What Stepping Into This Role Means to Me, And To The Future

Never settle. Those words have resonated with me throughout my career. I’ve always had the urge to do more, to accomplish more, to go further, and to aim even higher than I have. Some of what I’ve sought out in my years of refusal to settle have personal–they’re achievements and accomplishments I seek to reach. Others are broader–not settling for what we as human beings are presented with by the world around us. Some of them are both–bringing me to my overarching goal of standing for what I believe, backing those whom have earned my trust, and making positive steps towards a stronger, better America.

In that very same vein, I am proud to announce to you that I have been appointed by the New York GOP as the National Finance Co-Chair. In the position, I’ll take a leading role in the nation-wide fundraising efforts of the New York GOP. It’s a role that I’m excited to step into, spearheading the efforts to help to reshape the state of New York.

The road towards pushing back against the efforts of Mayor De Blasio and Governor Cuomo is going to be bumpy, but any New Yorker can tell you that they are no stranger to rough road conditions. New York has gone blue in the general election every year since Reagan in 1984, but a strong state–and a strong country–comes in part due to strong leadership. I look forward to combining efforts with the fantastic team of GOP officials that has been assembled.

For me, this position is one in which I hope to make a tangible difference. Through the hard work put into this country by myself and the long, storied list of those before me, I’ve sought to leave this party, this state, and this country better off than when I entered it. This opportunity presented to me by the New York GOP is one that won’t go to waste.

I’m not writing this blog post to boast about my new position, nor am I writing it to pat myself on the back. I’m writing it because I’m honored by this appointment, appreciative of the opportunity to stand alongside such a prestigious and hardworking group of men and women, and proud to help to shift this state in the right direction.

 

from Yuri Vanetik Politics http://ift.tt/2lFFqFM

Advertisements

NYGOP Announces Appointment of Yuri Vanetik as National Finance Co-Chair

Via New York GOP

The New York Republican Party today announced the appointment of esteemed business leader, political strategist, and philanthropist Yuri Vanetik as national finance co-chair who will help lead the Committee’s national fundraising efforts in advance of the important 2017 New York City mayoral and 2018 gubernatorial elections.

In addition to his impressive business, public service and philanthropic accomplishments, Mr. Vanetik has deep ties as a national political activist and fundraiser, having held key finance leadership positions with the Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republican Governors Association and the California GOP. He also served as the California co-chair and All American Vice Chair for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, as kitchen cabinet advisor and part of the finance leadership of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, as well as numerous senior finance and leadership roles for gubernatorial, senatorial, and congressional campaigns, including that of Mitt Romney, Meg Whitman and Dana Rohrabacher.

“We are excited to welcome Yuri Vanetik to the NYGOP team as our national finance co-chair,” said State Chairman Ed Cox. “One look at Yuri’s impressive background and it’s easy to see what a tremendous asset he will be to helping us grow the Republican Party here in New York. With fellow New Yorker President Trump in the White House and two top national races ahead of us, we have an incredible opportunity to build on our successes. New Yorkers have seen the failed leadership of Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo, and Yuri’s efforts will help ensure we have the resources we need to win.”

“Whether in business, in politics or in charity, I’ve spent my life building coalitions and I’m honored to take on this important role for the New York Republican Party,” said Yuri Vanetik. “Chairman Cox and the leaders across the state have built a strong bench of extraordinary Republican elected officials and played a critical role in securing President Trump’s victory. Those successes have put us in a unique position to cultivate a national network and show how we are winning in traditionally Democratic areas, here in the state of New York. I’m looking forward to the work ahead,”  Vanetik pointed out.

Yuri Vanetik is the managing partner of Vanetik International, LLC, a private investment and business management firm based in Newport Beach, CA.  Mr. Vanetik is also a principal at Dominion Partners LLP and Dominion Asset Management, LLC, a real estate investment fund based in Newport Beach and Beverly Hills, CA. He has held numerous public service positions, including as the current Commissioner of the Orange County Sheriff’s Council, a member of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department Special Services Bureau, a member of the Board of Governors of the Homeland Security Council for Region 1, and the former California Lottery Commissioner and Criminal Justice Commissioner, among others. Yuri Vanetik has served in numerous not-for-profit organizations, including as a trustee for the Kennedy Center National Symphony,  Executive Committee of the American Red Cross, the board of the Gen Next Foundation and on the Political Committee of the New Majority. He is a Lincoln Fellow of the Claremont Institute, a national think tank for the study of politics, and on the advisory board of the Pacific Research Institute. Mr. Vanetik was born in the former Soviet Union and moved to Southern California as a child where he continues to live today with his family.

from Yuri Vanetik Politics http://ift.tt/2kVqt53

Are Our Politicians As Charitable As They Claim?

