Wu-Tang clap back, dissing Martin Shkreli on new track

Martin Shkreli – the “Pharma bro” now in prison after placing a bounty on Hillary Clinton’s hair – received more not so good news on Friday: the Wu-Tang Clan released a brand new track that can take a swipe in their most questionable fan.

Shkreli rose to infamy as Chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals after hiking the cost of the lifesaving drug, Daraprim, by 5,000%. His callous approach has inspired the Clan: “Hater / Wouldn’t serve you for a day within my footwear / You realize perfectly / Bet he swell / You are able to tell he jeal’ / My cost hikin’ such as the pills Martin Shkreli sell,” the Clan rap on Lesson Learn’d using their forthcoming album Wu-Tang: The Saga Continues, looking for release on 13 October.

The rap band and also the disgraced pharmaceutical boss happen to be kept in a war of words since Shkreli compensated $2m for that sole copy of the album Not so long ago in Shaolin.

After Shkreli bought the album, Clan rapper Ghostface Killah attacked Shkreli for that cost hike and known as him a “shithead” and “the Michael Jackson nose kid”. Shkreli retaliated by threatening Killah, calling him “an old man that has lost his relevance”.

Clan people have since claimed the album wasn’t the official release, while Shkreli has offered the 31-track double CD, which will come within an ornate, hands-created box, on eBay for $1m.

The sole copy of Wu-Tang’s double CD, One Upon a Time in Shaolin The only copy of Wu-Tang’s double CD, One Upon a period in Shaolin. Photograph: Warren Wesley Patterson

Shkreli is presently waiting for sentencing on fraud charges, and it has been released on $5m bail. But earlier this year he was jailed after supplying a bounty to anybody who grabbed a strand of Clinton’s hair while she is at New You are able to promoting her new memoir.

“On HRC’s book tour, attempt to grab a hair from her,” he authored on Facebook, inside a now deleted publish. “Will pay $5,000 per hair acquired from Hillary Clinton.”

Judge Kiyo Matsumoto stated that Shkreli’s Facebook publish was “a solicitation to assault in return for money that isn’t paid by the very first amendment”.

Why neighborhood toy stores are thriving while Toys R Us goes bankrupt

— crushed by debt — files for personal bankruptcy]

If is really a private-equity horror story (not just one for the children), then mother-and-pop neighborhood toy shops tend to be more just like a story book.

At Child’s Play in Northwest Washington, annual sales happen to be climbing about 3 % annually, as a parent avoid megastores an internet-based options in support of their four locations, which together generate millions in annual revenue.

On the recent week day mid-day, the shop bustled with children. Their parents with you stated they are available towards the store regularly simply because they such as the carefully curated selection, useful employees, Lego-building occasions and also the gift wrapping, which comes in handy whenever you stop by in order to mothering sunday party.

Crocs’ big strategy: Stay ugly]

The toys at Child’s Play are selected with the aid of developmental psychologists, work-related therapists and teachers. Staffers are trained extensively in child development and therefore are trained to recommend products according to specific factors.

Have to focus on your toddler’s finger strength? Employees might recommend Play-Doh.

Possess a child that has trouble losing? Cooperative games for example Forbidden Island or Mole Rats wide could be the ticket.

Frequently, parents stated, they’ll enter the shop having a couple of parameters: “I require a $20 gift for any 4-year-old boy.” It’s only a few minutes before an worker has recommended something and wrapped it on their behalf. (“Walk into any birthday celebration around here, and it is all gift wrap from Child’s Play,” one mother stated.)

“Every worker here has a minimum of a 5-minute shtick on every item within this store,” Shannon Sumner stated. “And everyone has a minumum of one niche, whether it’s books or Legos or games.Inches (Her expertise: Nerf weaponry and outside toys.)

“Nowadays people have a tendency to consider toys as disposable entertainment,” stated Steven Aarons, who founded Child’s Play 31 years back. “But they’re even more than that. They are simply vital that you a child’s development.”

Benjamin Mack banded while watching The Exorcist Legos.

“I much like coming to see what they’ve here,” the 8-year-old stated. “Sometimes If only I possibly could buy each and every factor within this aisle.”

This really is, he stated, where he involves spend the monthly allowance he earns doing chores throughout the house. Once he earned $21 in a single month. Today he was empty-handed.

“I usually concentrate on the $10 sets, for affordable for me personally,Inches he stated.

“But basically had lots of money, I’d get individuals on top shelf,” he added, pointing for an all-terrain tactical enforcer marked $149.99. “They cost a lot of hundreds.”

He and the 5-year-old brother, he stated, live nearby and prefer to stay in after school.

“I think toy stores come with an benefit to stores in your phone or computer,” Benjamin stated because he checked out a presentation of Legos. “Amazon may have more things, however this is simpler because it’s not necessary to check out a screen.”

Nearby, a consumer appreciated how employees had tracked lower an obscure ancient shark figurine on her twins. Another remembered time employees opened up a game so her 7-year-old boy, Ben, could decide whether or not this was the best gift for uncle.

“When Ben was searching for any football, they were given out a lot of footballs and performed with him,” stated Janice Wilding, who’d stopped along with her three children. “They really put them around within the store. Cure would do this?Inches

Taking toys from their boxes and showing the way they work is an integral part from the job at independent toy stores. It is also the primary reason companies for example Haba, a German toymaker that are experts in wooden toys, only target independent retailers.

“The niche toy market represents our brand in a manner that mass retailers just cannot,” stated Lea Culliton, president of Haba USA. “We want to utilize shop proprietors who’re engaged and knowledgeable, and that’s what today’s parents want, too.”

Back through the games, Ella and Cora remained as searching for the best toy. Their latest selection would be a laser tag looking for $49.99.

“Please, please,” Cora stated, jumping up and lower. “Both people can enjoy.Inches

“No, Mother stated no guns,” their father, Jon, stated. “We’ve only been here, what, an hour or so? Geez, I want a beer.”

More often than not, Jon stated, he is doing his shopping on the web. It’s cheaper and simpler.

“If I’d were built with a little experience, I would’ve bought her birthday toys online too,” he stated. “But that they like coming here, exactly what do you need to do?Inches

The girls’ doctor walked in and stated hello. Then Ella and Cora encountered a few classmates.

Cora found a foam baseball bat she thought her father would really like. (He didn’t.) She considered a Barbie dolls convertible. (“Don’t even consider it,” her older sister informed her. “If it’s a vehicle, which means it’s a significant amount of money.”)

“Cora, in 2 seconds, should you not have something, we’re departing,” their father known as out. “Girls, I’m walking out of the door.Inches

He then spotted a parrot-capped pen. An worker came to show Cora the way it labored: “Here, watch,” she stated. “Say your company name.Inches

“Cora,” Cora stated.

“Cora,” the parrot repeated.

The 6-year-old began jumping. “I’m setting it up! I’m setting it up! It states everything on repeat!”

Her father pumped his fist in mid-air. “Done! Perfect! Okay, Ella, you will get one, too. Let’s go!”

He compensated for that toys. They walked out of the door, the women holding hands, their father holding two bags of toys.

DealBook: Fixing the ‘Brain Damage’ Brought on by the I.P.O. Process

Andrew Ross Sorkin

Andrew Ross Sorkin

DEALBOOK

“It appears like a means of residing in hell without dying.”

Which was the way in which James Freeman, the founding father of Blue Bottle Coffee, described the entire process of going for a company public in the current era — and exactly how he described why he offered his company rather to Nestlé a week ago.

There is no secrete the public stock markets — regardless of the heights they’ve arrived at (and also the credit that President Trump has had on their behalf) — are essentially damaged. No leader wants to reside in the glare from the public spotlight and cope with annoying investors who hold stocks over time frames of days and several weeks, not many decades.

The amount of companies for auction on public stock markets is half what it really was 2 decades ago. This past year, less companies went public than throughout the economic crisis.

“It’s an unusual world. Whether it was ten years ago, we’d be public right now,Inches Stewart Butterfield, leader of Slack, a workplace messaging company worth $5.1 billion, told The Financial Occasions over the past weekend.

