TIME

#BlackLivesMatter: Liberal Activists Shift 2016 Endorsement Rules

US-CRIME-SHOOTING-CHARLESTON
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI—AFP/Getty Images People gather at the Confederate Museum during a protest in Charleston, South Carolina on June 20, 2015.

A liberal activist group changes its 2016 endorsement process after a #BlackLivesMatter protest

Democracy for America, a progressive grassroots network, will change its candidate endorsement process in response to a Black Lives Matter protest in Phoenix last weekend.

After a racial justice protest halted a meeting with Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday, the one-million-member network will now include candidates’ proposals for addressing racism among the central criteria for DFA’s endorsements, according to an advance copy of the announcement obtained by TIME.

The criteria apply to candidates from local elections to the presidential level.

Additionally, in its questions of candidates in local races, DFA will ask how candidates will support the Movement for Black Lives and confront racism and our “culture of white supremacy,” according to the DFA announcement.

“We want the candidates we endorse to not only say that #BlackLivesMatter, we want these candidates to know that progressives—including those in organizations with largely white memberships and staff like DFA—expect them to stand up to, name, and address systemic racism as fundamental and foundational to the movement to end income inequality,” wrote Charles Chamberlain, DFA’s executive director, in a note likely to appear on the group’s website next week.

DFA represents an important bloc of activist progressive voters, many of whom give small-dollar donations to candidates, canvass and make telephone calls before the elections. Founded by Howard Dean in 2004, the group can be a barometer of Democratic enthusiasm and has played an important role in mobilizing liberal voters in recent elections.

DFA is weighing endorsing a Democratic candidate in the primary but has not yet committed to throwing its support behind a candidate before the general election. Its new rules may have the greatest impact on state and congressional races.

The group’s change to its endorsement process follows a protest at Netroots Nation, the largest gathering of progressives in the country, where a few dozen Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a town hall meeting featuring Democratic presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders.

The protest flummoxed the candidates and left them scrambling over the following days to address racism. O’Malley and Sanders have all since said “Black lives matter” and sought to address systemic racism, as has Hillary Clinton, who did not attend the event.

The new approach announced by DFA marks a significant shift for one of the country’s largest progressive activist networks and reflects the influence the Black Lives Matter movement is having on the presidential race.

“At Netroots Nation, #BlackLivesMatter leaders called on all of us to use our power to respond to the current state of emergency,” said Chamberlain. “Democracy for America is ready to heed that call to action and make sure it has real electoral consequences in 2016 and beyond.”

TIME Hillary Clinton

Officials: Classified Emails ‘Should Never’ Have Been On Hillary Clinton Server

Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to members of the media July 14, 2015 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Alex Wong— 2015 Getty Images Democratic U.S. presidential hopeful and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to members of the media July 14, 2015 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

"Security referral" triggered by potential copies of classified documents on Clinton's home server, lawyer's thumb drive drive.

The Justice Department investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information was triggered by the revelation that classified information contained in Hillary Clinton’s private email account could still exist on her private home server and on the thumb drive in the control of her personal lawyer, U.S. officials confirmed Friday.

The referral was made by the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General (IC IG) to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counterintelligence division, not career prosecutors at the Justice Department. “The IC IG did not make a criminal referral,” said the Inspectors General for the State Department and Intelligence Community in a joint statement Friday. “It was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.”

The immediate concerns are four emails culled from a limited sample of 400 emails that contained previously unlabeled classified information. “These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today,” their statement said. “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

In response to a records request from the State Department, Clinton has turned over approximately 30,000 work emails that she had stored on her private email server since her time as Secretary of State. She has previously said that those emails contained no classified information. The four emails in question were not properly labeled as classified, according to the inspectors general.

Both inspectors general say they were required to notify the FBI by law once they found that information that should have been marked as classified was found among the former Secretary of State’s emails. Relevant congressional committees were also notified on July 23.

A Department of Justice official confirmed to TIME Friday that, “The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral.”

I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, voiced concerns in a July 23 memo to Congressional lawmakers over the proper handling of information contained in Clinton’s email records. He warned there has already been “an inadvertent release of classified national security information” in a recent release of emails under the Freedom of Information Act, a contention disputed by the State Department.

Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for McCullough, confirmed that the referral was made to the FBI, in accordance with federal guidelines for the the discovery of the potential compromise of classified information.