The intersection of politics and philanthropy is, in a word, complicated.

The question of whether our politicians–or at least the big three (including Gary Johnson in this discussion) are charitable is not as complicated.

Charitability in itself is fairly easily measured when the right information is openly disclosed, but somewhat more difficult when scale is considered. Someone like you or me donating $10,000 to a charitable cause is substantially more “generous,” so to speak, than someone like Bill Gates doin the same. The impact is identical, but the effort and charitable nature of the person doing the giving may not be quite so level

Unpacking whether a candidate is charitable or not is, then, a bit more difficult than it may seem when the fact that humans have the capability to exaggerate, manipulate words (or organizations), or outright lie when it comes to how much money they’ve given and where it’s gone.

According to the Washington Post, which sourced its information from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s joint tax returns, the Clintons have donated just under 10 percent of their adjusted income to charities over the course of about 15 years, which comes out to about $23 million.

Donald Trump, in contrast, has yet to release his own tax returns, causing a good bit of controversy. The same Washington Post article states that Trump donated less than $4 million from his own pocket in that same timeframe. His campaign claims that Trump has donated significantly more than that, but has yet to put forward figures or proof to corroborate the claim. We also know that Trump has donated slightly less than  $4 million directly to his own foundation, the Trump Foundation.

Perhaps the easiest candidate to unpack is Gary Johnson, who gave a somewhat candidate and straightforward answer when asked about his own charitable donations in August. Johnson openly admitted that his charitable giving pales in comparison to both Clinton and Trump, as his wealth is considerably smaller than that of both main party candidates.

Johnson, however, addressed the matter differently. Instead of dodging, ducking or avoiding the question as a whole, the Libertarian nominee claimed that he helps people in other ways: by executing on his party platform when in office.

 

It’s More Important Than Ever that We Let Johnson & Stein Debate

Originally published in the OC Register–Brian Calle & Yuri Vanetik.

Spattered throughout the bowels of Twitter, people are, as always, embroiled in a heated argument. Unlike much of the back-and-forth on social media, however, the weight of the presidential race is becoming a serious concern. Between #NeverTrump and #HillaryForPrison, many Americans feel that they are stuck between two uninspiring choices. The unconventional Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is making questionable comments, while the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, is tarnished with numerous scandals and political intrigue – with disapproval for both reaching record-breaking highs.

In our country’s current political reality, we have bifurcated choices: Republican or Democratic, Clinton or Trump. Of any presidential cycle, this would be the year where a third choice – a third party, perhaps – could act as a real option, an alternate to the “lesser of two evils” feeling that now plagues many Americans.

Enter the Libertarian and Green parties, third parties with presidential nominees Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively. But for either Johnson or Stein to gain traction or credibility amongst the larger electorate, they would need to be in the presidential debates, which some analysts estimate will have higher viewership than the Super Bowl this year. But to be granted a spot in the debates each candidate would have to garner 15 percent in select presidential election polls.

More specifically, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced in August the five nationwide polls that will be averaged to determine whether a candidate meets its threshold to be offered a seat on stage in the debates, the first of which is scheduled for September 26. The five polls the commission will average are ABC-Washington Post, CBS-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News and NBC-Wall Street Journal.

Both Johnson and Stein are well below the 15 percent threshold. Johnson is polling somewhere around the 8 percent mark – just past the halfway point to the 15 percent that would allow him to be recognized as a legitimate candidate by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

To continue reading, click here.

 

12 Angry Men Belong In A Theater, Not An American Courtroom

This article was originally published on Investors.com.

A Missouri jury recently determined that a collections firm improperly sued a Kansas City woman over a $1,000 debt — and rewarded her a staggering $82 million in punitive damages.

In Virginia, a Navy veteran just regained his freedom after 30 years behind bars, thanks to DNA evidence which proved that two separate juries had wrongfully convicted him of murder.