Now, a number of entrepreneurs are emerging with a few novel methods to repair the problem. A week ago, Chamath Palihapitiya, a brash entrepreneur who had been an earlier Facebook worker, launched an open company referred to as a special purpose acquisition company, or perhaps a “blank check” company, with $600 million set up by investors. The intent would be to merge and among Plastic Valley’s unicorns, taking it public via a mystery of sorts.

The concept would be to remove “the procedure for going public that maybe true brain damage,” Mr. Palihapitiya stated.

Simultaneously, Spotify, the streaming music company worth some $13 billion, continues to be exploring an agenda to list out its shares around the New You are able to Stock Market directly, without raising any new money from public investors.

Possibly probably the most ambitious and provocative efforts are a business that so far is at “stealth mode”: LTSE (Lengthy-Term Stock Market), brought through the entrepreneur Eric Ries. Supported by a who’s who of venture-capital investors — Marc Andreessen, Reid Hoffman and Steve Situation included in this — the brand new exchange aims to reimagine what it really way to be also an open company. Among its changes towards the ecosystem: the voting legal rights of investors (the more you have, the greater voting power you’ve), new disclosure policies (together with a moratorium on “guidance”) along with a complete rewrite of compensation schemes to ensure that executives truly concentrate on the lengthy term (it recommends vesting stock over as lengthy like a decade).

Before we get carried away lower the rabbit hole of methods to repair the problem, it’s worth focusing on how the I.P.O. process — and also the markets themselves — grew to become so damaged.

To listen to Mr. Palihapitiya tell it, the shift — a minimum of in Plastic Valley — started throughout the economic crisis, as he was working at Facebook. His candid explanation is surprising.

“We at Facebook essentially flipped the narrative, so we made it happen purposely,” he stated. “Our whole factor was ‘Let’s stay private longer.’ And also the reason we did which was i was confident it might trick lots of others into not attempting to go public or make use of the capital markets.”

He stated Facebook wished that “all individuals companies would eventually die because they weren’t so good and we’d suck up all their talent.”

Whether or not this would be a trick or otherwise, “stay private longer” grew to become a mantra in Plastic Valley. And given all of the cash sloshing round the technology industry, companies have had the ability to delay going public without breaking the bank.

However it has produced a variety of problems, most famously being that employees have felt their social hire companies — employed by little salary but plenty of stock around the assumption the businesses would go public — has fallen apart. Also it might actually be affecting innovation.

Mr. Palihapitiya stated the lament of numerous employees became this: “I can’t purchase the house on ‘mission and values.’ I really need current compensation. Plastic Valley has become probably the most costly places to reside.Inches A lot of employees, he described, happen to be hopscotching in one company to another looking for an elusive I.P.O.

“Now you’ve these attrition rates of like 20-plus percent,” he stated. “How are you currently designed to build an legendary legacy business whenever your entire worker base walks out of the door every 5 years?Inches

Mr. Palihapitiya’s response is to get rid of the I.P.O. process and it is year . 5 of “distractions attempting to craft a bogus narrative,” because he described it, to lure investors. Rather, through his openly traded vehicle, a unicorn company — shorthand for any $1 billion-plus private technology company — could reverse merge in it, instantly becoming public.

Unlike an dpo, by which employees and early investors have the ability to certain “lockup” dates for whenever they can sell stock, he is able to write the guidelines however the organization wants. Certain employees, for example, could sell early, or even the sales might be staggered there isn’t an “overhang” around the stock that will depress the cost before a significant lockup period expired.

Mr. Palihapitiya also could choose the majority of the company’s big investors, who’ve agreed to their personal lockups, which makes them a lot more oriented toward the lengthy term. For those this, he adopts a tidy fee: 20 % from the $600 million. But when his company acquires a company five to twenty occasions its size via a reverse merger, he stated, the charge is equivalent to or smaller sized than the usual banker’s fee — which is all available, so unlike banks, Mr. Palihapitiya’s interests are aligned using the company’s.

But Mr. Palihapitiya’s approach is only the beginning. Probably the most provocative plan going swimming Plastic Valley is Mr. Ries’s LTSE. “It’s an intellectually thoughtful idea,” Mr. Palihapitiya stated.

The concept, at its core, would be to alter the dynamic between your stock market and whom it serves, Mr. Ries described, suggesting that traditional stock markets focus more about investors — and all sorts of connected buying and selling revenue — than you are on the businesses listed. That, he believes, results in short-term thinking and buying and selling.

Mr. Ries, who authored a magazine entitled “The Lean Startup,” is wishing to produce an exchange that is centered on the requirements of companies having a lengthy-term vision and investors who’re similarly aligned. He believes the issue facing private companies isn’t only the I.P.O. process but additionally “the resided experience with as being a public company.”

Possibly probably the most unusual a part of his exchange’s approach — that is working to obtain approval in the Registration — is when much influence and voting power investors might have over companies.

Presently, a trader the master of one share for any month, or perhaps a day, has got the same voting power as somebody who has owned a share for a long time. Mr. Ries wants what he calls “tourists” — short-term shareholders — to possess less voting power than lengthy-term shareholders, whom he calls “citizens from the republic.” With time, shareholders of companies around the LTSE would gain in votes according to their period of possession.

This type of system will make dual-class structures, like at Snap (or even the New You are able to Occasions) less appealing to its founders. That will also aid finish one other issue which has emerged: Dual-class companies spend the money for leader, typically, three occasions around companies having a single share class.

Mr. Ries also takes are designed for compensation plans. He wants firms that list on his exchange to possess stock vesting programs with a minimum of 5 years and recommends ten years, for executives who leave the organization.

Now, this can be very difficult to apply, and it is difficult to know whether or not this works. “It’s very hard,Inches Mr. Palihapitiya stated. “Ours isn’t as intellectually ambitious.” But many of these attempts are significant tries to fix the machine. Even when it normally won’t act as marketed, hopefully the establishment will require notes.

Moving Stone, rock’n’roll magazine switched liberal cheerleader, up for purchase

It’s the magazine that described investment bank Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped round the face of humanity”, George W Plant because the “worst president in history” and featured a photograph of the naked John Lennon curled around Yoko Ono on its first page.

But after almost half a century of seminal covers and epoch-shifting articles, the proprietors of Moving Stone have place the title up for purchase among financial hardships.

Founded by Jann Wenner in 1967 as he would be a 21-year-old hippy student in California, Wenner now runs the rock’n’roll magazine switched liberal cheerleader together with his boy Gus, president from the family publishing company.

On Sunday, the happy couple announced these were intending to sell their remaining stake within the title which has ruthlessly skewered politicians and helped to produce the careers of these influential creatives as professional photographer Annie Leibovitz and also the gonzo journalist Hunter S Thompson.

pricey libel fight, and financial deals by using the advantage of hindsight seem like foolish have emerged to prompt the Wenners to think about their options.

Jann Wenner states he wants to locate a buyer that understands Moving Stone and it has “lots of money”. The 71-year-old stated: “Rolling Stone has performed this type of role within the good reputation for our occasions, socially and politically and culturally. You want to retain that position.” Both Wenners want to stay associated with playboy after it’s offered.

Rolling Stone magazine founder and publisher Jann Wenner. Moving Stone magazine founder and writer Jann Wenner. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/Environmental protection agency

Jann Wenner founded Moving Stone like a student at Berkeley alongside Rob J Gleason, a columnist and jazz critic in the Bay Area Chronicle who shared the love for music. Lennon made an appearance around the cover from the first issue.

Playboy still involves music, film and television, but has additionally become famous for in-depth features and interviews upon us culture that are presently news themselves.

Included in this are Matt Taibbi’s evisceration people investment bank Goldman Sachs in ’09 because the world reeled in the worst economic crisis since 1929. Taibbi famously described how Goldman alumni wound up in effective government positions all over the world, writing from the bank: “The world’s most effective investment bank is a superb vampire squid wrapped round the face of humanity, non-stop jamming its bloodstream funnel into something that has the aroma of money.”

