(MADISON, WI) — A Democratic Party staffer has filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission saying that the Green Party, which had achieved ballot access in the key battleground state this past year, should not be on the ballot.
In the complaint, Democratic National Committee Deputy Operations Director in Wisconsin David Strange alleges that the Green Party does not have anyone who would be allowed by state law to be a nominator for the Green Party’s presidential electors — meaning they cannot give a valid list of presidential electors, voiding their eligibility on the ticket.
It could make a difference if the Green Party can’t appear on the ballot in Wisconsin, a crucial battleground state that both Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will look to win in November. Jill Stein is expected to become the party’s formal nominee at its virtual convention, which began Thursday, and will be announcing her running mate on Friday.
In the complaint, Strange writes that Wisconsin law requires the people nominating electors to be the political party’s state legislative candidates or legislators of the party. There are no Green Party legislators in Wisconsin.
“The August 13, 2024 primary was the last opportunity for [Wisconsin Green Party] to nominate a candidate for Wisconsin Senate or Assembly before the 2024 general election. But, WGP failed to nominate any candidates for Wisconsin Senate or Assembly, and a sufficient number of electors did not nominate a candidate by writing in any WGP candidate for Wisconsin Senate or Assembly,” Strange wrote in the complaint.
The complaint was first reported by the Associated Press and was provided to ABC News by the DNC. It has also since been posted on the Wisconsin Elections Commission website, which logs every complaint filed with that body.
“We take the nomination process for President and Vice President very seriously and believe every candidate should follow the rules,” senior adviser to the DNC Adrienne Watson said in a statement to ABC News.
“Because the Wisconsin Green Party hasn’t fielded candidates for legislative or statewide office and doesn’t have any current incumbent legislative or statewide office holders, it cannot nominate candidates and should not be on the ballot in November.”
ABC News reached out to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for more details about its timeline for making a decision about the complaint, but didn’t hear back by the time this story was published.
Jason Call, campaign manager for Stein’s campaign, told ABC News by email, “This is a fishing expedition conjured up by the DNC, and is in line with their statements back in March that they will hire an army of lawyers and infiltrators to find any angle of attack to prevent Green Party ballot access.”
Call said that the campaign “absolutely will be hiring counsel to defend our ballot line in Wisconsin.”
The national Green Party, when contacted for comment, deferred to Stein’s campaign.
The Green Party has ballot access in at least 20 states, according to ABC News’s current reporting, and both the party and Stein herself have been filing to get on the ballot in others.
The DNC, state Democratic parties and Democratic-aligned groups have separately filed various challenges or complaints across the country challenging ballot access petitions from some independent or third-party candidates such as Stein, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Cornel West. The challenges allege either missteps, fraudulent actions or legal reasons that should disqualify those candidates from getting on the ballot.
The campaigns have denied allegations of misconduct and have said they should legally qualify for the ballot.
The Nevada Democratic Party filed a lawsuit in June to the Green Party’s ballot access filing in Nevada, which a judge has since dismissed, the Nevada Independent reported on Monday.
Stein, a physician and environmentalist, has campaigned on climate issues, a “Green New Deal,” and housing and workers’ rights; she has also been sharply critical of President Joe Biden on the Israel-Hamas war.
She has pushed back in the past against claims that her campaign could be seen as a “spoiler” for either major party candidate — allegations she also faced in 2016 during a previous presidential run.
In an interview in June, Stein told ABC News, “Just because the two major parties have thrown workers under the bus; have really made a mess out of our climate; and embroiled us in endless wars that are endangering the whole world … Just because those two parties have basically overseen that process of screwing the American electorate. I don’t think that entitles them to your vote.”
(OCALA, FL) — A jury began deliberating Friday in the case of Susan Lorincz – the Florida woman who is charged with first-degree felony manslaughter in the fatal shooting of her neighbor, Ajike “AJ” Owens, through a closed door on June 2, 2023, in Ocala, Florida.
The six-person panel was seated on Monday and began deliberating on Friday shortly after 12:00 p.m. ET after prosecutors and the defense presented their closing arguments in a case that gained national attention.
Lorincz shot Owens, a Black mother of four, through a closed door in the presence of her now 10-year-old son after she went to speak with Lorincz about a dispute over Owens’ children playing near her home, according to a June 6, 2023, statement from the Marion County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
Lorincz, who is white, was arrested on June 6, 2023, and charged with first-degree felony manslaughter for fatally shooting Owens on June 2, 2023, in Ocala, Florida. She pleaded not guilty on July 10, 2023, and was held on a $150,000 bond. If convicted, Lorincz faces up to 30 years in prison, according to the Marion County Sheriff’s Office.
Anthony Thomas, attorney for the family of Owens, told ABC News in a statement after the jury was sworn in on Monday that the family is “disappointed in the all-white jury that was selected to determine the outcome” of this case.
“We would have wanted the jury to be more diverse. But we believe in equal justice, so we are going to see what happens,” added family attorney Ben Crump in a statement to ABC News.
“Historically, jurors in America have not reflected the diversity of America,” Crump continued. “We want to believe in our heart that any juror looking at this situation will administer justice. We must make sure that AJ Owens’ death is not in vain. We keep the faith that the American justice system works for people like AJ Owens, as well.”
How the trial unfolded
A host of neighbors, including two children, sheriff’s deputies, a 911 dispatcher and operator, crime scene investigators and forensic experts were among those who testified during the trial.
Prosecutors argued that Lorincz should be found guilty because she fatally shot an “unarmed” Owens through a “locked” door.
“Ms. Owens was banging on the door telling the defendant to come out,” state attorney Rich Buxman said in his closing argument. “Belief that there was an immediate or imminent danger, such that deadly force was necessary at that time, was simply unreasonable because there was no imminent danger. And that word imminent is very important. It’s included in the law for a reason… If Miss Owens would somehow have managed to bust through this locked, dead bolted metal door, entered her house and started coming at her, the defendant may have had a right to shoot because that danger would have then been imminent.”
The defense argued that Lorincz should be found not guilty because she was acting in self-defense because she feared for her life.
