Connect with us

Latest

It’s All Out! Newsom Explodes After Being Exposed Live On Air

Published

on

It’s All Out! Newsom Explodes After Being Exposed Live On Air

California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing renewed scrutiny as questions continue to mount over his extensive use of so-called “behested payments,” a fundraising practice that critics argue has allowed powerful corporations, special interests, and wealthy donors to gain influence while operating outside traditional campaign finance rules.

The controversy comes as federal investigations involving both Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom continue to attract public attention, placing a spotlight on a fundraising system that has generated hundreds of millions of dollars during the governor’s political career.

At the center of the debate is a little-known California law that allows elected officials to solicit donations on behalf of charities, nonprofit organizations, government programs, and various public initiatives. These contributions, known as behested payments, are legal and are not considered campaign donations under state law.

However, critics argue that the system creates an enormous loophole that allows corporations and special interests with business before the state government to make large donations that may help build goodwill with elected officials.

According to California disclosure records, Newsom has reported more than $347 million in behested payments since 2011, a figure that dwarfs every other elected official in the state.

The number is particularly striking because it represents roughly 62 percent of all behested payments reported by California politicians over the last fifteen years.

State records show that California elected officials collectively directed approximately $556 million in behested contributions between 2011 and 2026. Newsom alone was responsible for nearly two-thirds of that total.

The unprecedented scale of the fundraising has raised eyebrows across the political spectrum.

“There’s no question that Newsom has used this privilege far more frequently than other elected officials,” political strategist Dan Schnur told the Orange County Register.

To put the numbers in perspective, former California Governor Jerry Brown reportedly generated approximately $35 million in behested payments during his tenure—only a fraction of what Newsom has accumulated.

The issue has become even more politically sensitive because some of the donations were directed toward organizations associated with Newsom’s wife.

Records indicate that approximately $4.8 million in behested contributions flowed to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit organization co-founded by Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

Critics argue that even if the donations were legal and used for legitimate charitable purposes, the arrangement creates at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Sean McMorris of California Common Cause has been among those raising concerns about the practice.

“The public is not stupid,” McMorris said. “There’s a reason why these politicians primarily reach out only to people, entities and special interests who typically have interests before them.”

McMorris also described behested payments as a system that is “ripe for abuse,” noting that politicians can direct substantial amounts of money without triggering many of the restrictions that apply to campaign contributions.

Additional questions have emerged because several major donors later received favorable state actions, contracts, or policy decisions.

Blue Shield reportedly donated $20 million to initiatives championed by Newsom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Months later, the company received a no-bid contract connected to California’s vaccine distribution efforts.

Kaiser Foundation contributed nearly $10 million before later receiving a significant role within California’s Medi-Cal healthcare system.

Meanwhile, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria reportedly donated millions to organizations associated with Newsom and causes connected to his wife while benefiting from state decisions involving tribal gaming matters.

Critics acknowledge that proving a direct quid pro quo arrangement is often difficult. However, they argue that the larger concern is the appearance created when major donors with business before the government make substantial contributions tied to a sitting governor.

Assemblyman David Tangipa recently voiced those concerns.

“While something may be legal, we all know that it’s wrong,” Tangipa said.

The controversy arrives at a particularly challenging time for Newsom.

The governor recently acknowledged that both he and Jennifer Siebel Newsom are subjects of multiple federal investigations, although few details have been publicly released regarding the nature or scope of those inquiries.

In addition, Newsom recently agreed to pay a $31,500 ethics fine related to delayed disclosure filings involving certain behested payments.

Supporters of the governor argue that the funds have helped support worthwhile causes throughout California, including wildfire recovery efforts, healthcare programs, educational initiatives, workforce development projects, and disaster relief operations.

Critics, however, maintain that the destination of the money does not eliminate the ethical questions surrounding the process itself.

At the heart of the controversy is a simple question increasingly being asked by lawmakers, watchdog groups, and voters alike: Should elected officials be allowed to solicit unlimited donations from corporations, special interests, and organizations that have business before the government they oversee?

That question becomes even more significant, critics argue, when some of those donations ultimately benefit organizations connected to a politician’s family.

For years, behested payments remained a little-known feature of California politics. Today, they are emerging as a central issue in a broader debate over transparency, ethics, influence, and whether powerful political figures are operating under a different set of rules than the public they serve.

As scrutiny intensifies and federal investigations continue, the growing controversy surrounding Gavin Newsom’s fundraising practices is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture

Cracker Barrel Fans Outraged Again After NEW Major Change

Published

on

Cracker Barrel Fans Outraged Again  After NEW Major Change

Cracker Barrel built its reputation on comfort food, Southern tradition, and a menu customers could count on for decades.

That’s exactly why loyal diners are still fuming as the restaurant chain continues removing many of the classic dishes that helped make it a household name.

For years, customers have pleaded with the Tennessee-based chain to restore fan favorites that quietly disappeared from the menu, including black-eyed peas, fried haddock, red-eye gravy, fried chicken livers, and perhaps the most mourned item of all—the Sunrise Sampler.

For many longtime patrons, the Sunrise Sampler wasn’t just another breakfast. It was the breakfast.

The hearty platter came loaded with eggs, grits, fried apples, hash brown casserole, sausage, bacon, country ham, and biscuits with gravy—giving diners a taste of nearly everything Cracker Barrel had to offer without having to piece together a meal item by item.

“I noticed a while back that Cracker Barrel removed the GOAT of all breakfasts, the Sunrise Sampler, from the menu,” Josh Cooper, owner of Cooper’s Next Level BBQ in Tallahassee, Florida, told Fox News Digital. “You used to get a little bit of everything without breaking the bank.”

The meal hasn’t completely disappeared—but recreating it now comes with a catch.

Customers must order every component separately, turning what was once an affordable breakfast favorite into a considerably more expensive order.

“Now, in order to get that same teaser touch from the Sunrise Sampler, you have to order it all à la carte, which costs around $25 for the same great meal,” he said. “Blasphemy!”

Fox News Digital reached out to Cracker Barrel for comment.

The growing frustration over disappearing menu items comes after the company already faced a wave of backlash for attempting to modernize its image.

Last year, Cracker Barrel sparked outrage among longtime customers after unveiling a redesigned logo and updated restaurant interiors that many believed stripped away the rustic charm that had long defined the brand.

The changes were part of a sweeping $700 million overhaul across more than 660 locations, including menu revisions and a cleaner, less cluttered dining room design.

The company ultimately reversed course following widespread criticism, but many loyal customers say the damage had already been done.

The leadership shakeup continued last week when Cracker Barrel announced that CEO Julie Masino will step down on Aug. 10.

Former Bloomin’ Brands CEO David Deno is slated to take over.

For many customers, however, the issue extends far beyond a logo or a fresh coat of paint.

They believe corporate leadership has steadily chipped away at the very traditions that made Cracker Barrel stand apart from countless other restaurant chains.

Cooper said companies often underestimate the emotional attachment customers have to longtime menu favorites.

People are “asking for comfort and nostalgia.”

“The reality is that nostalgia matters. And when you remove popular items without controlling the narrative or managing customers’ expectations, you are bound to have upset patrons,” he said.

“Whether it’s due to rising food costs, kitchen timing or any other reason, it’s important to communicate with the people who put you on the map in the first place. Communication matters.”

Rachel Love, a self-described Cracker Barrel enthusiast from Tennessee, said one discontinued favorite remains at the top of her wish list.

“I absolutely loved the black-eyed peas, and I’m so glad they’re getting some attention,” Love told Fox News Digital. “They were one of my favorite sides and always felt like such a classic part of the Cracker Barrel experience.”

Love also hopes the restaurant revives its baked apple dumpling, describing it as “the perfect comfort dessert” for a brand built on old-fashioned hospitality.

To her, the debate is about much more than a handful of discontinued recipes.

“People aren’t just asking for old menu items — they’re asking for the comfort and nostalgia that came with them,” she said.

“Sometimes bringing back one classic dish means more to loyal customers than introducing several new ones.”

That may be the lesson Cracker Barrel continues to learn the hard way.

Customers aren’t asking the chain to reinvent itself.

They’re asking it to remember what made it successful.

They want the front porch.

They want the country store.

They want the breakfasts, the classic sides, and the timeless comfort food that turned Cracker Barrel into an American institution.

For many loyal diners, nostalgia isn’t a weakness.

It’s the brand.

Continue Reading

Latest

Mamdani Kicked Out — He’s Livid After Latest Announcement

Published

on

Mamdani Kicked Out — He’s Livid After Latest Announcement

Backlash against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani continues to mount, with the Democratic Socialist facing another public rebuke after reportedly being denied the opportunity to speak at the funeral of a U.S. Army soldier killed during an Iranian missile attack.

According to multiple reports, Mamdani attended Friday’s funeral for Army Sgt. Angel Sarah Rampersad in Queens but remained silent throughout the service after the soldier’s family reportedly chose not to have him address mourners.

Rampersad was one of three American service members killed in Jordan during an Iranian attack on July 17.

The funeral was held at a church in Ozone Park, where elected officials, community leaders, family members and fellow mourners gathered to honor the 28-year-old soldier’s sacrifice.

According to the New York Post, Mamdani appeared to review prepared remarks on an iPad while other dignitaries spoke, but his name was never called.

A source familiar with the funeral told The Post the decision came directly from Rampersad’s family, which reportedly wanted to keep politics out of the ceremony.

The family chose not to have Mayor Zohran Mamdani speak in an effort to avoid what the source described as “political distractions.”

After the funeral concluded, the mayor’s office released the remarks Mamdani had planned to deliver.

“It is often said that our fallen ‘gave their tomorrows for our today,’” Mamdani planned to say.

“Sergeant Rampersad had tomorrows waiting for her: birthdays, ordinary mornings, evenings spent with her loved ones,” his remarks continued.

“But she gave every one of them up so that we could have ours — so that we could stand here today, safe and protected,” he was to say.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, however, did address those gathered and offered an emotional tribute to the fallen soldier.

“I feel after reading and admiring this woman from a distance, I feel like she could be one of my daughters,” Hochul said.

Other speakers included Ozone Park Residents Block Association President Sam Esposito, state Sen. Joseph Addabbo Jr., and Queens Borough President Donovan Richards.

According to the Department of War, Sgt. Angel Sarah Rampersad, 28, of Ozone Park, New York, was killed in action during an enemy attack at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

U.S. Central Command said Rampersad and two fellow service members were killed while American and coalition forces defended against Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks.

The other fallen Americans were identified as 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas.

All three were deployed to Jordan in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the international mission to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Rampersad served with the 1st Battalion, 57th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, 52d Air Defense Artillery Brigade, 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command in Ansbach, Germany.

She worked as a 25U Signal Operations Support Specialist, according to the Department of War.

One person who attended the funeral told the newspaper the mayor appeared visibly upset after realizing he would not be invited to speak.

“He looked over at his staff, frustrated and seemed angry that he didn’t speak,” the source told the Post.

The attendee said Mamdani eventually understood that his name would not be called, glanced toward members of his staff, and put away the tablet that reportedly contained his prepared remarks.

Another source cited by the newspaper said the decision reflected the wishes of Rampersad’s family, describing them as politically conservative and supportive of President Donald Trump.

“The family is more conservative and wanted to limit any political distractions,” the source told the Post.

Neither Mamdani’s office nor members of the Rampersad family have publicly confirmed the account explaining why the mayor was not invited to speak.

Although he never addressed the congregation during the service, the mayor’s office later publicly released the remarks he had prepared, bringing attention to a moment that underscored the growing political controversy surrounding New York City’s new mayor.

Continue Reading

Latest

GOP Just Passed It 232-288 — Pelosi And AOC Lose It On House Floor

Published

on

GOP Just Passed It 232-288 — Pelosi And AOC Lose It On House Floor

The House of Representatives delivered a major victory this week for Americans with disabilities who want the opportunity to work instead of being trapped by a broken federal bureaucracy.

In a bipartisan vote, lawmakers approved legislation aimed at dismantling long-standing barriers within the Social Security Disability Insurance program that critics say have discouraged work and punished self-sufficiency for decades.

H.R. 8884, the **Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act**, sponsored by Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., passed the House by a vote of 232-188 and now heads to the Senate, where it has been referred to the Committee on Finance.

The legislation restores an important tool that the Social Security Administration lost when its demonstration authority expired in 2022.

Under the bill, the SSA would once again be authorized to test practical reforms under the Social Security Disability Insurance program through Dec. 31, 2030, with demonstration projects continuing through the end of 2031.

Rather than permanently rewriting federal law, the agency would be able to pilot innovative approaches designed to help beneficiaries who are able and willing return to the workforce.

The legislation includes significant safeguards. Participation would be entirely voluntary, and no participant could receive less total income as a result of joining one of the demonstration projects.

Supporters say those protections make the bill a common-sense effort to modernize a system that has too often discouraged Americans from pursuing employment.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., argued the current system is failing many of the very people it was designed to help.

“With over 60 percent of Social Security Disability Insurance recipients expressing an interest in returning to the workforce but less than one percent leaving the program because of a successful return to work each year, the Social Security Administration’s complex rules and regulations are clearly failing to deliver for too many Americans,” Smith said.

“Giving the SSA the authority to test innovative ways to better help disabled Americans pursue gainful employment is pure common sense, and this legislation goes a step further to ensure participation in any new system is both voluntary and will not reduce a beneficiary’s total income,” Smith added.

Smith pointed to what he described as a massive disconnect between Americans who want to work and those who are actually able to do so under the current system.

For years, disability recipients have warned that attempting to return to work can trigger a maze of complicated regulations, overpayment disputes, benefit cliffs, and uncertainty that ultimately makes taking a job financially risky.

Rather than encouraging independence, critics say the current structure often rewards staying on the sidelines.

Supporters argue H.R. 8884 takes a fundamentally different approach.

Instead of expanding government programs or imposing sweeping permanent reforms without evidence, the legislation gives the Social Security Administration the flexibility to test targeted solutions, evaluate the results, and determine what actually helps Americans reenter the workforce before making lasting policy changes.

Backers say the measure reflects a core conservative principle: government assistance should serve as a bridge to opportunity—not a permanent barrier to self-reliance.

The bill recognizes that having a disability does not automatically mean someone is unable to work and that federal policy should encourage those who are capable of seeking employment rather than penalizing them for trying.

The legislation also broadens the agency’s authority to include additional populations, including blind Americans, expanding the reach of future demonstration projects.

The proposal advanced through the House with bipartisan support after clearing the Ways and Means Committee, where lawmakers from both parties acknowledged that the current disability system leaves too many Americans behind.

Still, Republicans led the charge, arguing that practical reforms backed by measurable results are preferable to expanding entitlement programs or making permanent changes without first proving they work.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers will decide whether to send it to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Supporters are urging swift action, arguing that restoring the SSA’s demonstration authority represents a fiscally responsible, low-cost reform that could help thousands of Americans regain the dignity, purpose, and financial independence that comes with meaningful work.

If enacted, the Social Security Administration would once again have the authority to launch carefully monitored pilot programs designed to improve employment outcomes, while reporting requirements would provide transparency and accountability as Congress evaluates which reforms deserve permanent consideration.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 Political Signal