Moving Stone’s liberal ideology has additionally become certainly one of its hallmarks. It’s printed high-profile interviews with Bill Clinton and Obama, both conducted by Jann Wenner themself, as well as in August it place a photo of Canadian pm Justin Trudeau on its cover using the headline: “Why can’t he be our president?”

It’s been a continuing critic people president Jesse Trump and pilloried George W Plant with satirical cartoons on its first page, including one headlined: “The worst president ever?Inches

The coverage of Moving Stone frequently carries provocative images and starring on its cover remains a searched for-after honor for musicians and actors. Leibovitz was behind a lot of Moving Stone’s most memorable early covers, such as the photo of Lennon and Ono almost 30 years ago. Lennon was shot dead just hrs following the photograph was taken.

Other celebrated contributors towards the magazine include Thompson and Tom Wolfe. Thompson’s novel Fear and Loathing in Vegas was serialised by Moving Stone and finally was adapted right into a film, with The Actor-brad Pitt playing Thompson.

Jann Wenner with singer-songwriter Bette Midler at the premiere of the Rolling Stone Covers Tour in 1998. Jann Wenner with singer-songwriter and actor Bette Midler in the premiere from the Moving Stone Covers Tour in 1998. Photograph: Kathy Willens/AP

However, the magazine’s status – and finances – were badly broken if this retracted a 2014 story a good alleged gang-rape in the College of Virginia, having a review discovering that Moving Stone didn’t undertake fundamental newspaper procedures to ensure the details. Playboy was this past year purchased to pay for $3m (£2.2m) in damages within the article following a high-profile trial.

Jann Wenner stated within an interview using the Protector this season the College of Virginia article was his greatest mistake while at Moving Stone. He stated it absolutely was printed after “one of individuals perfect storms of errors”.

Wenner’s decision to purchase back a 50% stake in magazine US Weekly for $300m in the year 2006 may be considered a mistake. He’d offered the stake to Wally Disney just for $40m 5 years earlier and purchasing it back left the household writer saddled with debt.

His boy attempted to handle the financial pressures on the organization captured by selling US Weekly and Men’s Journal, another of Moving Stone’s sister titles, to American Media. BandLab Technologies, a Singapore-based music company, also purchased a 49% stake in Moving Stone this past year.

Both American Media – writer of supermarket tabloids such as the National Enquirer – and BandLab are noticed as contenders to seize control of Moving Stone. If American Media buys the title, it might mark a clear, crisp alternation in owners’ ideologies. The tabloid empire is brought by David Pecker, an ardent Trump ally.

“The Runaway General” by which he and the aides are quoted as critical from the president and the approach.

2013: Jann Wenner appoints his boy, Gus, as mind of Rollingstone.com, an indication the more youthful Wenner has become influential in the household media business.

2014: A Moving Stone article makes allegations in regards to a gang rape in the College of Virginia. After commentators question the content and also the Washington Publish highlights factual inaccuracies, playboy commissions an analysis by Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, that is damning from the feature. Moving Stone eventually pays out $3m in damages.

2016: Singapore music company BandLab buys 49% of Moving Stone.

Don’t dismiss bankers’ predictions of the bitcoin bubble – they ought to know

When in charge of Wall Street’s greatest bank calls a bubble, the planet inevitably sits up and listens, although with a feeling of in the past weighted irony: obviously a good investment bank boss would place disaster after his industry presided during the last one. Jamie Dimon, the main executive of JP Morgan, stated a week ago the ascendancy from the virtual currency bitcoin – that has risen in cost from approximately $2 this year to greater than $4,000 at points this season – advised him of tulip fever in 17th-century Holland. “It is worse than tulip bulbs,” he stated. “It might be at $20,000 before happens, but it’ll eventually inflate. I’m just shocked that anybody can’t view it for what it’s.Inches

Dimon’s surveys are a wide open invitation for derision from individuals who, appropriately, explain that although JP Morgan might be the surface of the Wall Street heap, that heap is certainly not the moral high ground. Under Dimon’s leadership, it’s agreed a $13bn settlement around regulators over selling dodgy mortgage securities – the instruments behind the loan crunch – and it is run-ins with watchdogs incorporate a $264m fine this past year for hiring the kids of Chinese officials to be able to win lucrative business in exchange.

However it doesn’t lead him to wrong. The most fundamental description of bitcoin – an intellectual test on the componen with describing a collateralised debt obligation – elicits mental pictures of an electronic back-alley covering game. A bitcoin is really a cryptographic means to fix an intricate equation. It’s not as recognisable for you or me like a unit of worth as, say, $ 1 bill or perhaps a prize conker. There’s no central authority validating the development of bitcoins – rather, they’re documented on an open electronic ledger known as a blockchain. Should you regard the financial institution of England being an all-effective insurer for that pound, there’s no such institution behind bitcoin.

This insufficient a main authority is among the explanations why Dimon cavilled such strong terms a week ago. Within the interstices of unregulated finance lurk ne’er-do-wells.

“If you had been a medication dealer, a killer, things like that, you’re best doing the work in bitcoin than $ $ $ $,Inches he stated. “So there might be an industry for your, but it might be a restricted market.”

Hyperbole aside – murderers don’t always require a digital wallet to fulfil their ambitions – Dimon is referencing a properly-trailed outcomes of bitcoin and narcotics. The currency can also be susceptible to online hackers. With no backstop central bank, heist victims are in position to lose everything, just like the collapse from the MtGox bitcoin exchange in 2014. Getting a home loan denominated in bitcoins isn’t advisable and, fortunately for individuals stupid enough to test it, you will not look for a high-street bank prepared to underwrite it.

But a few of the perceived flaws behind bitcoin that alarm Dimon – no central authority, an open ledger of transactions – indicate the principles of the new financial establishment. In the jargon-busting lexicon of finance How you can Speak Money, the writer John Lanchester described the way the high clergymen of ancient Egypt controlled agriculture – by extension the economy – via a carefully guarded ton measurement system referred to as a nilometer which was hidden behind a lot of mumbo jumbo. Dimon, a contemporary high priest, faces an adversary value system in bitcoin. It’s no temple, no central authority and utilizes a rubric that he’s no control. Quite simply, it’s an alternative financial establishment, whose recognition is inextricably associated with the ebbing of rely upon the worldwide system which was triggered through the recession.

If bitcoin fails, or perhaps is discredited, another system will rise to consider its place, with no imprimatur of Dimon or his peers round the altar.

First-time buyers beware: this rate rise might just be the beginning

House proprietors, and would-be house proprietors, beware. Change is originating. Most around the Bank of England’s financial policy committee against raising rates of interest appears huge, confirmed at 7-2 a week ago. However the language is tightening round the nation’s finances.

Spare capacity throughout the economy – unfilled jobs and unspent money – has been whittled away more rapidly than formerly thought and inflation continues to be prone to overshoot its 2% target within the next 3 years. Yes, wage growth is running below an inflation rate which has now hit 2.9%, but all signs now indicate that 7-2 split flipping another way come November.

Because the Bank stated, “some withdrawal of financial stimulus will probably be appropriate within the coming months”. It was firmed up the very next day by Gertjan Vlieghe, formerly probably the most anti-rise MPC member, as he stated the financial institution was “approaching the moment” to have an increase.

Market punters now think there’s a 42% possibility of a boost in November, and most 50% in December. The present split around the MPC masks the weighing of trade-offs – between economic growth and inflation, publish-referendum stability and curbing personal debt – that is ever delicate and shut to some tipping point.

An interest rate rise from .25% at the moment to .5% won’t be any disaster and would just represent coming back towards the previous record low, which in fact had lasted from 2009 towards the EU election. What should hone borrowers’ minds is the idea of further increases – as hinted by Vlieghe. Inflation remains stubbornly high something must be completed to temper someone lending surge growing at 10% annually.

Households might deal with moving to .5%, but when an interest rate increase augurs a sustained move against cheap borrowing and chronic inflation, a wider re-think of ambitions, from getting further in the housing ladder to purchasing a brand new vehicle, is going to be needed. As well as for individuals this is not on the housing ladder, about one step up might be extinguished altogether.