In a March news conference, Clinton denied that she used the unsecured account for classified information. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

MONEY 2016 Election

What Hillary Clinton’s New Tax Proposal Would Mean

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during an event at the New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business in New York July 24, 2015.
Shannon Stapleton—Reuters U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during an event at the New York University Leonard N. Stern School of Business in New York July 24, 2015.

Here's how the plan would change capital gains tax rates.

On Friday, Democratic Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton spelled out her new plan to raise tax rates on capital gains — the profits people reap when they sell an asset a like stock, parcel of real estate or even a business.

The capital gains tax rate has been a political football for years, not least because rich people tend to own — and sell — the most stuff. Here are a few key things you need know about capital gains tax in general, and Clinton’s proposal specifically.

How are capital gains currently taxed?

While the tax rate on capital gains has bounced around a lot over the years, the big tax deal reached in the last hours of 2012 pushed up the top rate on long-term capital gains to 20% — still far lower than the 39.6% top rate on income (although top earners also pay a health-care related 3.8% surtax on investment income). For taxpayers in lower brackets, long-term capital gains tax rates max out at 15% or less.

There is an exclusion for profits of up to $250,000 ($500,000 if you are married) on your primary residence, so many homeowners won’t have to worry about a huge tax bill when they move.

That’s all for long-term capital gains, by the way. Short-term capital gains — that is, the profit made on stocks or other assets held less than a year — get taxed at the same rate as income.

Why do capital gains get a tax break?

In the relatively recent past, both Democratic (Bill Clinton) and Republican (George W. Bush) presidents have cut the capital gains rate in hopes that doing so would spur the economy. Since the capital gains tax is really a tax on investment, economists hope that lowering the tax will prompt people to invest more of their money rather than spend it.

The idea is that if more people are looking to invest, it should be easier for start-ups or existing companies that want to develop new products to find funding.

That’s also why short-term gains get taxed as income — because short-term gains benefit people who make their living buying stuff and then quickly reselling, rather than investing for the long term.

So what’s the problem?

In addition to spurring investment, a low long-term capital gains rate also spurs inequality. It’s not hard to see who the biggest beneficiaries are: people who invest in the stock market or who sell businesses that they own.

The low capital gains rate is one reason America’s 400 biggest earners paid a tax rate of less than 17% in 2012, the latest year for which the IRS has released data. There are also questions about whether the low capital gains rate really does boost the economy.

After all, while the economy took off under Bill Clinton, the stock market has also continued to soar since the most recent increase in the long-term gains rate.

What is Hillary Clinton proposing instead?

Hillary Clinton’s proposal would require wealthy taxpayers to hold their investments much longer to get the full long-term capital gains tax benefit. Instead of a single long-term gains rate that kicks in after one year, her plan would create a series of rates ranging from 36% to 24% for those who hold investments for at least two years but less than six years.

Clinton says she isn’t doing this simply to raise taxes on the rich. Rather it’s to discourage short-termism among big investors. That’s something even many on Wall Street regard as a problem, even if higher taxes might not be their preferred solution. So it looks like good politics.

Is it a good idea?

That, of course, depends on who you ask. Many progressives would simply like to see capital gains taxed as income.

Yet it’s not even clear whether Clinton’s proposal could actually change investor behavior — even if it could pass Congress. “My general impression is deep skepticism,” Leonard Burman, director of the nonpartisan think tank the Tax Policy Center told Reuters earlier this week. “Frankly, I don’t see the logic in trying to encourage people to hold assets for longer than they want to.”

TIME Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Courts Both Liberals and Wall Street with Tax Plan

Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Campaigns in Iowa
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images Hillary Clinton, former U.S. secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, pauses while speaking during a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S., on Friday, July 17, 2015.

A rollout of economic policies continues

Hillary Clinton on Friday proposed a significant hike on capital gains taxes for some investors, a plan favored both by progressive economists and some Wall Street investors.

The proposal is intended to combat short-term investing, which Clinton argued diverts capital away from important business expenditures.

“American companies need to break free from the tyranny of quarterly earning reports so they can do what they do best,” Clinton said speaking at New York University in Lower Manhattan on Friday. “Real value comes from long term growth, not short term profits.”

Clinton’s capital gains plan calls for a sliding scale of taxes on investments, with some short-term investments taxed at higher rates than they are now.

Currently, top earners pay a tax rate of 39.6% on investments held for less than a year, a rate that matches those earners’ income taxes. After holding those investments for a year, the rate for top earners drops to 24%.

But under Clinton’s plan, the tax rate for top earners on capital gains would remain at 39.6% in the second year, and then drop at a staggered rate over six years to their current levels. It would amount to nearly doubling capital gains tax rates in the second year.

