Category: Politics

RICHMOND, Virginia — Jay Jones, the Democratic Virginia attorney general hopeful whose violence-themed text messages triggered a nationwide GOP backlash, said during a Thursday debate that his messages should not disqualify him from being elected as the state’s top law enforcement official.

“I’m ashamed, I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry,” Jones said Thursday in what will be the only televised debate with incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, who he characterized as a “willing cheerleader” of President Donald Trump.

Jones, again apologized for his 2022 texts that were first reported by the National Review. In the messages, he opined that former Virginia Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert should get “two bullets to the head” and separately that he would urinate on the graves of some state GOP delegates after they died.

In his first extensive comments about the texts, Jones sought to explain his actions as something that he’s already been held accountable for, including by leaders of his party. Jones also said the stakes were too high for Virginia to focus on his past mistakes, and suggested Miyares was playing politics by focusing on his past statements — but not on language by Republicans.

Miyares condemned Jones’ texts and accused the Democrat of being unfit to serve as Virginia’s top lawyer, adding, “Jay Jones is a criminal first, victim last politician.”

“Jay Jones has not had the experience or the judgment to serve as the top prosecutor,” he continued. “We have seen a window to who Jay Jones is and what he thinks that people disagree with him.”

Miyares also slammed Jones for believing laws don’t apply to him — a reference to a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch report reporting that Jones was caught driving 116 mph in a 70 mph zone and struck a deal to forgo jail time by paying a fine and performing community service. He completed some of those hours while working at his own political action committee, the Times-Dispatch also reported.

Jones told the audience he “completed the terms of the community service as outlined and approved” by county officials at that time.

Republicans across the country, including President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, have condemned Jones over the texts and attacked Democrats for supporting him. Republicans have been especially critical of Jones’ violent rhetoric in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in September while speaking on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

Vance in particularspent several days this week attempting to pivot criticism over bigoted messages in a Young Republicans group chat to Jones and his texting scandal. Writing on X Thursday, Vance stated: “A friend shared these truly disturbing messages from a Young Republican group chat. The group’s leader ‘genuinely’ calls for murdering the children of his political opponents. Oh wait, actually this is from Jay Jones, the Democrat running for Attorney General in Virginia.”

Miyares attacked Jones over the texts throughout the debate, underscoring Republicans’ view that it will be a galvanizing issue for voters in the closing stretch of the campaign. He also criticized Jones over the Democrats’ limited courtroom experience.

Jones countered by returning to Trump, emphasizing that a change was necessary for Virginia to adequately fight back against the president and his policies. He noted that Virginia is on the verge of enshrining a constitutional right to abortion in the state, and should it pass, Virginia needs an attorney general who will protect that right.

Neither candidate, who previously served together in the Virginia legislature, strayed far from their prepared talking points and they avoided talking over each other during the roughly 70-minute debate.

Heading into the debate, Democrats were hopeful they could exploit their party’s anger toward Trumps, his handling of the economy and the ongoing federal government shutdown to win the statewide races for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general — which are currently held by Republicans.

But Jones’ text messaging scandal is putting that in jeopardy.

Miyares, who is seeking a second term, is looking to capitalize on some Democrats’ unease over Jones by releasing an ad released this week encouraging Spanberger voters to split their tickets and “say no to Jay Jones.”

Chris LaCavita, the former co-manager of Trump’s 2024 campaign, posted on X ahead of the debate: “This is what a smart campaign does” in response to the Miyares ad.

Republican strategists in the state said they have been far more impressed by Miyares’ campaign compared to Earle-Sears at the top of the ticket, whose campaign was plagued by tepid fundraising and staffing shake ups. Trump seems to agree as Miyares is the only of the three statewide GOP candidates that’s received his endorsement.

Jones, a former Virginia state lawmaker, is the son of prominent judges in the state, and had been seen as a potential future governor of the state prior to the unearthing of the texts. Democrats view him as the best candidate to push back against the Trump administration, who they argue has done irrevocable damage to the state, in particular with firings of the federal workforce by the Department of Government Efficiency, which disproportionately impact voters in the northern Virginia suburbs outside the nation’s capital.