Disney hopes its The Exorcist choice uses the pressure wisely

Disney’s selection of creative talent recently continues to be impeccable, getting handed the Avengers franchise to Joss Whedon and employed Lin-Manuel Miranda to co-write the background music for Moana. Nevertheless its decisions within the The Exorcist world have unravelled recently.

The director of Rogue One, Gareth Edwards, was sidelined during reshoots, as the directing duo behind the brand new Han Solo film, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, were fired altogether shortly before shooting finished. Most lately, Jurassic World helmer Colin Trevorrow was yanked from the final The Exorcist instalment before filming started.

A week ago, Disney announced it had been handing the ultimate film within the latest The Exorcist trilogy to JJ Abrams, the creator of Lost and director of The Pressure Awakens, the show that launched this Jedi triptych. Abrams is really a conservative choice, by Disney’s recent standards. What the studio needs at this time is really a safe set of on the job the lightsaber.

Equifax hack: two executives to depart company after breach

Equifax announced late Friday that it is chief information officer and chief security guard could leave the organization immediately, following a enormous breach of 143 million Americans’ private information.

Additionally, it presented a litany of security efforts it made after realizing suspicious network traffic in This summer.

The loan data company stated that Susan Mauldin, who was simply the very best security guard, and David Webb, the main information officer, were retiring from Equifax. Mauldin, a university music major, had belong to media scrutiny on her qualifications in security.

Equifax didn’t say in the statement what retirement packages the executives would receive.

Mauldin has been substituted with Russ Ayers, an info technology executive inside Equifax. Webb has been substituted with Mark Rohrwasser, who most lately was responsible for Equifax’s worldwide technology operations.

Equifax continues to be under intense public pressure because it disclosed a week ago that online hackers utilized or stole the countless social security figures, birthdates along with other information.

On Friday it gave its most detailed timeline from the breach yet, saying it observed suspicious network traffic on This summer 29 connected using its US online dispute portal web application. Equifax stated it believes the access happened from 13 May through 30 This summer.

Equifax had stated earlier it identified a weakness within an open-source software program known as Apache Struts because the technological crack that permitted online hackers to heist the information in the massive database maintained mainly for lenders. That disclosure , made late Wednesday, cast their damaging security lapse within an even harsher light. The program problem was detected in March along with a suggested software patch was launched shortly afterward.

Equifax stated its security officials were “aware of the vulnerability in those days, and required efforts to recognize and also to patch any vulnerable systems within the company’s IT infrastructure”.

The organization has hired Mandiant, a company frequently introduced in to cope with major security problems at big companies, to perform a forensic review.

Equifax also stated Friday it might still allow individuals to place credit freezes on their own reports with no fee through November 21. Initially the organization offered fee-free credit freezes for thirty days following the incident.

Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook publish about Hillary Clinton

[The fascinating legal argument in the centre from the Martin Shkreli ‘Pharma Bro’ trial]

Since his conviction, the loquacious executive has stored an energetic — and combative — presence online. Additionally to requesting anyone to grab a strand of Clinton’s hair, he has offered investment recommendations and announced the purchase from the only known copy of “Once Upon a period in Shaolin,” a Wu Tang Clan album, he purchased for $two million in 2015.

“I hope someone having a bigger heart for music are available with this one-of-a-kind piece and causes it to be readily available for the planet to listen to,Inches he added.

The newest bid is for $1,001,300 — a possible loss for Shkreli.

Martin Shkreli, an old pharmaceutical Chief executive officer, spoke to reporters after he was charged of three counts of securities fraud on August. 4. (Reuters)

Apple unveils new items, such as the $1,000 iPhone X

Apple’s new iPhone X will feature facial recognition technology and build a 3-dimensional mathematical map of the face. (Victoria Master/The Washington Publish)

CUPERTINO, Calif. — Apple unveiled three new inclusions in its smartphone selection Tuesday, together with a $999 premium version — a telephone that shows where Apple plans to accept iPhone into its next decade.

The bar for that new phone was high for Apple. Most of their revenue is generated with the smartphone. Overall, analysts appeared to consider the organization hit the objective, but nonetheless wanted a lot of where the organization would go next.

“Apple organized a really competitive group of products because it celebrated the iPhone’s tenth anniversary,” stated Geoff Blaber, research v . p . at CCS Insights. ‘The key question now’s just how much it’ll prioritize software and services because the engine of future growth,” he stated, adding that that may help reinforce Apple’s effective hardware business.

While Apple required time for you to celebrate the iPhone’s background and its late co-founder Jobs, additionally, it made obvious that it is forging a brand new path ahead. For instance, Apple skipped the iPhone 7s name altogether — signaling a cleaner break in the last generation of phones.

The iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus have glass backs, by having an aluminum trim which comes in black, grey and gold. The brand new products are speedier with better cameras and improved battery efficiency. The phones may also accommodate wireless charging, an element on competing phones. Apple’s mind of promoting Phil Schiller stated Apple yet others can make charging pad that will appear at partner coffee houses and stores, as well as in newer and more effective cars.

Apple is bumping in the base storage from the iPhone 8 to 64 GB in a cost of $699. The bigger iPhone 8 Plus will begin at $799. Both is going to be readily available for order on Sept. 15 and ship on Sept. 22.

Yet while Apple touted the characteristics from the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus, it had been the iPhone X that stole the show. Apple leader Tim Prepare stated the iPhone X — a reputation spoken because the “iPhone 10”— will “set the road for technology for the following decade.”

The iPhone X will begin at $999 — significantly greater than the bottom cost from the other models. It is going to be readily available for pre-order on March. 27th, and ship on November. 3.

The iPhone X comes with an advanced variety of cameras for facial recognition, which enables the telephone to get unlocked simply by searching in internet marketing. The cameras can become familiar with a user’s face and note gradual changes. And you can use it at nite and day.

But Apple guaranteed that it wouldn’t collect the data on all individuals faces. The data would simply be stored around the smartphone, not delivered to Apple servers.

The facial recognition technologies have other applications, too. Apple introduced “animoji” — animated emoji that imitates your facial movements and enables you to record animated messages through texts.

The brand new high-finish smartphone includes a 5.8 inch display that covers the whole top of the phone. Unlike its cheaper brother or sister, the iPhone 10 is available in space gray and silver and sports a “super” retina display, which Schiller stated was much sharper than every other iPhone since it uses OLED display technology.

Particularly, there is also no home button. Users must swipe and employ gestures to shut an application. Calling up Siri is now able to done with a brand new side button.

The iPhone X boasts updated cameras too, and also the battery existence is 2 hrs more than the iPhone 7.

Such as the new iPhone 8, the iPhone X could be billed wirelessly.

Overall, while analysts stated this doesn’t feel as crucial as the very first iPhone, Apple did enough to demonstrate it’s headed within the right direction. “The iPhone X won’t disrupt the smartphone market how a initial iPhone revolutionized mobile and lots of other industries,” stated Thomas Husson, v . p . and analyst at Forrester. “However, along with iOS 11 innovations, it’ll reinforce consumers’ and brands’ loyalty towards the Apple ecosystem in addition to illustrate the evolving role of smartphones within an more and more connected world.”

Apple announced other upgrades and new inclusions in its products line.

The brand new Watch, known as the Series 3, may have its very own cellular connectivity, stated Apple’s chief operating officer, Shaun Johnson, who’s also responsible for Apple’s Watch division. The Timepiece can receive calls — making use of your iPhone’s number — and may support apps including Maps and WeChat. The brand new Apple Watch may also be suitable for Apple Music, meaning technology-not only as an mp3 player by itself.

The Timepiece may have as much as 18 hrs of battery existence across LTE, Bluetooth and Wireless. Beginning Sept. 22, cellular form of the timepiece goes on purchase for $399. Without cellular connection, it’ll cost you $329. The Series 1 Apple Watch’s cost will drop to $249.

Apple can also be creating a big push to produce its very own shows and shore up its position within the family room. The Apple set-top box, Apple TV, has become likely to support 4K HDR video the organization stated. The organization can also be adding live news and live sports sections towards the Apple TV application.

This area is getting faster processors. The organization demonstrated the way it could connect eight people online and ask them to play a relevant video game together.

Versions of flicks and shows filmed in 4K will definitely cost just like HD videos on Apple’s iTunes store. The brand new Apple TV 4K goes on purchase Sept. 15 and ship Sept. 22. It’ll cost you $179. While 4K adoption continues to be slow to obtain began, analysts say it’s starting to achieve a tipping point.

Apple’s stock fell around 2.five percent throughout the event before closing lower just by .40 % to $160.86.

iPhone X: even an awkward launch glitch can’t knock Apple from the top

2010 iPhone launch event hit a rocky patch when Apple executive Craig Federighi visited demonstrate the iPhone X’s facial recognition technology, Face ID, which replaces the fingerprint scanner like a security mechanism.

iPhone have been revealed with huge fanfare, caused a brief crash in Apple’s market price. The stock soon rallied, however, as analysts described 2010 launch event as putting Apple within an “extraordinarily strong” position.

Held the very first time inside a 1,000-seat auditorium within the company’s recently-built “space ship” campus, Apple Park, the annual product showcase unveiled three new iPhones, our prime-finish iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus, plus an upgraded Apple Watch and 4K Apple TV.

Prior to the product bulletins, there is a extended portion of the keynote focused on Apple’s retail strategy, where the company’s mind of retail Angela Ahrendts stated the organization no more describes its shops as “stores” but “town squares”. This, she stated, was simply because they host a lot of occasions and workout sessions they have become “gathering places”.

Best of luck attempting to hold a protest or picnic during these corporate “town squares”.

The iPhone X was brought to the crowd by Chief executive officer Tim Prepare while using “one more thing” format that former Chief executive officer Jobs accustomed to surprise and delight people throughout his keynotes. Regrettably for Prepare, hardly any within the announcement was surprising because of major leaks within the preceding days.

“If there hadn’t been all of the leaks there will be a large amount of big surprises and individuals might have leave amazed. The leaks required the advantage from the bulletins, but we’ve still seen a really strong group of items that re-establish Apple’s lead in many groups,” stated Apple analyst Jan Dawson.

The iPhone X includes some striking features, such as the an advantage-to-edge screen, no desltop button (since the screen now spans the whole front from the device), and also the infrared-powered facial recognition system that Apple states is 20 occasions safer than Touch ID (when it’s working). Face ID isn’t just employed for unlocking the telephone, but additionally paying and logging into banking apps.

“The iPhone is locked until your perception also it recognizes you,” stated senior vice-president of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller, adding it recognizes the face even though you improve your hair do or are putting on glasses or perhaps a hat.

New iPhone models on display at the Apple launch event in Cupertino, California. New iPhone models displayed in the Apple launch event in Cupertino, California. Photograph: Stephen Lam/Reuters

Plus the iPhone X, Apple launched the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus, which have a more effective processor, better, bassier loudspeakers as well as an upgraded camera with portrait lighting to match better images of people. All the phones could be billed wirelessly utilizing a Qi standard charging pad.

Additionally towards the iPhones, the Plastic Valley titan unveiled a brand new form of its smartwatch, Apple Watch Series 3, with cellular connectivity, and that means you may take calls without getting to pair it having a phone, enhanced fitness monitoring and training tools, and streaming service Apple Music.

Additionally, it upgraded its TV streaming box, Apple TV, with 4K resolution – a business standard Apple continues to be slow to consider.

Analysts noted that Apple continues to be heavily dependent on the iPhone for the majority of its revenue, but acknowledge that the organization is diversifying into spaces including health, home automation and content.

“The iPhone will be the headline,” stated Dawson. “Everything else hangs off it.”

Nevertheless, analyst Geoff Blaber from CSS insight stated that Apple is within “an extraordinarily strong position”.

“In hardware terms, it’s really towards the top of the smartphone market. Samsung is really a fierce competitor but Apple is constantly on the lead and differentiate in the way the hardware, software and services get together. That is why Apple is constantly on the define the.Inches

Episode 6 of the Constitutional podcast: ‘Senate and states’

Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center, and Betty Koed, the U.S. Senate historian.

Listen to the episode here.

Check out the “Constitutional” Web page and subscribe to get new episodes free on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts. For updates about the series, you can also follow podcast host Lillian Cunningham on Twitter: @lily_cunningham

Transcript of “Episode 06: Senate and states”

Lillian Cunningham: For the first 100-plus years of American history, senators weren’t elected by the people–they were chosen by the state legislatures. This was supposed to buffer the Senate from the masses; and bring an extra level of prestige and dignity to the office.

But when the framers of the Constitution came up with that system, they failed to account for some of the pitfalls–including what would happen if two political parties, within a single state, butted heads against each other and couldn’t agree in the legislature which senators to send to Washington.

By the turn of the 20th century, with a two-party system in full force, that initial oversight was spinning out of control.

Betty Koed: In Missouri in 1905, the election process became so contentious that it ended in this major fist fight in the state legislature. And George Haynes, one of the great historians of the Senate, described it this way: The Republicans had tried to turn back the clock literally in the chamber so that they would have more time to promote their candidate. And this so irritated the Democrats that the Democrats picked up the ladder they had been using to reach the clock and threw it out the window.

Cunningham: Then, a massive brawl broke out.

Koed: A fist fight followed. Desks were torn from the floor and a fusilade of books began. The glass of the clock front was broken.

Cunningham: The pendulum itself was still swinging. One of the members picked up ink bottles and hurled them one after another after another at the pendulum.

Koed: As a motion to adjourn arose in wild disorder, the presiding officers of both houses mounted on top of the speaker’s desk and, by shouting and waving their arms, tried to quiet the mob down.

Cunningham: One of the ink bottles hit the pendulum at just the right angle and, smack, time suddenly stopped ticking.

A perfect union? Not so much.

I’m Lillian Cunningham with The Washington Post, and this is Constitutional.

[Introductory theme music]

Cunningham: When the framers drafted the Constitution, they had a dilemma before them — how to successfully unite the states and strengthen their collective identity, without stripping away their individual power.

In practical terms, that led to the question: What should representation for the different states look like in order to create a “more perfect union”?

Well in response, the framers came up with a structure for Congress, and how we would divvy up representatives between the House and the Senate. And that framework is basically still intact today. With one very notable exception: how we elect senators.

Koed: The direct election of senators is certainly the biggest change that has ever been made to the framers’ vision of the Senate and its members and how they’re elected.

Cunningham: This is Betty Koed, the official U.S. Senate historian. And that change took the form of the 17th amendment, ratified in 1913. It updated the Constitution to finally give voters the power to directly elect senators themselves, instead of having state legislatures pick them.

But not everyone has agreed that shift was for the better. Former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, for example, once said: “The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously.” And because of its passage “you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century.”

Now, Scalia isn’t alone. In the past decade, as the Tea Party movement gained steam, several conservative voices (like politicians Mike Lee and Rick Perry) called for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Like Scalia, they said it upset the balance of power between the states and the federal government — constraining states’ rights.

So let’s explore the story of why direct election of senators came about, and whether it did mark a step toward or away from “a more perfect union.”

In the early days of America, up until the writing of the Constitution, the states had been working off a document called the Articles of Confederation and they had come together to form the Continental Congress. But it wasn’t going so well.

Jeffrey Rosen: Very quickly the Articles of Confederation began to fail as an instrument of government.

Cunningham: This is National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen, who was on our first episode.

Rosen: States weren’t paying their taxes to the national government. States were violating the rights of other citizens. Congressional resolutions were ignored. And this abuse of power by state mobs or state legislatures led to tremendous anxiety on behalf of leaders such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that state legislatures were sources of tyranny. So it’s decided that we need a stronger federal government.

Cunningham: But the question then becomes, what should this stronger government look like? And what authority should the states have under it?

Koed: In 1787, when the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, there was a lot of debate about representation. How would representation be based? That was a great bone of contention.

Cunningham: And it was contentious for a few reasons. For one thing, the big states and the small states had very different perspectives on whether the states should all have equal representation, or whether bigger states should have more power and smaller states should have less power.

But also:

Rosen: There was a lot of disagreement about exactly how strong that national government should be, and how to empower the national government while still protecting the states.

The most ardent nationalist in the Constitutional Convention was Alexander Hamilton. He made a radical proposal to abolish all states. He wanted a truly national government without the risk of independent sovereign states. He warned against the ambitions of state demagogues who hated central control.

Cunningham: So Hamilton is far to one end of the spectrum, but there are others like James Madison and the peg-legged, preamble writer Gouverneur Morris who — while they don’t think we should get rid of states — do think a strong federal government is important. They propose a plan where the number of representatives in Congress will be entirely based on states’ population numbers — meaning, the bigger states will have more members. And they do this because they don’t think it’s very important that all states have equal power and an equal voice.

These turn out to be the hottest debates at the convention. Some delegates, like William Patterson of New Jersey, argue that all states should have exactly the same number of representatives.

Ultimately, of course, they end up with a compromise. They decide on a House of Representatives — where each state has a different number of members based on population — and then a Senate, where each state has the exact same number of members: two.

Rosen: So William Paterson lost the battle of the states as independent sovereign entities, but he did succeed in persuading the delegates to recognize in the Senate — where every state has two representatives regardless of its size — a principle of independent state sovereignty that continues today.

Cunningham: Interestingly, even though this debate about representation takes a really long to resolve, the question of how to elect these representatives is solved really quickly — even though there are a number of ideas initially proposed.

Koed: They considered several options. For one they could have the House of Representatives elect senators, but that didn’t seem particularly practical because the Senate was designed in part to be a check on the House. And how could you check the house if they’re responsible for your election? Another one was to just give senators lifetime appointments. Alexander Hamilton favored that one. Another one was to do straight popular vote election, the way we do today.  

Cunningham: This idea — that voters in the states could directly elect their two senators — was put forward by delegate James Wilson.

Rosen: James Wilson must be the most underappreciated of the constitutional framers. It was Wilson who came up with the idea that we the people of the United States as a whole were sovereign, rather than we the people of the individual states.

Cunningham: But everyone else at the convention shot down Wilson’s idea that “we the people” should have the power to elect our own senators.

Koed: That was deemed at the time to be fairly impractical and would not be consistent with the Senate that they were envisioning in 1787.

Cunningham: James Madison and basically all the other delegates end up thinking that what makes the most sense is for senators to just be chosen by the state legislatures.

Rosen: Because they thought that state legislatures would be wise intermediaries, who would check popular passions and ensure that only the best people were chosen to serve in the Senate.

Cunningham: But Wilson was still skeptical. On June 20th, 1787, he warned his fellow delegates at the convention that state legislatures were likely to end up jealous and in friction with the federal government — and that would prevent these legislatures from purely representing the best interests of their citizens.

Then on June 25th, Wilson made one last case for popular election, saying: Both the state governments and the general government were “derived from the people — both meant for the people — both therefore ought to be regulated on the same principles.” And what he meant was: Since citizens get to elect all their representatives at the state level, why shouldn’t they be allowed to elect all their representatives at the federal level as well?

He said: This new government ultimately shouldn’t really be about uniting and serving the states, it should be about uniting and serving the people of those states. So, “the individuals therefore not the states ought to be represented in it.”

But Wilson is still outnumbered. And the decision to have state legislatures elect senators gets written into the Constitution.

Koed: Now this had great tradition behind it, because this was actually the way the Confederation Congress and the Continental Congress before it had been elected. So that was the system they were used to. Another reason they chose this system of election for senators was because they needed states to ratify the Constitution. And so they had to be sure that they were giving something to the states in return for building this new federal government, which many states saw as taking away their powers and their privileges.

Cunningham: The framers also envisioned senators playing a different role in supporting and improving American democracy than members of the House would.

Koed: They really wanted the Senate to be a very different body from the house. Whereas the House members were there to represent particular districts or sections of states and they were facing re-election every two years, so they had to be very cognizant of public opinion and how they could work public opinion to shape their own careers. On the Senate side, they didn’t want it directly answerable to the people. They didn’t want it to be influenced by the tides of public opinion. They wanted to give it some distance and some protection from the whims of the voters.

Cunningham: That’s why, in addition to having the senators elected by state legislatures, they decided senators should serve longer terms than those in the House (six years, rather than two); senators should also be older (at least 30 years old, instead of 25); and they had to have been citizens for a longer time.

Koed: And by going to the state legislatures for these choices, they really thought they would get individuals who had long service in government. So they were people who would know their states well and they would be people who would have strong connections to the state governments.

And that was true of many of the early senators. You know we had people like Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who was one of the great legal brains of the early Senate. He was the author of the Judiciary Act that created the federal judiciary.

Cunningham: The framers of the Constitution had also given the Senate specific powers that the House didn’t have.

Koed: Most importantly the powers of advice and consent. So they were there to advise the president. They were there to consent to or reject treaties or nominations, and they were also there to be the sole power to try impeachment. So all of these things gave the Senate this kind of advisory role that had not been given to the House.

Cunningham: So this all sounds great. It goes into effect. And for several decades, the process of states choosing their senators goes quite smoothly. No one gives much more thought to James Wilson’s lone pushback at the convention that senators should be popularly elected. Until: the middle of the 1800s.

Koed: The issue really starts to heat up. And it heats up largely because we’re coming into a time really in our national history when we’re developing two very strong political parties. The Republican Party is born in the mid 1850s; the Democratic Party has grown much stronger in the last 20 years. And so partisan issues are becoming much more important in American politics. By the 1850s, you start to see deadlocks in state legislatures.

Cunningham: The kind of deadlocks that led to fights like the one in Missouri, where the state legislature erupted into an all-out brawl. And these partisan battles in legislatures across the country got people thinking that maybe our system for electing senators wasn’t quite working.

As a first attempt at fixing the system, Congress passed a new law in 1866 that tried to standardize the process for Senate elections. It set a consistent date for holding the elections, and it required that state legislatures take one vote every single day for as long as it took to get a majority winner.

Unfortunately, this didn’t really resolve the deadlocks. It just consumed a ton of the state legislature’s time and meant that Senate seats could go months, sometimes years, without being filled.

Koed: By the time you get to the 1880s and 1890s, the inability of state legislatures to settle on a candidate became increasingly problematic. There was a case in North Carolina when they had 85 candidates that came forward for one seat and none of those candidates were ever able to get a majority vote. And so even though the state legislature voted over and over and over 200 in some ballots they weren’t able to settle on one candidate.

Cunningham: And these deadlocks and Senate vacancies weren’t the only problem.

Koed: When we go into the gilded age, you get larger and larger and more difficult cases coming before the Senate of corruption. Over the course of the 1870s to the turn of the century, we had nine high-profile bribery cases in the Senate. And some of them have to do with the electoral process itself, for instance bribery of state legislators became a problem by the 1880s and 1890s — when people were offering bribes of various forms to legislators to actually elect a person as a senator.

At the same time the Senate itself is changing, America is changing. This is a period of the rise of big business. This is a time of industrialists and financiers. This is a time when elections are getting caught up in money issues and campaign issues and campaign-finance issues. And the attention that gets throughout the 1890s and the early 20th century, really helps to stoke those calls for reform.

It’s just a growing awareness of the Senate becoming what at that time was called the millionaires club. It was people who were elected from big business, people who were elected that were tycoons of industry, people who had really strong ties to the monied interest in America.

Cunningham: People like industrialist Simon Guggenheim. Or railroad magnate William Clark, who reportedly bribed state legislators for his Senate seat and when questioned about it, famously responded, “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale.”

Koed: And so you got people elected to the Senate who were very wealthy, who were very powerful. Some of them were answerable to the demands of the people, some of them were not. But it really shaped an overall reputation of the Senate to be just this body of millionaires who really have no connection to the common man.

And there was a lot of truth to that. It’s not the complete Senate, but there was a lot of truth to that issue.

Cunningham: Many of these wealthy senators were coming out of the eastern and the mid-Atlantic states. But a different sort of tide was rising in the West.

Koed: In the West, they were more progressive. They were more populist and they looked for people that would come in with new ideas and new reform impulses. And they’re frustrated with the inability to get any sort of reform passed in Washington. And so they start to look for ways they can make that reform happen at the state level.

By the 1890s that western states are moving towards creating their own system of direct popular election of senators. One of the states that led the way was Oregon, and they came up with this ingenious plan.

Cunningham: Oregon basically did two things — it gave citizens the opportunity to tell their state legislators who they thought should be their senators. And, the state also started pressuring candidates running for the state legislature to take a pledge that they would honor those requests, even though they weren’t officially bound to do so.

Koed: Once they did that and they were successful at it, other western states began to do it. And in fact, by 1910, there were close to a dozen states that had some sort of popular election system in place.

Cunningham: And one of the results is that the Senate starts filling with members who are more progressive and who feel they more directly represent the voice of “we the people” — since the citizens of their states actually had a say in electing them.

Koed: You get people like William Borah of Idaho for instance, who will play a really important role in the national debate over direct election. You get people like Francis Warren, who’s the first senator from Wyoming and he’s also a very strong supporter of direct election. Joseph Bristow of Kansas will be an important player in this story. Albert Beveridge of Indiana is another one. So it becomes sort of the midwestern/western states versus the eastern powerhouse.

Cunningham: Around this same time, another force emerges that questions how well the classic Senate election model has been serving the will of the people, and that force is the press. In particular, it was publisher William Randolph Hearst.

Koed:  who was sort of the king of tabloid journalism of the time, but he was also a member of the House in the early 20th century. And he was a strong proponent for direct popular election of senators.

So Hearst hired a man named David Graham Phillips to write a series of articles for Cosmopolitan magazine, which at the time was kind of a muckraking magazine. And the series was to be about the Senate and the corruption in the Senate and why direct election would be necessary.

He wrote nine separate articles that ran in Cosmopolitan from March to November of 1906. And the articles were kind of a pivotal moment in a way, because first of all they were highly sensationalized and a lot of the charges were false.

Cunningham: The series of stories was called “Treason of the Senate” and it opened with this line: “Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be.”

Before the series launched, it’s true that two U.S. senators had been convicted of taking bribes from business clients in exchange for special treatment from the government. But this series went on to investigate roughly 20 other senators, showing how the combination of state legislature elections and big-business interests was producing senators who didn’t serve the people.

Koed: His series is pretty widely denounced by responsible journalists and editorialists of the day. And obviously it’s denounced by the Senate. But it gains wide popular support. And it really helps to change the tide of public opinion in favor of reform of the election process. He portrayed senators as bribers, moneylenders. You know, all the worst kind of stereotypical views of political corruption.

In some cases he took incidents and really sort of exaggerated them; in other cases he just made stuff up. But it’s an image of the Senate that really stuck, and it’s an image of the Senate that reflected the general public perception of the Senate as this out of touch collection of wealthy men who had only their own interests at heart.

Cunningham: And so this series becomes a major turning point. Soon after, efforts gain steam in Congress to reform the election of senators — and the efforts, not surprisingly, start in the House of Representatives rather than in the Senate itself.

Koed: The House introduces 18 or 19 different resolutions for a constitutional amendment to establish direct election of senators. Most of those amendments actually passed the House. They get sent to the Senate and they die in the Senate, because they’re referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The Committee on Privileges and Elections was controlled by old-guard senators who had no interest in direct election of senators. And pretty much every proposal for reform, once it got to the Senate, died in that committee and never made it to the Senate floor.

Cunningham: There are a few different reasons these efforts are meeting resistance.

Koed: Opposition in the Senate for a good part comes from senators who are just on principle opposed to changing the Constitution. That’s one group. Another are really tied to the old system because that was their system of election, and they feared that if they changed that system they would lose their seats.

Cunningham: However, in 1909, there’s finally some movement.

Koed: And that’s because Kansas senator Joseph Bristow manages to maneuver a new resolution for direct election out of the Committee on Privileges and Elections and get it sent to the Committee on the Judiciary. That’s a key moment in the story.

The Judiciary Committee then creates a subcommittee to consider the resolution. On that subcommittee is Idaho senator William Borah, one of the great proponents for direct election. And it really owes it to the the hard work of William Borah that that resolution manages to get out of committee and make it for the first time to the Senate floor for debate.

But it makes it to the Senate floor in a slightly altered form. And this is the next major stage of the story.

By 1909 we’re living in a United States where almost every issue is touched by the issue of race, and that becomes an important component in the direct election system.

Cunningham: Because the only way that Idaho senator William Borah can convince his peers to let the proposed Constitutional amendment for direct election leave the Judiciary subcommittee and actually go to the Senate floor for a vote is if he agrees to tack onto it something the southern Democrats wanted:

Koed: A race rider.

Cunningham: The “race rider” basically stipulates that if the Constitution is amended and we switch over to allowing voters to directly elect their senators, then — sure, that’s fine but — the states themselves have the ability to control the terms of the elections. The federal government won’t have any say.

Now, the reason this was called a “race rider” is that what these southern states were essentially saying between the lines was: We don’t want African Americans in our state to participate in electing senators, so if we’re going to have popularly elected senators then we better be able to create whatever voting terms we see fit. In other words, we better be able to exclude anyone we want to.

Koed: When you’re talking about the 17th Amendment, there are two sections of the Constitution that you have to think about. There’s Article 1 Section 3, which is the part that defines how Senate elections happen — and that’s what they’re trying to change from indirect to direct election.

But there’s also Article 1 Section 4, which says that the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. And it says the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. And it’s that phrase that becomes the target of the debate in the Senate in 1909, 1910 and 1911.

Cunningham: Because it’s that phrase — that the federal government can regulate the terms of elections — that southern democrats want out of there if they’re going to start allowing elections for senators. That stipulation itself is called the race rider.

Koed: The debate is less about how senators will be elected and a lot more about: Will federal authorities maintain control to regulate elections in the states?

Cunningham: So this proposed constitutional amendment, with the race rider stuck onto it, goes to the full Senate for a vote.

Koed: When it gets to the Senate floor, another senator from the West — Utah senator George Sutherland — comes into the story.

Cunningham: Sutherland proposes yet another tweak, which basically takes away the power of the race rider and says the federal government can still exert authority over state elections.

Koed: The Sutherland Amendment becomes the subject of heated debate in the Senate for months, and the whole debate centers around the issue of congressional authority over state elections.

It was a long debate. It was a contentious debate. Each side accused the other of race baiting. Northern Republicans, who opposed direct election, some of them sided with the Southern Democrats because they hoped that that would kill the resolution. All sorts of political maneuvering happened.

Finally in 1910, after months of debate, the Sutherland amendment passed the Senate; but the Constitutional amendment that came with it failed to get the two-thirds vote it needed for passage. And the whole system essentially went back to square one. They had to more or less start over.

Cunningham: So they do. In 1911, there’s a new Congress.

Koed: And this made a difference, because as a result of the 1910 election there were a lot of new members in the House and the Senate. And a lot of those new members were products of direct election systems and a lot of them were supporters of a direct election system. So the balance of power had shifted a little bit in favor of the reformers.

Cunningham: The House of Representatives quickly introduced another proposal for direct election of senators. This one has the race rider back on it, again. It gets all the way to the Senate floor…

Koed: Again, another contentious debate. Joseph Bristow of Kansas again brings forth another amendment to this resolution. It becomes known as the Bristow Amendment. And in his amendment, the race rider stripped away. So we’re back again to the original form.

Cunningham: The debate keeps going, week after week, but the influx of more reform-minded senators into the new Congress was just enough to even the scale.

Koed: When it came to a full vote in the Senate, it tied 44 to 44. Vice President James Sherman stepped in, broke the tied vote in favor of passage of the so-called Bristow Amendment. The two versions — so we now have a house version of the resolution, with the race rider intact, and we have a Senate version (the Bristow amendment) with the race rider taken out — go to conference. Weeks go by again as they try to settle the difference between these two.