“The current definition of a long-term holding period—just one year—is woefully inadequate,” Clinton said, calling on companies to abandon what she has called “quarterly capitalism” in favor of more farsighted investments in research and development, talent and physical capital.

A six-year sliding scale, Clinton said, would “provide real incentives for long-term investments.”

Clinton’s plan for a tax hike is aligned with some voices on Wall Street and financial institutions. Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, called earlier this year for a plan similar to Clinton’s. In a March letter to the executives of the 500 largest companies in the United States, Fink recommended holding the capital gains tax rate at income tax rates for three years—39.6% for the highest earners—and eventually dropping over a period of 10 years.

“We believe that U.S. tax policy, as it stands, incentivizes short-term behavior,” Fink said, using language similar to Clinton’s speech on Friday. “We believe that government leaders around the world—with a concerted push from both investors and companies—must act to address public policy that fosters long-term behavior.”

A number of other major business figures have openly lamented so-called economic short-termism, including Dominic Barton, managing director of McKinsey & Co., Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and others.

Economists, particularly those on the left, have also criticized the relatively low rate of capital gains tax, arguing it acts an income subsidy for the wealthiest Americans.

The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan Congressional committee, found that low rates on capital gains taxes will deliver in 2015 an effective subsidy of $120.3 billion to investors, most of them wealthy: a separate report by the Congressional Budget Office found that 68% of the benefit of low rates on capital gains and dividends go to the top 1% of earners.

Clinton’s plan, some economists say, would reduce inequality in the tax code and create incentives for shareholders to hold longer-term investments.

Clinton’s proposal “is a way to target an inefficient tax subsidy—a tax subsidy that subsidizes growing inequality—in a way that encourages more long-term planning by investors,” said Harry Stein, director of fiscal policy at the Center for American Progress. “I view this as a piece of a larger agenda to encourage more of a long term outlook.”

Clinton’s plan is meant in part to slow activist investors, who tend to buy large amounts of company stock and call for higher dividends, share buybacks and other strategies to boost share prices. Some executives complain that makes it more difficult for companies to invest in long-term employees or facilities, stunting long-term growth.

Republicans have been quick to criticize the plan, pointing out that Clinton said during the 2008 campaign that she would not raise capital gains taxes above 20%, “if I raised it at all.” They argue that capital gains taxes harm economic growth by preventing investment.

“Sadly, Hillary is not wise enough to have learned the simple lesson from those decades: reducing the capital gains tax is part of any pro-growth agenda,” said Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform.

Leonard Burman, the director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the top tax economist during the last two years of President Bill Clinton’s administration, said he doubted the plan would significantly change investor behavior.

“I’m sympathetic with her objective, but I don’t think her proposal is going to solve it,” Burman said. He added that the plan might actually encourage some shareholders to pull investments out of a company earlier than they would otherwise: under the new plan, investors who could sell shares after six months gain no tax benefits by waiting until after a year, and little benefit for waiting more than two.

Read more: What to Know About Hillary Clinton’s Economic Proposals

Clinton has laid out a number of specific proposals so far in her campaign intended to spur growth, including providing tax credits to businesses that hire apprentices, tax incentives to encourage corporate profit-sharing, as well as broader proposals like raising the minimum wage and supporting unions. The tax plan is part of Clinton’s slow-drip of proposals designed to boost economic growth and incomes.

It’s unclear if the proposal was enough to satisfy progressives, who are calling for significant overhauls of the tax code. Charles Chamberlain, executive director of the grassroots progressive network Democracy for America, suggested that the speech did not go far enough in targeting income inequality.

“If Secretary Clinton wants to earn the enthusiastic support of grassroots progressives that means standing up, staking out genuinely bold positions on income inequality, and aggressively taking on the powerful, greed-driven institutions that have dominated the Democratic Party and held back the prosperity of the American people for far too long,” said Chamberlain.

TIME 2016 Election

Inspector General Says Hillary Clinton Emails Contained Classified Information

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Stephen B. Morton—AP In this July 23, 2015 photo Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a campaign event in Columbia, S.C.

The Justice Department is mulling its own investigation

Federal officials have requested an investigation into a potential compromise of classified information related to the handling of documents once stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, government officials confirmed Friday.

Clinton and her current and former aides have not been named as targets of the investigation, and the scope of the investigation request has not been revealed.

