Statement Of Election To Be A Reporting Entity Colorado: Fill & Download for Free

I find Meadow’s statement “voting fraud” to be confusing. Voter fraud refers to bad behavior on the part of the voters by voting more than once, for example.Election fraud refers to most other forms of problems with voting, which is NOT a problem originating with voters behaving badly. I’m not quite clear what “voting fraud” is — is it meant to be both types?Tapper was referring to voter fraud — for which there have been many studies, over 100s of millions of ballots submitted, to show that the rate of voter fraud. whether in person or by mail is exceedingly low. Rates for voter fraud (not voting fraud, not election fraud) found by studies like that done by NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice show it is “vanishingly rare” for in-person voter fraud and very similar numbers for mail voter fraud.I’ve heard some say that just because what has been found is low, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been happening. So, let’s do a little thought experiment about that. Let’s suggest that the vast majority of voter fraud is successful — that 90% of people doing it get away with it (no, I don’t think that’s true, but humor me on this).So, if the rates found in places like Colorado are something like 500 problem ballots out of 100 million ballots, cast, then that 500 would be 10% of the actual number of cases of voter fraud. So, a little math:[math]500/100,000,000 = 0.0005% [/math][math][/math][math][/math]If that 500 problem ballots was only ten percent of all the voter fraud, the hypothetical real problem ballots count would be 5,000, so the math would be:[math]5000/100,000,000 = 0.005%[/math]Most folks I think would agree. Including the conservative Heritage Foundation who has assembled a database of voter fraud cases. They’ve found something like 2500 over more than twenty years nationwide, including cases for local-only elections. And that would be over a period in which tens of billions of ballots have been cast.So, Tapper is right regarding VOTER FRAUD — it is very rare, even if we make very strong assumptions about the low frequency of it being found.Now, election fraud is quite a bit more diverse, and the voters should be considered the victims here, not the perpetrators. This would be cases where other people destroyed or lost otherwise valid ballots, or they manipulated the election process in some way to allow votes that were not cast to be counted or votes that were cast to be changed or erased.The funny thing is that mail-in voting (whether by universal mail-out or absentee ballots are harder to hack in volumes significant enough to change an election because they travel and arrive across time and space. Compared to manipulating the voting machines where you can impact all the votes recorded for that day on that machine at that polling place, mail-back ballots are harder to impact in large quantities. I’m not saying that mail-in ballots don’t get lost or that folks can’t steal them, but the payoff per unit of effort is likely lower.Voter disenfranchisement is by far the most common form of “election fraud” perpetrated on voters. This is where it pays to find an insider or hacker to get access to the voter registration databases (like we know the Russians did at several states, but we don’t know if they changed anything) and fiddle with the records. This could manifest itself as not being able to match up the voter identity to the voter registration, as simply as swapping a middle initial.Especially egregious rules for causing people to not have their voter registration accepted falls into the same category, and was a specialty of Kemp (now Governor of Georgia). After he got in trouble for doing it, he went to the legislature and they wrote a special law for him.Other kinds of voter disenfranchisement could be seen being committed by the North Carolina legislators, who left a paper trail of request for the voting habits and patterns of black voters, which they used to craft new election legislation. This was ruled unacceptable by the courts.Strict voter IDs are another form of disenfranchisement. The reasoning for needing voter IDs is based on those absurdly low frequencies for which we did our thought experiment above. Strict voter IDs tended to impact the working poor, elderly, handicapped, homeless or displaced (e.g., from a fire or hurricane) and others who have not been classic Republican voters.In Alabama, after putting a new strict voter ID law in place, they closed DMV offices in 33 (mostly black) counties. Even the US DOT found that pattern to be discriminatory. They could force them to reopen the offices, but in many cases, the schedules were so limiting (e.g., one afternoon a week) as to be not a significant improvement. It is targeted at suppressing some voters’ rights.The Brennan Center estimates somewhere around 11% of US adults don’t have an ID that would meet those strict standards. Many of those people have been voting for years and are known at their polling location, and suddenly, whoops, they have to jump through hoops. Take time off work, arrange to get a ride, and track down paperwork that they may never have owned in their life and for which they have no other need except for voting.If you read the reports on problems with voting, much of the problems arise from the challenges of having a workforce that doesn’t work often, while being faced with near constant changes in some sort of procedure or practice. For example, widespread reporting on non-citizens being given voting rights when they got their drivers’ license turns out to be most often traceable to software or procedural problems, errors by clerical staff, or misunderstanding by the voters.So what we see happening is the generation of TONS of Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt (FUD) that is designed to confuse and dishearten voters and discourage them from participating in elections.And, when someone figures out what “voting fraud” is about, let’s have a look at what the data shows — what’s the evidence that there is a lot of it, or that it is being hidden, or that it is a widespread pattern by bad actors in one of the parties.Finally, most of the folks asking questions about voting actually have never studied it, never worked in a polling station, never been an observer, or even followed election information closely enough to understand what happens in a recount, etc. In the US, the feds don’t run elections, the states do, and often they assign execution of voting processes to lower level entities like counties.Also, few people actually seem to appreciate that MOST elections are local. Federal offices are at most only every two years (House). And, ballots are widely variable. In the recent primary election in GA, my ballot had 36 sections on it, one of which had 9 different candidates. Only three of them were federal offices (president, house, senate). Likely there were more than a dozen different versions of ballots used in my county alone to factor in things like school districts, county board districts, etc.If you would like to have some insight into how signatures are checked (the main protection against voter fraud), here’s a first-hand account by an Quoran at a recent election: Joseph McFaul's answer to How can Democrats justify absentee ballots with invalid signatures being counted? Doesn’t a non-matching signature indicate the ballot is fraudulent?In short, don’t be confused by FUD. While our election processes are highly distributed and appear very messy, we have a very good record of elections that are certified on the first try and relatively infrequently overturned. Keep in mind that elections may be used by nearly 10,000 entities in this country to capture votes at over 100,000 polling locations, with fifty-one sets of rules. It is darn hard to figure out how to directly affect election handling with that kind of variability. It is far easier to try to keep people from voting in the first place, or to gerrymander you way to unbalanced representation.Go vote by the means that makes you feel the safest (personal security and ballot security). The story is too complicated to be a soundbite or a tweet.

The US is a very hypocritical country, most probably the most hypocritical country of all. Other answers have stated that a country can’t be hypocritical and that is simply a cop out, a slippery statement of semantics attempting to distance the people of the US from it’s obvious immorality, that which so often presents itself in the form of hypocrisy.“The US is the greatest nation on earth!”. “US exceptionalism!”. “The good old red, white and blue!”. “We’re a God fearing nation!”. “The home of freedom!”. “USA, USA, USA!”. It’s quite sickening this patriotic fervour that grips the US, the pathetic nationalistic pride that presents itself as a flag on God knows how many buildings, bumper stickers and articles of clothing. The screams of nationalistic ranting have deafened so many US citizens to the unwanted truth, that they exist within a nation of risible ignorance and unbridled hypocrisy. Some will cry - ‘Whoa there boy, you’re being extreme!’. But am I? Am I really?How can a nation of exceptionalism have such scant knowledge of its own citizens sordid actions, it’s corporations thievery and governments evil policies? It can’t. It’s kidding itself, it’s too often geographically and politically dyslexic. It sits idly on it’s supposed grand Christian ideals, it’s an ideologue too impressed with itself to be able to distinguish its near utter self denial from the face smacking facts. It is a gross parody of its grandiose self image. Is it totally this? No, clearly not. The US has many, many, fantastic attributes but they are often besmirched by its remarkable hypocrisy. ‘Other countries just put us down because they’re jealous of our freedoms!’, cry those Americans who know fuck all about those countries and why they have a level of disdain for the US. Knee jerk bullshit with little to no substance. Ignorance of the facts. Ignorance that so often goes hand in hand with hypocrisy.Americans have a tendency to see their governments as seperate entities from the citizenry, as if they have nothing to do with elected governments and the bureaucracy. This way they can distance themselves from bad government policy while embracing the good. This also allows them to feel comfortable with their ignorance of devastatingly abhorrent government actions. They can trumpet the historic achievements of the US while either being ignorant of, or being deaf to its distasteful shenanigans. They can rest easily with their hypocrisy, as if it doesn’t exist. Many Americans do not do this, they get the word out in an attempt to wake America up, to air the dirty laundry of the US. These people, the likes of Noam Chomsky, gain little air time though and are more often than not labeled as traitors and/or dirty socialists.I don’t hate the US, though you would be excused for deeming me so, I have great admiration for the US in many ways. The answering of this question isn’t the place for me to list my admiration though, it’s for me to discuss the hypocrisy of the US, a hypocrisy that causes both the world and the US much damage. It’s incredibly sad as an Australian who grew up loving the US for what it offered me to have discovered over the years how much the US had robbed me of, and that’s a pittance of what was stolen from other nations. If I seem overly hostile toward the US it’s because I’m angry, I’m enraged by the US preaching to the world while enriching itself with what it so often condemns, I’m pissed off at such sickening levels of hypocrisy.Having waxed lyrical about the hypocrisy of the US I’ll now list the most critical examples of this nations ‘exceptional’ ability to talk the talk while walking a crooked line.Christianity - The US loves this form of religion, it snakes it’s way into almost every segment of US society and is integral to the successful careers of the vast majority of US politicians. Christianity is weaponised and those who turn from its power are often cast out as lepers. These ‘good’ and ‘forgiving’ Christians are far too often mind numbing hypocrites with not an ounce of their ‘saviours’ supposed good will. From crazed pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics to Bush Jr using God to legitimise the bombing of innocent Iraqis in the illegal Iraq War, there are a multitude of both everyday and extreme examples of Christian hypocrisy thriving in the US.Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) - The US is the prime mover of all nations when it comes to ACC. From the inception of the modern fossil fuel industry, which long benefited the world, to the blatant lies used by the fossil fuel industry to discredit the science of ACC, to the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the US being the number one consumer of fossil fuels per capita, the US has been a major hypocrite on this existential issue.Education, health, gun law, the war on drugs, the prison system etc. - The US simply lies about these elements of its society while condemning other countries for their records. This varies on each issue and there is much debate within America on all of them. Therefore I am in no way painting all with the one brush. As the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world the US should be able to proselytise on these issues but it’s record clearly illustrates that it can’t. It ranks 27th in the world for education and healthcare, number one for gun deaths of first world nations and number one for its prison population. Not only do illicit drugs rip it apart but now the corporations are getting in there too and killing plenty. Societal harms are very much exceptional in the US, when comparing apples with apples.Foreign Affairs - This is the most troublesome of US hypocrisy. The theft of Hawaii via a group of US businessmen’s coup. Parts or all of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and California stolen from Mexico. The democratic leader of Iran deposed by a US coup led by Kermit Roosevelt, the nephew of President Roosevelt and that being the blueprint for future CIA operations such as the coup against Brazilian President João Goulart and the assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Republic of Congo. The support of tyrants for US greed, tyrants who slaughtered and tortured God knows how many people. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Chile’s Pinochet, Brazil’s General Castelo Branco, Romania’s Nicolae Ceausescu, Southern Korea’s Syngman Rhee, Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov. And I could list many more heinous cases of US intervention. The astounding hypocrisy of US politicians who preach against tyrants while supporting them to line the US pocket regardless of the untold suffering they cause/d is unparalleled.Edit (27/11/19) The pardoning of the turkeys - I was just watching the morning news and the annual thanksgiving turkey pardoning which was formerly initiated by G.Bush senior back in 1989 was being reported. I had to add this ‘lighthearted‘ event that isn’t particularly critical, unless you’re one of the tens of millions of turkeys who have been fattened up each year to be devoured by a nation showing thanks for all things relating to US exceptionalism, NFL, beer, parades, perhaps even for the spoils of the harvest season. This years turkey couple who have been shown the heartwarming empathy of Trump are among those pardoned poultry lives Presidents use to boost the popularity of the resident of the White House. This years couple are hilariously named “Bread and Butter”. How very cute and clever! I mean the other 46 million or so turkeys might have their corpse juices mopped up with bread and butter so how apt are those monikers!? Such happy and festive hypocrisy for the citizens of the US to rejoice in.After the annual turkey consuming/gorging is the day the country rejoices in that thoroughly capitalist tradition of Black Friday where consuming becomes a dangerous sport that has literally involved the death of shoppers who have been whipped into a frenzy of trickle down consumerism. The sales are on, the people are thankful and no bastard is going to beat them to a bargain lest they get stomped to death in the crazed race for that must have toaster. This two day mingling of irony and hypocrisy is lipsmackingly magnificent, mwaaahh!I could go on but I think you get my gist. A country is made up of its geography, flora and fauna, resources etc, and its people. If the US citizenry and politicians can say, with excessive pride, that the USA is exceptional, as a general statement, then I can say that the USA is hypocritical, as a general statement. And it is, exceptionally.

Representative Castro explained his intentions as follows[1][1][1][1] :My post was actually a lament. If you look at my language, I said that it’s sad that these folks, many of whom are prominent business owners in San Antonio, a city that’s about 65 percent Hispanic — their customers, the people that have made them wealthy, their employees, the people that have worked for them for years, many of those folks are Hispanic. And they’re giving their money to a guy who’s running ads talking about Hispanics invading this country[2][2][2][2] .If we were talking about any private citizen calling for a boycott of any group of businesses, well, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it. Calls for boycotts or “people being aware” of corporations’ chosen political stances is far from new. It’s not even new to go after chief executives of powerful companies individually[3][3][3][3] .The problem here, though, is that it was a sitting Congressman listing otherwise obscure private citizens, either in or proximate to his own district.Moreover, despite his saying that “many of [them] are prominent business owners,” a look at the list reveals a lot of people who’re listed as “Retired” or “Self-Employed,” or who are running their own businesses that may or may not be at all well-known in the San Antonio area.To say the least: probably wasn’t the best way to get across his lament for their support of the President - even if he has done much to marginalize his minority-majority community[4][4][4][4] .The Right has, naturally, responded to Castro’s punching-down with all the outrage that they have been loathe to level at President Trump[5][5][5][5] since he became their leader[6][6][6][6] , though he is no stranger to calling out individuals[7][7][7][7] in far worse contexts and who avoids apologies like vampires do sunlight[8][8][8][8] .And, frankly, they do have a point.Anybody who takes even a cursory step into First Amendment jurisprudence or journalism ethics quickly comes across New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court libel case which established the thresholds by which a person may be considered a “public figure,” who effectively accepts that part of their job involves some degree of false accusations about their conduct, versus everybody else.[W]e consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. . . . That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the "breathing space" that they "need . . . to survive."[9][9][9][9]In subsequent litigation, the Supreme Court created an opening for a narrow class of limited-purpose or “involuntary” public figure:In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy, and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.[10][10][10][10]We don’t need to take a long (long, long, long…) walk through libel law to understand the broad issue at play: At what point may any of us be considered to have “voluntarily inject[ed ourselves] or [be] drawn into a particular public controversy, and thereby become[] a public figure for a limited range of issues?”In the age of social media, we’ve done a pretty bad job of figuring this out; but at this point it’s worth reiterating that Castro’s list wasn’t pulled from or in response to any of those persons’ Twitter or Facebook or other public statements - or even private information - but culled from another public record: the Federal Election Commission.Once you donate $200 or more to any Federally registered campaign or political organization - arguably a voluntary act - your information must be collected and reported by that entity[11][11][11][11] , and becomes available for anyone to find.And the whole point of this exercise is to promote transparency. It’s a framework that exists deliberately to allow people to know the financial sources of political campaigns[12][12][12][12] (which may explain why politicians protect certain loopholes[13][13][13][13] , but that’s a different answer).Moreover, it’s an incredibly small percentage of the adult population that donates the maximum individual amount[14][14][14][14] to Federal candidates[15][15][15][15] , in some ways forming a political class of their own.But there are three points to be considered:Although donating to a campaign is a voluntary act, does it follow that that is injection to a public controversy;While the information is publicly available, is there a legitimate purpose to bundling and advertising the names of individual contributors; and,What are the potential repercussions to the individuals of having their information so exposed?The first point is easily answered, “No.” Even though you may choose to publicly identify yourself as a supporter of a particular candidate, that doesn’t come at all close to injecting yourself into a particular controversy or attaining either fame or notoriety.Absent any other actions, campaign donors, even those at the top of the pile, certainly retain status as private citizens.On the second point, the answer is, “Yes.” As already discussed, the core point of the FEC’s public disclosure[16][16][16][16] is to inform the general public. Such lists are routinely compiled and reported[17][17][17][17] [18][18][18][18] [19][19][19][19] [20][20][20][20] or otherwise readily available for public scrutiny[21][21][21][21] .The issue here hinges on intent. What would be the difference between a local newspaper providing a list of the area’s top donors to local candidates during a campaign cycle versus a Representative tweeting the same or an established hate group posting it to their blog?Whereas we could easily identify a neutral, “public interest” intent in the case of the newspaper and nefarious intent in the case of the blog, we are left to scratch our heads for the Representative.We tend not to mind when people punch-up or across, but when people in power are seen punching down, we take strong exception; and the risk to the person taking the swing is that they miss, throw themselves off balance, and land in the mud.Even taking Representative Castro’s point at face value - “Why should an Hispanic-majority community patronize businesses of a person facilitating hatred towards them?[22][22][22][22][23][23][23][23] [24][24][24][24] [25][25][25][25] ” - he made the point on the backs of small-business owners, private citizens and retirees.There’s little equivalence to liberals’ animus towards the Koch Brothers or conservatives’ towards George Soros. The people named in San Antonio are far from titans who can weather the storm of the mob.The best thing Representative Castro could do at this point to lift himself out of the mudpit is to acknowledge the error and apologize.But this brings us to the third point. Even with an apology, in the permanence of social media, any damage that may be done to the individuals has been unleashed. What might that be, and does that require particular protections?Obviously, it should go without saying that anybody who chooses to harass someone over their political affiliations is a fuckwit; and while the current definition of hate crimes doesn’t include political affiliations, certainly anybody who escalates their disdain for another’s politics to commit another, plainly defined crime deserves to go to jail.Now, we can leap to the extreme and hypothesize that all of those individuals might now be in fear of their lives from rogue leftists - even though that would be a fear not in sync with the evidence of domestic terrorism to-date[26][26][26][26] [27][27][27][27] . Even setting that aside, even when considering oversights in data collection and reporting[28][28][28][28] [29][29][29][29] , and even accounting for the rise in incidence under Trump, hate crimes are rare in the United States - at most 3 victims for every 100,000 people according to the latest data[30][30][30][30] .Of course, a hate crime or assault or worse needn’t be committed for any of the named individuals to allege harm done by the Representative. Anybody who’s been regularly harassed knows the stress it can cause[31][31][31][31] ; and, certainly, where there may be a financial impact, the consequences can be worse still[32][32][32][32] .These reasons, of course, are why Representative Castro should have taken some time to reconsider the merits of calling out a group of individual citizens. Even if they may have some legal recourse if they should suffer harm, it’s wrong to have potentially put them in that position in the first place. It takes away further from the point he was trying to make.But as ill-considered as his tweet was, as much as he should accept having been taken to task and apologize, it’s almost impossible to take seriously the level of outrage generated from the supporters of a President who has regularly and expressly employed violent imagery on the one hand while trying to deny it on the other[33][33][33][33][34][34][34][34] , whose legendary vitriol is praised as his “Standing up for what he believes[35][35][35][35] ” by his base.And this gets back to the point that Representative Castro inconsiderately made:President Trump’s rhetoric has had deep and profoundly negative impacts on the Hispanic community, regardless of their immigration status. It existed during his campaign, right on through his attempted smearing of Judge Curiel[36][36][36][36] , open disdain for Puerto Rico, and smearing of “The Squad.”He continues on in defiance of those Republicans who condemn him[37][37][37][37] , keeping up his attacks right until the position becomes utterly untenable[38][38][38][38] , but rarely ever offers an olive branch back to those affected. Their only recourse is years away at the ballot box, while Trump can deepen divisions at his will and pleasure.While it’s fine and fair to say that Representative Castro erred in calling out his constituents specifically, his intent was not in error. The President’s rhetoric has empowered violence, and every day that he draws unwavering support from Republicans, he is only emboldened to persist.If Republicans showed as much outrage for Trump’s poison as they have for Castro’s lament of his constituents, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.Footnotes[1] Rep. Castro wants Trump donors to 'think twice' about contributions[1] Rep. Castro wants Trump donors to 'think twice' about contributions[1] Rep. Castro wants Trump donors to 'think twice' about contributions[1] Rep. Castro wants Trump donors to 'think twice' about contributions[2] Trump has run over 2,000 Facebook ads warning of 'invasion' [2] Trump has run over 2,000 Facebook ads warning of 'invasion' [2] Trump has run over 2,000 Facebook ads warning of 'invasion' [2] Trump has run over 2,000 Facebook ads warning of 'invasion' [3] How America’s top CEOs are spending their own money on the midterm elections[3] How America’s top CEOs are spending their own money on the midterm elections[3] How America’s top CEOs are spending their own money on the midterm elections[3] How America’s top CEOs are spending their own money on the midterm elections[4] Trump turns shooting migrants into a punchline at Florida rally[4] Trump turns shooting migrants into a punchline at Florida rally[4] Trump turns shooting migrants into a punchline at Florida rally[4] Trump turns shooting migrants into a punchline at Florida rally[5] Republicans Have Become the Except-When-Trump-Does-It Party[5] Republicans Have Become the Except-When-Trump-Does-It Party[5] Republicans Have Become the Except-When-Trump-Does-It Party[5] Republicans Have Become the Except-When-Trump-Does-It Party[6] Ari Fleischer on Why Former Republican Critics of Trump Now Embrace Him[6] Ari Fleischer on Why Former Republican Critics of Trump Now Embrace Him[6] Ari Fleischer on Why Former Republican Critics of Trump Now Embrace Him[6] Ari Fleischer on Why Former Republican Critics of Trump Now Embrace Him[7] The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List[7] The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List[7] The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List[7] The 598 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List[8] Why Trump's White House never says sorry[8] Why Trump's White House never says sorry[8] Why Trump's White House never says sorry[8] Why Trump's White House never says sorry[9] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)[9] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)[9] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)[9] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)[10] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)[10] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)[10] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)[10] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)[11] Recording receipts - FEC.gov[11] Recording receipts - FEC.gov[11] Recording receipts - FEC.gov[11] Recording receipts - FEC.gov[12] Sale or use of contributor information - FEC.gov[12] Sale or use of contributor information - FEC.gov[12] Sale or use of contributor information - FEC.gov[12] Sale or use of contributor information - FEC.gov[13] 'Oh that's cool — do that!': Super PACs use new trick to hide donors[13] 'Oh that's cool — do that!': Super PACs use new trick to hide donors[13] 'Oh that's cool — do that!': Super PACs use new trick to hide donors[13] 'Oh that's cool — do that!': Super PACs use new trick to hide donors[14] Contribution limits for 2019-2020 - FEC.gov[14] Contribution limits for 2019-2020 - FEC.gov[14] Contribution limits for 2019-2020 - FEC.gov[14] Contribution limits for 2019-2020 - FEC.gov[15] Donor Demographics[15] Donor Demographics[15] Donor Demographics[15] Donor Demographics[16] Browse Individual contributions - FEC.gov[16] Browse Individual contributions - FEC.gov[16] Browse Individual contributions - FEC.gov[16] Browse Individual contributions - FEC.gov[17] Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions[17] Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions[17] Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions[17] Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions[18] Top 2018 midterm election donors to Philly-area candidates: Who’s giving, who’s getting what in Pa., N.J.?[18] Top 2018 midterm election donors to Philly-area candidates: Who’s giving, who’s getting what in Pa., N.J.?[18] Top 2018 midterm election donors to Philly-area candidates: Who’s giving, who’s getting what in Pa., N.J.?[18] Top 2018 midterm election donors to Philly-area candidates: Who’s giving, who’s getting what in Pa., N.J.?