Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert paid utility and rent bills with campaign funds, according to a new filing the Republican lawmaker made this week with the Federal Election Commission.

The report, submitted to the FEC on Tuesday, details a series of four payments this year totaling $6,650 to John Pacheco, whose address is the same as Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado -- the restaurant that Boebert has owned. The payments are described as rent and utilities that had been erroneously billed to campaign.

Boebert's spokesman did not immediately respond to a CNN inquiry Thursday.

It is against the law to use campaign funds for personal use, but it's not clear that Boebert faces immediate legal jeopardy.
Boebert, a firebrand Republican freshman, previously acknowledged using campaign funds for personal expenses in an earlier filing this year that drew the scrutiny of federal campaign regulators.

Her campaign had described the four payments as a "personal expense of Lauren Boebert billed to the campaign in error."

As legislative efforts to expand voting rights hit the brick wall of the filibuster in the Senate, and as conservative courts across the country side with state Republicans’ novel restrictions on the franchise, the third branch of government is preparing to fill in the gaps where it can. And for members of Joe Biden’s Cabinet, homework is due.

A couple months after taking office, on the 56th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama, Biden ordered executive branch agencies to “consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote” and participate in the electoral process.

The President gave agencies 200 days to get plans in order and submit them to the White House. The deadline was Thursday.

In the intervening months, behind-the-scenes and in public recommendations, voting rights advocates have sought to influence the Biden administration to go big: The Department of Education could incorporate voter registration into the online applications for student aid, for example. Social Security officials across the country could prompt elderly and disabled Americans to register to vote at the agency’s hundreds of field offices.

The Department of Homeland Security has temporarily suspended the use of horse patrol in the Del Rio, Texas, sector, a Homeland Security official told reporters Thursday, after stunning images from the scene prompted bipartisan criticism of the Biden administration's handling of the crisis at the US-Mexico border.

An investigation was launched after video of Border Patrol agents on horse patrol aggressively confronting migrants, who are largely Haitian, surfaced earlier this week. Several top administration officials as well as congressional Democrats have expressed outrage over the images, taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters, which appear to show law enforcement officers on horseback, including authorities swinging long reins near migrants who crossed the border near Del Rio.

"We have ceased the use of the horse patrol in Del Rio temporarily. We'll prioritize other methods for identifying individuals who might be in medical distress," the DHS official said.

The official also told reporters Thursday that the department did not have intelligence to suggest there would be a surge of migrants flowing into the sector as has been seen over the last week. As of Thursday, thousands of migrants are estimated to remain at the Del Rio bridge in a crowded makeshift encampment. They sleep in the dirt, surrounded by growing piles of garbage, exposed to the elements and without much food and water, in hopes of being processed by the overwhelmed US Border Patrol.

Abstract: We estimate the average Federal individual income tax rate paid by America’s 400 wealthiest families, using a relatively comprehensive measure of their income that includes income from unsold stock. We do so using publicly available statistics from the IRS Statistics of Income Division, the Survey of Consumer Finances, and Forbes magazine. In our primary analysis, we estimate an average Federal individual income tax rate of 8.2 percent for the period 2010-2018. We also present sensitivity analyses that yield estimates in the 6-12 percent range. The President’s proposals mitigate two key contributors to the low estimated rate: preferential tax rates on capital gains and dividend income, and wealthy families’ ability to avoid paying income tax on capital gains through a provision known as stepped-up basis.

When an American earns a dollar of wages, that dollar is taxed immediately at ordinary income tax rates.[1] But when they gain a dollar because their stocks increase in value, that dollar is taxed at a low preferred rate, or never at all.[2] Investment gains are a primary source of income for the wealthy, making this preferential treatment of investment gains a valuable benefit for the wealthiest Americans. Yet the most common estimates of tax rates do not fully capture the value of this tax benefit because they use an incomplete measure of income. This analysis asks: what was the average Federal individual income tax rate paid by the 400 wealthiest American families’ in recent years, determined using a more comprehensive measure of income?

How the wealthy enjoy low income tax: preferred rates on an incomplete measure of income

The wealthy pay low income tax rates, year after year, for two primary reasons. First, much of their income is taxed at preferred rates. In particular, income from dividends and from stock sales is taxed at a maximum of 20 percent (23.8 percent including the net investment income tax), which is much lower than the maximum 37 percent (40.8 percent) ordinary rate that applies to other income.

Second, the wealthy can choose when their capital gains income appears on their income tax returns and even prevent it from ever appearing. If a wealthy investor never sells stock that has increased in value, those investment gains are wiped out for income tax purposes when those assets are passed on to their heirs under a provision known as stepped-up basis.

The first volley in what is expected to be a fierce war over Texas redistricting kicked off Wednesday in the form of a federal lawsuit filed by two Democratic state senators who argue that state lawmakers cannot legally redraw the state’s legislative maps this fall.

State Sens. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio and Sarah Eckhardt of Austin are asking a federal district court in Austin to take over the work of drawing up new political maps for the Texas House and Senate to reflect the state’s growth in the last decade. Joined in their lawsuit by the Tejano Democrats, a political organization, the senators argue the Legislature cannot constitutionally carry out that work in a special legislative session.

The Texas Constitution states the Legislature “shall” redraw the state’s legislative maps “at its first regular session after the publication” of each decennial census. But significant holdups in finalizing the 2020 census delayed the release of the detailed population numbers needed to redraw those districts for several months — far past the end of the regular legislative session in May.

aving a court redraw legislative maps could help Democratic chances for a more favorable map compared with what the Legislature’s Republican majority might draw up in a bid to hold power for the next decade in a state that is demographically moving away from the party.

Congressional and state House and Senate districts need to be reconfigured before the 2022 elections to account for the state’s explosive growth in the last 10 years. The census’ August data delivery showed people of color accounted for 95% of the state’s population growth of nearly 4 million residents since 2010. The suit does not challenge the Legislature’s ability to draw a new Congressional district map in special session. Lawmakers must rework that map to add the two additional districts Texas earned because of its fast growth.

The first volley in what is expected to be a fierce war over Texas redistricting kicked off Wednesday in the form of a federal lawsuit filed by two Democratic state senators who argue that state lawmakers cannot legally redraw the state’s legislative maps this fall.

State Sens. Roland Gutierrez of San Antonio and Sarah Eckhardt of Austin are asking a federal district court in Austin to take over the work of drawing up new political maps for the Texas House and Senate to reflect the state’s growth in the last decade. Joined in their lawsuit by the Tejano Democrats, a political organization, the senators argue the Legislature cannot constitutionally carry out that work in a special legislative session.

The Texas Constitution states the Legislature “shall” redraw the state’s legislative maps “at its first regular session after the publication” of each decennial census. But significant holdups in finalizing the 2020 census delayed the release of the detailed population numbers needed to redraw those districts for several months — far past the end of the regular legislative session in May.

aving a court redraw legislative maps could help Democratic chances for a more favorable map compared with what the Legislature’s Republican majority might draw up in a bid to hold power for the next decade in a state that is demographically moving away from the party.

Congressional and state House and Senate districts need to be reconfigured before the 2022 elections to account for the state’s explosive growth in the last 10 years. The census’ August data delivery showed people of color accounted for 95% of the state’s population growth of nearly 4 million residents since 2010. The suit does not challenge the Legislature’s ability to draw a new Congressional district map in special session. Lawmakers must rework that map to add the two additional districts Texas earned because of its fast growth.