Note from (Z): Thanks to all the readers who sent in wishes of good health! I'm close to 100% again, though I am still a little slower than normal, hence the late posting.

Sometimes Bipartisanship Is Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

Yesterday, the Senate managed to pass a substantive bill, and with a sizable bipartisan majority of 77-22. It is the Protect College Sports Act, (PCSA) which would, if its name is to be believed, protect college sports. And, as every reader knows, there has never been a bill passed by the United States Senate with a name that was anything other than 100% accurate and honest.

Pretty much anyone who follows college sports agrees that they are on a problematic trajectory. In short, the fact that colleges can now pay players has created a world of haves and have-nots. That is true in terms of the athletes (those famous/skilled enough to earn big bucks vs. the rest) and it is particularly true in terms of universities (some can afford to keep up with the arms race, most cannot). A related issue is that players now have almost unlimited freedom of movement (coaches, too, though that's always been true for them). That pretty much all players are free agents at the end of each season is (largely) good for them, but it's not great for less-well-heeled universities, since even if they discover a diamond in the rough, it's likely that diamond will move on to greener pastures (and we mean "greener" on multiple levels).

The bill is something of a frankenbill that is meant to address these issues. Here are the main elements of the legislation:

Salary Cap: Officially, college football teams are only allowed to spend $21.5 million on their rosters. In reality, there are numerous teams that are circumventing the cap in various ways. The PCSA would more than double the cap, to $49 million, and would back that with federal might. The general idea is that teams can now spend a lot (and some, roughly 15 of them, are already in the ballpark of the $49 million figure), and they can be above-board about it, but they won't be able to circumvent the rules because of the more serious enforcement. In practice, elite teams are pretty good at finding ways to spend on their players over and above salary (for example, deluxe practice facilities). Further, outside of the elite teams, most programs can't afford the $21.5 million, much less $49 million. So, this provision actually has the potential to make the have/have-not problem worse.

Conference Alignment: There are currently four "power conferences" in football: the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. But not all power conferences are created equal, and the SEC (16 teams) and Big Ten (18 teams) currently tower over the other two, particularly in football. The PCSA prevents any conference from growing beyond 19 teams. This is meant to keep the SEC and Big Ten from forming a superconference that would almost completely dominate college football. The legislation also says that any team that wants to switch from one power conference to another has to spend 3 years as an independent school before making the jump. This is meant to keep the SEC and Big Ten from raiding the Big 12 and ACC for their best remaining schools. Whether these limitations are legal is a question that will likely end up in court. Also, the "no screwing around with the conferences" provision sunsets in 2031, when the TV contracts just so happen to be up. For those who don't follow the business of sports, it's always right around TV-contract time that teams make these kinds of jumps.

Player Movement: Players would be limited to a maximum of 5 years of eligibility, starting with the day they graduate high school or on their 19th birthday, whichever comes first. They would be allowed to transfer schools without penalty just one time. Thereafter, they would have to sit out a year if they wanted to transfer again.

Player Agents: Player agents would be more closely regulated, and their fees would be capped at 5% of the player's salary.

Coaches: The only new limit placed on coaches is that they cannot change schools mid-season. That is already basically unheard of, and so does not represent a substantive change. Coaches are free to change jobs in the offseason as frequently as they wish, and there is no limit on what they can be paid (their salary does not count against "the cap").

Non-Revenue Sports: The bill forbids schools from cutting scholarships for non-revenue sports (basically, Olympic sports, plus any team sports that are not basketball or football) for 9 years. Advocates for the legislation say this is necessary to keep these sports from being eliminated for the sake of football and basketball. However, the number of scholarships awarded to non-revenue athletes has actually ticked upward slightly since the new era of paying football/basketball players began. So, this is a hypothetical problem, and not currently an actual one. This looks like a provision put into the bill to make it seem "fair to athletes."

Tuition: The PSCA requires that athletes receive assistance with tuition and other educational expenses for up to 10 years after their eligibility expires. The 10-year-window is to allow them to have an athletic career, then return to school once the career is over. They also get 5 years of post-eligibility health insurance/medical coverage. These provisions are also clearly meant to make the bill seem "fair to athletes." They are more substantive than the non-revenue sports provisions, however.

Ombudsman: The bill also calls for schools to create an office for a student-athlete ombudsman. We are both academics, and the next time an ombudsperson exercises any meaningful power will be the first time.

Antitrust Exemption: The universities are granted a limited antitrust exemption, similar to the one baseball enjoys, so as to give them more legal cover/power to enforce the new regime.