A Department of Justice official confirmed to TIME Friday morning that there had been a “criminal referral.” Later that same day, the official sent an updated statement: “The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral,” it read.

Even if Clinton is not targeted in the probe, a Justice Department inquiry could be used to tar her presidential campaign. Her decision to use a private account for government business, and then choosing to delete ostensibly personal information from the server has already contributed to a decline in Clinton’s favorability rating and has provoked questions about her trustworthiness.

I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community, voiced concerns in a July 23 memo over information that passed through Clinton’s email server, was later given to her personal lawyer and returned to the State Department. McCullough said the data should have been treated with greater sensitivity, since it was derived from classified information produced by the U.S. intelligence community.

Clinton has repeatedly said she never allowed information that was marked classified to pass across her private email. “There have been a lot of inaccuracies,” she said on Friday of the latest reports. “Maybe the heat is getting to everybody. We all have a responsibility to get this right. I have released 55,000 pages of emails, I have said repeatedly that I will answer questions before the House Committee. We are all accountable to the American people to get the facts right, and I will do my part.”

None of the investigating bodies, in Congress or elsewhere, have accused Clinton of wrongdoing. But questions have been raised about the judgement of State Department officials. “We note that none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included [intelligence community]-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” wrote McCullough, the inspector general for the intelligence community, who described his review as incomplete.

A spokeswoman for McCullough, Andrea Williams, said Friday that there are at least four emails of concern, which have yet to be released by the State Department under the Freedom of Information Act. “They were not marked at all but contained classified information,” she wrote in an email to TIME Friday.

If documents had not initially been marked as classified, agency heads generally have significant legal leeway to decide how to classify most information, with the exception of some categories, like nuclear secrets, which are deemed classified by statute.

“The thing to understand about the classification system is that it is an administrative decision that is rooted in executive order,” said Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Sciences. “The president delegates authority to agency heads. It’s up to an agency head to decide if something is properly classified or not.”

The request for an investigation, first reported by the New York Times, is in reference to “hundreds of potentially classified emails” contained among Clinton’s messages.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House committee investigating Benghazi, denied Friday that there was any criminal referral. “I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email usage,” Cummings wrote in a statement. “This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines − only to be corrected later − and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas.”

In May, when releasing the first batch of Clinton emails to the public, the State Department, at the request of the intelligence community, classified 23 words of an email relating to the arrest of a suspected assailant in the 2012 Benghazi attack which killed four Americans.

A senior State Department official told TIME then that the retroactive classification does not mean Clinton did anything improper, adding “this happens several times a month” when Freedom of Information Act reports are prepared for the public. The executive order under which the classification program operates allows for the reclassification of information, either because of initial misclassification or because subsequent events have made the information more sensitive.

At the time, the State Department said, the email was unclassified while it resided on Clinton’s server and when it was sent to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. McCullough, the inspector general, told Congress that he believes copies of the emails were also placed on a thumb drive that was given to David Kendall, Clinton’s personal attorney at Williams and Connelly.

In a statement, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill brushed back on the assertion that Clinton had done anything wrong, noting that the New York Times had also changed the language of its initial story. At first, the Times described “a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information.” That was changed to “a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

“Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials,” Merrill said. “As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

In a March news conference, Clinton denied that she used the unsecured account for classified information. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

In a statement Friday, Speaker of the House John Boehner criticized Clinton for “mishandling” classified email, though it is not yet clear whether that claim is a part of the potential Justice Department probe. He encouraged Clinton to turn over her private server to Congress for further investigation.

“Secretary Clinton has repeatedly claimed that the work-related emails on her private home server did not include classified information, but we know that is not true,” Boehner said. “She has claimed she is well-aware of what matters are classified and what are not, and yet she set up a personal email server to discuss matters of national security despite guidance to the contrary from both her State Department and the White House. Her poor [judgment] has undermined our national security and it is time for her to finally do the right thing.”

The State Department is in the midst of a review of 55,000 pages of emails from Clinton’s server, and is under court order to produce them regularly to the public in order to comply with overdue Freedom of Information Act requests.

The inspectors general of both the State Department and the intelligence community have asked the State Department to review the Clinton emails in a more highly classified environment, “given it is more likely than not” that such records exist in her messages. The department has declined, citing resource constraints.

In her public comments on the server issue, Clinton has at times been less than forthright, telling CNN earlier this month that she hadn’t received a subpoena for the records, for instance, when she had.

“The truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn’t capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them,” Clinton told CNN this month. But Clinton was under a legal obligation to preserve all messages pertaining to her work and to hand them over to the State Department.

TIME Hillary Clinton

Investigators Seek Justice Department Inquiry Over Hillary Clinton Emails

Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Campaigns in Iowa
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images Hillary Clinton, former U.S. secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, pauses while speaking during a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S., on Friday, July 17, 2015.

Clinton says she did not email any classified material to anyone from her email server

A pair of inspectors general have requested an investigation into the handling of potentially classified government information once stored on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, the New York Times reported late Thursday.

The request reopens a fresh wound for Clinton — the decision to use a private account for government business, and then choosing to delete ostensibly personal information from the server after information was requested by Congress. The controversy has contributed to a decline in Clinton’s favorability rating and has provoked questions about her trustworthiness.

The request for the investigation, the New York Times reported, references “hundreds of potentially classified emails” contained among Clinton’s messages, though it is unclear whether the messages were marked as such when Clinton sent or received them. The Department of Justice has yet to decide whether to pursue charges, nor is it clear whom would be the target of the investigation.

A Department of Justice official said despite initially confirming that the request was not for a criminal investigation, that is not the case. “The Department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information,” the official said. It is not a criminal referral.”

In May, when releasing the first batch of Clinton emails to the public, the State Department, at the request of the intelligence community, classified 23 words of an email relating to the arrest of a suspected assailant in the 2012 Benghazi attack which killed four Americans.

At the time, the State Department said, the email was unclassified while it resided on Clinton’s server and when it was sent to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A senior department official told TIME then that the retroactive classification does not mean Clinton did anything improper, adding “this happens several times a month” when Freedom of Information Act reports are prepared for the public.

In a statement, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill brushed back on the assertion that Clinton had done anything wrong.

“Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials,” Merrill said. “As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

In a March news conference, Clinton denied that she used the unsecured account for classified information. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

The State Department is in the midst of a review of 55,000 pages of emails from Clinton’s server, and is under court order to produce them regularly to the public in order to comply with overdue Freedom of Information Act requests.

In her public comments on the server issue, Clinton has at times been less than forthright, telling CNN earlier this month that she hadn’t received a subpoena when she clearly had, and suggesting she had gone above and beyond complying with government records rules.

“The truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn’t capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them,” Clinton told CNN this month. But, in fact, Clinton was under legal obligation to preserve all messages pertaining to her work and to hand them over to the State Department.

Update: This story has been updated to reflect that after initially confirming it had received a criminal referral, the Justice Department now says the request was not for a criminal investigation.

TIME 2016 Election

Hillary Clinton to Call For the Raising of Some Capital Gains Taxes

Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Campaigns In South Carolina
Sean Rayford—Getty Images Democratic Presidential candidate and former U.S. Secretary of the State Hillary Clinton meets with mayors and local leaders at Brookland Baptist Church on July 23, 2015 in West Columbia, South Carolina.

The Democratic frontrunner says she's focused on long-term economic growth

Hillary Clinton will on Friday propose raising some short-term capital gains tax rates, a campaign aide has said.

The call is one of a series of proposals intended to spur long-term economic investment, said the aide.

The Democratic frontrunner will announce the tax plan during a speech at New York University, the aide added, where Clinton is expected to discuss the pitfalls of business short-termism and the “tyranny of today’s earnings report.”

Business leaders “say everything’s focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price,” Clinton said in a speech last week. “The result is too little attention on the sources of long-term growth: research and development, physical capital, and talent.”

The campaign has so far provided few details about Clinton’s capital gains tax plan, but it appears she would significantly raise capital gains tax rates on wealthy investors holding short-to-medium-term investments.

Investments taxed at 24%—that’s the rate currently paid by top earners on investments held for more than one year—would be taxed at a higher rate, an aide said Thursday. More details about the plan will be laid out on Friday.

The goal, the campaign says, is to encourage stock traders to hold their investments for longer periods of time, and allow companies to hold more capital for long-term investments in hiring and facilities.

Clinton will call for a review of securities rules to address excessive shareholder activism, as well as greater stock buyback disclosure and a new scrutiny of executive compensation.

She will also point to figures to show that expenditures on dividends and stock buybacks doubled among the biggest American companies over the last decade, while investment in new plants and equipment dropped.

In laying out her economic vision for the country last week, Clinton said she is focused on pursuing fairer, long-term growth that focuses on growing middle-class incomes.

TIME Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton, Republicans Play Different 2016 Gender Cards

Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton Campaigns in Iowa
Bloomberg—Bloomberg via Getty Images Hillary Clinton, former U.S. secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, pauses while speaking during a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S., on Friday, July 17, 2015.

The Clinton campaign see opportunity in a Republican critique

Lost in Donald Trump’s wowza of a speech in South Carolina on Monday, where he revealed Lindsey Graham’s cell phone number, was his tiny mockery of Hillary Clinton. About 30 minutes into the speech, Trump asks: “Who would you rather have negotiate against China, for example? … Trump or Hillary?”

He then pursues his lips, leans to the right and waves his right hand as if he was one of his Miss Universe contestants, batting his eyelashes: “Hi, everybody, hi.” He then straightens and fires directly at Clinton, “She’s the one with the tone.”

It’s not the first time Trump has gone after Clinton by referencing her gender. “You know, she’s playing the woman card really big. I watched her the other day and all she would talk about was, ‘Women! Women! I’m a woman! I’m going to be the youngest woman in the White House! I’m not going to have white hair, I’m going to dye my hair blonde!’” he said in his first campaign speech in Iowa after announcing his candidacy earlier this month.

Given the tsunami of outrage Trump tends to inspire, it’s not surprising that his comments on Clinton have only made moderate waves. But what’s surprising is that he’s not the only Republican who has criticized Clinton for acknowledging that she is a woman. Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went after Clinton in the same way. “I don’t think arguing ‘vote for me because I’m a woman’ is enough,” the Kentucky Republican said at an event in his home state on Monday, according to The Associated Press. “You may recall my election last year,” McConnell said, referring to his Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, whom he defeated by double digits in the 2014 midterm election. “The gender card alone is not enough.”

The Clinton campaign saw that comment as an opportunity. Perhaps waiting for the GOP to make the gender play, campaign aides quickly shot back with this sleek video where they literally play gender cards:

Echoing the video, Clinton responded to McConnell during a Facebook question-and-answer session. “Wow,” Clinton said. “Mitch McConnell really doesn’t get it. There is a gender card being played in this campaign. It’s played every time Republicans vote against giving women equal pay, deny families access to affordable child care or family leave, refuse to let women make decisions about their health or have access to free contraception.”

Republicans have always disdained identity politics, and playing to women is no exception. But McConnell risks misplaying his hand by comparing Clinton to his former opponent. Grimes had a relatively thin resume, Clinton has a record of championing women’s issues that goes back decades. “It’s just not true that she doesn’t have a record or that she’s running simply to be the first female president,” said Jennifer Lawless, director of American University’s Women & Politics Institute. “McConnell’s statement seems belittling and sexist.”

McConnell and Trump’s attacks open the door for Clinton to play to her strengths, reminding voters that the GOP record on women’s issues like equal pay, contraception and rape. President Obama won women in 2012 by 12 percentage points, one of the biggest gender gaps in history. As potential first female president, Clinton has the potential to expand that gap. “Hillary may be able to boost turnout among the groups of women that Democrats target and may even be able to pull off enough of the women that generally lean more Republican such as white suburban women to build a winning coalition,” said Michele Swers, a government professor at Georgetown and author of two books on women in politics.

The debate riles up Republican women sick of seeing their party tarnished as anti-women. “There’s a hypocrisy with Hillary’s gender bashing,” said Katie Packer Gage, who was Mitt Romney’s deputy campaign manager in 2012 and now runs an all-female GOP consulting firm. “She’s not the only one for equal pay for equal work. Everyone is for that.”

Republicans oppose Democratic legislation on equal pay because it could lead to more lawsuits and a boon to trial lawyers. They’ve introduced their own legislation that increases incentives for companies to provide equal pay. Those bills died, though, both in the House and the Senate at the end of the last Congress and the GOP has yet to reintroduce them again this session. Indeed, Republican men should probably not be talking about gender and Clinton at all, Gage said. “I don’t think it’s a particularly smart move for the men in our party to be leading the charge on this because it’s the gender card,” Gage said. “It’s better for women to speak out on it.”

But the GOP’s lone female presidential candidate, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, has been noticeably mum on the issue. Her campaign did not respond to a request for comment. And none of the GOP’s high profile elected women have seemed inclined to wade into the debate. Meanwhile, unfortunately for the GOP, the only ones being heard on gender are Trump, McConnell and Clinton.

TIME mike huckabee

Mike Huckabee Trolls Hillary and Bill Clinton to Tap Republican Id

Mike Huckabee Presidential Campaign Launch
Danny Johnston—AP Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee waves to supporters Tuesday, May 5, 2015, in Hope, Ark., after announcing that he is running for the Republican presidential nomination. Huckabee pitched himself Tuesday as the best GOP candidate to take on Democratic favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

The Huckabee swipe nods to conspiracy theorists who wrongly think Bill and Hillary Clinton have killed enemies

The discredited claim that Bill and Hillary Clinton kill their opponents has long been a mainstay of the conservative id, even though there has never been any actual evidence to back it up.

But that has not stopped Mike Huckabee from making a light-hearted nod at the conspiracies, with a joke that takes center stage in his new web video.

The video features Huckabee joking that he is a rare example of a Clinton rival who opposed the former first couple and “lived to tell about it.”

Huckabee’s campaign said Wednesday that the video is not trying to harken back to dark days of anti-Clinton fear mongering, or suggesting that the Clinton’s had killed their enemies. “That’s ridiculous. The video is a light-hearted but real reminder that in the political arena, the Clintons play tough and they play for keeps,” said Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley, when asked about the subtext of the ad. “If Republicans want to defeat Hillary in the fall, there’s only one candidate who has the experience repeatedly facing the Clinton machine and repeatedly winning—and that’s Mike Huckabee.”

The line comes from a weekend appearance at a summit of Iowa evangelicals. Real estate mogul Donald Trump stole the headlines at that event with incendiary comments about former POW John McCain, whom Trump said was an American hero only because he was captured.

The full transcript from the video runs like this:

I want to remind these folks here today that of the 373 Republicans who are running for President, there is only one who has consistently fought the Clinton political machine in the most partisan state in America during the 1990s, after they had built up that machine over 25 years. And only person who has successfully not only fought against that political machine in every election and through the institutions of government, but who consistently defeated it and transformed it and, most importantly, lived to tell about it.

Huckabee ran Arkansas years after Clinton decamped from Little Rock for Washington. Bill Clinton was Arkansas Governor from from 1983 until 1992, during which time he reformed the state’s Democratic Party and left behind a significantly lopsided legislature for Huckabee to confront. Huckabee was Governor from 1996 to 2007.

In the darker corners of the Internet, there remains conspiratorial lists of the purported victims of the Clintons: former White House counsel Vince Foster who committed suicide; former Clinton business partner James McDougal who died of a heart attack while in prison; and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, whose plane crashed in Croatia. Dozens of other alleged victims are on an Internet “body count” that is popular among the Clintons’ haters.

 

TIME 2016 Election

#BlackLivesMatter Is Winning the 2016 Democratic Primary

Sen. Bernie Sanders Holds Town Hall And Rally In Phoenix, Arizona
Charlie Leight—Getty Images Former Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD) (R), and moderator Jose Antonio Vargas (R), listen to Tia Oso, the National Coordinator for the Black Immigration Network, during an interruption to O'Malley's speech, at the Netroots Nation 2015 Presidential Town Hall with at the Phoenix Convention Center on July 18, 2015 in Phoenix.

A disruptive protest leads candidates to change rhetoric

When Black Lives Matter protestors stormed a room at a meeting in Phoenix and demanded that the 2016 presidential candidates say the names of black people killed by the police, the response was swift: Bernie Sanders did it the next day.

“I wish that in the year 2015, I could tell you we have eliminated racism in this country, but you all know that is not true,” said Sanders, to a crowd of more than 11,000 in Houston on Sunday, and then listed the names: “Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray and many, many others.”

It’s a testament to the influence Black Lives Matter activists are already having on the 2016 presidential race. Since the raucous protest of a few dozen mostly African-American activists brought the biggest meeting of progressives in the country to a screeching halt, Hillary Clinton repeated her calls for body cameras and improved early childhood education, and wrote “Black lives matter” in a Facebook post. Martin O’Malley promised to roll out a comprehensive plan to reform the criminal justice system, and Sanders has repeatedly brought up race on the campaign trail.

Now, Black Lives Matter leaders are preparing an agenda of policy demands and requirements designed to push Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley to embrace broad reforms to address systemic racism head-on. Activists foresee a series of demonstrations to call attention to racial injustice in the United States.

“What does the Democratic camp have to say about our society? We are in a crisis,” said Opal Tometi, cofounder of the Black Lives Matter movement. “If they want our vote, they’re going to have to speak to the death of black people at the hands of law enforcement, and create a racial justice agenda that cuts across all major issues.”

