2019, the year the press tried—and failed—to stand up to Trump

Community

Tuesday December 31, 2019 · 7:01 AM PST

2019/12/31 · 07:01

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 15: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the White House Press Corps prior to his Marine One departure from the South Lawn of the White House December 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. President Trump is heading to FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, to attend a graduation ceremony and visit the Marine Helicopter Squadron One. Then, he will travel to Camp David for the weekend. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

With Donald Trump becoming the first American president to be impeached in his first term, while holed up in the White House tweeting endless attacks around the clock like some internet troll, 2019 should have been the year the Beltway media finally shed its signature timidity and forcefully stood up to him. This should have been the year the press worked up the courage to disband the pointless protocols newsroom had established for covering Trump (he's not a "liar," he's not a "racist"), and simply started telling the hard truths about him. And while there were some welcome flashes of truth-telling, especially surrounding the Ukraine scandal and impeachment, for the most part the D.C. press still hasn't signaled that's it's ready, or willing, to take the necessary steps needed to cover Trump.

There continues to be a collective reluctance to grapple with today's difficult reality. Unfamiliar with covering authoritarian regimes or how to respond to them, many news outlets remain committed to treating Trump's spectacle as a reality TV show.

Trump remains the most deeply radical player in American politics, yet the press corps is still trying to cover him as a traditional political figure, which means if the president of the United States makes some sort of public statement on a pressing issue of the day, you quote him under the assumption that he's telling the truth and not just making stuff up. But he's not, and he is. Trump in 2019 continued to benefit from press coverage that obediently pretended that he's an honest broker. Wash, rinse, repeat. This, while Trump maintains his dangerous campaign to paint the press as the "enemy of the people."

Oddly committed to normalizing Trump by scrubbing off his hateful and dangerous rough edges, many in the Beltway press continue to play a strange game in which they refuse to describe what they clearly see in front of them. Whether it's the fear of Trump Twitter attacks or the nearly five-decade-long GOP campaign to demonize the "liberal media," newsrooms today nearly uniformly refuse to address the mounting, obvious signs that Trump is a deeply unstable man. Journalists watch Trump hole up in the White House spamming Twitter on some weekends with hundreds of illogical posts and then politely look away.

Dawn R Wolfe

Community

Monday December 23, 2019 · 8:51 AM PST

2019/12/23 · 08:51

Activists protest outside a Nestle water-bottling plant where they demanded that the company halt its water-bottling operations in response to the state's drought in Los Angeles, California on May 20, 2015. A simultaneous rally was held at a plant in Sacramento amid California's fourth year of drought. AFP PHOTO / FREDERIC J. BROWN (Photo credit should read FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images) — Activists protest outside a Nestle water-bottling plant in Los Angeles in 2015, where they demanded that the company halt its water-bottling operations in response to the state's fourth year of drought.

Earlier this month, the 1,000 residents of Osceola Township, Michigan, won a temporary victory over Nestle when the state Court of Appeals ruled that Nestle’s claims to the contrary, bottled water is not an “essential public service.” The ruling came in a case where Nestle was trying to force the township to allow the company to build a booster pump in the middle of a children’s summer camp. But while water advocates are happy about their temporary victory against the company, they are still geared up for a long fight ahead.

Currently, Nestle is allowed to take 250 gallons a minute—more than 1 million gallons per day—of Michigan groundwater for which the company pays all of $200 a year. In April 2018, then-Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration decided despite a huge public outcry that Nestle could take even more water from Michigan residents: 400 gallons per minute, for the same low price. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation and the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians contested that decision this past summer and are still waiting for a decision from an administrative law judge with the state’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

The Court of Appeals decision was about a proposed booster pump that would have allowed Nestle to start taking that 400 gallons per minute from the residents of Osceola County. But despite the election of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, local residents still aren’t seeing much relief. “So far, we’ve been having difficulty getting the meetings that we would like to have with the new administration,” Peggy Case, the president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, told Daily Kos.