Perhaps you can tell that, while we are aware of the problems the bill is trying to address, we are underwhelmed by this particular solution.

It is instructive, we think, to list some of the supporters of the PCSA:

Donald Trump: He was on TV this weekend flogging the bill.

Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX): He is the main sponsor of the legislation, and has been on TV for weeks flogging the bill. His appearances have been a vintage display of Ted Cruz sleaziness. For example, he's claimed that "hundreds of thousands" of athletes will lose their scholarships, but for the PCSA. This is only true if every non-basketball and non-football scholarship is wiped out, something that, as we note above, is not remotely close to coming to pass.

Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA): The moderate senator is co-sponsor of the bill.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL): He's not 100% thrilled with the legislation, but he voted for it. It's a red-letter day for him, because this might be the first bill he's voted on that he actually understood.

Roughly 50 Other Republicans, and Roughly 25 Democrats: The final roll-call vote has not been posted to the Library of Congress' website, but based on various procedural votes, it's clear that about half the Democrats, along with all the Republicans who are not Rand Paul (KY) voted for the bill.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association: This is the organization that represents the management of the nation's universities and athletic departments.

The American Football Coaches Association: This is the group that represents all college football coaches.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches: This is the group that represents all college basketball coaches. It is led, incidentally, by Barack Obama's brother-in-law Craig Robinson (not the actor/comedian).

And here are some of the opponents of the PCSA:

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): He is a leading opponent of the bill, as he feels the provisions weigh particularly heavily on Black athletes.

The Congressional Black Caucus: They agree with Booker.

The NAACP: Them, too.

Roughly 21 Democrats, Plus Rand Paul: The Democrats who voted against the bill, judging by the procedural votes, were largely the more liberal members and the four Black members. Paul voted against the bill because he's really a Libertarian, and he favors the unregulated Wild West in virtually all contexts.

The AFL-CIO: They are among several labor groups that came out against the bill.

The College Football Players Association: This group represents college football players. It's not a union, more like a guild. The leadership observes that no athletes, and nobody representing athletes, was part of the negotiations over the bill.

Let us use this opportunity to note that total freedom of movement for athletes is not 100% good for them. Marvin Miller, legendary head of the Major League Baseball Players' Association from 1968-82, realized that it was actually best for labor if the "supply" was limited each year. So, if the players had been invited to the table, they might well have agreed to some sort of limits on movement. But they weren't invited.

Taking a look at these lists makes the bill even more malodorous to us. It sure looks like Republicans, along with many moderate Democrats, decided the only path forward was to give the wealthy and powerful a bunch of boons, and to toss a few bones at everyone else. By and large, it looks like a lot of schools that don't have well-heeled donors/alumni, and a whole lot of athletes, are going to get the short end of the stick. Certainly the bill is skewed enough that its "broad bipartisan support" is, at very least, misleading.

Cruz very much wants Republicans to make the bill the centerpiece of their closing argument in the last month of the campaign. He may be sleazy and dishonest, but he's also clever. And so, he knows at least three things: (1) The GOP doesn't have a whole lot else to run on; (2) Red states (like Texas and Ohio) love, love, love college football; and (3) If Cruz's bill becomes a big deal, it boosts his presidential hopes in 2028.

There are some flies in the ointment, however. First, some folks might notice some of the problems we've pointed out above. Maybe Texas and Texas A&M alums will be excited about the bill, but maybe not so much alums of, say, the less well-funded Rice or TCU. Second, "we had 2 years, and we passed a college sports bill" is a pretty thin record to run on. Third, it is not likely that the bill will become law before Election Day, as the House is not in session between now and then.

And when the bill does come before the House, it could have a tough row to hoe. There are, again, many Democrats who don't like the bill. On top of that, while Senate Republicans managed to (largely) come together, there are many House Republicans who don't like the legislation either. Some of them are opposed for libertarian reasons. Some of them think that athletes who don't play "real" sports should not be protected. Some of them represent districts that are home to one of the smaller schools who are likely to get stiffed.

So, Cruz is taking a victory lap for now. Heck, he might even take a trip to Cancun to celebrate. But we'll see how long the party lasts. (Z)

Trump Has No Money for Some Things...

We could have sworn this issue was resolved back in the 1970s. Richard Nixon decided he did not like some of the things that Congress had approved money for, and so he refused to spend the funds. The fancy term for this is "impoundment." Congress did not like his presumption one bit, and so passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), which pointed out that it is Congress who has the power of the purse, and established that presidents have no right to refuse to spend appropriated funds. This bill has survived court challenges, most obviously the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Train v. City of New York (1975).

