We begin today’s roundup with Jackie Kucinich and Nico Hines at The Daily Beast on Donald Trump’s cash flow problem:
Donald Trump loves to talk about how rich he is. But according to the latest campaign-finance report, his presidential bid is poor.
In the month after clinching his party’s nomination, the billionaire businessman has raised just $3.1 million and has loaned his campaign $2.2 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
The campaign has also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at Trump’s own businesses, on products branded with his name and in direct payments to members of the family.
An AP review finds that Trump has spent millions on his own products and brands:
Through the end of May, Trump’s campaign had plunged at least $6.2 million back into Trump corporate products and services, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows. That’s about 10% of his total campaign expenditures.
At NPR, Domenico Montanaro explains that Trump’s firing of campaign manager Corey Lewandoski isn’t enough to save his campaign. He lists all of the ways in which Trump is falling way behind the Clinton campaign:
Staff: Trump's campaign has fewer than 100 staffers. He boasts how "efficient" his operation is, with 73 employees. Clinton is estimated to already have around 800 paid staffers. Those are people that can be used to register voters and then get them to the polls in key states. You could believe Trump's boast that his campaign is more "efficient" and that his constant presence on TV compensates for a smaller staff. Or you could look to history: By August of 2012, Obama had 901 people on his payroll, Romney had 403.
And never mind the size of the staff, what is the campaign doing with them? Trump has eschewed data and behavioral analytics so far. That's something the Clinton team not only is all over, but something the Republican Party recognized was a problem after losing twice to Obama. The president broke the mold on this, and Republicans have tried hard to make up ground in the use of data.
Don’t miss David Bier’s piece at Newsweek which highlights “a year of Trump’s campaign in 59 crazy policies:”
Perhaps worst of all, Trump’s proposals expose how broad he thinks the powers of the presidency are: virtually infinite. There is never a glimmer of understanding that the government is bound by the Constitution, that the federal government has limited scope and authority, or that the presidency is just one of three equal branches of the federal government.
Instead, it is Trump, and Trump alone, who will transform American laws, government and society from the top down.
Trump will bomb and invade countries. Trump will steal their oil. Trump will kill deserters, torture suspects, bypass courts, ban Muslims, break treaties and have the military do things like mass executions with bullets dipped in pigs' blood—all while getting Americans to say “merry Christmas” again.
The Washington Post takes on Trump’s support of profiling Muslim Americans:
Like so many of Mr. Trump’s policy programs, subjecting Muslim Americans (if that’s who he has in mind) to increased, special scrutiny would also counterproductively stigmatize, isolate and alienate a largely peaceful and patriotic minority group. Muslim Americans would be less likely to cooperate with authorities, which is essential for fighting extremism in their communities. Meantime, real terrorists would figure out how to avoid matching the profile. [...]
Mr. Trump fails to grasp a crucial fact about the United States: This country is based on the notion that people have inherent dignity that derives from their individuality, the unique combination of talents, character and actions that define their quality as human beings. We have a free society so that individuals may make the most out of their gifts, rather than see those qualities ignored or wasted because of superficial prejudice. Practically every day, Mr. Trump proposes to betray this principle in some way. Sunday, in that sense, was just another day.
Turning to the Senate’s refusal to pass common sense gun safety laws yesterday, USA Today pens a scathing editorial on the Senate’s inaction:
[I]n an extraordinary act of cowardice on Monday evening, 56 senators — 53 Republicans joined by three Democrats — threw away yet another opportunity to keep guns out of the hands of more felons, fugitives, the mentally ill or people prone to domestic violence.
These spineless lawmakers voted against advancing a commonsense measure to expand background checks to virtually all sales of guns, not just those sold by federally licensed dealers. The existing gap allows buyers who purchase from private sellers at gun shows, online or from newspaper ads to simply avoid the federal background check system. [...]
Those who want to prevent future mass killings apparently will need to look outside Congress for help. Monday’s votes showed, once again, that too many members are too cowed by the gun lobby to take the actions necessary to save lives.
George Zornick at The Nation:
Only 60 percent of gun sales happen through federally licensed firearm dealers, and the other 40 percent of gun sales happen without any background check. They usually occur online—Craigslist is a big gun clearinghouse—or through newspaper classified ads or at gun shows.
Republican senators had many ostensible reasons for opposing universal background checks in early 2013 and again Monday, but they never made a substantive case that the background checks (1) are not universal now and (2) would not become universal under proposed Democratic legislation. Their objections often involved (imagined) fears of a federal registry of gun owners that could be used for nefarious purposes down the road, perhaps including confiscation. The Grassley legislation attempts to improve the background-check system, but does not make any attempt to make them universal.
So for the 55 senators who voted for either Cornyn’s or Feinstein’s measures but not Murphy’s, this is what they effectively said on Monday: They are concerned with suspected terrorists buying firearms, but they would prevent the sale only if the terrorist voluntarily submitted to a background check.
And we end today’s roundup with Dana Milbank’s take on the matter:
With just a few weeks left on the legislative calendar, it will be difficult for the no-fly-no-buy issue to return this year. Monday night was the best chance yet to block would-be terrorists from getting guns, and, as before, the Republican majority chose not to act.