During her campaign, Whitmer issued a policy document saying “Being good stewards of the Great Lakes means we have a responsibility to ensure the longevity of our freshwater resources for generations to come, not selling it at a nominal price for sale outside of our borders,” and promising that “we need a way to control the siphoning of water for water bottling and my administration will work to see it done.”

Case said that, for area residents, it’s long past time for the Whitmer administration to exercise that control. Last summer, she said, her organization “did some citizen science,” taking measurements which showed that the water level in two area creeks, Chippewa and Twin creeks, “are way too low to sustain trout populations,” even though groundwater levels throughout the rest of the state are at an all-time high.

Dawn R Wolfe

Community

Tuesday December 17, 2019 · 11:36 AM PST

2019/12/17 · 11:36

CLARKSBURG, WV - AUGUST 21: A man shops at a grocery store in downtown Clarksburg on August 21, 2018 in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Despite a strong economy in many parts of America, West Virginia, a state that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, still struggles with endemic poverty and opioid abuse. West Virginia's poverty rate stands at 17.9 percent and as of 2016 the state had the highest rate of opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States, at 43.4 deaths per 100,000 people. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) — A man shops at a grocery store in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the nonprofit Michigan Advance news service reported in November that nearly 14% of Michigan residents, or 1.3 million people, are struggling with food insecurity. Forget a holiday turkey. These people live in households that are struggling to put any food on the table at all. And a surprising number of them live in what is supposed to be Michigan’s—and America’s—breadbasket: rural communities.

Looking at Michigan alone, the Advance reported that 15% or more of Michigan residents in 19 counties face food insecurity. Wayne County, where Detroit is located, is one of those counties. The other counties, though, are every inch rural areas, including Roscommon (fewer than 24,000 residents in 2018), Gogebic (just over 15,000 residents), and Houghton (36,000).

According to Feeding America, which provided the information for the Michigan Advance report, Michigan’s rural hunger statistics mirror those of the U.S. as a whole. In a Dec. 12 email to Daily Kos, Zuani Villarreal, Feeding America’s director of communications, said that “rural counties represent 79% of the counties with the highest rates of food insecurity.”

A Feeding America fact sheet lays out the numbers: 2.3 million rural households in the United States are going hungry.

Rural residents also face unique challenges that make it harder for them to access food. They are more likely to live in food deserts (more than 10 miles away from a supermarket, big-box store, or other kind of grocery store with healthy food options). They are more likely to be unemployed, and to have a low-wage job when they are employed. According to a July report from the Center for American Progress, in fact, the service industry provides the largest share of jobs in both metro and nonmetro counties. And while the report says that agriculture provides nearly 17% of the jobs in what it calls “highly rural and remote areas,” the 2019 income outlook for agricultural workers is bleak. “The projected farm income for 2019 is in the bottom quartile of all years since 1929,” the report says, thanks to a combination of issues, including corporate concentration and power in the food industry.

Donald Trump’s trade war is also having a huge impact on rural farmers.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Monday December 16, 2019 · 9:57 AM PST

2019/12/16 · 09:57

NEW YORK, NY - OCTOBER 25: New York City Police vehicles sit parked outside the office of the The New York Times, October 25, 2018 in New York City. Security is being ramped up in New York City after explosive devices were sent to top Democratic politicians and to CNN headquarters. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Firmly adopting Republican spin as the best way to view the House impeachment of Donald Trump, The New York Times in recent days appears to have forfeited much of its news coverage to the GOP. Adopting Republican talking points that impeachment is "a political plus" for Trump; "risky" for Democrats; that the White House’s impeachment war room is humming on all cylinders; Democrats are in danger of devaluing impeachment; and that nobody can really tell which party has the facts on their side, the Times is doing the GOP an incalculable favor by refusing to be aggressively honest with readers about the historic events that are unfolding.

Over and over during the past week, Times reporters have defaulted to a clearly Republican perspective, framing the impeachment as a looming political loss for Democrats, who have been largely outmaneuvered by their more savvy counterparts across the isle. This, despite the fact that half of Americans support the extraordinary action of removing a sitting Republican president from office.