Donald Trump, of course, hates laws that constrain his power. And he loves loopholes. And OMB Director Russell Vought has found one... sort of. The loophole is called a "pocket recission." The ICA allows presidents to ask Congress to reconsider and withdraw funding. And upon such a request, Congress has 45 days to consider and respond. But if Congress is not in session, and if the end of the fiscal year is upon us (say, as of Thursday), then there isn't time for Congress to respond. Voila! The funding is cut, because there was no response! Very neat, right?

Consequently, over the weekend, Trump/Vought announced that about $800 million in funding was canceled. The announcement was titled "President Trump Takes Historic Action to Eliminate Wasteful and Harmful Spending" because, of course, everything Trump does is historic. You should see the historic way he empties his bladder every morning. In any case, the $800 million will be cut from the Pentagon's budget since that agency already has plenty of money for its needs.

Ha! Just kidding. The $800 million will, of course, be cut from—by and large—services for brown people. That includes $567 million for programs that provided services to refugees, asylum seekers, and other non-citizens; $70 million for grants and fellowships that help bring foreign students and faculty to the United States; $20 million for studying climate change and its impact on minority communities and $15 million for a Justice Department team whose responsibility is "preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony."

Note that we wrote that this is a "sort of" loophole. The reason that we wrote that is that it is a real concept that conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have drooled over for decades, but... it is illegal. This has been hashed out in court. The first link in this item is to a Government Accountability Office analysis that says it's plainly illegal. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is, of course, "concerned," and she also says it's illegal. Because her voters are not pleased at the President's maneuvering, and because she's chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Collins might actually act on her concern. And she has the backing of many other Senate Republicans, who are not pleased about Trump's imposition on their powers (some actual spine for once?) and are also not thrilled that he keeps insinuating himself into the elections in unhelpful ways. So, stay posted. (Z)

... But No Problem Paying for Others

Trump has no money for brown people, but he does have money for some other... priorities. To wit, the White House has been airing "public service" announcements for the last several days, largely during football broadcasts and on Fox "News." There are three of them so far. They are a blend of Triumph of the Will and a Michael Bay film.

Here is the first one, entitled "Love Me":

Here is a transcript:

Trump: Together we will defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America. America will never be a communist country.

Dana White: He's the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves.

Here is the second one, entitled "Golden Age":

Here is a transcript:

In all the chronicles of the ages, never before has any nation celebrated so magnificent a triumph as this one. We are the freest people on earth, and by the grace of God, the United States of America is the most successful, most accomplished, most exceptional nation ever to exist in human history. Liberty has prevailed here because of the culture and character of the people who declared it, defended it, and preserved it. We reach a milestone like no other and celebrate with joyful hearts and soaring spirits because after 2½ centuries... we know that this is not an ending. This is only the beginning of the golden age of America. God bless you all.

Here is the third one, entitled "Final Battle":

Here is a transcript:

This is the final battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains, once and for all.

These ads would be obnoxious if they were paid for by one of Trump's many PACs. But, in fact, they are being paid for by the United States government (exact funding source unknown at this point). So, if you are a U.S. taxpayer, then congratulations! You are funding the Republican Party's 2026 election campaign.

Trump claims that the ads are not political advertisements, since he is not on the ballot this year, and instead are public service announcements, not unlike the Biden-era COVID-19 vaccination commercials, or the Obama-era enroll-in-the-ACA commercials. There are several problems with Trump's argument: (1) He appears in the ads, while Biden/Obama largely were not present in theirs; (2) The Biden/Obama ads provided information of public interest, whereas the Trump ads do not and (3) Trump has insisted, over and over, including at the midterm "convention," that voters should act as if he is on the ballot.

Even many Republicans are furious about the ads. They really want the unpopular Trump to disappear for 5-6 weeks, and yet he keeps inserting himself into the elections. On top of that, finding government money to spend on this, when he's (illegally) cutting funding for other projects (see above), not to mention imposing economic pain on many Americans, is a very bad look. In fact, it fits right in with the recurring theme of "corruption." Finally, the last ad, where Trump talks about getting rid of the warmongers in government, is particularly tone-deaf. If you are looking for warmongers in government, the obvious candidate would seem to be the fellow who started wars in Venezuela and Iran, entirely of his own volition.