[19] Polis, Bloomberg, Coors and more: The top donors to Colorado campaigns[19] Polis, Bloomberg, Coors and more: The top donors to Colorado campaigns[19] Polis, Bloomberg, Coors and more: The top donors to Colorado campaigns[19] Polis, Bloomberg, Coors and more: The top donors to Colorado campaigns[20] The top political donors in America, by state[20] The top political donors in America, by state[20] The top political donors in America, by state[20] The top political donors in America, by state[21] Home - FollowTheMoney.org[21] Home - FollowTheMoney.org[21] Home - FollowTheMoney.org[21] Home - FollowTheMoney.org[22] The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes[22] The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes[22] The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes[22] The Effect of President Trump's Election on Hate Crimes[23] Hate crimes increased 226% in places Trump held a campaign rally in 2016, study claims[23] Hate crimes increased 226% in places Trump held a campaign rally in 2016, study claims[23] Hate crimes increased 226% in places Trump held a campaign rally in 2016, study claims[23] Hate crimes increased 226% in places Trump held a campaign rally in 2016, study claims[24] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-07/trump-words-linked-to-more-hate-crime-some-experts-think-so[24] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-07/trump-words-linked-to-more-hate-crime-some-experts-think-so[24] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-07/trump-words-linked-to-more-hate-crime-some-experts-think-so[24] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-08-07/trump-words-linked-to-more-hate-crime-some-experts-think-so[25] Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying In Areas That Voted For Trump[25] Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying In Areas That Voted For Trump[25] Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying In Areas That Voted For Trump[25] Virginia Study Finds Increased School Bullying In Areas That Voted For Trump[26] The Terrorism That Doesn’t Spark a Panic[26] The Terrorism That Doesn’t Spark a Panic[26] The Terrorism That Doesn’t Spark a Panic[26] The Terrorism That Doesn’t Spark a Panic[27] https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download[27] https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download[27] https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download[27] https://www.adl.org/media/12480/download[28] Finding the Data on Domestic Terrorism[28] Finding the Data on Domestic Terrorism[28] Finding the Data on Domestic Terrorism[28] Finding the Data on Domestic Terrorism[29] Many hate crimes never make it into the FBI's database[29] Many hate crimes never make it into the FBI's database[29] Many hate crimes never make it into the FBI's database[29] Many hate crimes never make it into the FBI's database[30] Table 1[30] Table 1[30] Table 1[30] Table 1[31] Online shaming: The dangerous rise of the internet pitchfork mob   [31] Online shaming: The dangerous rise of the internet pitchfork mob   [31] Online shaming: The dangerous rise of the internet pitchfork mob   [31] Online shaming: The dangerous rise of the internet pitchfork mob   [32] 'Overnight, everything I loved was gone': the internet shaming of Lindsey Stone[32] 'Overnight, everything I loved was gone': the internet shaming of Lindsey Stone[32] 'Overnight, everything I loved was gone': the internet shaming of Lindsey Stone[32] 'Overnight, everything I loved was gone': the internet shaming of Lindsey Stone[33] All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies[33] All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies[33] All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies[33] All the times Trump has called for violence at his rallies[34] A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as encouraging violence[34] A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as encouraging violence[34] A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as encouraging violence[34] A look back at Trump comments perceived by some as encouraging violence[35] Majority Says Trump Has Done ‘Too Little’ to Distance Himself From White Nationalists[35] Majority Says Trump Has Done ‘Too Little’ to Distance Himself From White Nationalists[35] Majority Says Trump Has Done ‘Too Little’ to Distance Himself From White Nationalists[35] Majority Says Trump Has Done ‘Too Little’ to Distance Himself From White Nationalists[36] Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read[36] Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read[36] Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read[36] Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are still jarring to read[37] GOP campaign chairman: There's ‘no place’ for ‘send her back’ chant[37] GOP campaign chairman: There's ‘no place’ for ‘send her back’ chant[37] GOP campaign chairman: There's ‘no place’ for ‘send her back’ chant[37] GOP campaign chairman: There's ‘no place’ for ‘send her back’ chant[38] Trump disavows 'send her back' chant from his rally[38] Trump disavows 'send her back' chant from his rally[38] Trump disavows 'send her back' chant from his rally[38] Trump disavows 'send her back' chant from his rally