“The law says you should only convict someone if you’re convinced they’re guilty beyond a reasonable doubt…. If you’re back there and you’re deliberating and you’re thinking, ‘Man, she had some medical issues. She did live alone. She had these prior run-ins with Ajike, I could see how she could be scared of her.'” Amanda Sizemore, Lorincz’s attorney, said in her closing argument. “And if you have reasonable doubt, you should find Ms. Lorincz not guilty because that is what the law says. And each and every one of you took an oath to follow the law.”
A focus of the state’s argument was on the first 911 call that Lorincz made to report “trespassing” on June 2, 2023 – minutes before she ended up shooting Owens.
“No matter the outcome, I am committed to honoring my daughter Ajike’s memory by continuing to seek justice, not only for her but for every family who has faced a similar loss,” Pamela Dias, Owens’ mother, told ABC News through a statement sent by her attorneys. “This trial has been an incredibly difficult journey, but I believe in the power of truth and justice.”
Susan Lorincz’s attorney did not respond to ABC News’ request for a statement.
According to witnesses, including the sheriff’s deputies who responded to the shooting, law enforcement was already on their way to Lorincz’s home when the shooting occurred because she had called 911 to report three children – one Latino and two Black – were “trespassing” on her property.
During the trial the locked door became a focus of the state’s argument and the subject of cross examination during the testimony of various witnesses.
The defense claimed that Owens told Lorincz that she was going to “kill” her and was trying to “break” in Lorincz’s front door that they argued was “damaged.”
The state zeroed in on this claim during the testimony on Tuesday of Lorincz’s former landlord Charles Gabbard.
Gabbard testified that, prior to the shooting, he had repaired a jam on Lorincz’s front door. He said that her door was “structurally sound” after he repaired it, despite some cosmetic damage. He said that the door was sturdy and had a chain, a deadbolt and a lock.
During cross-examination, Gabbard said that Lorincz did not tell him how the door was damaged but that “it was clear that someone slammed” the door. He said that after repairing it, he was planning to replace Lorincz’s door at some point. Asked by Lorincz’s attorney if the crack in the door was “substantial,” Gabbard said, “Yes.”
“Susan Lorincz told detectives, ‘I really thought she was going to break my door down,'” Sizemore said. “‘I really thought that I saw the door moving.’ And I really believe that. I honest to God believe that is what she said. She reasonably believed that. We heard Susan tell the detectives, ‘I heard Ms. Owens say, ‘I’m going to [expletive] kill you.’ … I heard the door crack, and when I heard that door crack, I fired.'”
(WASHINGTON) — A highly-anticipated economic agenda to be unveiled by Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will include a federal ban on price gouging for food and groceries, the Harris campaign announced.
The proposal will be presented to voters alongside other plans to address elevated inflation, such as bolstered antitrust enforcement in the grocery sector and greater latitude to investigate corporate practices, the campaign said in a press release.
A ban on price gouging would in theory disallow food and grocery companies from hiking prices an excessive amount over a set period of time, economists told ABC News. They disagreed, however, on whether the measure could control the rise of food prices or if such an outcome is desirable.
Inflation remains a top issue for voters and a potential vulnerability for Harris, since rapid price increases emerged during the Biden administration. While inflation has fallen dramatically from its peak, consumers still face prices roughly 20% higher than where they stood before Biden took office.
In response to ABC News’ request for comment, the Harris campaign provided a statement outlining its economic proposals.
“Vice President Harris knows that rising food prices remain a top concern for American families. Many big grocery chains that have seen production costs level off have nevertheless kept prices high and have seen their highest profits in two decades. While some food companies have passed along these savings, others still have not,” the statement said.
Here’s what to know about how this federal ban on price gouging would operate and whether it would be effective:
How would a federal price-gouging ban work?
The Harris campaign said the measure would set “clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”
Details on the policy remain limited, however. Economists told ABC News that the Harris proposal may end up resembling similar bans currently on the books in 37 states. Those bans prohibit companies from exploiting a sudden imbalance between supply and demand by significantly hiking prices.
“The typical example is a natural disaster. If a water company comes and sells water at double, triple or five times the price of what people can get it at five miles away, just to be able to take advantage of the situation – that’s price gouging,” Niko Lusiani, director of the corporate power program at progressive advocacy group Roosevelt Forward, told ABC News.
State bans define “price gouging” in various ways. Some measures establish a subjective set of criteria, such as a sudden and significant spike in prices; while others detail a specific numerical amount of price growth necessary to violate the law, Luis Cabral, a professor of economics at New York University who studies price gouging, told ABC News.
“It’s not easy to measure,” Cabral said, noting that qualitative definitions risk being overly vague while quantitative ones struggle to set the boundaries around what constitutes price gouging.
Many of the state-level bans on this practice set a condition that an emergency is necessary to trigger application of the law. The Harris proposal would likely omit such a stipulation, Lusiani said, since we are years removed from the outbreak of COVID-19.
“It’ll clearly be different because now we’re on the other side of the pandemic,” Lusiani added, but he noted that current price hikes could be viewed as a result of that disruption.
The Harris campaign said it would enforce a ban by slapping offenders with financial penalties.
Most state price-gouging bans punish violators with civil penalties enforced by the state attorney general, while other measures impose criminal penalties, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a group that tracks state laws.
“Enforcement will be critical,” Lusiani said. “A ban by itself won’t stand on its own legs.”
Would this type of ban help control inflation?
Economists disagreed sharply about whether a federal price-gouging ban would help control price increases and, if so, to what extent that outcome would benefit the economy.
The stark divide owed in part to a difference of opinion about the role of corporate profiteering in the pandemic-era bout of inflation, as well as a clash over the effectiveness of government intervention in addressing it.
Experts who faulted corporate price gouging for a portion of the price increases said it arose from market concentration that allowed a handful of dominant companies in a given industry, including the food and grocery sector, to raise prices without fear of competitors undercutting them with lower-priced alternatives.
Grocery retailer profit margins surged in 2021 and rose even higher two years later, even after price increases had begun to cool, a Federal Trade Commission study in March showed.
A price-gouging ban would help police corporations that otherwise would be tempted to leverage their market power by excessively raising prices, the experts said.