Trump really is pushing things to their legal limits these days. In this case, allow us to point out that the ads are very likely illegal (for example, a violation of 18 U.S. Code 641, which establishes a prison sentence of up to 10 years for anyone who "embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof"). Trump is, of course, counting on the fact that the Supreme Court made him into Louis XIV. However, longstanding legal precedent, including jurisprudence from the current Court, makes clear that campaigning is not part of a president's official duties. And it is when he is performing official duties that SCOTUS said he is above the law. Trump is also presumably planning a self-pardon when he leaves office. But the legality of such a maneuver has never been tested. Point being, if Trump plays with fire enough, he might well leave himself in a position to get burned, no matter how fireproof he thinks he is. (Z)

Of Course Trump Wasn't Going to Let This Pass

Republicans are getting more and more open about expressing their pique with Donald Trump. Among the vanguard in this area was Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who represents an R+6 district, but is in danger because the Latino voters who put her in office are not pleased about the President's over-aggressive immigration policy. So, she recorded an ad where she criticized the policy (while blaming it on Trump's advisors and not Trump himself). She called for a more humane policy.

When we first wrote that news up, the official story, mostly from Salazar, was that she and Trump had talked about the ad, and he had largely accepted that she was doing what she had to do to save her hide. We found this a little hard to swallow, though. Any other top-level politician knows that part of the cost of entry is that sometimes your fellow party members have to throw you under the bus. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), George W. Bush, etc., might not like it, but they accept that it's part of the game. Trump does not, and takes everything personally.

It turns out that we were right to be skeptical. Trump held his piss and vinegar for a few days, but over the weekend (the time when he seems to get bored, or lonely, or depressed, or all of the above), he unleashed his fury. On his social media platform for the childish and immature, he reposted more than a dozen messages attacking Salazar and calling for her ouster.

Truth be told, we don't think this is a "lesson" for other Republicans. They are getting freer and freer expressing their unhappiness with the President, particularly as Election Day draws nearer, and particularly as his approval rating keeps dropping (he slumped to 37% approval in the WSJ poll released yesterday, which is the lowest figure he's ever recorded in that particular survey). To the extent there is a lesson, it's "be a LITTLE less direct than Salazar was, particularly when it's Trump's signature issue."

The biggest news here is probably that FL-27 is most definitely in play. Salazar is already in trouble with people angry at MAGA, and now she's also aggravated the throne. The loyal MAGA voters in FL-27 aren't going to cross the aisle and vote Democratic, but they could stay home or leave that line blank on their ballot on Election Day. (Z)

It's Time for the Skeletons to Dance: Democratic Edition

No, we don't mean that Halloween or Día de Muertos is upon us. We mean that if any reporter out there, or any campaign, has dirt on one of the 2026 candidates, now is the time to make that known. First, because early voting is upon us, or soon will be, in many states. Second, because dirt that is released too late in the cycle (by a campaign, at least) can look like desperation, and can backfire.

We've been keeping an eye out for such stories, and when it comes to prominent Democratic office-seekers, we've only seen one. It involves Mary Peltola, who—of course—aspires to be the next U.S. Senator from Alaska. Last week, there was a somewhat widely reported story, courtesy of the they-always-have-their-priorities-in-order New York Times, that during her time in Congress, Peltola was abusive to some of her staffers.

We are not at all certain how this will play in Alaska, and those are the only voters that matter here. Peltola was in a tough place during her time in Congress—in addition to the pressure of holding office (and having to commute from as far away as any member of the House other than the Hawaiians), she was also recently widowed. Also, the sources for the story were former staffers she dismissed, who could plausibly have an ax to grind. No less than Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) came to Peltola's defense and said, in so many words, that Peltola is a fine colleague, and should not be judged by her worst (and somewhat understandable) moments.

Meanwhile, perhaps we are guilty of confirmation bias, but we remember a lot of these kinds of stories (often from the NYT) about women: Peltola, Katie Porter, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), Kamala Harris, etc. The only such story we can remember about a man is the one about Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson (D) throwing a water bottle one time. If we are right about this seeming disparity, we're not 100% sure what it means, but we do have a theory or two. (Hint: Women are judged more harshly than men for the same behavior.)

In any event, we're a little surprised about how little dirt we've seen about Democratic candidates in the past couple of weeks. Did we miss any stories? If so, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. We'll have a Republican entry tomorrow. There's been quite a bit of dirt on them in the past couple of weeks. (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

Even more evidence that it's time for the GOP to cut Michael Whatley loose and let him sink or swim (OK, sink) on his own merits. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	53%	Michael Whatley	42%	Sep 17	Sep 20	Fabrizio + Anzalone

* Denotes incumbent

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger