Organization

Clint Reilly, a Bay Area milkman’s son who rose to manage the campaigns of California’s most influential political figures, has died at age 79.

A savvy political consultant, Reilly spearheaded early winning campaigns for some of the most recognizable names in California politics: former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Brandon Heist, Clint Reilly Organization’s head of business operations, said in a statement to The Times that Reilly died over the weekend in San Francisco. He died surrounded by family, which requested privacy. The San Francisco Examiner newspaper, which Reilly bought in 2020, earlier announced its owner’s death Sunday.

“I will always be grateful for Clint’s friendship and counsel over so many years,” Pelosi said in a statement. “As the manager of my first campaign for Congress in 1987, he brought his unmatched strategic mind to help create and amplify my slogan: A Voice That Will Be Heard.”

In a 1987 article, The Times attributed the success of Pelosi’s congressional bid to money — her campaign spent $1 million, more than her 13 opponents combined — and a sophisticated voter turnout program devised by Reilly. At the time, Pelosi was a 46-year-old mother of five children and a party activist known for raising large sums for Democratic candidates.

Reflecting on Pelosi’s rise last November, Reilly wrote in a San Francisco Examiner op-ed, “The mystery of being a political consultant is that you never know how your winning candidate’s career will turn out.”

Reilly’s legacy went beyond catapulting politicians into office.

He helped transform modern campaigning, said Oakland political consultant Jim Ross, who worked for Reilly throughout the ’90s, including on the election and reelection campaigns of San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan.

In the ‘80s, Reilly was among the first consultants to merge grassroots organizing with new technology: using voter roll data to segment and target pivotal voters for turnout and persuasion, Ross said.

“It was a way to make sure that he spent resources effectively,” Ross said.

Reilly’s data-driven voter targeting tactics helped Feinstein, then-San Francisco mayor, beat a recall effort in 1983. They later had a public falling-out in 1989 during Feinstein’s failed campaign for governor.

Reilly’s portfolio wasn’t strictly Democratic. In 1993, he coordinated businessman Richard Riordan’s successful campaign for Los Angeles mayor by targeting homeowners’ anxieties about unemployment, crime and other symptoms of urban decay. When elected, Riordan became the first Republican mayor of Los Angeles in 36 years — and no Republican has been elected to that office since.

Reilly also advised the California insurance industry.

In 1988, he led the insurance industry’s losing $60-million initiative campaigns for Propositions 104 and 106. The pair of insurance industry-sponsored measures was designed to compete with Propositions 100 and 103, initiatives backed by trial lawyers and consumer advocates who wanted to reform the industry.

Voters ultimately passed Proposition 103, which promised insurance rate roll-backs and created the elected state insurance commissioner role. But Ross said it was one example of how Reilly would search for creative ways to achieve his client’s goals.

“Clint really pioneered in that election the idea of running competing ballot measures,” Ross said. “The reform measure was extraordinarily popular, it was going to pass, so instead of going at it directly, he ran a competing measure.”

A 1994 profile in The Times, from when Reilly was running Democrat Kathleen Brown’s bid for governor, described him as “one of the most powerful–and feared–political operatives in California.”

“When the opponent knows you have (him) on your side, a chill goes up their spine,” former San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan told The Times. “He’s certainly better to have inside the tent than outside.”

Born in Oakland in 1947, Reilly was drawn to politics from an early age. He ran successfully for class president during fifth grade, with a campaign slogan his sister devised: “Take a Hint, Vote for Clint.”

Reilly’s relationship with Eugene Boyle, a Bay Area Catholic priest and liberal activist known for supporting the Civil Rights Movement, shaped his political views. He was passionate about supporting “the underdogs,” Ross said.

Reilly spent nine years in seminary before switching to pursue politics. His big break came in 1979, when he ran San Francisco Supervisor Quentin Kopp’s campaign for mayor. Kopp lost, but Reilly’s name stuck.

He soon developed a reputation for charging top dollar for his campaign strategy services and for his heavy campaign spending. In 1982, after Reilly brought Boxer to a decisive primary victory in her first congressional race, she fired him over excessive campaign spending, the Times reported in the 1994 profile.

As a boss, Reilly was “extraordinarily demanding,” Ross said, adding, “I reread pieces of direct mail five and six times now because of him.”

He also had a generous side, Ross said. Reilly spent time teaching young staffers the art of campaigning, a rarity in politics. Even after he left political consulting and shifted his focus to real estate, Reilly continued to help candidates with fundraising and messaging.

Reilly ran unsuccessfully for San Francisco mayor in 1999 and later turned his attention to local media and philanthropy, founding a nonprofit in 2008 to offer scholarships for low-income students to attend private college-preparatory high schools.

Reilly’s passing will not change the structure or current operations of the Clint Reilly Organization, Heist said. The organization’s media division includes the San Francisco Examiner — which Reilly acquired in 2020 alongside its now-defunct affiliate SF Weekly — and the Nob Hill Gazette, which he bought in 2016. The organization also has a hospitality company and real estate division.

“The organization’s commitment to its employees, partners, and the community remain firmly in place,” Heist said.

Condolences poured in from leaders across California on Monday.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom in a statement honored Reilly as a “San Francisco institution” with a brilliant mind and generous heart.

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie said on social media the city “lost a civic leader who left a lasting mark on our city.”

Reilly is survived by his wife Janet and two daughters, Jill and Ava. Memorial arrangements will be announced later.

Planned Parenthood and two smaller regional abortion providers are resuming billing Medicaid for services other than abortion after being cut off for most of a year.

The defunding, which was mandated in President Trump’s big tax and policy law last year, has been blamed in the closure of multiple clinics as well as a reduction in the number of Planned Parenthood patients being screened for breast cancer or tested for sexually transmitted infections.

The Medicaid billing was allowed to resume last weekend.

The restored funding does not mean the battle over federal abortion policy has ended, and not all services that were cut will return.

Here’s what to know about the situation.

Planned Parenthood closed clinics and saw fewer patients

Many abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, have struggled financially since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed state abortion bans to be enforced. Clinics have closed in states with abortion bans and restrictions as well as those without.

Planned Parenthood says its affiliates have closed nearly 30 of its roughly 600 clinics over the past year, citing the funding change as a key reason.

Over that period, affiliates dispensed about 25% fewer packs of birth control pills and conducted about 20% fewer breast cancer exams than the previous year.

Many patients — especially in places where healthcare can be hard to access — may not have had care at all because of the defunding, the organization said.

Planned Parenthood Action Fund spokesperson Angela Vasquez-Giroux said the cuts have also led to limited abortion access in some places.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin halted abortions for about a month, then dropped its status as an “essential community provider” so it could resume seeking reimbursement. The Arizona affiliate paused offering many of its services to patients covered by Medicaid.

Two smaller providers were also impacted

The defunding provision also affected two other healthcare providers that met the criteria in the law because the were nonprofit family planning organizations that provided abortion and received more than $800,000 yearly in Medicaid reimbursements.

Their experiences were very different.

Maine Family Planning closed three primary care clinics that served about 1,000 patients in the largely rural state.

