Newsweek: Supreme Court to hear JD Vance case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican-led challenge to a federal campaign finance law provision that limits how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The case, which centers on free speech claims, involves Vice President JD Vance, who was a U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio when the lawsuit was initiated.

The justices took up an appeal from Vance and two Republican committees, contesting a lower court’s decision that upheld the spending limits. The challengers argue the restrictions violate constitutional protections by capping party spending influenced by input from supported candidates.

How dare they deprive the wealthy of their God-given right to purchase election results!

DNC Chair Ken Martin, DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, and DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene said in a statement: “We refuse to sit on the sidelines as Trump’s DOJ and the Republican Party attempt to throw out longstanding election laws for their own benefit. Republicans know their grassroots support is drying up across the country, and they want to drown out the will of the voters.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-jd-vance-campaign-finance-ohio-case-2092657

MSNBC: Trump’s attacks on Springsteen and Oprah aren’t legally sound. That’s not the point.

What history can tell us about celebrity campaign endorsements — and their impact.

Nothing seems to incite angry social media posts from President Trump quite like criticism from celebrities. And while celebrities in 2025 seem less interested in feuding with the volatile president, Bruce Springsteen did manage to poke the bear with an unsparing speech delivered before a May 14 concert in Manchester.

The president noticed. On Truth Social, Trump called Springsteen “a pushy, obnoxious JERK” with “atrophied skin.” But the pettiness didn’t stop with dermatological insults. In the early hours of May 19, Trump escalated even further, implying without evidence that Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign paid Springsteen and other stars, including Oprah Winfrey and Beyoncé, for their performances at campaign events, which was a “MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.” He proclaimed his intention to “call for a major investigation into this matter.” 

Springsteen isn’t backing down in the wake of Trump’s stream of attacks, and musicians like Neil Young and Eddie Vedder have since come to his defense. The doubling and tripling down is so far mostly symbolic. But could Trump really investigate celebrity endorsements?

I don’t think so. Celebrities typically do not get paid for making endorsements. According to the Federal Election Commission, candidates can pay for endorsements as long as they are listed as a campaign expenditure. The Harris campaign has denied paying celebrities directly, claiming that any money sent to Winfrey ($1 million), Beyoncé ($165,000) and others are event production expenses paid out in accordance with federal election law.

“Usually I am reluctant to respond to rumors in general, but these days I realize that if you don’t stop a lie, it gets bigger. I was not paid a dime,” Winfrey said in video response to the Trump post….

Tina Knowles issued a similar denial last year when the same rumors circulated about her daughter: “The lie is that Beyonce was paid 10 million dollars to speak at a rally in Houston for Vice President Kamala Harris. When In Fact: Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris’ Rally in Houston.”

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-truth-social-springsteen-oprah-beyonce-campaign-fraud-rcna208260

MSNBC: Following vote from Senate Republicans, another ex-con joins Team Trump

It’s not common for people to transition from prison to a diplomatic position in Paris, but in Trump world, strange things happen.

Two weeks after Election Day 2024, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama assured the public that Donald Trump wouldn’t choose “a criminal” for a governmental position. About a week later, the then-president-elect tapped Peter Navarro, who completed a prison sentence earlier this year after being convicted for contempt of Congress, for an advisory post at the White House.

Trump also announced his intention to nominate Charles Kushner — despite his own criminal past — to serve as the U.S. ambassador to France. As NBC News reported, the Senate has now confirmed Kushner to the post.

Seriously, folks, who’s the biggest crook here?

  1. Peter Navarro, convicted of 2 counts of contempt of Congress.
  2. Charles Kushner, pleaded guilty 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering
  3. King Donald, convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

King Donald is the hands down winner!

Navarro & Kushner are petty crooks compared to the King!!!

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/vote-senate-republicans-another-ex-con-joins-team-trump-rcna207957