​Politics

Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani smiled his way through a two-hour debate where Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa tried to land punches on the frontrunner.

Few of those hits had much of an impact against Mamdani, who effectively pressed his affordability platform without making any significant mistakes. Cuomo needed a moment that he didn’t get. Mamdani had a largely pain-free night.

Here are five takeaways from the first of two general election debates:

Mamdani was smooth

The young assemblymember reminded debate viewers why a 33-year-old democratic socialist is on the cusp of becoming mayor of New York City — he’s a great communicator.

With a double-digit lead in every poll, all Mamdani really needed was not to collapse. He succeeded — and avoided any major missteps. Some Republicans seized on his awkward moment declining to endorse Gov. Kathy Hochul’s reelection, even though she took a big political risk by backing his candidacy … but that’s not exactly going to cost Mamdani the race.

At times, he might have been too smooth — he’s practiced lines on topics like affordability and Israel so many times you can almost see him going into autopilot.

Clinical Cuomo struggled

Cuomo needed a breakout moment against Mamdani. He’s stuck in second place in polls, and even with Mayor Eric Adams suspending his campaign, the ex-governor has not been able to surpass the frontrunning Democratic nominee.

The debate underscored the key problem facing Cuomo who’s running as an independent after losing in an upset to Mamdani in June. In his long career, Cuomo has never successfully run a campaign as the underdog. His sole electoral loss came 23 years ago against Carl McCall. Every election since, Cuomo was the clear favorite.

Cuomo spoke from the podium with a dry recitation of facts. Mamdani appeared well prepared for the ex-governor’s attacks, many of which — like the Queens assemblymember’s past criticism of Barack Obama — was recycled from the primary campaign. That criticism didn’t work then, and it isn’t clear why Cuomo would think it could work now in a general election.

Curtis talked up Trump

One of the quirks of this race is the candidate with the deepest experience with President Donald Trump is Cuomo, who has known him for decades. Mamdani has never met the president. Sliwa, the Republican nominee, has the most strained relationship.

Trump has scoffed at his party’s candidate to lead his hometown as not ready for primetime. The president derisively noted that Sliwa lives with a lot of cats in a small apartment.

Yet it was Sliwa who pledged to have a working relationship with the president, who has tried to exert his will over this deep blue city. The Guardian Angels founder said it wouldn’t be productive to work against Trump or try to be a tough guy with the president.

This stance serves multiple purposes. Cuomo is trying to steal Sliwa’s Republican supporters, and Sliwa needs MAGA New Yorkers to stay in the fold. Sliwa also likely knows Cuomo and Mamdani won’t go out on a similar limb since they can’t afford to lose Democratic voters who loathe Trump.

When you’re explaining …

The former governor spent much of the evening explaining. And explaining. And explaining some more.

Cuomo had to parry attacks on his decade-long record as the state’s chief executive when it came to funding for homeless people and mental health programs. He repeatedly pushed back when Mamdani or Sliwa referenced the sexual harassment scandal that drove him from office, once again denying any wrongdoing.

Those digressions cost him precious time to prosecute the case against Mamdani.

Mamdani’s clear weaknesses

The otherwise strong night by Mamdani had the effect of highlighting his weaknesses on public safety and Israel.

He struggled when talking about his plans for making changes to the Civilian Complaint Review Board — almost sounding like a Wikipedia entry when describing the panel’s job of assessing police misconduct. Mamdani was also on his backfoot when being attacked by Cuomo over embracing the phrase “globalize the intifada.”

As strong as Mamdani can be on affordability and cost-of-living concerns that are so important to New Yorkers, he still has vulnerabilities on other issues where Cuomo is strongest.

​Politics

Graham Platner, who is running as an insurgent Democratic candidate for Senate in Maine, once suggested in online posts that violence is a necessary means to achieving social change — comments now drawing scrutiny in an era of increased political violence.

