Blue wave or Republican resurgence?

Only 13 states have held primaries so far this year, with three dozen left to go. News outlets have called 2018 the “Year of the Woman” due to the number of female candidates setting historical precedents in their races. Republicans, meanwhile, warned a “Blue Wave” might lead to Democrats sweeping control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But all the catchy names don’t change the polling numbers. The future of the House remains murky, according to some analysts, and the view won’t start to clear until next week’s biggest primary of all: California.

The Golden State boasts one-eighth of all U.S. House seats: 53 out of 435. One large cluster surrounds San Francisco and another is around Los Angeles.

Democrats already hold most of those seats, but now they’re making inroads in traditionally conservative areas. Seven of California’s 14 GOP-held House districts went for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while not a single Democrat-held district went for Donald Trump. RealClearPolitics lists six GOP-held California seats as toss-ups, and only 29 percent of voters recently polled by the University of Southern California approve of President Trump’s performance.

Famously wealthy Orange County even went Democrat in 2016 for the first time since the Great Depression. It’s also getting more educated and more diverse—two huge predictors of an electorate turning Democratic.

And the election process itself favors the majority. In California’s jungle primary system, every candidate—from both parties—is listed on the primary ballot. Only the top two vote-getters advance to the November elections. That means sometimes one party gets shut out of a race entirely, which happened when 2016 general election voters had no Republican option for the open U.S. Senate seat.

In the race for party control, a large chunk of House seats in California may not even matter in November—next Tuesday could decide their future. “If a party strikes out in the top-two system, that party’s chances fall to 0 percent,” wrote Kyle Kondik for the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

But in those six toss-up races that matter most, California Democrats are the ones at risk of getting shut out by the jungle primary system, Kondik predicts. The 38th, 48th, and 49th districts cause Democrats the most concern, and the party has poured millions of dollars into those races.

The popular media narrative links anger among female Clinton supporters with a surge in Democratic voter engagement. After all, the Trump presidency began with women’s marches across the country, and many new female candidates have cited opposition to Trump as their motivation for running this year. Of the 57 women seeking House seats in California, 42 are Democrats.

Historically, Kondik told me, the “out-party”—the one not holding the White House—tends to be more motivated during a mid-term election. Democrats are besting Republicans in both fundraising and special election victories this year. But that might not translate into November wins, and Republicans are notably more reliable in primaries.

“As a piece of the larger puzzle about Democratic engagement, it doesn’t really guarantee anything,” Kondik said of Democratic turnout so far. The Los Angeles Times admitted the blunt truth in one headline: “It could be another ‘Year of the Woman’ in California, but probably not.” Two female Democratic House candidates told the Times they have struggled to find the support needed to win. One dropped out of her race altogether in an effort to avoid splitting the Democratic vote.

Kondik has analyzed election trends since 2011 and gives Democrats a 50-50 chance at taking the House. Other analysts agree: A “Blue Wave” looked likely earlier this year, but it looks less likely now.

Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics agrees, noting that polling shows Republican and presidential approval ratings have increased.

“If the election were held today, it’s not clear who would hold the chamber,” he wrote.

Some of the Facebook and Instagram ads linked to a Russian effort to disrupt the American political process Associated Press/Photo by Jon Elswick (file)

Social media giants announce political ad rules

Facebook and Twitter will start regulating and labeling political ads with sponsor information—even before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) tells them to.

Facebook revealed last fall that a Kremlin-linked company purchased $100,000 in political ads on the social media service covering issues like gun control, race, and immigration in an attempt to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. U.S. law forbids foreign nationals from contributing to candidates, or giving them anything of value.

Since then, special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian individuals and entities for using online platforms to interfere in the election. House and Senate committees grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg last month for hours on Capitol Hill about his company’s role in the debacle. And the FEC for the first time voted unanimously to move forward on a set of disclosure rules.

But the next FEC hearing on the rules change won’t happen until June 27. So why are the social media giants rolling out their own changes so early?