Evelyn Kieltyka, a senior vice president of program services, said that even with help, their former patients had to wait an average of four to six months to be established with new providers.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions the group provided held steady, she said. Maine is one of several states where state-funded Medicaid covers abortion.

Patients at Health Imperatives in Massachusetts may not have noticed the change, as no services were dropped.

The state government funded Medicaid reimbursements that the federal government stopped — something that Planned Parenthood says happened in some form in 14 states. On top of that, the clinic system received a grant from Melinda Gates’s foundation.

Some services are returning but others may not

Planned Parenthood’s Arizona affiliate has already announced expanded hours and more telehealth options linked to the ability to bill Medicaid again.

Some other services are not likely to be restored.

Kieltyka said Maine Family Planning isn’t planning to bring back its primary care practices again.

“When you close something down and you lose positions,” she said, “it’s very difficult to bring that back and build it back up again.”

And Michelle Quesada, vice president of communications, brand and marketing for the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Florida, said a closed clinic in Lakeland isn’t expected to reopen, partly out of concern that Congress or the Trump administration could cut Medicaid reimbursements for the organization again.

“There’s no telling with this uncertainty,” she said. “It’s like a yo-yo effect.”

Abortion opponents want to stop the Medicaid reimbursements again

The political battle isn’t over.

Abortion opponents are pushing Congress to adopt another defunding policy.

“They’ve defunded Big Abortion before,” Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said Monday, “and they should do everything in their power to do it again.”

Planned Parenthood contends that most general election voters don’t want the organization to be defunded. Pritchard said that the Republican base does.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press.

The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to pull a measure from the Nov. 3 ballot that would have created a pathway to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.

The council, on a unanimous vote, sent the draft ballot language to a committee for additional study after several councilmembers said it had not been properly vetted.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not done enough outreach on the proposal, and had received letters from members of the Black community voicing concerns.

“I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don’t want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as a negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles,” he said.

Soto-Martínez said he would keep pursuing the proposal in a future election so that when it passes, the city can have a “big celebration.”

The noncitizen voting proposal was not the only one dropped by the council at the 11th hour.

In a separate vote, the council scrapped plans for a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would have given council members power over policy at the Los Angeles Police Department. The Board of Los Angeles Police Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the mayor, currently have that responsibility.

The council voted 8-6 to further study the ballot proposal after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file members, threatened to sue the city, saying labor negotiators failed to meet and confer with them over the proposal.

The plan for expanding voting rights for noncitizens was unveiled by Soto-Martínez two months ago, It would have authorized the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing noncitizens to cast ballots in L.A. city and school board elections.

But many of the details had not yet been worked out, such as which groups would receive the franchise and whether Los Angeles County election officials would be capable of adopting such a system.

These questions were raised again Tuesday by Councilmember Traci Park, who voted “yes” on the proposal two weeks ago, but said this time that too much is still unknown about how it would work. She voiced fears about the city’s ability to protect noncitizen voters if federal immigration agents show up at polling places.

“My concern here is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won’t really know what they’re voting for, because we don’t really know either,” she said. “These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all.”

Councilmember John Lee held up a print-out of a warning on the San Francisco elections website. San Francisco allows noncitizens to vote in school board elections, and the website includes a notice stating: “Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, organizations, and individuals.”

“Given the experience of the only California city that currently allows noncitizen voting, it is not fear mongering to raise these concerns,” he said. “They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system.

Soto-Martínez said he viewed the warnings from Lee and Park as fear mongering, noting that immigrant rights groups were ready to move forward with his proposal.

“This country was created by people taking courage and pushing so that everyone can have the right to vote,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Jennifer Siebel Newsom has spent more than a decade cultivating an identity distinct from her husband, Gov. Gavin Newsom, as an active documentary filmmaker and gender equity activist with her own organizations, staff and salary.

The 51-year-old calls herself California’s “first partner,” a title she coined herself to signal an equal footing with the governor and gender inclusivity.

Her independent streak has generated her a steady income. She earns money from a set of organizations she founded or controls. They include the Representation Project, a nonprofit that advocates for gender equity through film and education programs; Girls Club Entertainment, a for-profit production company she owns that holds the copyrights to her documentaries; and the California Partners Project, a second nonprofit that works closely with her government office and receives donations solicited by the governor.

Since its creation in 2020, the California Partners Project has received nearly $5.1 million from so-called “behested payments,” raising alarms over the years about the influence large companies have amassed in Sacramento.

California law allows officials to solicit donations to specific charitable or governmental causes when the payments are reported within 30 days. The public donation system, however, came under scrutiny in 2020 when payments made at Newsom’s behest — to a variety of organizations, not just the California Partners Project — ballooned to an unprecedented $226 million to help fund the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

With no limit on how much money can be donated by organizations or individuals at the behest of the governor, millions of dollars flowed in to prop up public services during the pandemic and fund Newsom’s favored programs, including an effort to address homelessness and a public safety campaign promoting the importance of wearing masks. The top donor of Newsom-behested payments in 2020 was tech giant Facebook, which gave $27 million for gift cards that went to front-line healthcare workers and for public health ads.

“It’s not illegal, but it certainly pushes the bounds of campaign finance law, and the first couple has been doing this for some time,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. “In this battle between Newsom and [President] Trump this makes their [the first couple’s] actions, these payments and the operation of the nonprofits a rich target for scrutiny.”

The Newsoms’ financial arrangements are now the subject of renewed scrutiny. The governor has accused the Trump administration — specifically, the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service — of questioning their friends and former employees about him and his wife. The governor said the probes are politically motivated, a personal vendetta because he’s considering a run for president in 2028.

Newsom said he and his wife have nothing to hide, and promised to release all of his recent tax returns — though he has not announced when.

In turn, the governor has demanded that the Department of Justice release all records pertaining to the probe.

“The American people deserve to know who ordered this abuse of power and how far it goes,” the governor wrote on social media last week.

“These are dark days in our nation’s history when the leader of the free world spews animus openly and without shame — aiming to silence and destroy not only his political opponents, but their friends, colleagues, and families,” Siebel Newsom said in a statement to The Times. ”My husband and I will continue to push back on this vindictive attack — and I certainly will not let this distract me from the important work ahead to protect the health, wealth, and safety of women and children and give California kids the best start in life. Together, we can set an example of strong leadership that protects people rather than preys on them.”

To better understand the finances, here is a breakdown of how Siebel Newsom’s company and nonprofits are working.

The Representation Project

Alongside the release of her first documentary, “Miss Representation,” in 2011, Siebel Newsom created her nonprofit, which originally shared the same name as her film. The organization licenses her films and reimburses costs to her production company.

The nonprofit earns some revenue from licensing the first partner’s documentaries for use in classrooms, college campuses and workplaces. Licensing for film screenings at schools starts at $49, while corporate licensing for her films starts at $995; purchase of screening rights also comes with curricula to facilitate discussions.

The Representation Project has earned more than $5.2 million in revenue from film screenings, licensing and speaking fees since 2011, according to a review of its tax filings.

The Representation Project is not required to disclose its donors but has received at least $2.6 million since 2014 from various charitable foundations that disclosed the gifts in their own tax filings. Several corporations that have had business before the state have donated to Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co., AT&T and Kaiser Permanente.