The sad truth is that Times impeachment coverage has collapsed into a newsroom marveling at how Democrats haven’t been able to convince the GOP to support the congressional oversight, and therefore it represents a political loss for Democrats. Do you notice the calculation there? By simply opposing Democrats, Republicans are declared the winners.

The case of impeachment is even more incendiary because not only are Republicans stuck in obstruction mode, but they've dived headfirst into the swamp of conspiracy and lies and refuse to engage in a public debate on the facts. Remember, Trump has admitted to pressuring the Ukraine government to launch a bogus investigation into Trump's political rival at home, yet Republicans now routinely parade in front of microphones categorically denying Trump ever made any such public admission. Given that behavior, you'd think the dominant media narrative would be about how radical and detached from reality Republicans have become, and what the deep and lasting implications are for our democracy.

Instead, the press is playing along and suggesting it's Democrats who are faltering.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Wednesday December 11, 2019 · 10:44 AM PST

2019/12/11 · 10:44

LOS ANGELES, CA - FEBRUARY 05: Immigration rights supporters hold up signs reading 'Liar', in English and Spanish, while attending a watch party during President Trump's State of the Union Address on February 5, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. The party was held at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), the largest immigrant rights group in California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images) — Immigration rights supporters hold up signs reading "Liar" and "Mentiroso" in English and Spanish while attending a watch party during the State of the Union address on Feb. 5, 2019, in Los Angeles, California.

A gigantic double standard was on display in The New York Times on Wednesday as the newspaper reported on articles of impeachment brought against Donald Trump. It's a disturbing double standard that revolves around the paper's stubborn refusal to call Trump, who is a congenital liar, a liar.

The Times' front-page headline, as it appeared in print, was "Democrats Put Focus on Ukraine In an Effort to Protect Moderates." The article, which as of this writing is titled, “Trump ‘Ignored and Injured’ the National Interest, Democrats Charge in Impeachment Articles” on the paper’s website, emphasized that "Democrats made a careful political calculation intended to project unity and protect moderate lawmakers who face steep re-election challenges in conservative-leaning districts."

That's kind of strange, right? For only the fourth time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment have been introduced in Congress, and the Times' front-page story was that the party that holds the House of Representatives was playing politics with impeachment by limiting the articles in order to help "moderates" get reelected next year. The article made a no mention of any political calculations being made by Republicans with respect to impeachment—only Democrats.

But here's the thing: There wasn't a single Democratic member of the House quoted on the record to confirm the claim that concern for "moderates" dictated the impeachment strategy. There wasn't one Democratic member of the House quoted off the record. There wasn't a single Democratic staffer quoted on or off the record. There were no sources quoted. The Times somehow just knew that Democrats were essentially pulling their punches for strictly political reasons.

Quick question: Electorally, why would it matter if Democrats announced four articles of impeachment or two? Does the Times really think voters are so keyed in to this impeachment process that 11 months from now, when they go to the voting booth, they're going to say to themselves, “Gee, I like this Democrat, but oh my gosh they voted on four articles of impeachment”? It's illogical.

Also, who are all these Democratic moderates facing steep re-election challenges in conservative-leaning districts that the Times referred to? According to The Cook Political Report newsletter, as of today there's not a single Democratic member of the House who is expected to lose their seat next year.

The larger problem with the mind-reading approach employed for the Times’ impeachment coverage? When it comes to covering Trump, the Times has been adamant that, because journalists cannot read Trump’s mind, they're limited in how they can describe him. Recently asked whether Trump is a racist, Times executive editor Dean Baquet demurred: “I don’t know. I think Donald Trump says racially divisive things. I think that’s a little bit different. I’m not in his head enough to know whether he says them because he wants to stoke his base.”

Fact: Trump is a racist.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Monday December 09, 2019 · 10:04 AM PST

2019/12/09 · 10:04

Sarah Isgur was an active Republican Party member and operative long before being hired by CNN to direct its political coverage. — Sarah Isgur Flores' GOP bonafides were long-established when CNN hired her to be the network's political coverage editor.

