gallego, Ruben SEN

NOW SENATOR BEAT SINEMA

hisp cauc inst

lcv 100 97?

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/ruben-gallego

---

AN 5 26

President Donald Trump’s economic policies have created so much uncertainty abroad, a new report reveals that major companies are divesting themselves of US treasuries.

In response to the war in Iran and persistent inflation, foreign governments have been getting rid of US Treasury bonds in order to stabilize their own currencies, according to a report by Semafor. Of the top 10 foreign holders of US government debt, seven of them reduced their holdings as of March including China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Overall the US Treasury yields could fall to the lowest levels seen since 2007, which was before the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis caused the Great Recession.

Before the report specifically indicating that foreign governments are divesting of US Treasuries at a historic rate, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) drew attention to the fact that for the first time since 2007 the US Treasury hit 5.2 percent. The investor education platform Wiseman Alpha argued on Tuesday that this puts America in the same economically vulnerable position that it was in before the economy crashed nearly two decades ago.

"Same setup we saw in '07, six to nine months before everything cracked. The bond market runs the show now. The Fed just reacts," Wiseman warned.

They added, "Early next year is when the blowup events start happening. A fund or a bank explodes. Dollar spikes hard. Everything pulls back. Gold, Bitcoin, silver, all of it. That's your mega entry. Q2 to Q3 2027. A COVID-xtem dlike moment.”

Gallego framed the issue in the context of Trump’s recent decision to award $1.8 billion to individuals he claimed were targeted by the federal government, including possibly himself.

"We are borrowing money to pay the January 6th slush fund at highest interest rate that this country has seen in quite awhile," Gallego argued.

Multifamily Owner's Blueprint national chair Reid Bennett warned that Americans "may want to sit down" as they contemplate this news.

"It’s about what your property is worth, what your refinance looks like, and whether your business plan still works," Bennett wrote on X. "Debt gets more expensive — agency debt, banks, life companies, [commercial mortgage-backed security] … all price off Treasury benchmarks. That means higher coupons, lower proceeds, and a whole lot of owners writing checks at refinance."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argued earlier this month that he believes the ongoing debt crisis is in large part caused by the wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes.

“America’s wealthy have never been wealthier,” Reich said. “If they paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t have such a huge federal debt. And we wouldn’t be paying them so much interest on that debt.”

He added, “Know what’s happened, and pass it on.”

---

NOLNX

Democrats decide to fight fire with fire in new battle against Trumpism

(REUTERS)

John Stoehr December 03, 2025

The 43-day government shutdown did not produce the outcome that the Democrats said they wanted. In fact, eight of them* caved before getting the president and the Republicans to negotiate on healthcare.

But the shutdown did demonstrate something important – that the Democrats are no longer the party of “norms and institutions.”

:{In October,

...OOPS

Owas asked why his party was using the shutdown to reach a policy goal when the Democrats said in the past that doing so was in violation of “the norms of government.”}:

The reason, Gallego said, was Donald Trump.

Norms are “out the window.”

“You’re talking about norms in the time of Donald Trump?” Gallego said. “It’s also not normal to tear down the East Wing. … This is a man who’s extorting people. He’s literally breaking every rule. We’re not going to go back and play by the norms … I’m not going to abide by old norms, especially when you’re dealing with this presidency, this administration, and how the Republicans themselves have been acting.”

However, it’s one thing to say you’re not going to abide by old norms. It’s another to make new ones. That’s what some Democrats are doing.

Again, Gallego is representative.

He was asked what he would say to Pete Hegseth after the Defense Secretary threatened to prosecute US Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.

“You will never ever be half the man that Senator Kelly is,” Gallego said. “You, sir, are a coward. And the fact that you are following this order from the president shows how big of a coward you are. I can't wait until you are no longer the secretary of defense” (my italics).

In the past, no Democrat would have made such a veiled threat. They would have feared the appearance of violating the norm against “weaponizing the federal government” against partisan adversaries.

But here, Gallego suggests a new set of norms:

There must be consequences for presidential-level crimes.

The Republicans can’t be trusted to hold their own accountable.

Only the Democrats can do that. They must be the consequences.

“Donald Trump is gonna be gone in a couple years,” Gallego told CNN last week. “If you're part of the military that is going after sitting members of Congress … there will be consequences without a doubt.”

He even used the word “tribunal.”

“There’s going to be a lot of officers that will be part of this tribunal, if you want to call it that,” Gallego went on. “They’re going to be looking over their shoulders, because they know that Donald Trump will be gone and they will not have that protection. They’re going to have to do the safest thing possible, which is to follow the Constitution.”

The vast scale of corruption we are witnessing, with the blessing of the Republican Party, means the terms and conditions of the old social contract are void and no longer apply. The stakes, meanwhile, are much bigger than one authoritarian president. Everyone pays for the crimes of what some are calling “the Epstein class.” Here’s the Post:

“Today is the first real reckoning for the Epstein class,” Ro Khanna said, before calling the effort to obscure Epstein’s crimes “one of the most … disgusting corruption scandals in our country’s history.” He later told us that being “America first,” parroting the messaging that elevated Trump’s political career, meant “holding the Epstein class accountable” and “lowering costs” to make “people’s lives better.”

All the above is being said in the context of Trump’s growing weakness. Poll after poll show public dissatisfaction with his job performance, even among supporters. (Henry Enten said today that, all things being equal, there is no path to holding the House majority.) The Democrats see a chance to win back power. But what will they do with that power once they get it? Will they return to the old norms or make new ones?

Is this talk of future consequences real or just talk?

For an answer, I turned to Samantha Hancox-Li. She’s an editor and podcast host for Liberal Currents. In a recent essay, she wrote about the biggest problem facing liberals and Democrats, and the reason why they have in the past clung so fiercely to “norms and institutions.”

The fear of power.

“We have built systems that are so good at preventing us from doing anything that they also prevent us from doing good things,” Samantha told me. “And in this time of crisis — housing crisis, climate crisis, among others — we desperately need to do good things and not just prevent anyone from doing anything that might be bad.”

You have said the biggest problem with liberals is our fear of power. That probably comes as a surprise to some. What do you mean?

I mean the fear of power exercised badly. For many progressives, we start with an image — maybe a corporation polluting the environment or the government bulldozing a minority neighborhood in the name of urban renewal. And then we conclude that the correct response is to put a shackle on power. We need to make sure that before we do anything it's not going to hurt anyone. Sounds good, right?

But the devil's in the details. What does "make sure" really mean? Does it mean that we need 10 years of studies, of community engagement, of lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, of even more studies, before we can implement congestion pricing in New York City? Does it mean years of process before building 20 units of housing next to a busway? Does it mean that every random NIMBY can sue to stop the construction of solar energy, transmission, battery factories, etc?

In practice, the answer is yes: we have built systems that are so good at preventing us from doing anything that they also prevent us from doing good things. And in this time of crisis — housing crisis, climate crisis, among others — we desperately need to do good things and not just prevent anyone from doing anything that might be bad.

I was trying to think of an example: Merrick Garland. Thoughts?

Absolutely. I've focused on physical objects — on climate and housing — because these are longstanding problems and our self-imposed shackles have prevented us from effectively responding to them.

But it's also clear that when we take power back from Trump II, we're going to need to do some serious housecleaning. Biden came in on the idea that "the fever would break," everything would go "back to normal," that he didn't need to upset the apple cart by prosecuting criminals in high places. Hence, Garland's shocking inaction in response to Trump's J6 attack on the capital – inaction that ultimately enabled Trump's return to power.

But if we're going to do that kind of housecleaning, we can't allow ourselves to get hung up on process. We're going to have to nuke the filibuster. We're going to have to revitalize Congress. And that means expanding the Senate and adding states. We're going to have to do serious court reform. If we allow ourselves to get hung up on norms that Republicans treat as dead letters, we're going to fail. This means that we are going to need to really exercise power — not trip ourselves up with self-imposed process.

I think if we do come back into power, there's going to be a lot of voices calling for a "return" to normalcy, for creating even more process requirements that the next Trump will simply ignore. Look around us — have process requirements stopped Trump II? No.

We need more than just vetocracy.

We need a real revitalization of effective governance in America.

I would put your argument in the norms and institutions category. There's no sense in defending them if they have become corrupt or are too weak to do what needs doing. I found this surprising, from Ruben Gallego. You might have seen this clip. A hopeful sign?

A good sign, absolutely. Gallego is not exactly some radical leftist. He's a relatively moderate Democrat from a purple state, but he rightly recognizes that with Trump II's total assault on our republic and our constitution, we have exited the era of "normal politics."

That to me is the fundamental dividing line in progressive and Democratic politics — not between "moderates" and "progressives," but between those who want to fight and those who are still in denial.

As I wrote recently, "you don't get to decide when you're in a fight." MAGA made that choice. What matters now is how many of us wake up to that fact.

In my experience, the Democratic base knows we're in a fight. The base is raging angry and wants real change, not empty words.

The divide is among elites — in the Democratic Party, in the media, in civic institutions like colleges and law firms. Some want to pretend they can extract this or that policy concession from Trump. Others recognize that Trump wants to be king, that he wants to shred our constitution in favor of a vision of a white man's republic, and that we have to throw out our old ways of thinking and embrace war mindset.

It seems to me the Democrats, if they are going to use power to do good, need to relearn how to talk about it. In an interview with me, Will Bunch drew on language from the liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s to secure more personal freedoms. Perhaps in a climate of tyranny, the Democrats can appeal to individual liberty?

I think the language of freedom and liberty is the fundamental terrain of American politics. I think a lot of leftists have been very uncomfortable with this for a long time. They don't want to talk about freedom. They don't want to talk about the Constitution. They don't want to wave the red, white and blue. They want to stand on the outside and critique all that. Personally I think these people are addicted to losing. If you want to win power in America, you do it using the language of freedom and the iconography of Americana.

So I think we as liberals need to embrace that imagery. I've seen an explosion of imagery drawing on the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers, and especially the Civil War and the long struggle against the slave power. I think this is great, because these are core parts of liberal history! Liberalism has always been a fighting faith. Liberalism has always been a revolution against oppression and tyranny. It's just that in the doldrums of the Long 90s, we allowed ourselves to forget that. But it's time to go back and remember what we're fighting for.

And that means insisting on democracy, insisting on inalienable rights, and insisting on the rule of law. All of these are under attack. Trump is deporting citizens, murdering random fishermen, deploying thugs and masked secret police to our cities. Maga wants a king. We must stop them and deliver on the promise of America for all Americans — a better life, hope for the future, freedom in a diverse country.

About those elites. Many inside the Democratic Party are going to lobby hard against the use of power to do good things, because those good things will help everyone, and anything that helps everyone tends to be bad for elites. What are your suggestions?

First and foremost, we gotta win some primaries. That is the single biggest lever of power we've got to change the internal makeup of the Democratic Party. Earlier, you mentioned Ruben Gallego. He's in that seat because he beat Kyrsten Sinema, a notoriously centrist politician, in a primary. But at the same time, we can't go chasing after every random newcomer who talks a big game about bringing populism to Washington — just look at what happened with John Fetterman. People liked his "sticking it to the man" vibes, and it turns out those were mostly just vibes. In practice, he's been a relatively conservative senator. So we need to actually think about good primary challengers.

Second, I think we need to win the war of ideas. Politicians mostly know politics. When it comes time to implement policy, what they do is go to "the bookshelf." This is the collection of ideas and policies and programs that intellectuals and pundits in their coalition have come up with. Why did Biden pursue a radically more aggressive stimulus than Obama? Because Democratic intellectuals had consolidated around inadequate stimulus as the cause of the Great Recession.

So we need to make sure the bookshelf is well-stuffed with workable plans that Democrats can implement. We need to demonstrate that moderation is a false light — and that a real reforging of the constitutional order is necessary. That means both high church policy and a trench fight of social media, the constant war for attention in the attention economy. The posting-to-policy pipeline is very real.

So there it is.

Win primaries and win the war of ideas.

We gotta do both.

AN 6 26

HARBINGER?

Many Democrats have been feeling demoralized since the 2024 election — not only because of Kamala Harris' narrow 1.5 percent loss to now-President Donald Trump, but also, because Republicans flipped the U.S. Senate while narrowly holding the U.S. House of Representatives. Yet some Democrats, in 2025, have decent approval ratings in tough, competitive swing states — including Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (63 percent, according to Impeach Research), Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (59 percent, according to Morning Consult) and Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona (50 percent, according to the Phoenix-based Noble Predictive Insights).

Gallego is sounding the alarm about Democrats needing to step up their game among working-class voters in swing states. And he is taking his message beyond Arizona.

During a recent town hall event in a swing district in the Philadelphia suburbs, Gallego told attendees, "What happened the last election is that we got so pure, and we kept so pure that we started kicking people out of the tent. It ends up there aren't enough people in the tent to win elections."

In an article published on June 3, Axios' Stephen Neukam emphasizes that Gallego is "making moves to appeal to moderates and boost his national profile barely five months after winning his seat."

IFrame Content

"Axios has learned that Gallego — who kept his seat in the Democrats' column despite Trump's victory in Arizona — is planning additional stops in key battlegrounds over the coming months," Neukam reports. "The big picture: There are signs that Gallego's appeals to moderates and conservatives are starting to make a difference for him back home. Gallego's 50 percent statewide approval rating in May is higher than Trump's and Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs', according to a recent poll by Noble Predictive Insights, a Phoenix-based nonpartisan polling firm."

Liberal but not far-left, Gallego was a frequent critic of his predecessor: former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who he believed was hurting Democrats' legislative goals during Joe Biden's presidency. Facing an aggressive primary challenge from Gallego in 2024, Sinema left the Democratic Party and became an independent — then decided against seeking reelection.

Sinema, during her term, warned that Democrats should not alienate the center — especially in a tough swing state like Arizona. And now, Gallego has a similar message.

According to Neukam, "One senior GOP operative said Gallego is the type of Democrat who appeals to the swing voters that both parties fight over at each election. Another senior GOP aide said Gallego is what Democrats wanted Gov. Tim Walz (D-Min.) to be in the 2024 election — a veteran from a working-class background who appeals to the middle."

*Read Stephen Neukam's full report for Axiosat this link.

---

politico

the TV ads seem wildly different from each other.

In Ohio, a woman shares how GOP Senate candidate Bernie Moreno invested in her business making uniforms for female police officers. In Iowa, a spot highlights Rep. Zach Nunn’s military credentials and work to lower child care costs. And in Colorado, a Spanish-language ad touts first-term Democratic Rep. Yadira Caraveo’s support for more border patrol agents.

The ads have one major trait in common: They are all part of a massive effort from the cryptocurrency industry to elect its preferred House and Senate candidates across a dozen states this fall. But not a single one mentions crypto.

The nascent industry has quietly become the single biggest outside spender in congressional elections this cycle other than traditional party groups, spending more than environmental PACs, pro-Israel advocates or abortion-rights groups. About 1 in 12 independent expenditure dollars in House and Senate races this year have come from cryptocurrency-linked super PACs.

“The crypto industry is pretty amazing in that 10 years ago, it was the laughing stock of the tech world,” said Moreno, the GOP Senate candidate from Ohio who is challenging Sen. Sherrod Brown and has attracted the most cryptocurrency backing of any candidate. “And in reality, here you are 10 years later, and they’re going to be decisive in helping Republicans win the United States Senate.”

The industry’s ads are about trying to help their preferred candidates win elections — not making cryptocurrency a campaign issue. That reflects a reality acknowledged by several candidates: Cryptocurrency is hardly top-of-mind for most voters. The ads from the various industry-linked super PACs are instead universally positive spots about their candidates, often biographical or hitting on hot-button issues such as the border, the economy and access to IVF.

And cryptocurrency groups are quick to note that they are not innately partisan, instead backing candidates of both parties, including Democratic Senate candidates in Michigan and Arizona.

Many candidates backed by cryptocurrency are vulnerable members who serve on key committees and supported the industry’s legislative priorities this year. And in Ohio, they are looking to oust Brown, a past skeptic of the industry, even if they are not talking about him or cryptocurrency while they do it.

The spending surge has flowed through three distinct super PACs: Defend American Jobs, which has boosted Republican Senate candidates; Protect Progress, which has boosted Democratic Senate candidates; and Fairshake, which has backed House candidates on both sides of the aisle. Fairshake has also sent money to the other two groups while receiving more than $170 million this cycle from a variety of cryptocurrency-backed interests, including the firms Coinbase and Ripple Labs and the partners behind Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm with substantial crypto investments.

The three super PACs have collectively spent $125 million on independent expenditures this cycle, accounting for 8 percent of all outside spending in congressional races, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. That includes more than $80 million spent on the general election.

In response to questions about the candidates backed by Fairshake and the content of the ads, a PAC spokesperson referred to an earlier statement expressing support for “leaders on both sides of the aisle and in both houses who are committed to getting things done and working with the industry to pass responsible regulation that drives innovation, creates jobs, and sustains America’s global leadership.”

IFrame Content

Many of the crypto-backed candidates supported one of the industry’s key legislative priorities this year, a bill that would establish regulatory authority for different classes of digital assets that passed the House earlier this year but has not been taken up in the Senate.

But the biggest investment by far this cycle has been to oust Brown, the only race where they have spent against an incumbent. Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, emerged as a key skeptic of cryptocurrency and warned of the risks it could pose for consumers.

Defend American Jobs has spent more than $40 million on the race. The top two most-run ads in Ohio this year both come from the group, according to data from the ad tracking firm AdImpact. But neither mentions crypto — nor attacks Brown.

One highlights Moreno as a small business owner who raised a family in the state, another touts his support for energy independence and “stopping illegal immigrants from taking Ohio’s tax dollars.”

The cryptocurrency-linked super PACs also support Democrats — even using some of the same issues, like immigration. An ad from Protect Progress backing Rep. Ruben Gallego praised the Arizona Senate candidate for “standing up to his own party to fund 22,000 border patrol agents,” while a Michigan ad boosting Rep. Elissa Slotkin’s Senate candidacy features a clip of her saying “we need to invest in border security.”

In House races, the messaging is even more varied. Most of the nearly two dozen ads that have run in congressional races for the general election have some biographical component. Five ads defending incumbent Democrats tout their credentials on immigration and the border, while two spots backing vulnerable Republicans highlight their support for access to IVF.

It’s not unusual for an interest group to avoid talking about its own issues in advertising: Earlier this year, the pro-Israel super PAC United Democracy Project ran ads in Democratic primaries that focused on issues ranging from public safety to one candidate’s DUI arrest, though the group ran ads on antisemitism in one New York congressional race.

But cryptocurrency may simply not be front-of-mind for most voters. Estimates for the number of Americans who own cryptocurrency vary widely, in part depending on the specifics of how the question is asked. A Federal Reserve survey in 2023 pegged the share at 7 percent while a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia survey this summer found 14.7 percent; cryptocurrency firms and advocates argue the number is even higher.

With cryptocurrency not a key issue in frontline House and Senate races, most candidates are reluctant to talk about the money. The majority of candidates getting backing from cryptocurrency PACs — and their opponents — declined to comment about the industry’s role in their elections.

A few candidates whose opponents were beneficiaries of crypto super PACs also spoke in favor of cryptocurrency. Former Rep. Mike Rogers, running against Slotkin in Michigan, said in a statement the industry is “important for our national security” while accusing outside groups of “trying to put Crypto in the hands of Democrats.” A spokesperson for Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake, facing Gallego in Arizona, said she was a “strong supporter” of crypto.

In Alaska, Nick Begich, the Republican challenging Mary Peltola, said he was surprised to see Fairshake backing the incumbent Democrat, citing his own pro-cryptocurrency stances. (Begich said he was an early adopter of Bitcoin.) For voters, though, questions about digital assets and crypto policy tend to be lower down the list.

“We’ll get an occasional question about cryptocurrency from the public,” Begich said. “But it is not in the top 10 issues that I hear.”

When the industry does message on crypto, those efforts are far smaller in scale than their work to help specific candidates.

Stand With Crypto, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, has been conducting outreach aiming to encourage crypto users and supporters to vote this year. The organization also grades candidates based on statements and support for legislation related to cryptocurrency, but does not endorse. And its efforts are far smaller: The group said it has received $2.8 million in donations, about 1.5 percent of the money that has flown through Fairshake.

---

an 12 23

earlier this year, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Arizona) voted with Senate Republicans for legislation to kill President Joe Biden's student debt forgiveness proposal. In the months following that vote, she was a major recipient of the student loan industry's largesse.

The bill itself, H.J. Res 45, would have blocked Biden's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower, though the president promised to veto it if it reached his desk, and the Supreme Court ultimately struck down the proposal at the end of its 2023 session. The bill narrowly passed the Senatein June, with 52 votes in favor and 46 in opposition. Sinema joined forces with all Senate Republicans to give the bill the narrow majority it needed for passage. Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) and Jon Tester (D-Montana) also voted with the GOP to pass the measure.

According to the Phoenix New Times, Sinema proceeded to rake in thousands of dollars in contributions from various donors connected to student loan servicers, for-profit colleges, banks and debt collectors after her vote.

The New Times combed through Sinema's campaign finance disclosure forms on the Federal Election Commission database and learned that the Arizona senator received approximately $27,000 in PAC donations between June and September of 2023. That includes a $5,000 contribution from NelNet PAC, which is a political action committee representing the interests of the second-largest provider of federally backed loans given by private lenders. Sinema also received $5,000 from a PAC connected to private lender Sallie Mae and $5,000 from a PAC run by the board chair of a for-profit Arizona college.

Smaller donations from the industry during that time period include a $2,500 donation from debt collector Portfolio Recovery Associates, $2,500 from a Washington, DC-based trade association representing the interests of for-profit colleges, and a combined $7,000 in donations from three PACs run by banks.

Despite her fundraising activity, Arizona's senior US senator has not yet indicated if she plans to run for reelection in 2024. She currently faces opposition from Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona) and failed 2022 Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who campaigned as a vociferous supporter of former President Donald Trump.

Current polls show a virtual dead heat between the three candidates, with :{Gallego having a slight edge over his two opponents. :{Gallego brought in more than $3 million in donationsduring the third quarter of 2023, with an average donation amount of $28}:

Kyrsten Sinema’s funds 'dry up' as Democratic donors abandon her: report - Alternet.org

---

an 11 23

lINCOLN — The first Nebraska Republican Party fundraiser of 2024 features former television reporter, U.S. Senate candidate and election denier Kari Lake of Arizona. She visits Omaha on Jan. 5, the eve of the third anniversary of the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Lake, a Republican who lost her 2022 gubernatorial election to Democrat Katie Hobbs in Arizona, is running a 2024 race against Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party in December. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., is running as well.

Like a man she calls her political muse, former President Donald Trump, Lake denies losing her race. Lake rose to national prominence by embracing Trump’s rejection of his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden. She sharply criticized Republicans who acknowledged his defeat.

She is visiting Nebraska during an Iowa campaign trip for Trump. Her event is the latest push to excite the base by new leadership of the Nebraska GOP, which in July 2022 ousted a team loyal to then-Gov. Pete Ricketts. The new team includes similarly Trump-focused Republicans.

Party spokeswoman Dawn Liphardt said Nebraska conservatives are interested in Republicans retaking the Senate and are interested in Arizona’s race. She called Lake “a strong speaker” who will “get Republicans excited” about the 2024 elections locally, which include two Senate races.

Lake is well-liked among some conservatives for aggressively critiquing members of the press and for her loyalty to Trump and his populist approach to politics. Like him, she emphasizes border security.

The Nebraska GOP announced the event by email, selling $50 general admission tickets, $25 tickets for booster club members, $600 for a book signing with Lake, and a $10,000-per-person VIP event before the candidate speaks at 7 p.m. at CHI Center Omaha.

‘Doubling down’

Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Eric Underwood speaks as former GOP gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster and former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway listen in August 2023 in Norfolk, Neb. (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)

Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb said the Lake fundraiser shows the Nebraska GOP “doubling down with their election denying and reproductive rights denying strategy.”

That, Kleeb said, risks turning off voters and flipping more seats the Democrats’ way.

GOP-led Nebraska is no swing state. Trump won the state easily in 2020, beating Biden in two of the state’s three congressional districts. But Trump lost an Electoral College vote to Biden in the Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District.

Nebraska, like Maine, awards a single electoral vote to the presidential popular vote winners in each of the state’s three congressional districts. The Nebraska Legislature has been discussing moving back to winner-take-all elections.

Omaha-area state senators and voters have pushed back against such proposals, arguing that the state benefits economically from the spending by both presidential campaigns competing for the electoral vote that might prove vital in a close race.

Nebraska Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: info@nebraskaexaminer.com. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and Twitter.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/11/she-did-nothing-ruben-gallego-blasts-kyrsten-sinema-for-not-helping-fellow-democrats-in-the-midterms/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego

Rubén Marinelarena Gallego (/:{ˈruːbən:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}::{ :(style="white-space:normal"):}::{ˌɡaɪˈɛɡoʊ:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}:/; born November 20, 1979) is an American politician and former U.S. Marine who is the U.S. representative for Arizona's 7th congressional district. A Democrat, he previously served as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, serving as assistant minority leader from 2012 until he resigned to run for Congress. Gallego was elected to Congress in 2014. His district includes most of southern, western, and downtown Phoenix, along with a portion of Glendale. He served as the national chair of Eric Swalwell’s 2020 presidential campaign.^[2]

Early life and education

Gallego was born in Chicago^[3] and is a first-generation American, with a Colombian mother and a Mexican father.^[4]

Along with his three sisters, he was raised by a single mother.^[5] The family eventually moved to Evergreen Park, Illinois, and he graduated from Evergreen Park Community High School.^[6]

Gallego attended Harvard College, where he became a member of Sigma Chi^[7] and earned a B.A. in international relations.^[8]

Career

His desire to help fellow veterans motivated the formerly apolitical Gallego to get involved in politics. After a stint as chief of staff for District 7 City Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski, he was elected vice chair of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2009. In 2010, he was elected State Representative for Arizona District 16.^[9]After college, Gallego joined the Marines. After completing infantry training, he deployed to Iraq with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment. 3/25 lost 46 Marines and two Navy corpsmen between January 2005 and January 2006. Gallego lost his best friend in combat in Iraq.^[5]

In 2011, The Arizona Republic named Gallego a distinguished freshman lawmaker.^[10] His first successful bill granted in-state tuition status to veterans residing in Arizona.^[5] Gallego supports the repeal of Arizona SB 1070. He considers education Arizona's most important long-term priority.^[11] In 2012, Gallego was elected assistant minority leader.^[12]

Gallego founded the group Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement with the goal of recalling Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, citing Arpaio's immigration policies and his use of taxpayer money to investigate Barack Obama's citizenship.^[13]

Gallego worked for Strategies 360 as Director of Latino and New Media operations. He also worked for Riester, one of Arizona's largest public relations firms.^[14]

U.S. House of Representatives

Elections

Mayday PAC, a super PAC seeking to reduce the role of money in politics, announced its endorsement of Gallego because of his evolution on the issue of campaign finance reform.^[17] On February 28, 2013, Gallego voted against an amendment that sought to raise campaign finance limits for federal candidates and abolish all limits for state candidates, HB 2523.^[18] He has since been a vocal supporter of the Government By the People Act.^[19]On February 27, 2014, Gallego announced his candidacy for Congress in Arizona's 7th congressional district.^[15] Although not required to give up his seat under Arizona's resign-to-run laws (since he was in the final year of his state House term), Gallego resigned from the Arizona House in March 2014.^[16]

Gallego won a five-way Democratic primary—the real contest in this heavily Democratic, majority-Latino district—with 48.9% of the vote. He won the general election with 74% of the vote. He has been reelected three times, never dropping below 70% of the vote. He faced only a Green candidate in 2018, and defeated nominal Republican challengers in 2016 and 2020. Considered a progressive politician, Gallego has been encouraged by several left-wing organizations to run for Senate in the 2024 election against incumbent Kyrsten Sinema.^[20]

Committee assignments

Committee on Armed Services^[21]
- Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces^[22]
- Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations (chair)^[23]
Committee on Natural Resources^[24]
- Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples of the United States^[25]
- Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands^[26]

Caucus memberships

Political positions

[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ruben_Gallego_-_1.29.20.jpg)

Gallego during a Natural Resources Committee meeting in 2020

Gallego supports the full legalization of marijuana.^[28]

Gallego supports cap and trade legislation, carbon taxes, and increasing funding for renewable, clean energy.^[29]

He opposed the building of the Rosemont mine in Arizona, saying it would have a "devastating" environmental impact. He has sponsored efforts to require operators of public water systems to report when lead is found in water.^[30]

Gallego supports gun buyback programs.^[31]

Gallego supports Obamacare and opposed its attempted repeal.^[32]

Gallego opposes efforts to deport undocumented immigrants while they wait to be eligible for citizenship. He has co-sponsored efforts to require lawyers for children who are at risk of being deported.^[34]He supported efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.^[33]

Gallego opposes the privatization of Social Security. He also opposes allowing people to put Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts.^[35]

As of October 2021, Gallego had voted in line with Joe Biden's stated position 100% of the time.^[36]

Electoral history

...