Platner, 41, a former Marine and combat veteran who now raises oysters, made the statements on Reddit in 2018, long before he emerged as a serious candidate to take on Republican Sen. Susan Collins in the midterms.

If people “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history,” he wrote in one since-deleted post. In another, he said that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.”

CNN first reported Thursday on Platner’s participation on the subreddit r/SocialistRA, alongside other Reddit forums where he called himself a “communist” and said that “all” police are bastards. All of the posts have been deleted.

The posts, which were removed three months ago shortly before Platner launched his Senate bid, were obtained by POLITICO and verified using an archive of deleted Reddit comments and by cross-checking other posts by the same user that mentioned biographical details consistent with the candidate’s life.

The posts suggest far deeper ties with socialist groups than were previously known. When he announced in August that he would challenge Collins, Platner said he rejects the label “liberal” but was also running on several progressive tenets – including universal health care and restricted arms sales to Israel. He has hired the Democratic strategist Morris Katz, who also works with Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist running for New York City mayor as a Democrat.

In a statement to POLITICO, Platner did not dispute his authorship of the posts but disavowed their violent rhetoric.

“As I told CNN, I was fucking around on the internet at a time when I felt lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die,” Platner said. “I made dumb jokes and picked fights. But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired shitposter.”

Maine’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, recently joined the crowded race as the establishment favorite for the key midterm election. The revelations may cast a shadow over the meteoric rise of the tattooed oyster farmer in the state.

The existence of the graphic posts comes amid a spiral of actual political violence and violent rhetoric including by Virginia Democratic Attorney General candidate Jay Jones who suggested the former Republican House speaker should get “two bullets to the head.” Jones has since apologized for the texts.

Like the Jones’ exchange, which was from 2022, Platner must now contend with the yearsold posts. They include one from September 2018, when he responded to a Reddit user concerned about what their roommate would say if they purchased their first AR-15. Platner, under the username “P-Hustle,” replied: “Tell them that if they expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history.”

The reddit thread r/SocialistRA, which describes itself as the “Socialist Redditor Rifle Association,” says it is unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association, a left-wing group that advocates for gun rights.

In a July 2018 post on the same subreddit, Platner said that he “agreed” with a 1914 quote from former socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs that workers should arm themselves unless they are “willing to be forced into abject slavery.”

Platner cited Debs, who ran for president from prison, as an example to counter the notion that the 2nd Amendment only gained salience in the 1970s.

“That’s why this poster and the Debs quote that follows above should be shared far and wide. An armed working class is a requirement for economic justice,” Platner said.

There are dozens instances of Platner engaging with posts on the subreddit r/SocialistRA, which is self-described as the “Socialist Redditor Rifle Association.”

In another since-deleted post from Sept. 2018, this time on the r/politics subreddit, Platner, again using the username “P-Hustle,” wrote: “Get Armed, Get Organized. The Other Side Sure As Hell Is,” in response to a story about a Democratic candidate in Colorado whose truck was shot at with her inside.

Platner, an Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran and political newcomer, said in his campaign launch video that he is “not fooled by this fake charade of Collins’ deliberations and moderation.” He has leaned into his status as a novice, earning the attention of younger Democrats and progressives. He also recently won the endorsement of three influential labor unions including the United Auto Workers.

His posts about arming the working class and fighting fascism take on heightened scrutiny in the era of increased hostilities and concerns over political violence.

Jones, has faced widespread backlash over the 2022 text messages that included a vow to “piss on the graves” of Republican opponents in addition to the violent remarks about former Virginia Republican House Speaker Todd Gilbert.

Jones again apologized for the texts, which were first reported by the National Review, during a Thursday debate and said, “I’m ashamed, I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry.”

​Politics

Why do some people endorse claims that can easily be disproved? It’s one thing to believe false information, but another to actively stick with something that’s obviously wrong.

Our new research, published in the Journal of Social Psychology, suggests that some people consider it a “win” to lean in to known falsehoods.

We are social psychologists who study political psychology and how people reason about reality. During the pandemic, we surveyed 5,535 people across eight countries to investigate why people believed COVID-19 misinformation, like false claims that 5G networks cause the virus.

The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.

This factor outweighed how people felt about COVID-19 in general, their thinking style and even their political beliefs.

Our survey measured it on a scale of how much people agreed with sentences including “Following coronavirus prevention guidelines means you have backed down” and “Continuous coronavirus coverage in the media is a sign we are losing.” Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they “win” by endorsing misinformation – doing so can show “the enemy” that it will not gain any ground over people’s views.

When meaning is symbolic, not factual

Rather than consider issues in light of actual facts, we suggest people with this mindset prioritize being independent from outside influence. It means you can justify espousing pretty much anything – the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go.

When people think symbolically this way, the literal issue – here, fighting COVID-19 – is secondary to a psychological war over people’s minds. In the minds of those who think they’re engaged in them, psychological wars are waged over opinions and attitudes, and are won via control of belief and messaging. The U.S. government at various times has used the concept of psychological war to try to limit the influence of foreign powers, pushing people to think that literal battles are less important than psychological independence.

By that same token, vaccination, masking or other COVID-19 prevention efforts could be seen as a symbolic risk that could “weaken” one psychologically even if they provide literal physical benefits. If this seems like an extreme stance, it is – the majority of participants in our studies did not hold this mindset. But those who did were especially likely to also believe in misinformation.

In an additional study we ran that focused on attitudes around cryptocurrency, we measured whether people saw crypto investment in terms of signaling independence from traditional finance. These participants, who, like those in our COVID-19 study, prioritized a symbolic show of strength, were more likely to believe in other kinds of misinformation and conspiracies, too, such as that the government is concealing evidence of alien contact.

In all of our studies, this mindset was also strongly associated with authoritarian attitudes, including beliefs that some groups should dominate others and support for autocratic government. These links help explain why strongman leaders often use misinformation symbolically to impress and control a population.

Why people endorse misinformation

Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.

For example, President Donald Trump incorrectly claimed in August 2025 that crime in Washington D.C. was at an all-time high, generating countless fact-checks of his premise and think pieces about his dissociation from reality.

But we believe that to someone with a symbolic mindset, debunkers merely demonstrate that they’re the ones reacting, and are therefore weak. The correct information is easily available, but is irrelevant to someone who prioritizes a symbolic show of strength. What matters is signaling one isn’t listening and won’t be swayed.

In fact, for symbolic thinkers, nearly any statement should be justifiable. The more outlandish or easily disproved something is, the more powerful one might seem when standing by it. Being an edgelord – a contrarian online provocateur – or outright lying can, in their own odd way, appear “authentic.”

Some people may also view their favorite dissembler’s claims as provocative trolling, but, given the link between this mindset and authoritarianism, they want those far-fetched claims acted on anyway. The deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, for example, can be the desired end goal, even if the offered justification is a transparent farce.

Is this really 5-D chess?

It is possible that symbolic, but not exactly true, beliefs have some downstream benefit, such as serving as negotiation tactics, loyalty tests, or a fake-it-till-you-make-it long game that somehow, eventually, becomes a reality. Political theorist Murray Edelman, known for his work on political symbolism, noted that politicians often prefer scoring symbolic points over delivering results – it’s easier. Leaders can offer symbolism when they have little tangible to provide.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

For decades, federal shutdowns have mostly been budget fights. The 2025 one has become bigger than that: It’s turned into a messaging war.

Official government communications, including website banners, out-of-office email replies and autogenerated responses that denounce “Senate Democrats,” “the Radical Left” or “Democrats’ $1.5 trillion wishlist” for closing the government, mark a sharp break from past practice.

These messages are more than rhetorical escalation. Many may violate the Hatch Act, the 1939 statute that limits partisan political activity by federal employees and agencies. They also represent new tests for how far a White House can push the bounds of campaign-style messaging while also claiming to govern.

In any democracy, power lies not only in who writes the laws or signs the budgets but in who shapes the story. Communication is not an afterthought or byproduct of governance. It is one of its essential instruments. Political narrative helps citizens understand who’s responsible, who’s acting in good faith and who’s to blame.