Its past donors also include entrepreneur and progressive donor Susie Thompkins Buell, who is credited as a producer on several of Siebel Newsom’s documentaries, as well as the Marin Community Foundation and Onward Together, the political action organization founded by Hillary Clinton.

Four months after Newsom took office in 2019, the state Department of Education recommended that high schools screen two of his wife’s films, “Miss Representation” and “The Mask You Live In,” a move that has garnered criticism from conservative media outlets. The state said the films “can help facilitate a discussion about the impact of mass media and gender socialization on self-image and relationships with others.”

Though it does not specify where its films have been licensed, the nonprofit boasts in annual impact reports that its films and curricula have “reached over 2 million students” and “are being used in over 5,000 schools in fifty U.S. states.”

Since founding the Representation Project in 2011, Siebel Newsom has received more than $1.9 million in compensation from the nonprofit organization, according to a review of federal tax records. Her separately owned film production company, Girls Club Entertainment, has collected about $2.2 million in independent contracts from the nonprofit, records show.

Combined, the two streams of money total about $4.1 million flowing from the charity to Siebel Newsom personally or to entities she controls over the span of a little over a decade.

Her current annual salary is $161,250 for a 40-hour workweek, records show. Siebel Newsom earns income from both her production company and her nonprofit, according to state financial disclosures.

Jeff Tenenbaum, a nonprofit attorney with 30 years of experience advising nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, declined to comment on Siebel Newsom’s specific case. But generally, he explained the legal framework that would apply to an arrangement like the one described in the filings.

Under federal tax-exempt organization law, he said, the “private benefit doctrine” governs whether a nonprofit’s overall activities unduly benefit any single individual — including through indirect payments to entities they own. The tax law asks whether too much benefit flows to one person or entity.

This is separate and distinct from the “private inurement” doctrine, which prohibits nonprofits from paying greater-than-fair market value compensation to insiders, including founders, and which requires that such compensation arrangements be approved by individuals with no conflicts of interest.

“Theoretically, a situation like this could raise some private benefit concerns,” Tenenbaum said, when the structure of the arrangement was described to him.

The doctrine does not prohibit all private benefit, he said, only what the federal tax code calls “impermissible” private benefit.

“There has to be too much benefit compared to the benefit to the public,” he said. Whether that threshold is crossed here, he said, would require a fuller review of the organization’s finances, contracts, and other considerations, including copyright ownership issues relating to the films produced.

Girls Club Entertainment

An actress and documentary filmmaker, Siebel Newsom founded her production company to develop independent films with a focus on combating gender stereotypes and empowering girls and women. She serves as the company’s chief creative officer.

She has written, produced and directed five films exploring themes of inequality and traditional gender roles. Siebel Newsom is best known for her 2011 documentary “Miss Representation,” which focused on the few and narrow representations of girls and women in American media.

Tax records show that the production company owns the rights to “Miss Representation” and has licensed the film to the Representation Project for a minimum of seven years for the purpose of distributing and screening the film in public. Costs associated with film production — including the writer, director and producer fees — have been reimbursed by the Representation Project, tax filings show.

Her latest documentary, “Miss Representation: Rise Up,” examines “the rising backlash against women’s progress and the hostile landscape of technology designed to harass and, ultimately, silence women.” The film premiered this month at the Tribeca Film Festival.

California Partners Project

In 2020, Siebel Newsom founded the California Partners Project, a nonprofit focused on improving gender equity in the workplace and the safety and well-being of children in online spaces. She does not collect compensation from the nonprofit or serve on its board.

It hosts an annual “gender equity summit” and provides resources for parents on issues such as social media safety and child mental health.

In the fall of 2024, Siebel Newsom and the California Partners Project hosted representatives from TikTok, Meta, Pinterest and other social media platforms for an event about children’s online safety. A day before the panel, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta took a more forceful tack to go after the tech industry by joining with 13 other states in a lawsuit against TikTok that accused the platform of exploiting young app users with its addictive features.

In September of 2024, the governor signed a bill to prohibit internet services and applications from providing “addictive feeds,” defined as media curated based on information gathered on or provided by the user, to minors without parental consent.

The California Partners Project also does not publicly disclose its donors in its tax filings, but much of the nonprofit’s funding appears to come from behested payments. Siebel Newsom does not receive a salary from the organization.

Since its founding, the Newsoms have steered more than $5 million to the nonprofit via behested payments, according to a review of the disclosures. While many donations to the California Partners Project come from charitable foundations, it also received hundreds of thousands from companies including Silicon Valley Bank, Pinterest and the charitable arm of Blue Shield of California.

Its biggest funder is the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a Sonoma County tribe that operates a casino in Rohnert Park and spends heavily in state and federal elections. The tribe has given $2.3 million to the nonprofit since 2022. In June 2023, Newsom appointed tribal Chairman Greg Sarris to the University of California Board of Regents. Newsom has also supported efforts by the tribe to block a smaller tribe from building a casino in nearby Vallejo.

Blue Shield, which has reported giving $100,000 to Siebel Newsom’s nonprofit, also has a cozy relationship with her husband. The nonprofit health insurer was an early donor to Newsom’s 2018 campaign for governor and later received a $15-million no-bid contract to distribute COVID vaccines. State regulators in 2024 also signed off on the nonprofit’s request to restructure and establish a new parent corporation out of state, a move that raised alarm among healthcare advocates.

The California Partners Project did not respond to questions about its donors and spending.

He’s no longer a cute little kid.

He’s a $185-million man.

He’s no longer a quintessential underdog routinely pardoned for his bad defense, his questionable durability and his tendency to tighten up in the playoffs.

He’s a big dog who needs to own it.

Austin Reaves, the most beloved Laker, became the most scrutinized Laker on Wednesday with the news that he agreed to a maximum four-year, $185-million contract to remain with the team.

Kudos to him for becoming the highest-paid undrafted player in league history.

Props to him for declining a rich extension offer last summer to play out the season and bet on himself.

Congrats to the Lakers for turning a homegrown talent into a budding superstar.

Seriously, it makes you just want to hug that unkempt, headband-wearing dude and let him know how his everyman story resonates with the masses.

Except that story is finished. That book has been closed. A new volume has begun.

It’s called, “Is Austin Reaves Worth It?”

Thus far, the answer has been no.

Flash back to May, the opener of the Western Conference semifinals against the Oklahoma City Thunder, a week after he had returned to the court following a monthlong absence with an oblique injury.

Lakers guard Austin Reaves chases after a loose ball ahead of Rockets guard Amen Thompson during Game 5 of their playoff series in May.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The Lakers needed Reaves to set the tone. He instead laid an egg, shooting three for 16 from the field and zero for five from beyond the arc, his body knocked clear to Tulsa by a physical Thunder defense.

Two games later, same thing, he shoots five for 13 and one for five from deep, allowing the Thunder to pound him to a pulp.

With Luka Doncic out and LeBron James exhausted, the Lakers desperately needed Reaves to pick up the slack. He dropped it, again and again, and the Lakers were swept.

It was the same thing in the spring of 2025, when Reaves crumbled in the first-round series-clinching loss to the Minnesota Timberwolves, shooting five for 14 and two for 10 in a performance that was, as usual, generally overlooked because he tried so hard and accepted his shortcomings so honestly.

That’s not going to work anymore. That’s not going to be enough anymore.

With this new deal, Reaves becomes the Lakers’ second cornerstone along with Doncic. They are now officially a one-two punch. They are now a twin-engine scoring machine that can rival any similar duo in the NBA.

Guards Austin Reaves and Luka Doncic are the new one-two punch of the near future for the Lakers.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Doncic has lived up to his end of the bargain. Will Reaves?

And what about defense? For $185 million, you’d think you could get some defense. Doncic needs his running mate to compensate for his questionable defensive skills, and Reaves has yet to do that.

Simply by earning his way onto the Lakers roster five years ago, Reaves has been a great role model for everyone who has ever been ignored or shunned or marginalized. But did the Lakers fall in love with his legend and ignore his frailties?

Yes, he averaged 23 points per game last season. But he only played in a career-low 51 games because of calf and oblique injuries, and will he add the muscle required to fend off such problems in the future?

Yes, he has been a great interview while admirably and publicly holding himself and his teammates accountable. But he’s always been able to lead from the shadows. How will he react when 185 million microphones are pointed at him?

In a postgame interview after the Lakers’ final loss against Oklahoma City this spring, Reaves was at his aw-shucks best.

“I take life day by day and I’m just blessed to have an opportunity to play for this organization, play a kid’s game,” he said, “I make good money. But like I said, I don’t think about what I’m really going to do in the future, just day by day.”

Lakers guard Austin Reaves consults with coach JJ Redick during a break in the action during Game 3 of the series against the Oklahoma City Thunder in May.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

That tone has to change. He now has to think about the future because he is the future, of this team, of this organization, of the hopes of this city.

With all of Reaves’ shortcomings, one can almost see the unsentimental Dodgers officials looking at Wednesday’s news and saying, “Wait, they did what?”

But in the end, the Lakers didn’t really have a choice. There wasn’t a free agent available who could match Reaves’ prolific shooting, and nobody who could match the Laker-centric story of his personal journey.

Renowned softie Rob Pelinka, who should count Reaves as one of his greatest successes, was so moved by the opportunity to bring him back that he mentioned the Lakers colors when answering a question about him.

“He started his journey here as a Laker and has made it very clear to us that he wants his journey to continue as a Laker,” Pelinka said during exit interviews this spring. “We want his odyssey to continue to unfold in the purple and gold.”

And so it will, for at least several more years, Reaves now occupying a Lakers leading sidekick role made famous during their championship years by the likes of Anthony Davis and Pau Gasol.

How sweet. How scary.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences invited 529 artists and executives to join its membership Wednesday, including actors Jenna Ortega, Teyana Taylor, Jacob Elordi, Mia Goth and Josh O’Connor and filmmakers Benny and Josh Safdie, as the organization continues to reshape the body that votes on the Oscars.

If all invitees accept, the academy’s voting membership will grow to 10,338 members, up from roughly 6,000 a decade ago, as the organization continues to expand its ranks and broaden its international reach. Overall membership, including emeritus members who no longer vote, will rise to 11,319.

The academy’s expansion accelerated after the 2015 #OscarsSoWhite controversy, which drew attention to the organization’s overwhelmingly white and male membership and prompted a sustained effort to recruit more women, people of color and international filmmakers. The academy met its initial post-#OscarsSoWhite diversity targets several years ago but has continued to expand and internationalize its membership.

The latest class includes 95 Oscar nominees, 21 Oscar winners and three recipients of Scientific and Technical Awards.

“We are delighted to invite this remarkable group of film artists and professionals from around the world to join the Academy,” academy CEO Bill Kramer and President Lynette Howell Taylor said in a joint statement. “Through their commitment to filmmaking, this year’s exceptionally talented class has made significant contributions to our global movie industry.”

The academy said 42% of this year’s invitees are women, 56% are from underrepresented communities and 53% are from 60 countries and territories outside the United States. Last year’s class was 41% women, 45% from underrepresented ethnic or racial communities and 55% international.

Across the academy’s overall membership, 36% are women, 25% come from underrepresented communities and 22% are international, according to the organization.

Other notable invitees include actors Jon Bernthal, Julia Garner, Bill Skarsgård, Anthony Ramos, Jemaine Clement, Jenny Slate and Simu Liu; singer-songwriter Sara Bareilles; documentary filmmaker Andrew Jarecki (“Capturing the Friedmans”); and director Zach Cregger (“Weapons”).

Nine individuals, including filmmakers Benny Safdie (“The Smashing Machine”) and Josh Safdie (“Marty Supreme”), received invitations from multiple branches and must choose one upon accepting membership.

Membership in the academy is by sponsorship rather than application. Oscar nominees are automatically considered for membership in the year they are nominated, while branch executive committees review additional candidates before recommendations are approved by the academy’s Board of Governors.

The latest class is five names fewer than last year’s group of 534 invitees. The academy’s largest-ever class came in 2018, when it invited 928 new members as part of a broader effort to diversify its ranks.

The 99th Oscars will take place March 14, 2027, at the Dolby Theatre at Ovation Hollywood.

FORT WORTH, Texas — A demonstrator who shot and wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration center last July 4 was sentenced to 100 years in federal prison Tuesday, while other protesters accused of having links to antifa were given multiple decades in federal prison.

Benjamin Song was convicted of attempted murder last March after prosecutors say he opened fire and wounded a police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado.

The seven other protesters sentenced Tuesday received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

“Our issue with this case has always been this isn’t a bunch of terrorists. This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Philip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”

He said his client would appeal the sentencing.

“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”

One of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was convicted of corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. Others pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.

Prosecutors say the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization that has become a target of the Trump administration. They have denied any affiliation and maintain they attended the demonstration to show support for immigrants inside the detention center.

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.

Critics warn the case could have wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 people with impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.

Stengle and Marcelo write for the Associated Press. Marcelo reported from New York.

As soccer fans await the FIFA World Cup kickoff Thursday — and as criticism of the organization’s ticketing practices and social impact on local communities circulates across North America, where the games will be held — longtime aficionados want to remind the sports community of the real beauty beneath the game.

Last Friday at Espacio 1839 in Boyle Heights, visitors were greeted by the thumping bass of cumbia sonideras, earthy scent of leather trinkets and clothing racks featuring silky screen-printed soccer jerseys. The Latino-centric gift shop reached maximum capacity with a new pop-up art exhibit titled “El Fútbol Es del Pueblo,” featuring over 30 artworks that provide commentary on the global sport.

“It’s reclaiming the sport again, reminding folks that the essence of the game belongs to the people,” said Nico Aviña, owner of Espacio 1839. “With everything that’s going on with the World Cup, everybody’s giving FIFA credit, but I think that we need to reclaim that power. This is a people’s sport and it belongs to us.”

Nico Avina gets ready to start a soccer match at Mariachi Plaza at “El Futbol es del Pueblo,” a community soccer event hosted by Espacio 1839.

(Jill Connelly/For De Los)

Every four years, soccer fans around the globe go berserk over the World Cup, but in host cities like Los Angeles, the worldwide spectacle feels bittersweet and financially out of reach. Fans have paid thousands of dollars for non-premium seating at SoFi Stadium; this does not include parking, which is estimated to be about $250 near the venue.

“ I’m not interested in going into those games or paying these ridiculous amounts,” said Aviña. “It’s more about greed. It’s more about wealth extraction than anything else.”

That sentiment resonated with 42-year-old Antonio Rivera, a Bay Area local who recalled the excitement he felt as a child in Jalisco watching the 1986 World Cup, which Mexico hosted. He remembers his little toy bank shaped like Pique, the anthropomorphic jalapeño pepper that was Mexico’s tournament mascot.

“You hear stories of people going to the World Cup with their whole family.  Now you can’t even get a ticket,” he said. “ It’s an important opportunity for people to talk about some of the discomforts that they may have with  an organization like FIFA.”

Rivera was at Espacio 1839 on Friday accompanying his son, Marc Rivera, one of the youngest exhibitors, alongside his classmate Miguel Yanez. The tweens came down from Napa, Calif., to showcase their acrylic comic-strip painting featuring Mexican soccer player Alexis Vega, who channels his Mesoamerican ancestors when scoring the victory goal.

Marc Rivera explains the meaning behind his painting on display at “El Futbol es del Pueblo.”

(Jill Connelly/For De Los)

“It’s important to expose our next generation and give them an opportunity to express themselves a little bit,” Antonio Rivera said.

Tijuana artist Vianney Harelly’s piece was hard to miss on the wall. It featured a bloody cross with the Spanish words for “soccer comes with blood and tears.” It also included headlines from articles regarding the Naupan artisans who were allegedly underpaid by Adidas and social-impact brand Someone Somewhere, during its work on the latest embroidered Mexican soccer kit.

“I wanted it to be a piece showing kind of the dark side of the World Cup, because there’s so many things that are buried underneath the whole spectacle,” Harelly said.

The 30-year-old said they are not interested in tuning into the World Cup activities because of the close relationship between FIFA President Gianni Infantino and President Trump. Human rights organizations have called on the FIFA leader to request that the Trump administration declare a moratorium on ICE raids during the soccer tournament; SoFi stadium workers threatened to strike if agents aren’t kept out of the venue.

Artwork on display at “El Futbol es del Pueblo.”

(Jill Connelly/For De Los)

“I know people want to be seen and celebrated and they wanna feel love,” Harelly said. “But I don’t want them to settle and think that the only option for them to feel love and be seen is through corporations that hate us.”

Gerardo Gómez looked mesmerized as he glanced at the wall. Some of his favorite pieces included a scarf that read “Siempre Antifascista” and a banner that featured a masked Indigenous soccer player with the words “Futbol Libertad.”

“I think a lot of us here love the sport, but we are against FIFA,” Gómez said. “What you’re seeing here is a representation of the people’s struggle that comes with the sport.”

The 46-year-old said the soccer organization, as well as the Olympic Games, have a history of displacing marginalized communities; for example, ahead of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil, at least 19,000 families were displaced to make way for sporting infrastructure.

That’s why he’d rather put his focus on the Homeless World Cup, an annual international street football tournament that advocates an end to homelessness globally. Players are individuals who have experienced some form of homelessness or social exclusion in their life.

“People that came together [for the Homeless World Cup] recognized that soccer brings people together,” said Gómez. “And it’s the most beautiful thing I have experienced.”

A soccer match at Mariachi Plaza on June 5, 2026.

(Jill Connelly/For De Los)

As the sun went down, the crowd shifted over a block to Mariachi Plaza where a 3-vs.-3 cascarita, or scrimmage, began on the pavement. Onlookers gathered around the makeshift field, which had no clear outer bounds, as the pulsating drumming and anti-ICE chants led by Lxs Tigres del NorthEnd (an independent LAFC supporter group) filled the air.

“It’s very bittersweet,” said 30-year-old Claudia Llontop. “With families being deported.”

Llontop, who grew up watching the World Cup, arrived at the pick-up match with her two children — and even documented her journey getting there on TikTok to her more than 50,000 followers. She had been trying to find ways to kick a ball around when she heard about “El Fútbol Es del Pueblo,” which allowed her to put on a red mesh jersey and run like the wind.

“This is for single moms, this is for kids, this is for high schoolers,” said Llontop. “ I think this alone is a lot more powerful than FIFA, because this is us.”

It was a busy week in music.

The announcement Wednesday of a concert series honoring the country’s 250th anniversary prompted a swift reaction, and it wasn’t from zealous fans. Within hours of the lineup reveal, multiple music acts slated to play the Great American State Fair declared they were dropping out of the 16-day event after discovering it was part of an initiative out of the Trump White House.

Young MC, Morris Day and Martina McBride were among those who said they would not perform at the concert series scheduled for June and July on the National Mall.

“I have informed my agents that I will not be performing at the Freedom 250 event,” “Bust a Move” rapper Young MC, a.k.a. Marvin Young, posted Wednesday. “The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event.”

Day, frontman of the Prince-affiliated funk/soul group Time, also bowed out. He simply wrote, “It’s a No for Me.”

And country singer McBride described the opportunity as “misleading” in a post on Thursday.

Acts who announced they would not take part in the event were still listed as part of the lineup on Freedom 250’s website as of Friday morning. Described on the website as a “World Fair-style celebration of America’’s [sic] 250th birthday…,” the organization positions itself as “non-partisan” but “working together with the White House Task Force 250.”

The organization also says that it acts as “the official public-private partnership that connects, aligns, and amplifies national and local efforts to deliver the defining presidential moments of this anniversary year.”

I’ll give you a minute to parse that jumble of words …

Meanwhile, another major music concert with more transparent political leanings was announced on Wednesday. Trump critics Bruce Springsteen and Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello revealed they’re launching a Power to the People festival set for Oct. 3 at Merriweather Post Pavilion in Columbia, Md. And as of Friday, no one had dropped off its roster.

Springsteen and Morello are slated to headline, as are the Foo Fighters, Brittany Howard, Joan Baez and Dave Matthews.

Morello, who is currently on tour with Springsteen, announced the festival on-stage at Nationals Park on Wednesday night. “The Power to the People festival is about freedom, justice, equality and rock and roll,” he said. “It’s about the power everyday human beings have when they come together through music, art, community and action. We’re honored to bring this incredible lineup to the D.C. area for a day that celebrates the spirit of activism, creativity and hope.”

Springsteen was more direct in his indictment of the White House and the fight to preserve democracy. “This American tragedy can only be stopped by the American people: you. There is no one coming to save us. We’ve got to do it ourselves,” said Springsteen on Wednesday during the sold-out tour stop in Washington, D.C. “So join us and let’s fight for the America that we love. Do you hear me, Washington?”

Power to the People is scheduled a month before the November midterms, and includes Dropkick Murphys, Jack Black, Serj Tankian, Cypress Hill, Killer Mike, Taylor Momsen and the Linda Lindas. A portion of the proceeds from ticket sales will benefit the organizations VoteRiders, whose mission is to eliminate ID barriers to the ballot box so eligible voters can cast a ballot, and HeadCount, who help register voters at concerts, festivals, sports and community events.

Artists who had committed to playing the Freedom 250, Great American State Fair — or just pick a name already — and who swiftly dropped out when they saw it was touched by Trump, were busy this week distancing themselves from the event.

“Our music has always been our voice and we choose not to publicly affiliate with any single political party,” the Commodores said in a statement on social media.

Poison frontman Bret Michaels and ‘80s sensation Milli Vanilli were also among the acts who announced they would not be playing the event. (New incarnation of) Milli Vanilli singer Jodie Rocco said the group had not been asked to perform, despite being announced in the lineup.

Artists who still appear to be part of the lineup for the curiously titled national state fair are rapper Flo-Rida and 1980s MTV staples C+C Music Factory and Vanilla Ice. The last appeared at Trump’s New Year’s Eve party at Mar-a-Lago.

Freedom 250 was reminded this week that artists have freedom too. To do or not.

JOHANNESBURG — The government in South Africa and Afrikaner advocacy groups on Wednesday rejected the position of the Trump administration that there’s a humanitarian emergency affecting white people in South Africa.

The argument served as the rationale for raising the U.S. refugee cap, but only for white Afrikaners. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will admit an additional 10,000 white South Africans into the U.S. as refugees this year, increasing its annual cap, but blocking people from other countries from entering through the program.

President Trump’s announcement on the Federal Register that he was increasing the refugee cap because of “an unforeseen emergency refugee situation.” He blamed the South African government for “recent increases in the incitement of racially motivated violence,” but Trump gave no specific information.

The South African government’s international relations department said Wednesday that accusations of systemic persecution of white Afrikaners are unfounded, pointing out that some beneficiaries of an immigration program have chosen to return to South Africa.

“This reality is further corroborated by the actions of individuals who, despite having availed themselves of this preferential immigration program, have since resolved to return home,” spokesman Chrispin Phiri said.

Afrikaner trade union, Solidariteit, argued that refugee status isn’t a viable solution for Afrikaners, who should thrive in South Africa instead. Spokesman Jaco Kleynhans said that the organization hadn’t discussed any “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” with the Trump administration, but respects the autonomy of U.S. refugee policy toward Afrikaners.

The union “is in no way aware of anything that the Trump administration could be referring to,” Kleynhans said.

AfriForum, a lobbying organization for the country’s white Afrikaner minority with more than 300,000 members, said it “does not have information” regarding the specific assertion that there’s an emergency refugee situation.

The organization’s CEO, Kallie Kriel, said the group’s focus is “fighting to create the circumstances in South Africa where there is no need for Afrikaners to leave.”

Trump suspended the U.S. refugee program on his first day in office and, since then, has turned it into a vehicle to allow Afrikaners — a group of white South Africans descended mainly from Dutch settlers — into the United States. Advocates say the decision to focus a decades-old program on one group has left people around the world fleeing war and strife stranded and with few options.

Refugee groups have questioned why white South Africans are being prioritized ahead of people from countries facing war and natural disasters. Vetting for refugee status in the U.S. often takes years.

The Trump administration’s preference for white Afrikaner refugee admissions, according to Dr. Bryony Fox, a social justice researcher at Stellenbosch University, raises questions about selective humanitarianism, inconsistent refugee protection and favoring privileged groups, while ignoring other refugee populations experiencing severe hardships.

“This risks politicizing refugee protection in a way that may ultimately weaken the legitimacy and universality of the refugee regime itself,” she said.

Gumede writes for the Associated Press.

An Ebola outbreak caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain has killed dozens in Democratic Republic of the Congo and is spreading into Uganda, raising fears of regional transmission. Health officials say instability and shared borders are complicating containment efforts as the World Health Organization declares a global health emergency.

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told Tenerife residents that the docking of a cruise ship hit by a Hantavirus outbreak does not pose the risk of triggering a Covid-like pandemic.

Trevor Bauer wants to pitch in the majors again — so much so that he’s willing to start over in the lowest levels of the minor leagues and work his way up.

And he’s willing to do it without being paid.

That’s the hypothetical Bauer proposed Friday on X: A talented former Cy Young Award winner signs a minor league deal with an MLB team for a “$0 salary” and can be cut at any time at no financial risk to the organization.

Since his last MLB start on June 28, 2021, as a member of the Dodgers with a $102-million, three-year contract, Bauer has been accused of sexual assault by four women. He served a 194-game suspension for violating the league’s sexual assault and domestic violence policy. He has denied all the allegations and has never been charged with a crime.

While some might think signing Bauer might be a risky move for an MLB organization, Bauer feels his plan is foolproof in that regard.

“Hypothetical: You’re the owner of an MLB team,” Bauer wrote. “I offer to take $0 salary and sign a minor league contract and go to Low A. If the ‘he sucks now’ crowd is right and I get lit up, you cut me, lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club.

“If the ‘clubhouse cancer’ crowd is right, you see it immediately at Low A and cut me. You lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club. If there’s massive negative PR, which we already know there won’t be, you just cut me and move on. The story is dead in a couple days, you lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club.”

In the comments on Bauer’s post, someone challenged him on the notion that “we already know there won’t be” any negative PR if he is signed. In response, Bauer pointed to his current stint with the Long Island Ducks of the independent Atlantic League to support his argument.

“Where has the negative PR been?” wrote Bauer, who is 3-1 this season and pitched a no-hitter for the Ducks late last month. “I’m playing in America. In New York of all places. Most ‘hostile’ media market in the United States. Stadiums are sold out when I pitch. There’s no boycotts. No media frenzy. Where is it?”

Bauer wrote in his proposal that if none of the negatives he laid out earlier happen, then the organization can promote their cost-free pitcher through the ranks, re-evaluating him every step of the way, until he reaches the big leagues — “if I earn it,” he wrote, “which you’d be 100% in control of deciding.”

“If you don’t think I’m good enough, you lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club,” Bauer wrote. “You could take away my ‘antics’. You could take away my social media. You could ask anything of me. If I don’t comply, you cut me, lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club.”

One X user asked why Bauer doesn’t just take away his “antics” on his own.

“Because no teams actually care about that,” Bauer responded. “They enjoy the content. And I’m not going to rob baseball fans of great baseball entertainment just to solve a problem that only exists in the minds of x bots.”

Informed that the MLB Players Assn. might have an issue with him playing for free, Bauer replied, “Who gives a crap about what mlbpa does or doesn’t want?”

This isn’t the first time Bauer has made what he considers to be a low-risk proposal for an organization to bring him back into the league. In 2024, Bauer spoke with The Times’ Bill Shaikin about an offer he made to play for the league minimum.

“The reason for that was, I want to go back to work, and I am trying to find any way that I possibly can to limit the risk and exposure for a team,” Bauer said. “I realize there are a lot of other things, outside of the on-field stuff, that go into whether to sign me. So I figured that, if I could limit the on-field risk as much as possible, perhaps that offsets some of the other perceived risks.”

It remains to be seen whether any club is willing to take up Bauer on his current offer.

“What logical reason is there to not do this?” Bauer wrote. “At worst, you cut me and there’s no risk to the big league club. At best, you get a Cy Young winner for $0 who you know can still pitch and could help the big league team if and when you see fit.”

