before boarding Air Force One for the flight to Ohio. “I think we’re going to do very well.”

Speaking in Cleveland — where he labeled candidates of the Democratic Party as “socialists” — Trump told the crowd that Tuesday is their chance “to send a message to the Democrat mob” and “stop the radical resistance in its tracks.” 

At a second rally of the day in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the president continued that theme, asserting that “if the radical Democrats take power, they will take a wrecking ball to the economy and the future of our country.” He also called on the attendees to vote for Republicans “to end the assault on America’s sovereignty” by Democrats.    

Trump then traveled to Cape Girardeau in the state of Missouri for a third, similar political event.

“It really is unprecedented,” said political science professor David Cohen at the University of Akron in Ohio. “No president has ever campaigned as much in the midterms as Trump has.”

Cohen told VOA that Trump’s strategy is unwise.

“His controversial remarks — all it does is energize the base of the Democrats and the independents to get out there and vote against him,” Cohen said.

Others see the Trump events — where Air Force One serves as the backdrop for appearances in airport hangars — of significant value to the governing party.

“The kind of people that come to them are not typical Republicans. They are Trumpsters. Getting that segment of the electorate out in 2016 was critical to Trump’s win in 2016, and getting them out to vote in 2018 can only help Republicans,” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Andrew Smith.

“Midterm elections are all about differential turnout,” Smith, who is also director of the UNH Survey Center, told VOA. “Democrats have been motivated to vote ever since Trump won in 2016, while Republicans have been far less motivated. Anytime Trump goes anywhere, he commands media attention and is therefore driving the news cycle.”

Obama appearances

Trump has been getting some competition for media attention in recent days from his predecessor, Barack Obama.

The two-term Democrat has been making campaign appearances on behalf of state and congressional candidates, a break with tradition where former presidents are rarely active in midterm elections so soon after leaving office.

“President George W. Bush has been largely absent from all politics, as was his father. And Bill Clinton waited some time after he left office before he got on the campaign trail. And when he did, it had the additional benefit of helping his wife’s campaign,” Smith noted. “Obama’s barnstorming is something that we have not seen, and I think it is an indication that he takes the Trump presidency as a rebuff of his own performance as president.”

In northern Virginia on Monday, Obama said “how we conduct ourselves in public life is on the ballot,” a lightly veiled criticism of Trump and some prominent Republican candidates.

“What I’m seeing all across the country is this great awakening,” Obama added, standing alongside incumbent Senator Tim Kaine and congressional nominee Jennifer Wexton in a campaign office. “In that great awakening, I feel hopeful.”

Predictions

Prominent pollsters predict the Republicans will retain control of the Senate. While cautioning some key congressional races are statistical dead heats, pollsters note more House districts trending toward the Democrats in recent days and expect Republicans will lose their majority in that chamber.

Such an outcome would halt the president’s ability to get key legislation approved, and would put the chairpersons’ gavels of committees in the hands of Democrats certain to launch an array of investigations into the Trump administration.

While Obama will deserve some of the credit for helping to drive turnout for the Democrats, according to Cohen, “it was going to be a bad election, anyway, for the president just based on his unpopularity throughout the country.”

Thus, if Republicans lose control of the House on Tuesday, Cohen contends, “the blame should fall squarely on Trump’s shoulders.”
…

The big names were on the campaign trail Sunday, two days before a midterm election with control of Congress at stake.

Americans vote Tuesday for all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 of 100 Senate seats, as well as for numerous state governors, local offices and ballot questions.

President Donald Trump led rallies for Republicans in Georgia and Tennessee Sunday. Trump is not up for reelection this year. But Tuesday’s vote could be regarded as a referendum on his first two years.

Campaigning for Georgia’s Republican candidate for governor, Brian Kemp, Trump said “radical Democrats want to take a giant wrecking ball to our economy and our future.”

The president told the crowd “Republicans produce jobs, Democrats produce mobs. ”

He warned Georgians that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams – who is trying to become the first black woman ever to be elected a U.S. governor  – would turn the state into Venezuela.

Campaigning for Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly in Gary, Indiana, former Presided Barack Obama said it was his Democratic administration that started the economic recovery after the severe recession of 2008.

Obama said he created more jobs in his last 21 months as president than Trump has in his first 21 months.

Obama accused the Republican-controlled Congress of trying to turn back the policies and progress made under his administration. He also mocked Trump for saying he wants to help the little guy, followed by huge tax cuts for the wealthy.  

Obama also campaigned Sunday in his hometown of Chicago.

Political analysts predict Democrats will win control of the House Tuesday, while Republicans will keep their narrow hold on the Senate and possibly gain as many as two seats.

But with a huge number of people taking part in early voting, some analysts give Democrats a slight chance of winning the Senate too.

Democratic control of either body could hamper Trump’s legislative agenda over the next two years. Some Democrats have even promised to open investigations of the president’s business interests and finances.
…

The big names were on the campaign trail Sunday, two days before a midterm election with control of Congress at stake.

Americans vote Tuesday for all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 of 100 Senate seats, as well as for numerous state governors, local offices and ballot questions.

President Donald Trump led rallies for Republicans in Georgia and Tennessee Sunday. Trump is not up for reelection this year. But Tuesday’s vote could be regarded as a referendum on his first two years.

Campaigning for Georgia’s Republican candidate for governor, Brian Kemp, Trump said “radical Democrats want to take a giant wrecking ball to our economy and our future.”

The president told the crowd “Republicans produce jobs, Democrats produce mobs. ”

He warned Georgians that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams – who is trying to become the first black woman ever to be elected a U.S. governor  – would turn the state into Venezuela.

Campaigning for Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly in Gary, Indiana, former Presided Barack Obama said it was his Democratic administration that started the economic recovery after the severe recession of 2008.

Obama said he created more jobs in his last 21 months as president than Trump has in his first 21 months.

Obama accused the Republican-controlled Congress of trying to turn back the policies and progress made under his administration. He also mocked Trump for saying he wants to help the little guy, followed by huge tax cuts for the wealthy.  

Obama also campaigned Sunday in his hometown of Chicago.

Political analysts predict Democrats will win control of the House Tuesday, while Republicans will keep their narrow hold on the Senate and possibly gain as many as two seats.

But with a huge number of people taking part in early voting, some analysts give Democrats a slight chance of winning the Senate too.

Democratic control of either body could hamper Trump’s legislative agenda over the next two years. Some Democrats have even promised to open investigations of the president’s business interests and finances.
…

Voter enthusiasm is high and suspense is building before Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections that will determine which political party controls both houses of Congress as well as dozens of governorships and state legislatures nationwide. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, Tuesday’s outcome will impact President Donald Trump’s ability to enact his agenda in the second half of his four-year term in office
…

Voter enthusiasm is high and suspense is building before Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections that will determine which political party controls both houses of Congress as well as dozens of governorships and state legislatures nationwide. VOA’s Michael Bowman reports, Tuesday’s outcome will impact President Donald Trump’s ability to enact his agenda in the second half of his four-year term in office
…

Voters in Massachusetts could give an important boost to a movement seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to restore some limits on corporations’ political spending.

Voters on Tuesday are being asked to create a special state commission charged with weighing potential constitutional amendments that would overturn the Citizens United decision, which helped open the door to allowing businesses, unions and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections.

The question is part of a wider multistate effort to undo the 2010 Supreme Court ruling.

American Promise, the national organization behind the effort to reverse Citizens United, said 19 states have already signaled their support for similar amendments, most through resolutions approved by legislatures. Voters in four states — Colorado and Montana in 2012 and California and Washington in 2016 — also approved questions aimed at nixing the court ruling.

The voters in those states essentially instructed their congressional delegations to support an amendment overturning Citizens United, without offer specific language. In Massachusetts, which doesn’t allow statewide advisory questions, the referendum would take the step of creating a citizens commission to research the issue and suggest possible amendments.

The goal is to guarantee everyone has an equal shot at getting the ear of lawmakers — something he said the current political system fails to do, said Ben Gubits, political director for American Promise.

“It’s been a long trend in our democracy working for the folks that make large campaign contributions — wealthy individuals, corporations and some unions — while the rest of the average citizens don’t have a voice,” he said.

The call to overturn Citizens United has bipartisan support, Gubits said. His group counts members of both parties on its advisory council, which includes former Wyoming U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee for president in 1988, he said. Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren have said they will vote for the question.

The group disputes that laws limiting political spending violate the First Amendment, Gubits said, arguing money doesn’t equal speech.

Not everyone agrees.

Paul Craney, spokesman for the conservative-leaning Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said the ballot question is wrong-headed.

“Is money speech?” he said. “Absolutely.”

But increasingly, Craney said, money isn’t the only way to amplify one’s voice.

“A lot of people out there have a big following on social media that can communicate with a lot of people, and it costs them nothing,” he said. “So more and more you’re starting to see that money is not the only way to have speech.”

The Citizens United ruling helped make it easier for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to persuade voters to cast their ballots for or against a candidate. While the ruling did not lift the ban on companies and unions giving money directly to candidates for federal office, it let them spend money trying to influence voters as long as the money was not being spent in coordination with a campaign.

Many groups have ramped up their political spending without publicly disclosing the sources of their money by forming “dark money” groups classified as social welfare organizations by the IRS. They can advocate for or against a candidate, run phone banks and donate to so-called super PACs. The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics has tallied about $133 million spent so far this election cycle with no disclosure of donors, compared with about $177 million spent in 2014′s midterms.

The question would instruct the newly formed commission to recommend potential constitutional amendments to establish that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.

Any resident of Massachusetts who is a U.S. resident could apply to serve on the 15-member, unpaid commission. The governor, secretary of the commonwealth, attorney general, House speaker and Senate president would each appoint three members.

Letting politicians appoint members is a problem, Craney said.

“Whenever you empower elected officials or politicians to regulate the public speech, the First Amendment is under attack,” he said.

The main task of the commission would be to release a report that would take a look at the impact of political spending in Massachusetts and any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations and other entities in light of the Citizens United ruling.

The question also gives the commission the task of making recommendations for possible constitutional amendments and suggesting ways to advance those proposed amendments.

The proposed law would take effect Jan. 1, 2019. The commission’s first report would be due by the end of December and would be delivered to Congress and the president.

The group is hoping new amendment could be added to the Constitution by 2026, Gubits said — a process that would require its approval by two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states, 38 in all.

“We passed 12 amendments in the 20th century alone,” he said. “This isn’t something that we used to do just back when people wore powdered wigs.”

There have been just 27 amendments added to the Constitution — including the first 10, the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791.
…

Voters in Massachusetts could give an important boost to a movement seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to restore some limits on corporations’ political spending.

Voters on Tuesday are being asked to create a special state commission charged with weighing potential constitutional amendments that would overturn the Citizens United decision, which helped open the door to allowing businesses, unions and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections.

The question is part of a wider multistate effort to undo the 2010 Supreme Court ruling.

American Promise, the national organization behind the effort to reverse Citizens United, said 19 states have already signaled their support for similar amendments, most through resolutions approved by legislatures. Voters in four states — Colorado and Montana in 2012 and California and Washington in 2016 — also approved questions aimed at nixing the court ruling.

The voters in those states essentially instructed their congressional delegations to support an amendment overturning Citizens United, without offer specific language. In Massachusetts, which doesn’t allow statewide advisory questions, the referendum would take the step of creating a citizens commission to research the issue and suggest possible amendments.

The goal is to guarantee everyone has an equal shot at getting the ear of lawmakers — something he said the current political system fails to do, said Ben Gubits, political director for American Promise.

“It’s been a long trend in our democracy working for the folks that make large campaign contributions — wealthy individuals, corporations and some unions — while the rest of the average citizens don’t have a voice,” he said.

The call to overturn Citizens United has bipartisan support, Gubits said. His group counts members of both parties on its advisory council, which includes former Wyoming U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee for president in 1988, he said. Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren have said they will vote for the question.

The group disputes that laws limiting political spending violate the First Amendment, Gubits said, arguing money doesn’t equal speech.

Not everyone agrees.

Paul Craney, spokesman for the conservative-leaning Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said the ballot question is wrong-headed.

“Is money speech?” he said. “Absolutely.”

But increasingly, Craney said, money isn’t the only way to amplify one’s voice.

“A lot of people out there have a big following on social media that can communicate with a lot of people, and it costs them nothing,” he said. “So more and more you’re starting to see that money is not the only way to have speech.”

The Citizens United ruling helped make it easier for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to persuade voters to cast their ballots for or against a candidate. While the ruling did not lift the ban on companies and unions giving money directly to candidates for federal office, it let them spend money trying to influence voters as long as the money was not being spent in coordination with a campaign.

Many groups have ramped up their political spending without publicly disclosing the sources of their money by forming “dark money” groups classified as social welfare organizations by the IRS. They can advocate for or against a candidate, run phone banks and donate to so-called super PACs. The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics has tallied about $133 million spent so far this election cycle with no disclosure of donors, compared with about $177 million spent in 2014′s midterms.

The question would instruct the newly formed commission to recommend potential constitutional amendments to establish that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.

Any resident of Massachusetts who is a U.S. resident could apply to serve on the 15-member, unpaid commission. The governor, secretary of the commonwealth, attorney general, House speaker and Senate president would each appoint three members.

Letting politicians appoint members is a problem, Craney said.

“Whenever you empower elected officials or politicians to regulate the public speech, the First Amendment is under attack,” he said.

The main task of the commission would be to release a report that would take a look at the impact of political spending in Massachusetts and any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations and other entities in light of the Citizens United ruling.

The question also gives the commission the task of making recommendations for possible constitutional amendments and suggesting ways to advance those proposed amendments.

The proposed law would take effect Jan. 1, 2019. The commission’s first report would be due by the end of December and would be delivered to Congress and the president.

The group is hoping new amendment could be added to the Constitution by 2026, Gubits said — a process that would require its approval by two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of the states, 38 in all.

“We passed 12 amendments in the 20th century alone,” he said. “This isn’t something that we used to do just back when people wore powdered wigs.”

There have been just 27 amendments added to the Constitution — including the first 10, the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791.
…

President Donald Trump has been acting like a candidate on the ballot this week, staging daily double-header rallies and blasting out ads for Republicans up for election on Tuesday. Given the stakes for his presidency, he might as well be.

A knot of investigations. Partisan gridlock. A warning shot for his re-election bid. Trump faces potentially debilitating fallout should Republicans lose control of one or both chambers in Congress, ending two years of GOP hegemony in Washington. A White House that has struggled to stay on course under favorable circumstances would be tested in dramatic ways. A president who often battles his own party, would face a far less forgiving opposition.

On the flip side, if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, that’s not only a victory for the GOP, but a validation of Trump’s brand of politics and his unconventional presidency. That result, considered less likely even within the White House, would embolden the president as he launches his own re-election bid.

White House aides insist the president doesn’t spend much time contemplating defeat, but he has begun to try to calibrate expectations. He has focused on the competitive Senate races the final days of his scorched-earth campaign blitz, and has distanced himself from blame should Republicans lose the House. If that happens, he intends to claim victory, arguing his efforts on the campaign trail narrowed GOP losses and helped them hold the Senate, according to a person familiar with Trump’s thinking who asked for anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss White House conversations by name.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been tested out other explanations – pointing to historical headwinds for the party of an incumbent president and complaining about a rash of GOP retirements this year. He told the AP last month that he won’t bear any responsibility should Democrats take over.

At a rally in West Virginia Friday a defiant Trump brushed off the prospect of a Democratic House takeover. “It could happen,” he said, adding “don’t worry about it. I’ll just figure it out.”

Meanwhile his staff has begun preparations to deal with a flood of subpoenas that could arrive next year from Democrat-controlled committees and the White House counsel’s office has been trying to attract seasoned lawyers to field oversight inquiries.

Should they take the House, Democrats are already plotting to reopen the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Other committees are plotting aggressive oversight of Trump’s administration and his web of business interests. Some Democrats are looking at using the House Ways and Means Committee to obtain copies of the president’s tax returns after he broke with decades of tradition and withheld them from public scrutiny during his campaign for the White House.

A slim Republican majority in the House would also present challenges, likely inflaming simmering intraparty disputes. First among them would be a potentially bitter leadership fight in the House to replace retiring Speaker Paul Ryan. But a narrowed majority would also exacerbate divisions over policy – and continued unified control could leave the GOP facing the blame for gridlock.

“Clearly there’s an awful lot on the line in terms of the legislative agenda,” said Republican consultant Josh Holmes. “The prospect of a Democratic controlled House or Senate puts a serious wrinkle in getting anything through Congress.”

Some in the White House think losing to Democrats might actually be preferable. They view Democrats eagerness to investigate the president as a blessing in disguise in the run-up to 2020. They view House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a potent foil for Trump, and believe they can tag the party responsibility for Washington dysfunction.

Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush’s press secretary, said Democratic control of the House “has both peril and promise for the president.”

“The peril is subpoenas, investigations, legal bills and headaches,” he said. “The promise is Trump will have an easy foil to run against: Pelosi and Democratic leadership.”

White House aides have discussed floating popular legislative issues, such as infrastructure, to tempt Democrats and test the unity of the Democratic opposition.

While keeping the House remained an uphill battle for the GOP, in the closing days of the campaign, Trump and Republicans have tried to sell voters on the possibilities of another two years of GOP control. They promised hardline immigration policies and more tax cuts, arguing that Democrats would erase two years of progress.

In the closing weeks of the midterms, Trump has unleashed a no-holds-barred effort to boost Republicans as he dipped into the same undercurrents of unease that defined his 2016 campaign. From stoking fears about illegal immigration to warning of economic collapse if Democrats are victorious.

But a House loss will prompt GOP hand-wringing about the divides in the party and the struggles for moderate Republicans to run in the Trump, as well as raise questions about whether the Democratic gains point to a path for presidential hopefuls in 2020.

Democratic consultant Jim Manley said Tuesday may reveal if Democrats are having any success recapturing white working class voters in the Midwest who backed Trump in 2016.

“Trump is helping. He’s becoming more and more radioactive,” Manley said. “There’s a chance to try and win them back over.”

But while the results may reveal weaknesses in the Republican coalition, midterm elections are very different than presidential years. Republicans were quick to point out that the party in power typically suffers defeats in midterms. Former President Barack Obama was in his words “shellacked” in 2010 and went on to win re-election in 2012.

Said Fleischer: “In the aftermath people with exaggerate its meaning and in 2 years’ time everything will have changed.”
…

President Donald Trump has been acting like a candidate on the ballot this week, staging daily double-header rallies and blasting out ads for Republicans up for election on Tuesday. Given the stakes for his presidency, he might as well be.

A knot of investigations. Partisan gridlock. A warning shot for his re-election bid. Trump faces potentially debilitating fallout should Republicans lose control of one or both chambers in Congress, ending two years of GOP hegemony in Washington. A White House that has struggled to stay on course under favorable circumstances would be tested in dramatic ways. A president who often battles his own party, would face a far less forgiving opposition.

On the flip side, if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate, that’s not only a victory for the GOP, but a validation of Trump’s brand of politics and his unconventional presidency. That result, considered less likely even within the White House, would embolden the president as he launches his own re-election bid.

White House aides insist the president doesn’t spend much time contemplating defeat, but he has begun to try to calibrate expectations. He has focused on the competitive Senate races the final days of his scorched-earth campaign blitz, and has distanced himself from blame should Republicans lose the House. If that happens, he intends to claim victory, arguing his efforts on the campaign trail narrowed GOP losses and helped them hold the Senate, according to a person familiar with Trump’s thinking who asked for anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss White House conversations by name.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been tested out other explanations – pointing to historical headwinds for the party of an incumbent president and complaining about a rash of GOP retirements this year. He told the AP last month that he won’t bear any responsibility should Democrats take over.

At a rally in West Virginia Friday a defiant Trump brushed off the prospect of a Democratic House takeover. “It could happen,” he said, adding “don’t worry about it. I’ll just figure it out.”

Meanwhile his staff has begun preparations to deal with a flood of subpoenas that could arrive next year from Democrat-controlled committees and the White House counsel’s office has been trying to attract seasoned lawyers to field oversight inquiries.

Should they take the House, Democrats are already plotting to reopen the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Other committees are plotting aggressive oversight of Trump’s administration and his web of business interests. Some Democrats are looking at using the House Ways and Means Committee to obtain copies of the president’s tax returns after he broke with decades of tradition and withheld them from public scrutiny during his campaign for the White House.

A slim Republican majority in the House would also present challenges, likely inflaming simmering intraparty disputes. First among them would be a potentially bitter leadership fight in the House to replace retiring Speaker Paul Ryan. But a narrowed majority would also exacerbate divisions over policy – and continued unified control could leave the GOP facing the blame for gridlock.

“Clearly there’s an awful lot on the line in terms of the legislative agenda,” said Republican consultant Josh Holmes. “The prospect of a Democratic controlled House or Senate puts a serious wrinkle in getting anything through Congress.”

Some in the White House think losing to Democrats might actually be preferable. They view Democrats eagerness to investigate the president as a blessing in disguise in the run-up to 2020. They view House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a potent foil for Trump, and believe they can tag the party responsibility for Washington dysfunction.

Ari Fleischer, George W. Bush’s press secretary, said Democratic control of the House “has both peril and promise for the president.”

“The peril is subpoenas, investigations, legal bills and headaches,” he said. “The promise is Trump will have an easy foil to run against: Pelosi and Democratic leadership.”

White House aides have discussed floating popular legislative issues, such as infrastructure, to tempt Democrats and test the unity of the Democratic opposition.

While keeping the House remained an uphill battle for the GOP, in the closing days of the campaign, Trump and Republicans have tried to sell voters on the possibilities of another two years of GOP control. They promised hardline immigration policies and more tax cuts, arguing that Democrats would erase two years of progress.

In the closing weeks of the midterms, Trump has unleashed a no-holds-barred effort to boost Republicans as he dipped into the same undercurrents of unease that defined his 2016 campaign. From stoking fears about illegal immigration to warning of economic collapse if Democrats are victorious.

But a House loss will prompt GOP hand-wringing about the divides in the party and the struggles for moderate Republicans to run in the Trump, as well as raise questions about whether the Democratic gains point to a path for presidential hopefuls in 2020.

Democratic consultant Jim Manley said Tuesday may reveal if Democrats are having any success recapturing white working class voters in the Midwest who backed Trump in 2016.

“Trump is helping. He’s becoming more and more radioactive,” Manley said. “There’s a chance to try and win them back over.”

But while the results may reveal weaknesses in the Republican coalition, midterm elections are very different than presidential years. Republicans were quick to point out that the party in power typically suffers defeats in midterms. Former President Barack Obama was in his words “shellacked” in 2010 and went on to win re-election in 2012.

Said Fleischer: “In the aftermath people with exaggerate its meaning and in 2 years’ time everything will have changed.”
…

As Americans prepare for another election, Russian troublemakers have again tried to divide U.S. voters and discredit democracy.

The activity appears focused on abuse of social media, through American-looking posts and sites, instead of big cyberattacks or disrupting voting systems. So far, it’s more modest than the influence campaign Russia is accused of carrying out in 2016, and Russia is not alone – it’s just one source of online manipulation ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Russia denies interference, and may not be able to affect the outcome anyway, but has reason to be interested in the election result.

U.S. officials and tech companies are trying to improve election security and fight disinformation campaigns online. Here’s what they say the Russians have been up to:

Funding trolls

One Russian has been charged so far by U.S. officials of interference in 2018 election campaign: Elena Khusyaynova, a bookkeeper with the Internet Research Agency, the “troll factory” accused of manipulating the 2016 U.S. campaign.

Khusyaynova is accused of a covert social media campaign for both the 2016 and 2018 votes in the United States. The criminal complaint says she began buying social media ads in 2015, including on Facebook and Instagram, and spent on internet services including VPNs, which help mask online activity. Khusyaynova also purchased social media analytics products, which gauge the performance of online postings, and paid bloggers and U.S.-based activists.

The proposed operating budget she oversaw was more than $35 million from January 2016 through June 2018 – including $10 million for the first half of this year, the complaint says.

It is unclear how many Americans saw postings financed by Khusyaynova’s activity.

Faux-American sites

The Russian troll factory’s owners, the Federal News Agency, registered three domain names in April aimed at the U.S. market, according to the SPARK-Interfax database. The websites all lead readers to a site called USAReally, aimed at showing American audiences news that has been “hushed up” by the mainstream media.