Black Lives Matter activists meeting in Cleveland this weekend will formulate a long list of policy demands for candidates, Tometi said, intended to shape the 2016 presidential race and help form the basis for candidates’ talking points.

Some of the agenda will likely include anti-bias police hiring, the demilitarization of police forces and external reviews of police practices, activists told TIME. But leaders are also calling for more sweeping reforms that include a package of progressive packages intended to help poor blacks, including lifting the minimum wage, aggressive education reform, housing protections, protecting access to the ballot box and ending mass incarceration.

A number of racial justice groups including the Black Youth Project, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, the Dream Defenders and others are expected to be in Cleveland.

“Body cameras and dash cameras are clearly not enough, because Sandra Bland still ended up dead,” said Alicia Garza, a second cofounder of the Black Lives Matter movement, referring to a civil rights activist who was found dead in a jail cell in Texas, in what authorities have called a suicide. Many observers have called her arrest violent and excessive.

“I want to see from all these candidates is program for how they’re going to aggressively work to ensure that black lives matter,” Garza continued. “Not just in relation to policing: we have to dive into questions of economics and democracy.”

Black Lives Matter grew out of the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 and the violence last year in Ferguson, when Michael Brown, an unarmed black man was killed by the police. Over the past year, the organizationally diffuse movement has mounted large protests against police violence and incarceration policies. The movement is fueled by a widespread anger over police violence against black citizens.

Of the Democratic candidates, Clinton has perhaps addressed race in the most detail since launching her campaign. She has called for automatic voter registration and protecting the rights of black Americans at the ballot box, body cameras on police officers, early childhood education directed at low-income families and overhauling the criminal justice system. She has called for greater gun control and raising the minimum wage, and spoken specifically to the persistence of racism.

“Our problem is not all kooks and Klansman,” Clinton said in a speech in June. “It’s also in the cruel joke that goes unchallenged. It’s in the off-hand comments about not wanting ‘those people’ in the neighborhood.”

Sanders led anti-segregation efforts in Chicago in the 1960s and participated in the Million Man March, but does not frequently talk about racism on the campaign trail. He has become increasingly vocal about racism, particularly since Saturday, calling for more accountability among police and larger steps to address prison reform. O’Malley has called for better funding of independent external review boards and reducing penalties for nonviolent criminals.

The spectacle on Saturday at the Netroots Nation conference in Phoenix, Arizona began during former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s presidential town hall question-and-answer session, when several dozen Black Lives Matter protestors marched into the conference room, chanting, “What side are you on black people, what side are you on!” and chanted “Say her name! O’Malley was silenced for some ten minutes before finally addressing the protestors and calling for broader criminal justice reforms. Sanders nearly left the stage in frustration as the chanting continued.

Read more: Sanders and O’Malley Stumble During Black Lives Matter Protest

“Folks who are tired of what’s happening in communities of color are ready to see real change,” said Tia Oso, a Black Lives Matter activist who mounted the stage at Netroots and took a microphone to directly address the audience in the middle of O’Malley’s session. “This type of direct confrontation is a strategy that we must employ.”

Immediately following the protest on Saturday, O’Malley tweeted the hashtag #blacklivesmatter, and Sanders tweeted the names of black people killed by the police.

Clinton, too named Sandra Bland in the days after the protest, saying in a statement, “My heart breaks at seeing another young African American life lost too soon. Sandra Bland had a bright future ahead of her and it is particularly tragic that she lost her life just as she was to start her new career.”

There’s an electoral realism that all the candidates will have to grapple with, too: Black voters are a crucial voting bloc, particularly black women. They have turned out in higher numbers than any other demographic in the past two presidential elections, and galvanizing them will be key for the Democratic nominee. They are among the most prominent leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Activists say they’ll be listening closely to what the candidates say in the coming months.

“They’re the community Democrats need to win the election, black women in particular,” said Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change. “And that’s who was taking over the stage.”

Clinton was not at the convention in Phoenix, but she was quickly drawn in to addressing the protestors. In a Facebook question and answer session on Monday, a journalist asked Clinton how she would have responded to the protestors at Netroots Nation. “Black lives matter,” Clinton wrote back. “Everyone in this country should stand firmly behind that…. Black people across America still experience racism every day.” The campaign posted her response on Twitter on Wednesday.

During a stop in Detroit on Tuesday, Clinton again told a local activist that “black lives matter” and repeated her call for overhauling the criminal justice system.

None of the Democrats, however, have so far satisfied the activists, who say the protests will continue.

“They should be ready for anything,” said Oso.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com