“Large, incumbent corporations that control a large share of a sector, including grocery companies, have way too much power to control prices,” Lusiani said. “That’s an underlying cause of the inflation.”
Some economists who spoke to ABC News attributed the acceleration of price increases over recent years to a textbook example of imbalance between supply and demand. The pandemic snarled global supply chains and triggered lockdowns, causing shortages of goods and workers. Meanwhile, government stimulus boosted demand, sending too many dollars after too few products.
“It’s economics 101 that if you stimulate demand while simultaneously deterring supply, your equilibrium will be significantly higher prices,” Michael Faulkender, a professor of finance at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, told ABC News.
In turn, Faulkender dismissed any potential benefit from a federal price-gouging ban. “It just sounds to me that we’re creating even more burdensome regulations that will actually raise prices for consumers,” Faulkender said.
Joe Brusuelas, chief economist for the accounting firm RSM US, said he opposes an outright ban but supports moderate measures that could deter price hikes, such as expanded government oversight of corporate practices.
Bruseulas pointed to data released this week showing food prices had risen 2.2% in July compared to a year ago. That level of inflation essentially stands at normal levels, Brusuelas said, suggesting that price increases had been reined in without a federal price-gouging ban in place.
“I’m concerned when I hear the federal government use the word ‘ban,’ but I’m not concerned about an exercise in oversight,” Brusuelas said.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz both claim to be champions of gun rights for law-abiding citizens and have touted personal stories of growing up in households where firearms were commonplace, but the vice presidential candidates have vastly different views on how to curb America’s gun violence epidemic.
As the Democratic National Convention begins Monday in Chicago, Vice President Kamala Harris has made gun control a top priority.
“We who believe that every person should have the freedom to live safe from the terror of gun violence, will finally pass red flag laws, universal background checks and an assault weapons ban,” Harris said at her first presidential campaign rally in Milwaukee.
Harris was appointed in September 2023 by President Joe Biden to oversee the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Meanwhile, there was little acknowledgment of the nation’s gun violence scourge at the Republican National Convention last month, despite GOP presidential nominee former President Donald Trump being the victim of a would-be assassin wielding an AR-15-style rifle.
In the 2024 GOP convention platform, there was no mention of firearm violence or gun control, while in 2020, the party’s platform contained three paragraphs supporting reciprocity legislation allowing Americans to carry firearms in all 50 states regardless of which state they received a carry permit, and opposing an assault weapons ban, “frivolous” lawsuits against gun manufacturers and “any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.”
While Harris and Trump’s polarizing stances on gun control are well documented, the positions of their running mates are emerging for the first time on a national level.
Vance, the 40-year-old Ohio U.S. senator and Marine veteran, and Walz, the 60-year-old Minnesota governor and Army National Guard veteran, have portrayed themselves as strong Second Amendment advocates. But they have voiced starkly different views on gun control.
Vance’s stand on gun control
“I’m a big pro-Second Amendment guy and I know a lot of people who will strongly, stridently defend the Second Amendment. None of them think convicted felons, who have been afforded their due process rights should be able to buy firearms and then kill people,” Vance said during a June 2022 U.S. Senate election debate against his Democratic opponent, former Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan.
In a 2022 federal candidate survey for the Ohio Gun Owners and the American Firearms Association, Vance said he opposes “red flag” gun laws, legislation to ban certain semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15s; supports abolishing the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and establishing a national stand-your-ground law giving individuals the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves.
Vance also checked yes on voting to repeal the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act and supported a national Second Amendment Preservation Act that prohibits the use of federal funds to enforce gun control laws, regulations and executive orders.
“We need to fix the system we have that has problems as opposed to layering on a bunch of new regulations and laws on top of it,” Vance said during the debate against Ryan. “The thing that I don’t like is when you create a new background check system with new sets of regulations that go after law-abiding citizens.”
The National Rifle Association — which according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit research and government transparency group that tracks money in politics and its effect on elections and policy — contributed nearly $500,000 to Vance’s senate campaign. The NRA has also endorsed the Trump-Vance ticket.
“Now, more than ever, freedom and liberty need courageous and virtuous defenders,” Doug Hamlin, executive vice president and CEO of the NRA, said in a statement in July. “President Trump and Senator Vance have the guts and the grit to stand steadfast for the Second Amendment.”
In June 2024, Vance called efforts by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to ban bump stocks, a device that enables semiautomatic rifles to fire almost like machine guns, a “huge distraction.”
The gunman who committed the 2017 mass shooting at the Route 91 Harvest Festival concert in Las Vegas that killed 58 people and left more than 800 injured, used guns fitted with bump stocks, according to investigators.
“I think that we have to ask ourselves: ‘What is the real gun violence problem in this country?’ and are we legislating in a way that solves fake problems? Or solves real problems?” Vance told reporters in June as his name was then being floated as Trump’s running mate. “And my very strong suspicion is that the Schumer legislation is aimed at a PR problem, not something that’s going to meaningfully reduce gun violence in this country.”
While he wasn’t a member of the U.S. Senate at the time, Vance said he would have voted against the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major gun safety law enacted in 30 years that Biden signed in June 2022, about a month after a teenage gunman killed 19 students and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.
The law enhances background checks for gun buyers under 21, closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole” to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing guns, and allocates $750 million to help states implement “red flag laws” to remove firearms from people deemed to be dangerous to themselves and others.
“First of all, from what I’ve seen of this bill, I would not support it. I think red flag laws, in particular, they certainly are a slippery slope. They also don’t solve the problem of gun violence,” Vance said in a 2022 interview with the Breitbart News Daily podcast.
During his RNC acceptance speech, Vance — author of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy” — told the story of how after the death of his beloved grandmother, whom he called Mamaw, his family found 19 loaded guns in her house.
“The thing is, they were stashed all over her house — under her bed, in her closet, in the silverware drawer, and we wondered what was going on,” Vance said. “It occurred to us that toward the end of her life, Mamaw couldn’t get around so well, so she was sure that no matter where she was, she was within arm’s length of whatever she needed to protect her family. That’s who we fight for. That’s the American spirit.”
Walz’s stand on gun control
Walz, a former high school geography teacher and football coach, has proudly proclaimed being an avid hunter who once received an A-rating and an endorsement from the National Rifle Association while a five-term Congressman from rural Minnesota. As a member of Congress, Walz sponsored the Sportsman’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, which expanded access to public lands for hunting and supported legislation to reform the ATF.
“I’m proud to stand with the NRA to protect our Second Amendment rights, and I’m truly grateful for their endorsement,” Walz said in a 2010 statement.
In 2016, Guns & Ammo magazine praised Walz’s record on protecting gun rights and put him on a list of top 20 politicians for gun owners.
“While most congressional Democrats have jumped on the gun control train with both feet, Tim Walz and a few others have stuck to their guns,” Guns & Ammo wrote.
But Walz said his NRA rating fell to an F-rating when his stance on gun control dramatically changed following the Feb. 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 15 students and two adults, including a football coach, dead.
“My job today is to be dad to a 17-year-old daughter,” Walz said during a 2018 community meeting in Minnesota while running for governor in the aftermath of the Parkland massacre. “Hope woke up as many of you did five weeks ago and said, ‘Dad, you’re the only person I know who’s in elected office. You need to stop what’s happening with this.'”
In an editorial he wrote that was published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune in February 2018 — which was titled “Tim Walz: Please understand my full record on guns” — Walz explained how the Parkland shooting forced him to reevaluate his positions on gun control.
“We all put ourselves in the place of a loved one or someone who faced that terror. It hits me as the dad of a fifth-grader and a high-school student. It hits me as a former high school geography teacher and football coach, when I think about the geography teacher and the coach at that school who gave their lives so that their students could keep theirs.”
Walz said he donated the $18,000 campaign contribution he received in his 2018 gubernatorial run from the NRA, to a charity that helps families of military personnel killed or injured while serving and came out in favor of an assault weapons ban.
In a Star Tribune editorial, he also said that during his time in Congress, he supported “common-sense” gun-control reform laws, repeatedly voted in favor of universal background checks and preventing people on no-fly lists from purchasing firearms. He also said he supported legislation to fund gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was a co-sponsor of a bill to ban bump stocks and voted against concealed-carry reciprocity.
Walz also confronted the NRA, writing in the editorial that the organization is “the biggest single obstacle to passing the most basic measures to prevent gun violence in America — including common-sense solutions that the majority of NRA members support.”
As governor, Walz signed in May 2023 a historic suite of gun-safety measures that created red flag laws, extended the waiting period for gun transfers between parties from 7 to 10 days and expanded background checks to include private purchases between individuals, including those made at gun shows. The laws also require anyone buying a pistol or “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” to apply for a permit to purchase or carry such guns from their local police agency or sheriff’s department.
“As a veteran, gun-owner, hunter, and dad, I know basic gun safety isn’t a threat to the Second Amendment — it’s about keeping our kids safe,” Walz said during a ceremony to sign the gun legislation. “There’s no place for weapons of war in our schools, churches, banks, or anywhere else people are just trying to live their lives. Today is about taking meaningful action to create a safer future for our kids, and I am proud to sign this commonsense, life-saving legislation into law.”
‘The number one killer of our generation’
Timberlyn Mazeikis, who endured a Feb. 13, 2023, mass shooting at Michigan State University that left three of her classmates dead and five others injured, told ABC News that for her and many other Gen Z members the choice in this election “is simple.”
“Gun violence is the leading cause of death in our generation, and for a lot of us, we can no longer sit by and continue to watch this happen and just wait for the next massacre to occur. Because of that, we are showing up to vote,” said 21-year-old Mazeikis, now a senior at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.
Mazeikis, who will be voting in her first presidential election in November, said the MSU mass shooting “took a toll on me” as she recounted being barricaded in the school gym for hours, terrified that the shooter would burst through the doors at any minute.
After the shooting, she became a volunteer leader for Students Demand Action, an organization that fights for gun control legislation.
“I felt that I could no longer sit back and watch as further communities were destroyed by gun violence,” Mazeikis said. “And that experience of being on campus and the fear that I felt that day and losing my classmates and my sense of security has really worked as a catalyst to push me in this movement and to realize that we can no longer live this way.”
She said that while she views Trump and Vance as a “gun extremist dream ticket,” she said Harris and Walz have given her “hope.”
“The choice is simple. Our lives are on the line,” Mazeikis said. “We either go back with Trump and Vance or we go forward with Harris and Walz.”
Mazeikis also said Walz’s transformation from a strong pro-gun politician into one who now favors sensible gun regulations doesn’t concern her, saying, “his stance on gun violence prevention is one of strength and one of courage to change.”
“He is living proof that the gun lobby and the gun industry are lying to us, that you can be a responsible gun owner and still want to keep your community safe and believe in gun safety,” Mazeikis said.
However, Rob Doar, vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus — the largest gun rights group in Minnesota with more than 10,000 dues-paying members — told ABC News that he’s been following Walz’s policies and actions on guns for about a decade and was surprised he was picked to be Harris’ running mate.
“Initially, my thought was that it was not a good pick if the goal of the campaign was to try to appeal to maybe disaffected Republicans and moderates, just because he has had some flip-flopping on contentious issues like firearms,” Doar said. “But then as I saw more of the campaign strategy roll out, it seems like the goal has been to more highlight him as an example of what progressive leaders can do. In that vein, I think that he’s probably serving the campaign very well, given the high number of progressive policies that Minnesota’s passed recently.”
Doar said his organization does not endorse presidential candidates and noted that his members don’t necessarily like Trump.
“I think both tickets have problematic histories as far as a Second Amendment standpoint goes. Donald Trump was a huge advocate for the bump stock ban. Donald Trump made quotes like, ‘to take the guns first and then get due process second,’ and he’s made some other statements that have been fairly anti-Second Amendment,” Doar said. “On the other hand, you’ve got Kamala Harris, who is talking about, initially, mandatory gun buybacks for certain types of firearms. She has walked that back a little bit, but I think both tickets, as far as somebody who looks at the Second Amendment as their primary issue at the polls, have some problems.”
He said Vance’s “posturing” on gun rights is something a lot of Second Amendment supporters like.
“But these are the same kind of things that we heard out of Tim Walz when he was a representative in the first district [of Minnesota],” Doar said. “Unfortunately, JD Vance just doesn’t have the longevity of a political career to be able to back up the words that he’s saying, but I do think the way that he’s positioning himself is a way that might appeal to those who value the Second Amendment when they go to the polls.”
He said many of his group’s members have expressed concern about keeping the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court intact.
“I do hear a lot from our members that they don’t like Trump, but the sole reason they’re voting for him is because of the Supreme Court and for federal judicial nominations. So that’s not an unpopular sentiment among gun rights advocates,” Doar said. “I do think that the general consensus is that Trump would be much more favorable from a Second Amendment jurisprudence standpoint in his judicial appointments.”
(NEW YORK) — In an encore “20/20” airing August 16 at 9 p.m. ET, the show, which originally aired in 2020, revisits the case of Pamela Smart, who was sentenced to life in prison without parole for being an accomplice in her husband Gregg’s murder in 1990.
Smart, whose murder trial was the first in U.S. history to be broadcast on television gavel-to-gavel, maintained her innocence for 30 years. But this summer, in a stunning turn of events, she admitted to her role in her husband’s murder for the first time. “20/20” looks at the series of events that led to Gregg Smart’s murder and its aftermath and offers the latest news in what could be Pamela Smart’s last chance at freedom.
After nearly three decades behind bars for plotting to kill her husband at their home, Pamela Smart is still proclaiming her innocence.
“I have been portrayed as [an] ice princess, a black widow, a killer, and none of those things could be further from the truth,” Smart told “20/20” in a new interview.
Smart’s story made national headlines in the 1990s when she went to trial on charges she coerced her teenaged lover Billy Flynn into a plot to kill her 24-year-old husband Gregg Smart.
Pamela Smart’s trial took place before the high-profile trials of the Menendez brothers, John and Lorena Bobbitt and O.J. Simpson.
The trial was broadcast live on TV and it subsequently launched a media frenzy. A local New Hampshire TV station preempted daytime soap operas for trial coverage. The sensational event led to a made-for-TV movie, features in various true crime TV series in the U.S. and abroad, as well as the 1995 feature film “To Die For,” starring Nicole Kidman.
Watch the full story on “20/20” Friday, Jan. 10 at 9 p.m. ET on ABC.
In March 1991, Pamela Smart was convicted of witness tampering, conspiracy to commit murder and being an accomplice to first-degree murder. Under New Hampshire law, the accomplice charge carried a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole. She was 23 years old at the time.
Smart, now age 52, has spent the last 29 years incarcerated and is currently at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in Westchester County, New York.
“I wanted to be [a] mother and now I’ve lost all my years,” she said. “It seems like the whole world’s passing by and, you know, I’m still here.”
Over the years, Smart has filed numerous appeals and lost each time. With all her appeals exhausted, she said it’s difficult to hope she’ll ever leave prison alive.
Through it all, her mother, Linda Wojas, has continued her crusade to fight for her daughter’s freedom.
“I just hope God lets me live long enough to see her free,” Wojas said in a new interview with “20/20.”
Pamela Smart’s time in prison was difficult from early on. In 1996, she was beaten by two inmates who left her with injuries so severe that she needed a metal plate to be inserted into the side of her face.
Since then, Smart has earned two master’s degrees. She said she participates in a leadership team for the prison’s church and that she’s the director of its “praise dance” group. She said she also works as a liaison between inmates and the prison superintendent.
Wojas, who firmly believes in her daughter’s innocence, said she once asked Smart to apologize for her husband’s murder in hopes that it would help get her out of prison. Pamela Smart has consistently denied for decades she had any involvement in her husband’s murder.
In February 2018, Smart’s legal team submitted a petition for her sentence to be commuted, including testimonials from people she knew in prison.
“I was struck by the letters of support. I was struck by how well Ms. Smart has conducted herself in prison. And then I got to the memo that she personally wrote,” New Hampshire Executive Council member Andru Volinsky told “20/20.”
“In the very first paragraph, she claimed she had no involvement with his death,” Volinsky said. “That is at great odds with the evidence in the case. The failure to recognize her own culpability was what convinced me to vote against the hearing. How do I trust someone who hasn’t even come to terms with her own responsibility for the death of her husband?”
Smart was ultimately denied a sentence reduction hearing.
A life in prison is a world apart from the life Smart imagined for herself as a newlywed making a home in Derry, New Hampshire, in 1990.
“I was only 21 years old when I got married. I was very much in love with my husband,” Smart told “20/20.” “I thought that Gregg and I, that we would have a fulfilling future. That we would have a family and children.”
Pamela Smart, who goes by Pame, worked at a local high school as a media and journalism coordinator while her husband went into the insurance business with his father.
On May 1, 1990, Smart said she came home from work to find her husband dead from a gunshot wound to the head inside their condominium.
“What happened to Gregg is the most horrible thing I’ve ever gone through in my life, and I’m still haunted every day by memories of what must have happened to him inside our house before he was killed,” Smart said in her most recent interview. “Although I wasn’t there, I feel that because of that I’ll never know how Gregg was feeling at the time. I keep thinking of how afraid he must have been and how senseless this whole tragedy was. A lot of the times, I still can’t even believe that he’s gone.”
Police were investigating the case for six weeks before they got their first break. Vance Lattime Sr. went into the Seabrook Police station with his .38 caliber revolver, telling authorities that one of his son’s friends had told him it may have been used to kill Gregg Smart.
Once ballistics results confirmed a match between bullets fired from the gun and the bullet that killed Gregg Smart, police brought in Vance Lattime Jr.’s friend, Ralph Welch, for questioning.
Welch told police he had a conversation with Lattime Jr., and Patrick “Pete” Randall in the Lattime home, who talked about how Gregg Smart was killed.
He said he heard the boys discuss how Lattime Jr., Randall, and two other boys, Raymond Fowler and Billy Flynn were there that night. Welch said Lattime Jr. and Randall said that Lattime Jr. drove the group to the Smarts’ condo, and that Flynn and Randall went inside while Fowler remained in the car.
“They [Flynn and Randall] went there, and they broke into the place. They set it up to make it look like a burglary. I guess the guy tried to run or something, they grabbed him, they threw his dog in the cellar,” Welch said. “Pete said he held the guy’s head while Bill shot him.”