Disproportionate and inaccurate jury verdicts like these are far too common in today’s justice system. By tasking inexperienced and ill-prepared citizens to determine liability, guilt and innocence — and sometimes life and death — the current system robs defendants, plaintiffs and victims alike of fair trials with rational outcomes.

It’s time to modernize America’s legal system by adopting professional juries and holding them accountable for their decisions.

Guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments, today’s jury system traces its roots to medieval England. Back then, as the American Bar Association explains, residents viewed citizen juries as “a protector of the accused against the government’s very harsh criminal laws.”

Today’s juries, though, no longer decide if criminals deserve the gallows. Instead, they’re tasked complexities like deciphering whether an alleged mob boss is guilty of racketeering or if one software company infringed on another’s patent.

People with the relevant expertise to decide such questions, such as lawyers and judges or scientists and executives, are hardly ever picked for jury duty.

As a prominent Chicago judge once explained, a defense attorney has the best chance of success if he can “befuddle 12 inexperienced and sentimental jurors.” Therefore, “if a prospective juror discloses intelligence and competency, he is promptly excused.”

Put another way, attorneys purposefully and with impunity select people who have no idea what they’re doing.

In any other field, this would be absurd. Imagine if modern hospitals relied on 12 random people, selected from a local phone book, to determine medical treatment — and refused to consider the counsel of doctors and nurses.

Lack of expertise and intelligence among jurors allows guilty people to literally get away with murder.

Consider Casey Anthony. Despite a constantly changing alibi — and decomposing traces of a human body in her car trunk and extensive Google searches of “how to make chloroform” — she was let off the hook in the death of her two-year-old child.

Or consider O.J. Simpson. It’s a shame he’s in prison for armed robbery and kidnapping, because otherwise, he could continue his hunt for the “real” killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.

No mother or father should have to watch their child’s killer walk free because jurors fell for defense attorneys’ unethical tricks.

Conversely, juries often convict innocent people or destroy family businesses and professionals’ careers by awarding exorbitantly punitive damages in cases where none are warranted. DNA evidence has helped free nearly 350 wrongfully imprisoned people over the past 25 years.

Due to incompetence, low intelligence and poor guidance by the court, jurors rob ordinary people of the chance to build successful careers and raise families. They turn America’s justice system into a charade where the only winners are the lawyers.

The jury system isn’t just hurting those on the stand, though. It’s also breaking those on the bench.

Seventy percent of all jurors feel stressed during trials, according to a National Center for State Courts report. Some jurors report symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Jurors face financial hardship, as well. There is no federal law requiring employers to pay workers away on jury duty, and states pay jurors a pittance for their service. New York’s leaders, who recently passed a $15 per hour minimum wage, pay jurors just $40 a day.

Surely, those serving justice should earn at least as much as those serving hamburgers.

And for self-employed Americans — those in the “gig” economy who comprise about 10% of the nation’s workforce — a day in the courtroom is a day without pay.

Packing 12 ordinary citizens into a jury booth no longer produces just outcomes for all involved.

It’s time to grow a pool of professional jurors, who would be properly salaried employees or contractors, and receive extensive training designed to help them maintain their psychological well-being during high-stakes trails and deflect deceitful attorney tactics.

Such professional training would be especially crucial in complex business cases — it’s completely unreasonable to expect jurors off the street to grasp convoluted securities or intellectual property law, for instance.

In the current, utterly arcane system, impartiality is confused with unaccountability.

Admittedly, well-educated, highly trained professionals wouldn’t constitute a representative sliver of society. However, neither do today’s trials, given the way defense attorneys, prosecutors and ultimately most lawyers regularly exploit juror ignorance and inexperience. Today’s trials are often nothing more than a poorly rehearsed circus sideshow.

Professionalizing jurors likely would require a constitutional amendment. But that’s exactly why the Founding Fathers created an amendment process — so that citizens can reform systems that no longer function.

When Americans enter the courtroom, they expect justice. Unfortunately, the system fails and is in desperate need of reform.  It’s time that our legal system evolved to actually give it to them. We should scrap the existing juror selection system and install real professionals properly trained to deal with the complex cases that fill today’s courtrooms.

from Yuri Vanetik Politics http://ift.tt/2bAgLj6