The 2025 shutdown has turned that truth into strategy. Federal communication systems – agency websites, automated emails and public information portals – are being used to persuade rather than inform. It’s a move that is both politically risky and legally perilous.

Serve the public, not a party

The Hatch Act was passed during the Great Depression, after years of concern that federal agencies were being used improperly as political machines. Its goal was simple: to ensure that public servants worked for the American people, not for the party in power.

At its core, the Hatch Act prohibits executive branch federal employees – except for the president and vice president – from engaging in partisan political activity as part of their official duties or under their official authority. Government workers may not use their positions or public resources to influence elections, coerce individual behavior or engage in political advocacy.

The law requires federal agencies to avoid the partisan fray and focus on serving the public rather than political agendas.

The Office of Special Counsel, which enforces the law, has been clear on this point. “The purpose of the Act,” says an Office of Special Counsel guide written for federal employees, “is to maintain a federal workforce that is free from partisan political influence or coersion.” Government communication can inform, but it cannot campaign.

Yet the shutdown has already produced multiple potential violations:

• The Department of Education, according to a lawsuit, altered employees’ email auto-responses – without consent – to say things like “the Democrats have shut the government down.” Such changes do more than convey impartial information. They compel employees to align themselves with institutionally imposed scripts.

• Likewise, agencies including Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration reportedly distributed or directed staff to adopt partisan out-of-office auto-replies assigning blame to Democrats.

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development posted a banner on its official website stating that the “Radical Left are going to shut down the government.”

Taken individually, each incident might provoke a Hatch Act complaint. Collectively, they amount to a systematic campaign to transform nonpartisan federal agencies into partisan political messengers.

Why this is unprecedented

What sets the 2025 messaging apart isn’t just its volume – it’s the scale, the coordination and the brazenness of its political targeting.

In past shutdowns, partisan spin lived mostly in press conferences and campaign talking points. Agencies themselves, even under pressure, stayed neutral.

This time, the administration is using the machinery of government to deliver partisan blame.

The timing and similarity of messages across departments seems coordinated. Housing and Urban Development posted a banner blaming Democrats the day before the shutdown began. Within hours, other agencies followed using nearly identical language.

More troubling are the reported changes to federal employees’ auto-replies without their consent.

These missives forced career civil servants, many of them furloughed, to become unwilling messengers for partisan ends. Federal agencies and their workers are supposed to serve everyone, not only those who support the party in power.

And because the watchdogs who could enforce the legal boundary are also sidelined – the Office of Special Counsel is furloughed – complaints have nowhere to go, at least for now. They simply land in unattended email inboxes.

Legal challenges and limits

Whether shutdown communications truly violate the Hatch Act – or related laws – is not yet clear. The administration could argue that it’s not campaigning but merely explaining why services are suspended. As a scholar of political communication and American democracy, I believe that defense weakens when official messages explicitly assign partisan blame or name a political party.

And not every political statement is a Hatch Act violation. The law allows employees to express views off duty or in private contexts, so long as they use their own phones and computers.

Even if the Office of Special Counsel later finds violations, harm will likely persist. Once messages are posted or auto-replies sent, their effects can’t always be undone. And because ethics officials are furloughed, too, accountability will be delayed, if it comes at all.

Some employees are likely to claim their speech rights were violated by being forced to send partisan messages. This is an argument already at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees against the Education Department.

Why this matters

Federal agencies exist to administer laws impartially and to do so on behalf of the people.

When the government uses its own infrastructure for partisan messaging, the very neutrality on which democratic governance depends erodes. It dilutes public trust in the idea of a neutral state.

The damage also extends into the future. If the current administration succeeds in turning its administrative machinery into a political weapon, without consequence, a precedent will be created. Future presidents may be tempted to follow suit, making acceptable the use of taxpayer-funded systems as campaign tools.

And because enforcement bodies such as the Office of Special Counsel also are sidelined during a shutdown, accountability has to wait. That creates an asymmetry of power: One side gets to amplify its message through government channels in real time, while its opponents must wait for the system to restart just to file a complaint. By the time they can, the moment will have passed and the political narrative is likely to have already hardened.

Crises demand explanation, even blame. Citizens expect their leaders to tell them what went wrong. But they also expect honesty and fairness in how that story is told. The administration’s messaging strategy during this shutdown tests whether government communication remains a public service or becomes another instrument of political power.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission is displeased with a broadcast network. He makes his displeasure clear in public speeches, interviews and congressional testimony.

The network, afraid of the regulatory agency’s power to license their owned-and-operated stations, responds quickly. They change the content of their broadcasts. Network executives understand the FCC’s criticism is supported by the White House, and the chairman implicitly represents the president.

I’m not just referring to the recent controversy between FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, ABC and Jimmy Kimmel. The same chain of events has happened repeatedly in U.S. history.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s FCC chairman, James Lawrence Fly, warned the networks about censoring news commentators.

Then there was John F. Kennedy’s FCC chairman, Newton Minow, who criticized the networks for not airing more news and public affairs programming to support American democracy during the Cold War.

And there was George W. Bush’s FCC chairman, Michael Powell. He decided that a fleeting “wardrobe malfunction” during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show – when Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed – was sufficient to punish CBS with a fine.

In each of those cases, the FCC represented the views of the White House. And in each case, the regulatory agency was employed to pressure the networks into airing content more aligned with the administration’s ideology.

But what’s interesting in those four examples is that two of the FCC chairmen were Democrats – Fly and Minow – and two were Republicans – Powell and Carr.

As a media historian, I’m aware of the long-existing bipartisan enthusiasm for exploiting the fact that no First Amendment exists in American broadcasting. Pressuring broadcasters by leveraging FCC power occurs regardless of which party controls the White House. And when the agency is used in partisan fashion, the rival party will criticize such politicization of regulation as a threat to free speech.

This recurring cycle is made possible by the fact that broadcasting is licensed by the government. Since a Supreme Court decision in 1943, the supremacy of the FCC in broadcast regulation has been unquestioned.

Such strong governmental oversight separates broadcasting from any other medium of mass communication in the United States. And it’s the reason why there’s no “free speech” when it comes to Kimmel, or any other performer, on U.S. airwaves.

The FCC’s empowerment

Since its establishment in 1934, the FCC’s primary role in broadcasting has been to authorize local station licenses “in the public interest, convenience, or necessity.”

In 1938, the FCC began its first investigation into network practices and policies, which resulted in new regulations. One of the new rules stated that no network could own and operate more than one licensed station in any single market. This forced NBC, which owned two networks that operated stations in several markets, to divest itself of one of its networks. NBC sued.

In the first serious constitutional test of the FCC’s full authority, in 1943, the Supreme Court vindicated the FCC’s expansive power over all U.S. broadcasting in its 5–4 verdict in National Broadcasting Co. v. United States. The ruling has stood since.

That’s why there’s no First Amendment in broadcasting. The Supreme Court ruled that, due to spectrum scarcity – the idea that the airwaves are a limited public resource and therefore not every American can operate a broadcast station – the FCC’s power over broadcasting must be expansive.

The 1934 act, the 1943 Supreme Court decision read, “gave the Commission … expansive powers … and a comprehensive mandate to ‘encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest,’ if need be, by making ‘special regulations applicable to radio stations engaged in chain (network) broadcasting.’”

The ruling also explains why the FCC can be credited with having created the American Broadcasting Company. Yes, the same ABC that suspended Kimmel in the face of FCC threats was the network that emerged from NBC’s forced divestiture of its Blue Network as a result of the 1943 Supreme Court decision.

The empowerment of the FCC by NBC v. U.S. led to such content restrictions as the Fairness Doctrine, which intended to ensure balanced political broadcasting, instituted in 1949, and later, additional FCC rules against obscenity and indecency on the airwaves. The Supreme Court decision also encouraged FCC chairmen to flex their regulatory muscles in public more often.

For example, when CBS suspended news commentator Cecil Brown in 1943 for truthful but critical news commentary about the U.S. World War II effort, FCC Chairman Fly expressed his displeasure with the network’s decision.

“It is a little strange,” Fly told the press, “that all Americans are to enjoy free speech except radio commentators.”

When FCC Chairman Minow complained about television in the U.S. devolving into a “vast wasteland” in 1961, the networks responded both defensively and productively. They invested far more money into news and public affairs programming. That led to significantly more news reporting and documentary production throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

A ‘hands-off’ FCC

In the early 2000s, FCC Chairman Powell promised to “refashion the FCC into an outfit that is fast, decisive and, above all, hands-off.”

Yet his promise to be “hands-off” did not apply to content regulation. In 2004, his FCC concluded a contentious legal battle with Clear Channel Communications over comments ruled “indecent” by shock jock Howard Stern. The settlement resulted in a US$1.75 million payment by Clear Channel Communications – the largest fine ever collected by the FCC for speech on the airwaves.

Powell apparently enjoyed policing content, as evidenced by the $550,000 fine his FCC levied against CBS for the fleeting exposure of singer Janet Jackson’s breast during the Super Bowl. The fine was eventually overturned. But Powell did successfully lobby Congress to significantly hike the amount of money the FCC could fine broadcasters for indecency. The fine for a single incident increased from $32,000 to $325,000, and up to $3 million if a network broadcasts it on multiple stations.

Powell’s regulatory activism, done mostly to curb the outrageous antics of radio shock jocks, resulted in some of the most significant and long-lasting restrictions on broadcast freedom in U.S. history. Thus, Carr’s 2025 threats toward ABC can be viewed in a historical context as an extension of established FCC activism.

But Carr’s threat also appeared to contradict his previously espoused values.

As the author of the FCC section in Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for federal government policies, Carr wrote: “The FCC should promote freedom of speech … and pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints.” In exploiting the FCC’s licensing power to threaten to penalize speech he found offensive, Carr failed to promote either freedom of speech or diversity of viewpoints.

If there’s one thing the Carr-Kimmel episode teaches us, it’s that more Americans should know the structural constraints in the U.S. system of broadcasting. Media literacy has proved essential as curbs to free expression – both official and unofficial – have become more popular.

When the FCC threatens a broadcaster, it does so in Americans’ name.

If Americans applaud regulatory activism when it supports their partisan beliefs, consistency demands they accept the same regulatory activism in the hands of their political opponents. If Americans prefer their political opposition show restraint in the regulation of broadcasting, then they need to promote restraint when their preferred administration is in power.

Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries met in a Zoom meeting with members of the Illinois congressional delegation Monday to talk about redistricting in the state — an effort that is already triggering concern among lawmakers who fear the changes could dilute Black political power.

No maps were shown to the group but some versions of boundaries have been shared during individual conversations, according to one person in the meeting who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

“It’s what you’d expect. They’re trying to get another district,” the person said, adding that Republican Rep. Mary Miller’s downstate district appears to be the target. Miller is one of three Republicans in the 17-member delegation.

Redistricting talk is raising concern that adjusting congressional boundaries could dilute Black communities in districts, thereby undermining Black political influence.

“At what cost do you try to get one more seat? How many more do you put in jeopardy?” said another person on the call who was also granted anonymity to speak about a private meeting.

The implications go beyond Illinois. As national Democrats look ahead to the 2026 and 2028 election cycles, there’s pressure to find winnable seats in Republican-dominated districts. Any redistricting effort in Illinois would come before the midterms in an effort to counter Republicans’ push for more favorable maps to keep the House.

Jeffries sees Illinois and Maryland as states that could pick up Democrats, according to one of the people in Monday’s meeting.

A few weeks ago during a visit to Springfield, Jeffries acknowledged the push to get more seats in some states, including Illinois. President Donald Trump wants to “rig the midterms,” he told POLITICO. “Democrats will respond in self-defense of the American people.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker didn’t immediately return a request for comment, but he previously has not ruled out congressional redistricting. “None of us want to do it. None of us want to go through a redistricting process. But if we’re forced to, it’s something we’ll consider doing,” he said in a recent interview.

The Illinois General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats in both chambers, would have to vote on any new maps.

After the 2020 census, Democrats redrew district maps to adjust for losing a seat because of population decline. They cut out two Republican incumbents and created a new district favoring their party. The state’s congressional delegation now includes 14 Democrats and three Republicans from deeply conservative areas of the state.

Regardless of the political dynamics, candidates have until Nov. 3 to file for congressional races, meaning any revised map would need to be finalized before that deadline.

Election attorneys in Illinois say the Legislature can make adjustments to accommodate new boundaries.

“The main complication is that currently, each district has a different signature requirement, based on the number of votes cast in that district in the last primary,” said election lawyer Michael Dorf, whose past clients include the Democratic Party of Illinois and several statewide officials. “But the Legislature could revert to the standard used in the first election following a redistricting, where every congressional candidate just needs 600 signatures.”

So far, leaders in the Illinois House and Senate say there are no ongoing talks about altering the current map. But it could come up in caucus meetings today when lawmakers return for a legislative session to take up new bills and address potential vetoes.

“We haven’t seen any maps. We haven’t had any conversations with our members about maps,” House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch said in a statement when asked Monday whether his caucus would be addressing the issue.

Illinois House Republican Leader Tony McCombie said “it would be obscene” for Illinois Democrats “to erase” any Republican-held seats given Trump won 44 percent of the statewide vote.

​Politics

A man who scaled an iron security fence in the middle of the night, eluded police and used beer bottles filled with gasoline to ignite the occupied Pennsylvania governor’s mansion pleaded guilty Tuesday to attempted murder and other charges.

Cody Balmer, 38, also entered pleas to terrorism, 22 counts of arson, aggravated arson, burglary, aggravated assault of Gov. Josh Shapiro, 21 counts of reckless endangerment and loitering in the April 13 attack that did millions of dollars in damage to the state-owned brick building.

Under a plea deal, Balmer was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison.

Shapiro and members of his family had to be awakened and evacuated, but no one was injured. The multiple endangerment charges reflected the number of people in the residence at the time, including the governor’s family, guests and state troopers.

The fire was set hours after they celebrated the Jewish holiday of Passover with a Seder in the residence. Prosecutors played video clips that showed Molotov cocktails going off and a figure inside and outside the residence. Judge Deborah Curcillo called the video “horrific” and “very frightening.”

Balmer told police he planned to beat Shapiro with a small sledgehammer if he had encountered him after breaking into the building, according to court documents. Balmer turned himself in the next afternoon to face charges of attempted homicide, terrorism, aggravated arson and aggravated assault.

Police say Balmer broke in through the southern wing of the residence, into a room often used to entertain crowds and display art. Investigators recovered two broken glass beer bottles containing gasoline. The fire charred walls, tables, buffet serving dishes, plates and a piano. Window panes and brick around doors and windows were also damaged.

Shapiro’s Jewish faith and the attack during the Passover weekend raised questions about Balmer’s motivation, but Balmer told The Associated Press in a May letter from jail that had not been a factor in his decision.

“He can be Jewish, Muslim, or a purple people eater for all I care and as long as he leaves me and mine alone,” Balmer wrote.

He said in a brief June 9 video interview from Camp Hill State Prison that he did think beforehand about whether children might be injured.

“Does anyone ever consider children?” Balmer said in June. “It doesn’t seem that way. I sure as hell did. I’m glad no one got hurt.” Asked why he felt Shapiro had somehow done him wrong, Balmer replied: “I’m not going to answer that.”

Balmer’s mother said days after his arrest that she had tried to get him assistance for mental health issues, but “nobody would help.” Court proceedings had been delayed while he received mental health treatment, his lawyer has said.

At a court hearing a few days after the fire, Balmer told a judge he was an unemployed welder with no income or savings and “a lot of children.”

The residence, built in 1968, did not have sprinklers. Work to fix the damage and to bolster its security features continues.

​Politics