Former Miami Marlins president David Samson weighed in on Bauer’s proposal in a post on X.

“This will never happen,” Samson wrote. “First of all, no team wants to sign him. Secondly, no player is allowed to play for $0. And finally, no team wants to sign him.”

ST. LOUIS — Still smarting from their election loss and scornful of their departing leaders, ranking Republicans met Thursday to select a new party chairman, eyeing five candidates who stress unity but whose links to opposing factions and presidential hopefuls mirror the party’s deep clefts.

On the surface, the three-day meeting of the 165-member Republican National Committee to pick a new leader opened Thursday with a collegial sense of purpose: All five men seeking the post are conservatives who talk of renewing the party at the grass-roots level and loosening ties to the Washington Establishment that called the shots for 12 years.

But the mounting heat produced by this campaign has burnished the differences between the candidates and exposed hints of their ties to the forces buffeting the party–presidential aspirants, religious and anti-abortion elements, even the tattered remains of George Bush’s reelection apparatus.

Party veterans say none of the five–retiring Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft, Mississippi lawyer and political consultant Haley Barbour, Republican Congressional Committee Co-Chairman L. Spencer Abraham, former Army Secretary Howard H. (Bo) Calloway and Oregon party Chairman Craig L. Berkman–appear to have enough support to muster a first-ballot victory this afternoon.

Party regulars described Barbour and Abraham as the perceived front-runners, with Ashcroft, who gained national exposure last fall as a Bush campaign speaker, not far behind. But arriving committee members said up to 40% of the voting members appeared uncommitted.

Committed or not, some of the arriving committee members projected a prickly impatience with the soothing promises made by consultants and cellular phone-wielding floor whips. After 12 years of taking orders from Administration officials, some party officials gleefully flexed their independence.

Outside one reception, a Midwestern committeeman poked a startled staffer in the chest and huffed: “You’re beginning to sound exactly like the dolts we had to endure for the last four years.”

Karen Hughes, the executive director of the Texas Republican Party, said a “strong anti-Washington Establishment” mood pervades the gathering. “I think the deciding factor in the vote is who the members believe will allow them to be part of the process,” she said. “You don’t mind being a rubber stamp body when you win. But when you lose . . . .”

As they lobbied near well-stocked buffet tables in Hyatt Regency hotel hospitality suites and in secluded speeches in spare meeting rooms, the five contestants tried to capitalize on that sense of frustration. They echoed a growing cadre of party regulars who think that Bush’s presidential campaign was fatally flawed by the party’s failure to project a “big tent” image to a diverse nation.

“The sense that the party needs to be inclusionary is playing pretty well here,” said Eddie Mahe, a Republican political consultant who flew in from Washington to lobby for Calloway.

That yearning for a broader, more tolerant Republican Party masks a fear among many stalwarts that they are in danger of a grass-roots takeover by the religious right.

Mary Alice Lair, a national committeewoman from the small southeast Kansas town of Piqua, worries about the “new people,” her hushed description of Christian right volunteers who have swelled party membership rolls in her Republican precinct.

“We need to find ways to show the new people that we’re OK and to teach them how to operate as one group,” Lair said. “We need a chairman who can show the precincts how to organize properly.”

But even as candidates talked earnestly about tinkering with the grass roots, listening to regulars outside the Washington Beltway and turning a deaf ear to well-heeled consultants, they were relying on time-tested Capitol contacts and imported consultants to sway uncommitted members.

And, as they promised a turn in the party’s fortunes by welcoming all of its embittered factions, the five candidates were busy attacking each other for their links to future presidential contenders as varied as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, to Christian fundamentalist leaders like Pat Robertson and even to CBS News.

Abraham, a Michigan Republican leader, is selling himself as a leading candidate for change based on his roles in revitalizing his state’s party, in paring consultants’ costs and, as chairman of the congressional campaign committee, in funneling more money last year to Republican House candidates. But his opponents have attacked him for being openly supported by Quayle, who employed him as an aide.

Barbour, one of the earliest to announce his candidacy, has been criticized for his close ties to Gramm–thought to be a presidential possibility–and for representing CBS News against the Bush Administration in a battle over a cable TV bill last year.

Ashcroft has emphasized his recent role as a party spokesman in his bid to do similar work as party chairman. But it is Ashcroft’s very influence that may have prevented him from gaining an edge. His prominence in drafting the party’s platform last year has hurt him, some moderates say. And, like Abraham, he is burdened by his links to some of the powerful influences aiding him. Current RNC Chairman Richard N. Bond is said to favor him, as are a number of influential Christian right figures impressed with his strong anti-abortion stance. That kind of backing hurts the former governor as much as it aids him, party regulars said.

Calloway, who runs a political action committee founded by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is beloved by many committee members. But he is believed to be a long shot because, at 67, “he’s just too old,” one Abraham backer said.

Berkman, an Oregon moderate who prefers that the party move away from its anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights planks, is said to be limited by his regional support.

Heyerde “Seko” López is a Venezuelan artist and activist with experience in plastic arts, screen printing, photography, graphic design, and audiovisual production. For 13 years he has been a member of Fundación Nativa Crea, a grassroots organization from Guarenas, on the outskirts of Caracas, dedicated to social work and advancing popular power.

What is Fundación Nativa Crea and what does it do?

Fundación Nativa Crea is a sociocultural organization dedicated to bringing together communes, social movements, and individuals in the town of Guarenas. We organize a variety of activities in our territory, ranging from rescuing abandoned spaces and painting murals to offering free workshops on screen printing, music, theater, and circus in local communities and schools.

Nativa is also dedicated to grassroots communication through social media. We’re always doing digital and graphic design and recording in the community to make visible what people are doing. We work to forge the identity of our barrio, our working-class areas, and our communities, so that people can be the protagonists of the revolution we’re building and the path we’re traveling together.

We’re located in Plaza Bolívar in Guarenas, right next to City Hall, because we had the chance to speak with President Chávez and decided to occupy that space, which was a Corpoelec [state electricity company] substation that had been abandoned for 15 years. At the time, we identified 37 abandoned spaces in Guarenas, but that one stood out as the most visible and strategic. We surveyed the area, and the project was born.

How is Nativa’s work organized in practice, and how does it integrate with the local community and the people’s power organizations?

There are six of us now, but we coordinate with other people in the territory and in other parts of the country. We have a set of goals and an action plan. Each person takes on tasks based on their strengths. We have six production units, two of which are currently operational: the auto repair shop, where we fix cars and motorcycles, and the screen printing and communications workshop, where we make T-shirts. We have a brand called “Contestatarixs” to market prints of iconic figures and world-renowned fighters. The other four units are a cultural café that we will soon reopen, a community bakery, a recording studio, and a greenhouse. In fact, we plan to establish a greenhouse in every community council.

In total, there are 15 community councils in our territory, which make up the General José Félix Ribas Commune. Our organization belongs to the Pueblo Arriba Communal Council. In our sector, we’re going to start with a medicinal garden, as well as tomato and onion seeds, and coffee and cacao seedlings, to later coordinate with local farmers. We’re also considering a partnership to grow barley in the nearby campesino settlements and produce craft beer. Why not have a Venezuelan communal beer?