Its Russian roots aren’t hard to find. Its Russian chief editor, Alexander Malkevich, is openly critical of Democrats and says “America won” when Donald Trump became president.

Its readership remains small, in the tens of thousands, which Malkevich blames on “censorship” by Facebook and Twitter. It is trying to amplify its voice via links on other media.

In recent days, its focus has been on the migrant caravan weaving through Latin America, on tight congressional races – and on an effort to recruit Megyn Kelly, whose show on NBC was canceled amid controversy over her comments on blackface Halloween costumes.

Tricky tweets

Even after the February indictment by U.S. authorities of a dozen Russians linked to the Internet Research Agency, it continued to work on tricking U.S. audiences – including seeking to mobilize activists to participate in street demonstrations.

Twitter last month released millions of tweets and other content targeting Americans that it said came from the IRA, both from the 2016 race and continuing through the summer of 2018, well into the U.S. midterm campaign.

Examples of tweets include those from the account @TEN_GOP, which pretended to be Tennessee’s Republican party, and posted a photo of then-FBI Director James Comey with the words “resign now.”

It’s unclear how many people saw the content, which is no longer available on Twitter itself.

In August, Facebook and security firm FireEye revealed influence campaigns on the social network originating in Russia and Iran. Experts say Russia’s alleged actions in the 2016 U.S. election may have encouraged Iran to follow suit.

Probing candidates

Microsoft executives said recently that the company had detected attempts by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency to hack into the campaigns of two senators, and disabled Russian-launched websites disguised as U.S. think tanks and Senate sites.

One attempt involved Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is seeking re-election in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016. Microsoft identified an attempt to steal the password of at least one McCaskill staffer through a fake Senate login website, in the most notable instance of attempted campaign meddling by Russia made public this year.

It’s not clear whether Russians are again targeting U.S. voting systems. U.S. officials have said that before the 2016 general election, Russian agents probed at least 21 state election systems.

 
…

As Americans prepare for another election, Russian troublemakers have again tried to divide U.S. voters and discredit democracy.

The activity appears focused on abuse of social media, through American-looking posts and sites, instead of big cyberattacks or disrupting voting systems. So far, it’s more modest than the influence campaign Russia is accused of carrying out in 2016, and Russia is not alone – it’s just one source of online manipulation ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Russia denies interference, and may not be able to affect the outcome anyway, but has reason to be interested in the election result.

U.S. officials and tech companies are trying to improve election security and fight disinformation campaigns online. Here’s what they say the Russians have been up to:

Funding trolls

One Russian has been charged so far by U.S. officials of interference in 2018 election campaign: Elena Khusyaynova, a bookkeeper with the Internet Research Agency, the “troll factory” accused of manipulating the 2016 U.S. campaign.

Khusyaynova is accused of a covert social media campaign for both the 2016 and 2018 votes in the United States. The criminal complaint says she began buying social media ads in 2015, including on Facebook and Instagram, and spent on internet services including VPNs, which help mask online activity. Khusyaynova also purchased social media analytics products, which gauge the performance of online postings, and paid bloggers and U.S.-based activists.

The proposed operating budget she oversaw was more than $35 million from January 2016 through June 2018 – including $10 million for the first half of this year, the complaint says.

It is unclear how many Americans saw postings financed by Khusyaynova’s activity.

Faux-American sites

The Russian troll factory’s owners, the Federal News Agency, registered three domain names in April aimed at the U.S. market, according to the SPARK-Interfax database. The websites all lead readers to a site called USAReally, aimed at showing American audiences news that has been “hushed up” by the mainstream media.

Its Russian roots aren’t hard to find. Its Russian chief editor, Alexander Malkevich, is openly critical of Democrats and says “America won” when Donald Trump became president.

Its readership remains small, in the tens of thousands, which Malkevich blames on “censorship” by Facebook and Twitter. It is trying to amplify its voice via links on other media.

In recent days, its focus has been on the migrant caravan weaving through Latin America, on tight congressional races – and on an effort to recruit Megyn Kelly, whose show on NBC was canceled amid controversy over her comments on blackface Halloween costumes.

Tricky tweets

Even after the February indictment by U.S. authorities of a dozen Russians linked to the Internet Research Agency, it continued to work on tricking U.S. audiences – including seeking to mobilize activists to participate in street demonstrations.

Twitter last month released millions of tweets and other content targeting Americans that it said came from the IRA, both from the 2016 race and continuing through the summer of 2018, well into the U.S. midterm campaign.

Examples of tweets include those from the account @TEN_GOP, which pretended to be Tennessee’s Republican party, and posted a photo of then-FBI Director James Comey with the words “resign now.”

It’s unclear how many people saw the content, which is no longer available on Twitter itself.

In August, Facebook and security firm FireEye revealed influence campaigns on the social network originating in Russia and Iran. Experts say Russia’s alleged actions in the 2016 U.S. election may have encouraged Iran to follow suit.

Probing candidates

Microsoft executives said recently that the company had detected attempts by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency to hack into the campaigns of two senators, and disabled Russian-launched websites disguised as U.S. think tanks and Senate sites.

One attempt involved Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is seeking re-election in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump in 2016. Microsoft identified an attempt to steal the password of at least one McCaskill staffer through a fake Senate login website, in the most notable instance of attempted campaign meddling by Russia made public this year.

It’s not clear whether Russians are again targeting U.S. voting systems. U.S. officials have said that before the 2016 general election, Russian agents probed at least 21 state election systems.

 
…

Former President Barack Obama’s national campaign tour to boost Democratic candidates takes an unusual path Sunday with an Indiana rally for Sen. Joe Donnelly, who has sounded more like Donald Trump while trying to persuade voters in the conservative Midwestern state to grant him a second term.

Obama’s rally for the Democratic senator in Gary will be sandwiched between his successor’s trips to the state Friday and Monday on behalf of GOP Senate candidate Mike Braun.

For Braun, a businessman who has campaigned as a steadfast Trump ally, the current president’s appearances in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne are no-brainers in a state he won two years ago by 19 points. But for Donnelly, who frequently touts how often he votes with Trump, the Obama rally is a little more complicated.

“If he does need to inoculate himself from some of his firmer conservative rhetoric, it’s a pretty effective way to do it,” said Christina Hale, a former state lawmaker and the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 2016.

Donnelly has angered some Democrats by tacking to the right in recent weeks and embracing some of Trump’s pet priorities, such as building a border wall with Mexico.

Obama, on the other hand, has proven a polarizing figure with independent and Republican voters and is credited with some of Indiana’s rightward political shift, even though he won the state in 2008.

To win in Tuesday’s election, Donnelly not only needs high turnout from his party’s base but also must peel off some moderate Republicans and independents.

That’s why Sunday’s rally in Gary, a city that has more in common with the Democratic stronghold of nearby Chicago than deep red parts of the state, could prove strategic.

“While President Obama’s approval ratings are not great in much of the state, you can pretty safely bring into Chicago media market,” said Republican consultant Cam Savage.

Trump was keenly aware of Obama’s upcoming visit, which he mentioned Friday during an event at an Indianapolis-area high school.

“It’s no surprise that Joe Donnelly is holding a rally this weekend with Barack H. Obama,” Trump said as the crowd jeered. He later added: “We don’t want to go back to the Obama days.”

Like other Senate Democrats running in states Trump won, Donnelly has largely avoided bringing in political celebrities who are adored by the base but could create problems.

“Keep in mind he’s not bringing in Obama until the Sunday before the election,” said Hale, who added Republicans likely won’t have enough time to use it as an effective line of attack.

As a red-state Democrat, Donnelly has had a target on his back ever since he unexpectedly defeated Republican Richard Mourdock in 2012, when the former state treasure said a woman who gets pregnant from her rapist is carrying a “gift from God.”

He’s walked a delicate line since then, often frustrating his own party and Republicans alike with the votes he takes.

Trump was having none of it on Friday, tying Donnelly to “radical left” figures in the party who are widely reviled by the GOP base.

“This Tuesday I need the people of Indiana to send a message to Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and the radical Democrats by voting for Mike Braun,” Trump said as the crowd erupted in boos. “I’m really speaking more to the television cameras than to you because I don’t think we have too many Donnelly voters. Anybody going to vote for Donnelly in this room?”

The boos grew even louder.
…

Former President Barack Obama’s national campaign tour to boost Democratic candidates takes an unusual path Sunday with an Indiana rally for Sen. Joe Donnelly, who has sounded more like Donald Trump while trying to persuade voters in the conservative Midwestern state to grant him a second term.

Obama’s rally for the Democratic senator in Gary will be sandwiched between his successor’s trips to the state Friday and Monday on behalf of GOP Senate candidate Mike Braun.

For Braun, a businessman who has campaigned as a steadfast Trump ally, the current president’s appearances in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne are no-brainers in a state he won two years ago by 19 points. But for Donnelly, who frequently touts how often he votes with Trump, the Obama rally is a little more complicated.

“If he does need to inoculate himself from some of his firmer conservative rhetoric, it’s a pretty effective way to do it,” said Christina Hale, a former state lawmaker and the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 2016.

Donnelly has angered some Democrats by tacking to the right in recent weeks and embracing some of Trump’s pet priorities, such as building a border wall with Mexico.

Obama, on the other hand, has proven a polarizing figure with independent and Republican voters and is credited with some of Indiana’s rightward political shift, even though he won the state in 2008.

To win in Tuesday’s election, Donnelly not only needs high turnout from his party’s base but also must peel off some moderate Republicans and independents.

That’s why Sunday’s rally in Gary, a city that has more in common with the Democratic stronghold of nearby Chicago than deep red parts of the state, could prove strategic.

“While President Obama’s approval ratings are not great in much of the state, you can pretty safely bring into Chicago media market,” said Republican consultant Cam Savage.

Trump was keenly aware of Obama’s upcoming visit, which he mentioned Friday during an event at an Indianapolis-area high school.

“It’s no surprise that Joe Donnelly is holding a rally this weekend with Barack H. Obama,” Trump said as the crowd jeered. He later added: “We don’t want to go back to the Obama days.”

Like other Senate Democrats running in states Trump won, Donnelly has largely avoided bringing in political celebrities who are adored by the base but could create problems.

“Keep in mind he’s not bringing in Obama until the Sunday before the election,” said Hale, who added Republicans likely won’t have enough time to use it as an effective line of attack.

As a red-state Democrat, Donnelly has had a target on his back ever since he unexpectedly defeated Republican Richard Mourdock in 2012, when the former state treasure said a woman who gets pregnant from her rapist is carrying a “gift from God.”

He’s walked a delicate line since then, often frustrating his own party and Republicans alike with the votes he takes.

Trump was having none of it on Friday, tying Donnelly to “radical left” figures in the party who are widely reviled by the GOP base.

“This Tuesday I need the people of Indiana to send a message to Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and the radical Democrats by voting for Mike Braun,” Trump said as the crowd erupted in boos. “I’m really speaking more to the television cameras than to you because I don’t think we have too many Donnelly voters. Anybody going to vote for Donnelly in this room?”

The boos grew even louder.
…

As U.S. voters prepare to head to the polls Tuesday, the election will also be a referendum on Facebook.

In recent months, the social networking giant has beefed up scrutiny of what is posted on its site, looking for fake accounts, misinformation and hate speech, while encouraging people to go on Facebook to express their views.

“A lot of the work of content moderation for us begins with our company mission, which is to build community and bring the world closer together,” Peter Stern, who works on product policy stakeholder engagement at Facebook, said at a recent event at St. John’s University in New York City.

Facebook wants people to feel safe when they visit the site, Stern said. To that end, it is on track to hire 20,000 people to tackle safety and security on the platform.

As part of its stepped-up effort, Facebook works with third-party fact-checkers and takes down misinformation that contributes to violence, according to a blog post by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO.

But most popular content, often dubbed “viral,” is frequently the most extreme. Facebook devalues posts it deems are incorrect, reducing their viralness, or future views, by 80 percent, Zuckerberg said.

Disinformation campaigns

Recently Facebook removed accounts followed by more than 1 million people that it said were linked to Iran but pretended to look like they were created by people in the U.S. Some were about the upcoming midterm elections.