Last winter, CNN for weeks stood by its extraordinary and inexplicable decision to hire Sarah Isgur Flores, a career Republican Party operative with absolutely no journalism experience, to be the network’s political editor. A hardcore partisan, Isgur spent her career spinning for Republicans such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Carly Fiorina. Until last year, Isgur worked as a spokesperson for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice. CNN staffers were reportedly demoralized by the Isgur move—and for good reason, since CNN political editors should be journalists, period.

If CNN wants to hire conservatives like Isgur to go on camera and bolster Trump talking points, that's the network's choice. But to hire someone with Isgur's resume to work behind the scenes and oversee campaign coverage remains a baffling decision to this day. "Her Twitter includes fact-free invectives against liberals and repeatedly rails against the ‘abortion industry,’" The Daily Beast noted at the time.

By March, CNN acknowledged the controversy and announced that Isgur "is no longer taking a job as a political editor in the Washington bureau. Instead Isgur will be a political analyst at the network, sharing her insights through television segments like many other commentators do."

But now, more questions are being raised about why CNN ever even considered hiring an openly partisan operative for a key campaign coverage position. The questions come as CNN continues to struggle with trying to balance its desire to employ conservative voices for political balance while also maintaining common-sense standards at the network.

We now know that while working for Trump's DOJ, Isgur played a central role in the GOP's public smearing of a longtime FBI official, Lisa Page, who had been part of a 2016 team investigating Hillary Clinton's emails, as well as examining suspicions that Donald Trump's campaign was working with Russian forces. The GOP, led by Trump, declared war on Page after it was discovered she had been texting about the election with FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom Page was having an affair.

Seizing upon the idea that the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign as part of the nonsensical "Deep State" effort to deny him the White House, Republicans soon turned Page and Strzok into villains, while gleefully leaning into their affair. Just two months ago, "The president called out her name as he acted out an orgasm in front of thousands of people at a Minneapolis rally," The Daily Beast noted.

Dawn R Wolfe

Community

Thursday December 05, 2019 · 10:42 AM PST

2019/12/05 · 10:42

COLUMBIA, SC - FEBRUARY 23: Husband and wife, Johnny, 67, and Kathy, 65, Gardner, who support Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as a presidential candidate, pose for a photograph after protesting against abortion in the capitol, February 23, 2016 in Columbia, South Carolina. Johnny Gardner, a pastor, said, "The biggest issue in our country is not abortion or same sex marriage, but that we turned our backs on God. We need not just a God fearing candidate, but someone who has a holy reverence for God. "Proverbs 14:34 states that "Righteousness exalts the nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." The South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary is February 27. Last Saturday, the South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary shattered records with 137,092 more votes cast than in any previous primary. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images) — The nationwide Project Blitz effort aims to appeal to voters like these.

In 2018, the news spread from The New York Times and The Guardian to local media outlets around the country: Project Blitz, a project of the national Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, was aiming to enshrine a very particular vision of Christianity in state laws throughout the United States. That vision of Christianity-by-law was outlined in a 148-page playbook, complete with model legislation on everything from displaying “In God We Trust” in public buildings to allowing religion-based discrimination and “Establishing Public Policy Favoring Reliance on and Maintenance of Birth Gender.”

But while the resulting public outcry and work by organizations including Political Research Associates, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Blitz Watch coalition have put a speed bump in front of Christian Dominionists’ efforts, Project Blitz is still going strong. According to a tape of an October conference call among Project Blitz organizers that was forwarded to Political Research Associates, the organization has simply gone underground.

In fact, according to an article about the call by Political Research Associates senior research analyst Frederick Clarkson, “their state legislative network now comprises some 950 legislators, organized into Prayer Caucuses in 38 states,” with plans to organize 42 state “prayer caucuses” by the end of this year. The group is also becoming more organized: According to Clarkson’s report on the call, 32 of the caucuses have state directors.

They are also bringing an alarming number of Democrats with them. “I think that what people need to understand is that the Christian right is here to stay, and there's nothing that's going to ultimately defeat them or discredit them. I think Project Blitz is an excellent example of that,” Clarkson told Daily Kos. Clarkson, who has covered the intersection of religion and politics for more than 30 years, originally broke the Project Blitz story in 2018. A national expert on the issue of American church/state politics, he has also written about the organization as a Daily Kos community member .

Project Blitz—which as of the October call was calling itself “Freedom For All”—has outlined a three-tier strategy for introducing Christian Dominionism into state laws. The first tier aims to introduce “easy win” legislation, like displaying “In God We Trust” in public buildings.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Monday December 02, 2019 · 9:38 AM PST

2019/12/02 · 09:38

Anti-Trump protesters hold a sign reading "impeach" as they gather outside the Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, ahead of a "Keep America Great" rally by the US president on October 10, 2019. (Photo by Kerem Yucel / AFP) (Photo by KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images) — Anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, ahead of a Trump rally on Oct. 10, 2019.

With the House Judiciary Committee poised to take up the impeachment baton and hold a new round of public hearings this month, the Beltway press continues to absorb and echo Republican talking points that claim the inquiry isn't resonating with Americans. Because impeachments aren’t legal proceedings, the messaging wars that surround them take on added importance. And right now, by treating as no big deal the fact that basically half the country supports removing the president of the United States from office, the media is greatly helping Republicans spread their preferred impeachment message: The inquiry isn't resonating.

"It’s a disappointing—if not unexpected—response for Democrats, who had hoped to use the hearings to sway public opinion," the Associated Press recently reported, suggesting impeachment has been a political failure for Democrats because the hearings in recent weeks have not produced a tidal wave of public support. "Without that backing, it’s virtually impossible to imagine Republican senators voting to convict Trump."

First of all, public support for impeachment could be 90% and it's unlikely that loyalist Republican senators would vote to convict Donald Trump, so that whole premise is skewed. But also, the press' preferred narrative about support for impeachment being stagnant just isn't accurate.

Since Democrats announced their intention to hold impeachment hearings, public support for the inquiry has jumped 16 points, according to the tabulation at FiveThirtyEight, with public support for Trump's removal from office increasing by 7 points. That's solid confirmation that Americans are engaged on the issue and support the historic Democratic push to hold Trump accountable. It's especially impressive during these polarizing times, when partisans remain so entrenched on most issues.

But much of the press coverage treats this development with a shoulder shrug, stressing that since the start of the impeachment hearings, the polls haven't budged. But that premise is built on the fantasy that there was ever going to be a floodgate—or an a-ha!—moment where the masses raised up against Trump. That, of course, is not mathematically possible because the vast majority of today's Republican Party, including elected officials, has essentially adopted the radical position that Trump can do no wrong: that there are no crimes or misdemeanors that Trump should be held accountable for. Indeed, 68% of Republicans say there's nothing that could emerge from the hearings that would change their mind about impeachment.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Wednesday November 27, 2019 · 6:38 AM PST

2019/11/27 · 06:38

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - AUGUST 21: Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks at Shrine Auditorium during a town hall on August 21, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. California will join the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3, 2020. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

It turns out the media's obsession with the superrich isn't confined to the world of celebrity and entertainment. In politics, the press also seems utterly fascinated with how the 0.1% live, and especially what their political leanings are. For the 2020 campaign, that means a barrage of coverage about what Wall Street bankers and billionaires think about Elizabeth Warren and her populist agenda. They don't trust her! Some like her! Some won't donate! On and on it goes, as the press scurries to document the opinions of the superwealthy, but there's no explanation for why they're supposed to matter so much.

"From corporate boardrooms to breakfast meetings, investor conferences to charity galas, Ms. Warren’s rise in the Democratic primary polls is rattling bankers, investors and their affluent clients, who see in the Massachusetts senator a formidable opponent who could damage not only their industry but their way of life," read a typical passage from The New York Times recently, as the press continues to be deeply fascinated with what the financial community thinks of the Democratic nominee, and keeps treating financial opinions as important political news.

The headlines keep coming:

"As Warren Gains in Race, Wall Street Sounds the Alarm"

"Wall Street donors are so worried about Elizabeth Warren that they are snubbing Democrats in 2020 Senate races"

"In a Pick-Your-Poison Election, Wall Street Likes Warren Over Trump"

"Warren has a plan for Wall Street — and Wall Street isn’t panicking"

"Elizabeth Warren is winning grudging respect among some on Wall Street"

"Warren Would Take Billionaires Down a Few Billion Pegs"

"The Wall Streeters who actually like Elizabeth Warren"

The never-ending emphasis sends a clear message that the votes and donations of Wall Street bankers and billionaires matter more than other people’s. But they don't. It's reminiscent of the media's 2016 campaign obsession with coal miners, followed close by its obsession with those who have manufacturing jobs, which sent the obvious signal that white working-class male voters were the ones who counted the most.

It's clear that Warren's agenda, and her rise in the polls, have gotten the attention of Wall Street.

Eric Boehlert

Community

Monday November 25, 2019 · 8:15 AM PST

2019/11/25 · 08:15

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 22: U.S. President Donald Trump talks to reporters before departing the White House March 22, 2019 in Washington, DC. Trump is traveling to his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

There's been a complete transformation in how the campaign press covers elections in the last decade, and it's a defining change that's benefiting Republicans, and specifically Donald Trump. The change is in the way the press has dramatically curtailed its coverage of policy and of what candidate agendas look like.

Coverage of policy proposals used to be a hallmark of presidential campaign reporting, with journalists outlining what candidates stood for, describing what their presidencies might look like, and comparing and contrasting their platforms with those of their opponents. What would the new president’s top priorities be on the first day of his or her new administration? Policy now takes a backseat to scandals and viral moments from the trail.

"This tendency, in turn, allows important issues such as health care, climate change and reproductive rights to fall off the agenda every time a Trump-driven media cycle emerges from some new outrage or a flavor-of-the-day controversy pops up," according to new research from Northeastern University's School of Journalism. Students in the school's Storybench program recently analyzed 10,000 news articles on the 2020 Democratic candidates published between March and October of this year by a diverse range of 28 news outlets. The study indicates that coverage of the candidates’ positions on immigration and health care flared up during the televised debates, but then quickly subsided once that moment passed. In other words, substantive issues basically disappear when yet another Trump controversy erupts.

"For several generations now, most media coverage of presidential politics has consisted of pack journalism focused on polls and the controversies of the day," the researchers write. "Given the press’ disastrous performance in the 2016 campaign, one might have hoped that it would be different this time around. So far, though, it’s been business as usual, which our analysis helps confirm."

Indeed, we've seen this disappointing act before.

Dawn R Wolfe

Community

Monday November 25, 2019 · 8:05 AM PST

2019/11/25 · 08:05

MIAMI, FL - NOVEMBER 10: Renzo Salazar maintains the yard around a foreclosed home after the bank hired him to keep the home from falling into complete dilapidation on November 10, 2011 in Miami, Florida. RealtyTrac reported that foreclosures were up 7 percent in October from the prior month as defaults in California, Florida and Michigan hit 12-month highs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Imagine losing your property, and more than $20,000 in equity, over less than $10. That’s what happened to Uri Rafaeli of Southfield, Michigan, in Oakland County.

When Oakland County seized Rafeili’s house because of $8.41 in accidentally underpaid taxes, the county didn’t just recoup the lost tax money and any added fines and fees. Instead, the county kept the entire $24,500 it earned from the sale of his property. When the same county took Andre Ohanessian’s home over a $6,000 past-due bill, the county likewise made a profit of $82,000.

Earlier this month, an attorney for Rafaeli and Ohanessian told Michigan’s Supreme Court that the men should get their equity back. “It's kind of like, how would you like to pay that $8.41. Would you like to pay by Visa, MasterCard, cash, or your house?” said Christina Martin, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation who represents the plaintiffs in Rafaeli LLC v. Oakland County.

“I think we all recognize that if a private party did that, that would be illegal,” she added. The Pacific Legal Foundation was created in 1973 “as the first public interest law firm dedicated to the principles of individual rights and limited government,” according to the organization’s website.

Rafaeli and Ohanessian aren’t alone. According to a Nov. 6 report by the nonprofit Bridge news service about the case, Michigan counties have foreclosed on more than 177,000 properties in the state since 2012. And while there aren’t any records of how many times counties have reaped equity windfalls via past-due tax sales when foreclosing on Michiganders’ homes, the fact remains that Michigan law allows the counties to do just that.

Michigan is also not alone in allowing counties to make a windfall when foreclosing on properties with past-due taxes. According to Pacific Legal, Michigan is one of 13 U.S. states that practice what the foundation calls “home equity theft.” Some of those states add insult to injury by selling foreclosed properties to private investors, sometimes for a fraction of the taxes owed. Those investors, in turn, make a killing without having to share a penny of any of their profits with the original property owner.

Dawn R Wolfe

Community

Friday November 22, 2019 · 11:31 AM PST

2019/11/22 · 11:31

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - MAY 08: A view of general atmosphere at the Doordash booth at 'Night Market' presented by The Los Angeles Times on May 08, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Tibrina Hobson/Getty Images for Los Angeles Times Food Bowl)

In July, New York Times reporter Andy Newman reported on his springtime experiment in attempting to earn something close to a living wage by juggling food deliveries for several online companies while dodging New York City traffic on his bicycle. Newman’s report shined a light on many alarming aspects of the delivery gig economy, including serious on-the-job injuries and traffic-related deaths, but one detail has caused an uproar that continues today in multiple lawsuits and proposed legislation: Newman’s disclosure that one of the apps he worked for, DoorDash, used part or even all of customers’ tips to subsidize the company’s base payments to workers.

As the controversy over DoorDash’s policy of diverting customers’ tips began to make its way across the internet, news broke that other companies, including Instacart and Amazon, were engaging in similar practices.

Perhaps unsurprisingly during this, the era of late-stage capitalism, the majority of the outcry hasn’t been focused on the way that the companies were stealing from their contract workers. Instead, the lawsuits and legislation alike have been aimed at protecting consumers. In other words, those customers that do tip expect their money to go to the delivery person, not to subsidize the million- or billion-dollar businesses that hire them.

DoorDash customers on both coasts, in New York and California, have filed suit, claiming that DoorDash’s tip diversion policy is a deceptive business practice. Earlier this week, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine also filed suit, saying in the complaint that “customers using the app had the reasonable expectation that the tips they left would go directly to their delivery drivers.” Racine’s suit seeks to force DoorDash to surrender the tips the company kept and to pay penalties for violating the District’s consumer protection laws.

Proposed legislation in both Michigan and New York City also takes the consumer-protection route. In each case, the bills would require online delivery companies to tell customers at the point of sale whether their delivery driver will actually receive the customers’ tips.

Newer
Older

RSS

2019, the year the press tried—and failed—to stand up to Trump

Water, water everywhere, but only for a profit: Activists across U.S. struggle against Nestle

Poor, urban residents aren’t alone in facing hunger. Rural Americans are going hungry, too

The New York Times' impeachment coverage devolves into Republican talking points

The New York Times can apparently read Democrats' minds, but not Trump's mind to know if he's lying

CNN has yet another GOP problem

One nation under their God: Project Blitz is still in business, including in Michigan

Half of America wants Trump removed from office. Why does the press keep shrugging that off?

Why is the press so obsessed with what Wall Street and billionaires think of Elizabeth Warren?

Here we go again: Campaign press ignoring Democratic policy

Michiganders fight ‘home equity theft’ before state Supreme Court

Delivery apps’ tip-stealing tactics prompt bills, lawsuits