Welch told police that he’d also heard Pamela Smart had promised his friends $500 each out of a life insurance policy, which investigators later learned totaled $140,000.
Investigators were at a loss for how these high schoolers were connected to Pamela Smart. Then, police got an anonymous tip about Cecilia Pierce.
Pierce, another high school student who was interning for Smart, provided the link police were missing: Pierce said Smart was not only hanging out with the high schoolers she worked with but she had also begun an affair with Flynn, the young man who Welch claimed pulled the trigger.
Pierce told police that Pamela Smart was “kinda like a big sister” to her. She told them she knew Smart and Flynn were having sex, because one night, the three were watching a movie together when Smart and Flynn went off to have sex, and Pierce “walked in on them,” Pierce said.
Smart admitted to “20/20” that her relationship with Flynn “was totally wrong.”
“It was actually very difficult because I had feelings for my husband. I loved him and I also had developed feelings for Bill, and I knew that I couldn’t continue like this,” Smart said. “It wasn’t, you know, gonna work like this forever. It was only a short relationship.”
In July 1990, Pierce wore a police-monitored body wire that recorded Pamela Smart’s apparently telling Pierce to lie to investigators.
“I’m just telling you, you know, if you tell the truth, you’re gonna be an accessory to murder,” Smart said to Pierce in the recording. “Now, you know you’re gonna be on the witness stand…and then he’ll say, ‘Did you know?’ And you’re gonna say ‘no.’ ‘Did Pame do it?’ ‘No.’”
Smart argues, however, she was only pretending to be involved, hoping it would make Pierce give her information about what police knew.
“All I wanted to know was did [Flynn] really kill my husband,” she said. “More than anything I wanted this not to be true…because I felt responsible.”
“I thought there was no way, because the person I knew, I never saw him violent, or anything like that,” Smart said of Flynn.
Smart says that her attorney had even warned her not to trust Pierce before this conversation took place.
“Let me tell you how out of whack I was,” Smart told “20/20.” “The day before this [conversation with Pierce], I had a lawyer, and he calls me up and he says, ‘Whatever you do, don’t talk to her…because she’s coming in and she’s gonna be wired.’”
Smart was arrested in August 1990. She said that at the time, she “was not really worried about it.”
“I knew that I hadn’t done anything wrong. I’m thinking this is gonna get straightened out,” Smart said.
But the young man Smart said she had developed feelings for decided to cooperate. Flynn told investigators she coerced him to commit the murder.
“I meet Pame Smart and she’s beautiful, she’s intelligent, you know, she’s an adult…and she likes me,” Flynn told police. “She said the way she sees it, the only alternative…is to kill him.”
Flynn told police she would bring up the plan to kill her husband “almost every day… She said she hated him.”
“She had told Billy something along the lines that [Gregg Smart] mistreated her, and trying to give Billy some motive…[that he] was a bad guy and deserved to die,” Paul Maggiotto, the former New Hampshire assistant attorney general who prosecuted Smart’s case, told “20/20” in a new interview.
“She had used her sexual powers to influence Bill Flynn,” Maggiotto added. “But I can’t tell you that she didn’t legitimately love him.”
Flynn, Randall, Lattime Jr. and Raymond Fowler eventually confessed to their roles in the murder and pleaded guilty to various charges. They later cooperated with authorities in their prosecution against Smart.
Randall testified that he asked her to go over “the plan” ahead of Gregg Smart’s murder. Pamela Smart gave herself an alibi by being at a work meeting while the boys killed her husband.
“I wanted to make sure everything was gonna work. And she told me she was leaving the backdoors unlocked, we could go in, make sure we didn’t turn on any lights,” Randall said on the stand. “[She said] not to hurt her dog, and that we could ransack the apartment, the condo, take what we wanted. And wait for Gregg to come home. And when Gregg came home we were to kill him.”
When Gregg Smart walked in, Flynn and Randall said they jumped him and forced him to kneel down on the floor. Randall said he held a knife in front of his face but it was Flynn who fatally shot him. Meanwhile, Fowler and Lattime Jr., the latter of whom was driving the getaway car, were waiting in the car outside.
Mark Sisti, Pamela Smart’s defense attorney, said there was “a tsunami” of media attention around Smart’s trial. He told “20/20” in a new interview that “most of it was over-the-top drama.”
“We did not have a jury that was sequestered. So, naturally, we were concerned that they were going to be affected,” Sisti said.
Sisti argued at Smart’s trial that the prosecution “made a deal with the devil.”
“Like any other wild animals, they’d chew off their own arm if they were caught in a trap,” Sisti said during Smart’s trial, referring to the four teens who cooperated with the prosecution.
During the trial, Flynn took the stand and emotionally recounted how he’d been convinced that he and Smart could only be together “if we killed Gregg. Because she can’t divorce him.”
Flynn testified at trial how he paused just before shooting Gregg Smart in the head.
“A hundred years, it seemed, and I said ‘God forgive me.’ [Then] I pulled the trigger,” Flynn said.
“I didn’t want to kill Gregg. You know, I wanted to be with Pame. And that’s what I had to do to be with Pame,” he said.
Smart said that when she sensed the jury empathizing with Flynn, she “wanted to scream.”
“I wanted to get up and say, ‘Stop lying!’” she said.
Smart told “20/20” that she “absolutely” believes Flynn lied to get a lesser sentence.
“I know he lied,” she said. “There’s only two people — three — that know the truth: me, him and God.”
“I was a woman. This happened in a small New England town and it seemed like the whole Salem witch trial thing all over again,” Smart said. “The media latched on. I was like the proverbial woman with the scarlet letter. You know, everybody could project everything on me and hate me.”
Wojas also believes her daughter did not receive a fair trial.
“When you have publicity…1,200 newspaper articles screaming her guilt, [then] you’ll put in safeguards,” Wojas said. “Stay the trial while the publicity abates. You change the venue. And you sequester the jury.”
The jury was not sequestered and the venue was not changed.
Flynn and Randall each served 25 years in prison for second-degree murder and both men were paroled in June 2015. Lattime Jr. served 15 years in prison and was paroled in August 2005. Fowler served 12 years in prison and was paroled in 2003.
When ABC News’ Diane Sawyer interviewed Flynn in 1995, she asked him what the one question he would ask Smart, if given the chance, would be.
“Whether or not she really ever loved me,” Flynn said at the time. “In hindsight, that might not seem like a very big deal to most people, but knowing that she had me do this and that I did go through with it and that she never really loved me would probably kill me.”
In a separate interview with Sawyer in 1995, Smart told her, “Yes… I think I did really love him.”
Even today, Smart says she loved Flynn.
“I loved him,” she told “20/20.” I cared for him. I had feelings. People act like I just used him and went lurking through the school looking for somebody to manipulate. And it was just really wasn’t even like that.”
(KIMBERLING CITY, MO) — A Missouri woman was arrested Friday morning in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud Elvis Presley’s family out of millions of dollars and the ownership of Graceland, the Justice Department announced.
Lisa Findley is alleged to have orchestrated the scheme to conduct the sale of Graceland by falsely claiming that Presley’s daughter, prior to her death, had pledged the estate as collateral for a loan she hadn’t repaid, prosecutors said.
“As part of the brazen scheme, we allege that the defendant created numerous false documents and sought to extort a settlement from the Presley family,” the head of DOJ’s criminal division, Nicole Argentieri, said in a statement announcing the arrest.
Findley, 53, of Kimberling City, Missouri, was charged with mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, the DOJ said. She is scheduled to make her first appearance later Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. She does not yet have any attorney listed as representing her in online court records.
The criminal complaint, which was unsealed Friday, outlined the alleged scheme, which prosecutors said involved a fake private lender, forged documents and signatures and a fraudulent foreclosure notice for the Graceland estate in Memphis in an attempt to get millions from the Presley family.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — A hurricane warning has been issued for Bermuda as Ernesto strengthened to a Category 2 storm overnight.
Ernesto had maximum sustained winds of 100 mph Friday morning.
The hurricane is forecast to strengthen on Friday, but will remain a Category 2 storm as it passes Bermuda. Flash flooding covers a roadway after Tropical Storm Ernesto moved through the area in Dorado, Puert…
The hurricane will approach Bermuda Friday night as the eye wall — with its strongest winds — passes over Bermuda early Saturday morning.
Damaging winds near 90 mph and rainfall of up to 15 inches are possible.
While it won’t threaten the U.S. with landfall, a high rip current risk and large waves are reaching Florida on Friday and the Northeast from Saturday through Monday.
In the Northeast, waves could be 6 to 9 feet close to the shore and over 10 feet away from the coast.
After Bermuda, Ernesto will move northeast and brush Newfoundland with winds up to 80 mph early next week.
(WASHINGTON) — On the road to the 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump’s views on electric vehicles (EVs) have offered two different visions of America’s automotive future.
Harris has been vocally supportive of the administration’s push to expand access and manufacturing of EVs in the U.S., while Trump has pledged to undo those policies.
Earlier this week, however, Trump appeared to soften his staunch anti-EV views when he spoke to Tesla CEO Elon Musk on X.
“You do make a great product,” Trump said to Musk, referring to Tesla vehicles. “That doesn’t mean everybody should have an electric car, but these are minor details … your product is incredible.”
Before his conversation with Musk, the former president had maintained that electric vehicle production and sustainable energy sources are bad for the economy. He has vowed on “day one” to repeal the Biden-Harris administration’s sustainable energy policies in favor of domestic oil production.
“I will end the electric-vehicle mandate on day one, thereby saving the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration,” Trump told the audience at the Republican National Convention in July.
Biden-Harris pro-EV policies
While there is no federal electric vehicle mandate, the Biden-Harris administration has issued regulations calling on automakers to reduce emissions produced by their fleets, including by producing more electric and hybrid vehicles.
The administration’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – which Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass in Congress – marks the largest climate investment in United States history.
The legislation aims to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 and channels $370 billion into wind, solar, battery and electric vehicle production over the next 10 years.
Through the Inflation Reduction Act, candidate Harris has advocated for substantial investments in domestic electric vehicle car manufacturing, including funding for charging stations, and offering consumer incentives to buy EVs.
In May, Harris traveled to Detroit, Michigan, where she announced $100 million for small- and medium-sized auto manufacturers to upgrade their facilities for EV production.
“This investment will help to keep our auto supply chains here in America,” Harris said then, “which strengthens America’s economy overall and will keep those jobs here in Detroit.”
If elected, Harris is expected to continue advocating for eco-friendly fuel and emissions standards, increase funding for research and development for EV technology, and focus on leveraging EV industry growth to create more jobs.
An ABC News request to the Harris campaign for comment about their EV plans was not immediately returned.
EV sales impact on economy, climate
More Americans are starting to embrace EVs. Sales of electric cars and trucks last year totaled 1.4 million in 2023, up from 1 million in 2022, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced in January.
“The progress that’s been made is phenomenal,” Albert Gore III, executive director of the nonprofit coalition Zero Emission Transportation Association, told ABC News. “The United States has been a leader in electric vehicle manufacturing and also has really been a leader in a lot of good policymaking with regard to investment in every part of the EV and battery supply chain.”
Gore also noted that electric vehicles can have a significant impact on the economy, saying, “There’s a huge amount of opportunity.”
The industrial Midwest, Southwest and Southeast already have seen investment and job opportunities in the production of minerals and battery components for EVs. Georgia, Nevada, Texas, Ohio and Kansas have grown as domestic hubs for battery manufacturing, while Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and Arizona have risen as leaders in EV manufacturing.
“So a lot of really exciting economic opportunity in these places, and oftentimes it’s multiple parts of the supply chain,” Gore added.
Last month, the Biden administration awarded nearly $2 billion in grants to General Motors, Stellantis and other automakers to expand electric vehicle manufacturing in eight states, including key election swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.
“It’s really important that we create a transportation system where our cars are made by union workers with good jobs, which we’re starting to do courtesy of the Biden-Harris Inflation Reduction Act,” Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board and current vice president of Evergreen Action, a nonprofit climate change advocacy group, told ABC News.
“We must stabilize the climate and America should lead that effort,” Segall added.
Segall believes a Harris-Walz White House promises a continuation of the Biden administration’s push for EV manufacturing, and a chance to further those goals.
“When I think about what we could have at the end of her first term, I think we’re talking about much clearer skies and much healthier communities,” Segall said.
Because they have zero emissions, electric vehicles typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Obstacles to EV sales in the U.S.
Despite the push by carmakers and government officials, the EV market in the U.S. is still small compared to sales of gas-powered vehicles. Of the roughly 286 million cars on the road in 2023, just 9.3% were electric vehicles, according to Experian Automotive’s Market Trends report.
“The EV market is currently going through a bit of a rough patch,” Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at Edmunds, told ABC News.
Caldwell explained that consumers’ hesitancy to buy electric vehicles largely surrounds the charging infrastructure, range, prices, and battery longevity.
“In order for its buyer base to evolve from early adopters to mainstream consumers, EVs will likely rely on continued government support to hit volume sales targets across all brands,” Caldwell said. “Even with the enthusiastic backing of a fresh presidential administration, enacting such a dramatic shift in the vehicle market is a massive undertaking and the politically charged rhetoric surrounding EVs will likely place extra pressure on any new policy decisions.”
In order to combat consumer hesitancy, electric vehicles need to be offered at every price range, according to Alan Jenn, an assistant professor at the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies.
“In order to see EVs get even more mainstream than they are now, we want to see a larger release of vehicles in segments that are more affordable,” Jenn told ABC News.
The average transaction price for electric cars in June 2024 was $56,371 versus gas-powered vehicles at $48,644, according to Kelley Blue Book.
Segall believes a Harris presidency could bring federal investments and further tax credits to lower the costs of EVs.
Currently, the government offers tax credits up to $7,500 for eligible new electric vehicles and up to $4,000 for eligible used electric vehicles, according to the Department of Energy.
“They’re really well placed to stop paying for gas forever right now, and that’s only going to be a better story,” Segall said.
(LONDON) — North Korea is set to partially reopen its doors to tourism later this year after being closed off since January 2020 at the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a Chinese-based tourism operator.
Koryo Tours, based in Beijing, announced on Wednesday that tours to North Korea “will officially resume in December 2024,” according to a statement from the company. “Having waited for over 4 years to make this announcement, Koryo Tours is very excited for the opening of North Korean tourism once again.”
The borders of the country have been closed for almost half a decade and were shut down in January 2020 when it became the first country to close its doors due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Koryo.
However, the tourism company says that there have been signs that the country has slowly pivoting to open back up again since mid-2023 but, even though North Korea might be opening back up, it isn’t opening up fully and there is a major caveat for those who want to visit the country.
“The opening will start in Samjiyon City,” Koryo Tours said, meaning that access to Pyongyang or any other parts of the country will be restricted — though the reopening of other locations may be extended down the line. “Whilst this may seem unusual, it is the main area for tourism in North Korea during the winter time. For those hoping to visit on one of the sooner tours, we would like to [emphasize] that things may be a little more chaotic than usual.”
“Samjiyon is the most famous region in North Korea in the winter for tourism and is the home to the country’s famous volcanic mountain Mt. Paektu,” Koryo Tours continued. “In North Korea, it is seen as the birthplace of the revolution and the reputed birthplace of Kim Jong Il. For the South, it is the birthplace of the Korean people. For the whole Korean Peninsula, it is the most significant and sacred place.”
Previously difficult to access with few tourist facilities, North Korea has been working for years on the development of Samjiyon, according to Koryo Tours.
“Whilst we have been operating in the country for over 30 years, we have never before come across such a long closure of the borders,” the tourism company said. “Samjiyon was announced as it has recently been redeveloped as a tourist destination, we visited in 2018 when filming ‘Michael Palin in North Korea’ and it was already under construction at that time.”
Official itinerary dates will be announced in the coming weeks and once the company will make them available on their website once they have finalized the itineraries.
“Unfortunately, what this means for broader tourism – we do not yet know,” said Koryo Tours. “But of course, you will be in the safe hands of the North Korea tour experts here at Koryo Tours. Your safety is our priority.”
(RALEIGH, N.C.) — When Vice President Kamala Harris unveils her economic policy proposals in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday, it will include a proposal to provide up to $25,000 in down payment support for first-time homebuyers, according to a campaign official.
The campaign is vowing that during its first term, the Harris-Walz administration would provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners.
In a preview statement obtained by ABC News, the campaign says, “Many Americans work hard at their jobs, save, and pay their rent on time month after month. But they can’t save enough after paying their rent and other bills to save for a down payment — denying them a shot at owning a home and building wealth. As the Harris-Walz plan starts to expand the supply of entry-level homes, they will, during their first term, provide working families who have paid their rent on time for two years and are buying their first home up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance, with more generous support for first-generation homeowners.”
“The Biden-Harris administration proposed providing $25,000 in downpayment assistance for 400,000 first-generation home buyers — or homebuyers whose parents don’t own a home — and a $10,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. This plan will significantly simplify and expand the reach of down-payment assistance, allowing over 1 million first time-buyers per year – including first-generation home buyers – to get the funds they need to buy a house when they are ready to buy it,” the Harris campaign said.
Prior to Harris’ speech on Friday, an official also released more details on the housing component of Vice President Harris’ lower costs plan to “help end the housing supply shortage” that includes calling for the construction of 3 million new housing units and stopping Wall Street investors from buying homes in bulk.
Officials said she will propose a new $40 billion innovation fund — doubling that of the $20 billion Biden-Harris proposed innovation fund — that will be used for local governments to fund local solutions to build housing and support “innovative” methods of construction financing. It will also allow for certain federal lands to be eligible to be repurposed for new housing developments.
“Harris will work in partnership with workers and the private sector to build the housing the country needs, both to rent and to buy, and take down barriers that stand in the way of building new housing, including at the state and local level. This will make rents and mortgages cheaper,” according to the campaign.
Harris is also proposing two acts, the Preventing the Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels Act and the Stop Predatory Investing Act to help bring down the cost of rent. These acts aim to take on “corporate and major landlords” to stop them from “jacking” up prices.