In the end the House, wanting to get direct election through, essentially gives in to the Senate version. And so the Bristow Amendment is the one that actually becomes the constitutional amendment for direct election.

Cunningham: In 1912, the Bristow amendment — also known as the 17th Amendment — was officially passed by Congress.

As Betty Koed mentioned at the very beginning, this was the most significant change we had ever made to how our government would operate. We had passed amendments before that clarified the protections that citizens and states have, amendments that had expanded voting to new groups, even an amendment adjusting the presidential election process.

But no other amendment had so fundamentally overturned a part of the framers’ original vision for our government’s structure.

Rosen: The framers of the original Constitution were deeply afraid of direct democracy.

Cunningham: Jeff Rosen again.

Rosen: But what they agreed on was the need to disperse power to protect liberty. And they wanted to disperse power both horizontally, between the three branches of the federal government, and vertically, between the states and the federal government — in order to ensure that we the people retained ultimate power but no branch of government, whether at the federal or state level, could easily speak for us unless we empowered it to do so. But our challenge is to translate their principles into a very different era.

Cunningham: And at the dawn of the 20th century, that’s what Congress did. It sent the 17th amendment off to the states for ratification. And the funny thing is, despite all that turmoil over it on Capitol Hill, it actually goes through state ratification very easily. By April 8th, 1913, the necessary three-quarters of states have ratified it and it officially changes the Constitution.

Koed: One of the things you have to remember is that by the time we get to 1910, 1911, nearly 40 of the states had already come out publicly in favor of direct election. In fact, state governments were asking for this reform. State governments were tired of dealing with Senate elections. They were tired of dealing with the corruption and the bribery that came along with it. And they saw it as just a nuisance to them by then.

Cunningham: They were also tired of the amount of time their state legislatures were spending on it, when they could be using those sessions to pass state legislation and focus on a sea of local issues.

Koed: Today many people will look back at the debate and they think it was taking power away from the states. But in reality, the states wanted that taken away from them. Oh sure, there were people — particularly in the eastern seaboard and the Southern Democrats — they were not in favor of the amendment. But even in some of those cases, the states had spoken in favor of reform. So they didn’t have much of a choice at that point, they had to step on board.

Cunningham: So what changed after ratification of the 17th amendment? Did it move us to a system where our leaders in the Senate better serve the people? Where there’s less corruption? Did it better perfect our union?

Koed: I think the Senate today, if you compared it to that of the early 20th century, is much more egalitarian. The Senate tends still to be wealthier than the House members as a rule, and we still have some members of the Senate that are very wealthy members. But it’s not the millionaires club of the 1890s. We also have senators that are teachers and farmers and doctors.

And you could also argue it would have been a lot harder to elect women to the Senate under the old system than you do under the new system. We don’t get our first female senator until 1922; she’s appointed. The first elected woman senator comes in 1932. If they had had to contend with the indirect election system, where they had to go and get the favor of the state legislature to gain office, it would have taken even longer to get women into office because they didn’t have those kinds of connections in state government. So I think the fact that we have 21 women senators today is also due in part to the fact that we now have a direct election system.

Cunningham: And what about a better functioning Senate, one that can work more effectively to serve its citizens?

Koed: It’s interesting because this constitutional amendment, like many others, has had consequences intended and unintended. It did get rid of the deadlocks. And it got rid of course of the bribery of state legislators. It also helped to cement a stronger bond between senators and their constituents, because now they had to go directly to the voter rather than just to the state legislature. And I think that in the long run has had a positive impact in many ways.

It also had some unintended consequences. Senators had to go out and start campaigning, for instance. That led to questions of campaign finance, questions of campaign finance reform. And it’s been a long story to where we are today, where we have millions of dollars spent on Senate elections. As early as the 1920s and even the 19-teens, the Senate begins to hold investigations looking into campaign finance issues to be sure that there is no corruption in that process. I don’t think they intended that when they passed the 17th Amendment, but has been one of the results of it.

Cunningham: And there’s always the possibility, put forward by people like former Supreme Court Justice Scalia, that something of the original intent was shaken or lost by the change.

Rosen: I had the remarkable experience of seeing one of Justice Antonin Scalia his last appearances before his death and it was at the Union League in Philadelphia. And I heard Justice Scalia say: The 17th amendment represents the death of federalism.

He said that no amendment has done more to undermine the balance between federal and state’s rights than the decision to have popular rather than the legislative election of senators. That is a dramatic statement from the great originalist.

Koed: There is a strong argument that people make that in adopting the 17th Amendment, you took away a part of the framers original design for the Senate. And the framers original design of the Senate really wanted it to be a body that was that was insulated from public opinion, and distanced from public opinion, and one that was able to serve in a true advisory role to both the executive and the House.

And so there are people who argue by making them directly responsive to popular opinion, you’ve taken away that buffer zone. And because they have to answer to the wishes of the people at the voting booth, that somehow they do not have the ability to stand back and have the distance and have the wisdom that they might have had under the original system — so there’s that part of the argument.

There are those, and Scalia might be in this category as an originalist, that just do not want the original Constitution to change. There are others who would see direct election as a way to undermine the role of the states in the federal government.

Cunningham: And that argument flows from the idea that state legislatures used to be able to just directly tell the senators what to do to best represent the state’s interests.

Koed: In the early years of the republic, there was a lot of truth to that. In fact, state legislatures often instructed senators on how to vote. But fairly early on, by the time you get to the 1820s and 30s, senators have moved beyond that and are not taking instructions well from state governments.

I would argue that, despite the fact that we have this one important change in the framers’ vision for the Senate, the Senate still maintains virtually all of the role that they had in mind. It still serves as a check on the president and the House. It still serves as an advisory body on nominations and treaties. It still serves the full state’s interest, because they have to deal with a statewide constituency — and they tend to have very close ties to the governor and the state legislators.

And so I think even though the method of election has changed, most of those ties and most of what empowered the states under the old system remains in place.

Cunningham: Only one of our constitutional framers, James Wilson, had anticipated that this change might be necessary. But all of those men who signed their names at the bottom of the Constitution in 1787 knew that the first words at the top of the parchment said: “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union…”

That is, they knew they that America was a work in progress, an experiment in how to unite the different wills of the people.

Rosen: A more perfect union did not mean total consolidation. It meant popular sovereignty. It meant that we the people of the United States as a whole have the ultimate power to authorize our delegates and our servants to speak in our name.

Koed: We now have “we the people” that vote and elect U.S. senators directly. So it’s no longer a voting process that’s disconnected, or no longer one step removed via a state legislature. It’s directly empowering the people. So if part of the the process of “we the people to form a more perfect union” is to somehow empower the people to make the decisions that are important to our country, then direct election would be directly tied to that.

Cunningham: On June 25th, 1787, as James Wilson was advocating — in vain — for direct election of senators, he reminded his fellow delegates at the convention to imagine what a future America might look like. He said, “consider the amazing extent of our country — the immense population which is to fill it, the influence which the government we are to form will have, not only on the present generation of our people and their multiplied posterity, but on the whole Globe.” Wilson, for his part, said he was “lost in the magnitude.”

And his point, it seemed, was that we can never fully grasp the immensity of what’s to come — or even future practical realities like how the state legislatures will act toward the federal government, or whether the small states will become bigger states, or whether political corruption will go up or down with any given change. But, if the strength of union rests on our ability to best represent its multitude of voices, then that should be our greatest ongoing effort.

[END]

Cunningham: Many thanks to this week’s guests: Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center; and Betty Koed, the U.S. Senate historian.

Fief and drum music is by Other Turner and the Rising Star Fief and Drum Band. Special thanks to Sharde Thomas and the rest of the Turner family for its use.

Our theme music and additional compositions are by Ryan and Hays Holladay. The original artwork for our podcast is by Michelle Thompson. And, as always, a huge thank you to Ted Muldoon, my producer here at The Washington Post.