The firm also removed hundreds of American accounts that it said were spamming political misinformation.

Still, Facebook is criticized for what at times appears to be flaws in its processes.

Vice News recently posed as all 100 U.S. senators and bought fake political ads on the site. After approving them all, Facebook said it made a mistake.

Politicians in Britain and Canada have asked Zuckerberg to testify on Facebook’s role on spreading disinformation.

“I think they are really struggling and that’s not surprising, because it’s a very hard problem,” said Daphne Keller, who used to be on Google’s legal team and is now with Stanford University.

“If you think about it, they get millions, billions of new posts a day, most of them some factual claim or sentiment that nobody has ever posted before, so to go through these and figure out which are misinformation, which are false, which are intending to affect an electoral outcome, that is a huge challenge,” Keller said. “There isn’t a human team that can do that in the world, there isn’t a machine that can do that in the world.”

​Transparency

While it has been purging its site of accounts that violate its policies, the company has also revealed more about how decisions are made in removing posts. In a 27-page document, Facebook described in detail what content it removes and why, and updated its appeals process. 

Stern, of Facebook, supports the company’s efforts at transparency.

“Having a system that people view as legitimate and basically fair even when they don’t agree with any individual decision that we’ve made is extremely important,” he said.

The stepped-up efforts to give users more clarity about the rules and the steps to challenge decisions are signs Facebook is moving in the right direction, Stanford’s Keller said.

“We need to understand that it is built into the system that there will be a fair amount of failure and there needs to be appeals process and transparency to address that,” she said.
…

As U.S. voters prepare to head to the polls Nov. 6, all eyes are on how Facebook is grappling with giving people a platform to speak but also keeping misinformation in check. Michelle Quinn reports from San Francisco.
…

Lights flicker into brightness, one-by-one in an empty boxing ring. It is silent until a gym bag plops to the floor. A woman puts earbuds in. Championship music blares and then a woman’s voice says, “This is a tough place to be a woman.” 

Sharice Davids’ TV commercial looks more like a movie trailer than a typical political ad for U.S. Congress in Kansas. But, Davids is no ordinary candidate.

The Democrat, running in Kansas for the 3rd Congressional District seat, is a Native American. She is lesbian. And she is a former mixed martial arts fighter. In her ad, Davids says, “Truth is, I’ve had to fight my whole life because of who I am, who I love, and where I started.” At the end of the ad, she nails a sharp right jab at the camera.

Scuba diving for votes

A record number of women are up for election Tuesday. According to figures compiled by The Center for America Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 237 women are running for the U.S. House of Representatives, 23 for the Senate, and 16 for governor. 

Political science experts, like Brigid Callahan Harrison of Montclair State University, say the current political climate has fostered numerous female candidates without political experience. Harrison says the Democratic Party specifically selected candidates with a “unique skillset, great narratives and resumes that are kind of middle of the road” to appeal to a new constituency, especially in swing districts.

Consequently, their ads are entertaining and provocative. Like Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell running for a House seat in Florida’s 26th Congressional District. Her TV commercial looks like a National Geographic documentary on coral reefs. Then, you see her, kneeling among the fish in full scuba gear, holding a sign “I’m Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. I’m running for Congress.” The ad promotes one of her top issues: clean water. 

‘Grow a pair of ovaries’

Republican Martha McSally is a member of the U.S. House from Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District. She is running for U.S. Senate against another female House member, Democrat Krysten Sinema. McSally’s ad includes a clip of her TV profile on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” with Leslie Stahl introducing her as the “first female pilot to fly in combat.” 

McSally includes a comment from President Trump, mixed in with the fighting music and quick edits. She speaks straightforwardly about her time in Congress: “That’s why I told Washington Republicans to grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done.”

Going viral, courtesy of ‘Hamilton’

​Democrat MJ Hegar, running in the Texas 13th Congressional District, produced a video clip called “Doors.” Her biographical ad begins inside houses until the camera pans to a military-issued grey-green door hanging on the wall above her family as they eat dinner. Hegar, with her short sleeves showing an upper arm tattoo explains, “that’s all that’s left of the aircraft I was flying that day.”

In 2009, the Air Force pilot was flying a rescue mission in Afghanistan when her helicopter was shot down by the Taliban.

​

No more St. John suits, Ferragamo shoes

The trend in political ads is increasingly leaning more toward social media, because most younger voters choose to get their news there than conventional television. Hegar’s 3 minute, 30 second video clip has been viewed nearly 6 million times once “Hamilton” composer Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted it to his 2.5 million followers.

Chris Nolan is the founder of Spot-On.com, a cloud-based ad agency. Her company ran 25 campaigns for the 2018 midterm elections. 

She says this is the first election where women can “be themselves” in commercials rather than a perfectly coiffed person, ready for TV. She attributes that to the increased number of women running campaigns who understand that voters want to vote for “real people” and not candidates molded into stiff politicians.

“What that means is that we are moving away from the heavily produced candidate wearing a St. John suit, Ferragamo bow flats, and headband because she looks like a woman you’d never want to have a drink with,” Nolan said.

Double standards for voices

But, even in a social media age and in the 2018 political “year of the woman,” female candidates have to spend more time debating what is kept in and what stays out of their ads.

Republican Leah Vukmir, a Wisconsin state senator running for U.S. Senate, received death threats when she and other Republicans backed elimination of collective bargaining for public employees. The voicemail leads her ad, saying, “I know where you live and I’m going to come for you. You’re going to die and I’m going to be the one who does it.”

Vukmir told VOA the words are tame compared to what the caller said, but she wanted to use the words to show her resolve not to be intimidated.

Vukmir says, like most women, she knows there are certain standards for men and women in political ads, and she is extra careful of her vocal tone and how she speaks. Her model is former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who “learned how to moderate her voice so that she didn’t sound shrill.”
…

Lights flicker into brightness, one-by-one in an empty boxing ring. It is silent until a gym bag plops to the floor. A woman puts earbuds in. Championship music blares and then a woman’s voice says, “This is a tough place to be a woman.” 

Sharice Davids’ TV commercial looks more like a movie trailer than a typical political ad for U.S. Congress in Kansas. But, Davids is no ordinary candidate.

The Democrat, running in Kansas for the 3rd Congressional District seat, is a Native American. She is lesbian. And she is a former mixed martial arts fighter. In her ad, Davids says, “Truth is, I’ve had to fight my whole life because of who I am, who I love, and where I started.” At the end of the ad, she nails a sharp right jab at the camera.

Scuba diving for votes

A record number of women are up for election Tuesday. According to figures compiled by The Center for America Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 237 women are running for the U.S. House of Representatives, 23 for the Senate, and 16 for governor. 

Political science experts, like Brigid Callahan Harrison of Montclair State University, say the current political climate has fostered numerous female candidates without political experience. Harrison says the Democratic Party specifically selected candidates with a “unique skillset, great narratives and resumes that are kind of middle of the road” to appeal to a new constituency, especially in swing districts.

Consequently, their ads are entertaining and provocative. Like Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell running for a House seat in Florida’s 26th Congressional District. Her TV commercial looks like a National Geographic documentary on coral reefs. Then, you see her, kneeling among the fish in full scuba gear, holding a sign “I’m Debbie Mucarsel-Powell. I’m running for Congress.” The ad promotes one of her top issues: clean water. 

‘Grow a pair of ovaries’

Republican Martha McSally is a member of the U.S. House from Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District. She is running for U.S. Senate against another female House member, Democrat Krysten Sinema. McSally’s ad includes a clip of her TV profile on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” with Leslie Stahl introducing her as the “first female pilot to fly in combat.” 

McSally includes a comment from President Trump, mixed in with the fighting music and quick edits. She speaks straightforwardly about her time in Congress: “That’s why I told Washington Republicans to grow a pair of ovaries and get the job done.”

Going viral, courtesy of ‘Hamilton’

​Democrat MJ Hegar, running in the Texas 13th Congressional District, produced a video clip called “Doors.” Her biographical ad begins inside houses until the camera pans to a military-issued grey-green door hanging on the wall above her family as they eat dinner. Hegar, with her short sleeves showing an upper arm tattoo explains, “that’s all that’s left of the aircraft I was flying that day.”

In 2009, the Air Force pilot was flying a rescue mission in Afghanistan when her helicopter was shot down by the Taliban.

​

No more St. John suits, Ferragamo shoes

The trend in political ads is increasingly leaning more toward social media, because most younger voters choose to get their news there than conventional television. Hegar’s 3 minute, 30 second video clip has been viewed nearly 6 million times once “Hamilton” composer Lin-Manuel Miranda tweeted it to his 2.5 million followers.

Chris Nolan is the founder of Spot-On.com, a cloud-based ad agency. Her company ran 25 campaigns for the 2018 midterm elections. 

She says this is the first election where women can “be themselves” in commercials rather than a perfectly coiffed person, ready for TV. She attributes that to the increased number of women running campaigns who understand that voters want to vote for “real people” and not candidates molded into stiff politicians.

“What that means is that we are moving away from the heavily produced candidate wearing a St. John suit, Ferragamo bow flats, and headband because she looks like a woman you’d never want to have a drink with,” Nolan said.

Double standards for voices

But, even in a social media age and in the 2018 political “year of the woman,” female candidates have to spend more time debating what is kept in and what stays out of their ads.

Republican Leah Vukmir, a Wisconsin state senator running for U.S. Senate, received death threats when she and other Republicans backed elimination of collective bargaining for public employees. The voicemail leads her ad, saying, “I know where you live and I’m going to come for you. You’re going to die and I’m going to be the one who does it.”

Vukmir told VOA the words are tame compared to what the caller said, but she wanted to use the words to show her resolve not to be intimidated.

Vukmir says, like most women, she knows there are certain standards for men and women in political ads, and she is extra careful of her vocal tone and how she speaks. Her model is former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who “learned how to moderate her voice so that she didn’t sound shrill.”
…

Twitter Inc. deleted more than 10,000 automated accounts posting messages that discouraged people from voting in Tuesday’s U.S. election and wrongly appeared to be from Democrats, after the party flagged the misleading tweets to the social media company. 

“We took action on relevant accounts and activity on Twitter,” a Twitter spokesman said in an email. The removals took place in late September and early October. 

Twitter removed more than 10,000 accounts, according to three sources familiar with the Democrats’ effort. The number is modest, considering that Twitter has previously deleted millions of accounts it determined were responsible for spreading misinformation in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. 

Yet the removals represent an early win for a fledgling effort by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, a party group that supports Democrats running for the U.S. House of Representatives. 

2016 experience

The DCCC launched the effort this year in response to the party’s inability to respond to millions of accounts on Twitter and other social media platforms that spread negative and false information about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and other party candidates in 2016, three people familiar with the operation told Reuters. 

While the prevalence of misinformation campaigns has so far been modest in the run-up to the congressional elections on Nov. 6, Democrats are hoping the flagging operation will help them react quickly if there is a flurry of such messages in the coming days. 

The tweets included ones that discouraged Democratic men from voting, saying that would drown out the voice of women, according to two of the sources familiar with the flagging operation. 

The DCCC developed its own system for identifying and reporting malicious automated accounts on social media, according to the three party sources. 

The system was built in part from publicly available tools known as “Hoaxley” and “Botometer” developed by University of Indiana computer researchers. They allow a user to identify automated accounts, also known as bots, and analyze how they spread information on specific topics.  

Free tools

“We made Hoaxley and Botometer free for anyone to use because people deserve to know what’s a bot and what’s not,” said Filippo Menczer, professor of informatics and computer science at the University of Indiana. 

The Democratic National Committee works with a group of contractors and partners to rapidly identify misinformation campaigns. 

They include RoBhat Labs, a firm whose website says it has developed technology capable of detecting bots and identifying political bias in messages. 

The collaboration with RoBhat has already led to the discovery of malicious accounts and posts, which were referred to social media companies and other campaign officials, DNC Chief Technology Officer Raffi Krikorian said in email. 

Krikorian did not say whether the flagged posts were ultimately removed by Twitter. 

“We provide the DNC with reports about what we’re seeing in terms of bot activity and where it’s being amplified,” said Ash Bhat, co-founder of RoBhat Labs. 

“We can’t tell you who’s behind these different operations — Twitter hides that from us — but with the technology you know when and how it’s happening,” Bhat said. 
…