You mentioned the bakery and the café that closed down. What obstacles did they face?

The bakery and the café closed down due to the economic difficulties resulting from the US sanctions. For example, when wheat imports were restricted, it became very difficult for us to acquire the raw materials. Previously, it had been subsidized. Although we were part of a bakery coalition with other grassroots organizations, and we held numerous meetings and coordinated efforts with the government to defend community bakeries, it was not possible to maintain our operations. In Venezuela, wheat is controlled by the owners of the silos. We fought a tough battle between 2014 and 2017, but that coalition practically fell apart, and now only the large, capitalist bakeries remain. But we are creating the conditions to revive this productive unit. We want to build a communal economy. We are going to start creating the conditions, now with more criteria and the lessons learned over these years. After all these battles, I believe we have the necessary experience.

What are the main challenges Nativa has faced over the years?

The main challenge is staying true to our identity as a left-wing organization in the face of the imperialist blockade. Nativa Crea started out as a clothing brand and is now a social organization running a headquarters of 542 square meters. But the hardest part is sustaining ourselves over time. It’s one thing to have an idea, to design a project, and quite another to sustain it –to preserve the ideology, retain the members, and create conditions so that it’s a space where people aren’t exploited and can have free time to organize alongside the pueblo. 

We also knew that, as we asserted ourselves, we would deal some blows to the bourgeois state. Not all mayors, governors, or institutional leaders will want to relinquish their share of power and accept the consolidation of popular power or the communal state. In practice, we have seen that things are not as beautiful as they are in theory. Rather, they are riddled with contradictions. But we have the spirit to fight and move forward. Today, what we do is join forces with different organizations, communal councils, etc., to keep the project moving forward and to help them identify with it. Nativa has always been a space where people can meet, hold workshops, organize politically, and so on.

What would you highlight as Nativa’s main achievements over the years?

Our main achievement has been bringing together different people, from different communes, and ensuring that everyone understands we’re all fighting for the same cause: building the communal state. 

I believe our task is to demonstrate that popular power is the way forward. For example, eight years ago, using the surplus generated by the bakery, we were able to build a sports court. So, we showed that economic activity can take place under decent working conditions, serve the community, and generate a surplus to contribute to the territory where we live. Therefore, if we have productive units –which is what we insist on in the commune –we will be able to achieve autonomy, we will be able to make decisions in the territory, and we will be able to develop what the barrio needs.

Nativa, and you in particular, place a lot of emphasis on the cultural front, especially on graphic design. What is the vision behind this?

Through graphic arts, we shape our identity. Ever since we started creating prints, painting murals, taking photographs, and producing audiovisual works, we’ve always sought to reclaim Venezuelan identity. Not the identity sold to us about barrios in mainstream culture –the glorification of crime or the idea that people dress and speak a certain way. Every town has its identity, every city has its identity, every territory has its identity. So, through the arts, we try to capture that, what we experience, and in this way, people begin to recognize themselves, know where they come from, and also to appreciate things that are nationally, locally, and indigenously produced. It gives new value to their experiences, to what they consume, read, and so on.

You recently hosted an international brigade from Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). What was that exchange like, and how can that feedback help strengthen grassroots organizing?

The MST brought a large group that split into seven brigades spread across different parts of the country. We were assigned one as the representative from the central capital region. This experience has been very important, because we see that our brothers and sisters in Brazil are fighting for the same cause as us: against capitalism and imperialism, and for the unity of the Latin American peoples.

The Landless Workers’ Movement has been raising that banner of struggle –the fight for land and the construction of campesino settlements –for over 40 years. They have very advanced methods, and they are masters of organization and planning. In fact, they are advising us on the various productive units. They believe that we, Venezuelans, need to focus more on planning, sticking to schedules, fulfilling responsibilities, etc. The exchange has helped our communards hear the perspective of comrades from outside, with their experience and organizational skills. They have shared their insights with 10 communes here in Guarenas and are also getting to know the local projects that have been approved through popular consultations.

As someone with many years of experience in grassroots organizing, how do you view the relationship between constituted power (institutions) and constituent power? What is working, and what needs to change?

Chávez, and also our professor Manuel Sulbarán, always told us that we, the working-class people, are the only ones capable of bringing about change and progress in our own country through popular power. So, popular power must continue to develop these methods and strengthen our communes, making them active and productive, and demanding that the state or institutions transfer the responsibilities we can assume and the resources we need. 

For example, in the General José Félix Ribas Commune, the project that won last year’s consultation was focused on the youth to build a soccer field. There was a group pushing for it, but the US $10,000 allocated for the project wasn’t enough. That caused a lot of discontent and led some to think that popular consultations were useless. These are the issues we need to debate and politicize. We explained to them in an assembly that this is a megaproject that cannot be done with just $10,000, so it must be conceived in several phases. We have to keep our spirits up and continue participating.

The soccer field has been a good topic for debate and reflection, because it is also true that the commune has many priorities that are more important than a soccer field. Everything is needed, and sports play a fundamental role, but for example, if the sewer system is damaged, the community will likely prioritize fixing that. That’s why we need to plan and see which projects are proposed through which channels. If we do a better job of categorizing projects by scale and setting timelines, we’ll be able to strengthen our commune. 

But, to answer the question, institutions need to work with us, the pueblo, and understand the priorities of each territory. Perhaps it’s not best for the commune to choose building a sports field because that should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Sports. This ends up giving the commune a responsibility that it should not have to assume, or that it is not in a position to take on. Nor should we be taking on the project of repairing a school when we have a Ministry of Education and a Ministry of Public Works. Obviously, our communards will dedicate themselves to anything that improves the community’s life, but why should the commune burn its only chance to access funding for popular power on unfeasible projects that should, moreover, be the responsibility of the institutions? So we must also demand that those holding constituted power –the government and institutions –fulfill their responsibilities, so that we, as an organized people, can move forward with ours. Another challenge we face is that some people confuse the tasks of the party [PSUV] with the exercise of popular power, and as a result, they sometimes end up dragging the commune into areas that are not its responsibility.

Finally, how does Nativa interpret the current political situation, and what role should the organized people play?

January 3 was a grave moment, a call for reflection, just as the 2002 coup had been, when the people took to the streets to make history. The lesson is the same: the people must understand that only popular power will allow us to overcome this onslaught by the capitalist economic system and imperialist attacks.

Today we must organize ourselves once again, win over all those people who were fighting, or who are fighting out there but scattered. We have to unify the struggles, as President Chávez said at the time: it is very important that we know who we are, what we want to build, in order to move forward in consolidating the Bolivarian Revolution. And beyond Venezuela, we must understand ourselves as a bloc with our neighboring countries. 

For the youth, it is important not to abandon the banners of anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle and to create our own methods. The past centuries’ revolutionary struggles of Germany and France will not apply here. It is not enough for us to simply “follow the ideas of Lenin, Mao, Che, or Fidel,” although we must certainly read and study them. Chávez put it very clearly: we are going to give birth to the 21st-century revolution; we are going to create it. We’ve only been at this for 20 years, developing different theoretical and political aspects, with different participants sometimes on different wavelengths. But we all know that we have a right to an anti-imperialist revolution that defends life on the planet.