Patrick Meirick, an expert on political ads at the University of Oklahoma, compared the move to the creation of movie ratings. The Motion Picture Association of America self-polices movie content, as the TV Parental Guidelines Oversight Monitoring Board does for television and music. “It’s kind of the standard playbook to preempt potential regulations,” Meirick said. The move is designed to send a strong message: “We are just as concerned as you are, and you don’t have to get involved with it.”

Not until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as “McCain-Feingold,” did the government require disclosures—the “paid for by” message—on political radio and TV ads, according to Meirick.

“In the infancy of political advertising, there were no rules about it,” he said. “Campaigns put disclosures on there of their own volition, but no standard said they had to do it.”

Since the FEC is finally unanimous on this issue—and since Congress is so interested—the rule likely will pass, but the government won’t enforce it for this election cycle.

No one set of rules currently regulates all platforms, so the companies are rolling out different methods of transparency. For example, Google and Twitter will require advertisers to disclose their location, and Twitter will require postal mail verification to ensure the ad buyer is located within the United States. Facebook will keep an archive of ads for seven years (accessible only by Facebook users).

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wants Congress to pass disclosure legislation for online platforms. The companies’ moves are a step in the right direction, he tweeted, but should still be unified by his “Honest Ads Act,” a bill cosponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Twitter and Facebook have already endorsed the legislation.

I asked Meirick what wisdom we could glean from the implementation of disclosure rules for radio and TV ads. After all, the online media landscape and platforms may be brand-new, but the regulatory goal remains the same: to provide more transparency and better inform voters.

McCain-Feingold aimed to clamp down on soft or “unregulated” money given to both parties, which it did, Meirick said. But the money flow soon found a different channel. Donors and advertisers started using 527s, tax-exempt, political organizations that take in unlimited donations, as long as those donations are disclosed.

“Any attempt to regulate political money is going to result in the money finding new loopholes,” Meirick predicted. —L.F.

Some of the Facebook and Instagram ads linked to a Russian effort to disrupt the American political process Associated Press/Photo by Jon Elswick (file)

Virginia lawmaker admits alcoholism, abandons campaign

Freshman Rep. Tom Garrett, R-Va., announced Monday will not seek reelection in November as he seeks treatment for alcoholism. The 46-year-old Army veteran and former state senator made the revelation after former aides claimed he and his wife, Flanna, used congressional staff for personal errands.

Garrett’s chief of staff, Jimmy Keady, abruptly quit May 22. The next day, Garrett told associates he might not run again for Virginia’s reliably Republican 5th District, but then on Thursday he held a news conference announcing he would seek another term.

In a tearful video released Monday, Garrett called the accusations by former staff “a series of half-truths and whole lies” but admitted he has not been honest in one area of his life. “The tragedy is that any person—Republican, Democrat, or Independent—who’s known me for a period of time and has any integrity knows two things: I am a good man and I am an alcoholic. This is the hardest statement that I have ever publicly made, by far. It’s also the truth.”

Republican Party officials in his district will pick a replacement to run against Democrat Leslie Cockburn. President Donald Trump won the district by 11 percentage points in 2016. —Kiley Crossland

‘Spygate’ starts to peter out

“Spygate” is fast becoming the political scandal that wasn’t. President Donald Trump insists the FBI planted a “spy” in his 2016 presidential campaign to help elect Hillary Clinton, but Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., told reporters he’s seen no evidence to back that claim. Gowdy, a longtime Trump supporter and chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee, listened to a classified briefing last week from the Justice Department and the FBI about its use of a government informant in the investigation into Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. “I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump,” Gowdy told Fox News on Tuesday. During another interview on CBS This Morning, Gowdy noted law enforcement officials use informants “all day, every day.” The informant flap, dubbed “spygate” by Trump, started after the FBI revealed someone working with agents approached Trump campaign staffers to ferret out possible connections to Russian interests. The investigation that started during the Obama administration has dragged on for nearly two years, but it has yet to produce any smoking guns pointing back to Trump or any key staffers. —Leigh Jones