Wil Russell announces bid for Charlotte City Council District 4 seat — again
Russell will officially sign his notice for candidacy, surrounded by his family and supporters, on Tuesday, July 15 at 9:30 a.m. at the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections.
He enters the race with this message: District 4 deserves bold, responsive leadership focused on community-centered progress.
'I'm proud to officially file to represent District 4,' said Russell. 'This campaign is about putting neighbors first—making sure growth works for everyone, transit connects communities, and our streets reflect the pride we have in our neighborhoods.'
The District 4 seat is currently held by Renee Perkins Johnson, who announced she's running for re-election Tuesday.
Russell ran against Johnson in 2023 along with Democratic candidate Olivia Scott. Mayor Vi Lyles gave her endorsement to Russell during the 2023 election. He also ran for City Council in 2013 and 2017, but was unsuccessful.
A Charlotte resident since 2004, Russell has been deeply involved in the civic life of District 4. As President of the Prosperity Village Area Association, he led the creation of The Green at Prosperity Village pocket park. He helped develop an additional three-acre park, creating spaces for neighbors to gather, play, and grow.
Russell brings over 20 years of experience in construction and development and currently serves as a Senior Construction Manager at Harmon Construction Services. He has served on the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission (2019 – present), Sustain Charlotte Board of Directors (2014 – 2019), as well as other city advisory bodies.
Russell is a graduate of Auburn University with a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction. He met his wife in Charlotte in 2006, and they married in 2009. Together, they are raising two children — a 9-year-old daughter, Taylor, and a 4-year-old son, Zachary.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
25 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
David Sacks and the blurred lines of government service
When Vultron announced its $22 million funding round earlier this week, the AI startup made sure to highlight a key investor: Craft Ventures, the firm 'co-founded by White House AI adviser David Sacks.' The announcement has raised questions about conflicts of interest in the Trump administration, where Sacks serves as both AI and crypto czar while maintaining his role at Craft Ventures — an arrangement that critics see as a new model of government service where the lines between public duty and private gain have become unclear. Sacks has secured not one but two ethics waivers allowing him to shape federal policy while maintaining financial stakes in the very industries he oversees. The first, an 11-page document from March, covers his crypto investments. The second, issued in June, specifically addresses his AI holdings. Together, they've enabled what ethics experts call an unprecedented arrangement. 'This is graft,' said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor specializing in government ethics, after reviewing Sacks' crypto waiver. 'This is a lawyer in the White House Counsel's office doing Trump's bidding, letting [Sacks] make money while insulating him from criminal liability.' Clark's analysis is critical. She notes the waiver discusses percentages of Sacks' total assets – when it was signed, his stake in Craft's overall portfolio represented less than 3.8% of his total assets, for example – but never reveals actual dollar amounts. 'The fact that this interest is just 3.8% of someone's total assets, that's something if you're talking about a law professor. But 3.8% of this guy's assets is a heck of a lot of money,' Clark said. Clark also argues that the waiver fails to consider any consideration of potential upside. Federal regulations require examining not just current value but 'potential profit or loss.' For a venture capitalist like Sacks, Clark notes, 'even if right now [if his shares are] less than 3.8% of his assets, if it does well, it could be more than that.' Craft Ventures did not respond to several requests from TechCrunch this week to discuss this story. Techcrunch event Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. San Francisco | REGISTER NOW The Vultron investment The timing of Vultron's announcement illustrates the complexity. Vultron creates AI tools specifically for federal contractors, helping them win government contracts more efficiently. The company boasts of reducing proposal timelines 'from weeks to days' and claims one Fortune 500 client now saves 'more than 20 hours per user each week' on federal contracting work. A source close to the company says Craft Ventures' investment predates Sacks' government appointment. However, the timing raises questions: the nation's AI czar has a financial stake in a company that profits from helping businesses win the very federal contracts his policies will influence. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been among the most vocal critics of these arrangements. In a May letter to the Office of Government Ethics, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee questioned Sacks' crypto waiver, noting he was simultaneously 'co-hosting a $1.5 million-a-head dinner for crypto industry players' while shaping federal crypto policy. 'Mr. Sacks simultaneously leads a firm invested in crypto while guiding the nation's crypto policy,' Warren wrote. 'Normally, federal law would prohibit such an explicit conflict of interest.' Sacks has largely dismissed Warren's concerns, accusing her of having a 'pathological hatred for the crypto community.' He has separately said that he sold a fortune in crypto before joining the White House 'because I didn't want to even have the appearance of a conflict.' Indeed, supporters of Sacks point to the sacrifices he's made for government service. According to his waivers, he and Craft Ventures have divested over $200 million in digital assets, with at least $85 million directly attributable to him. He has sold stakes in fast-growing companies, including his position in Elon Musk's xAI, and initiated the sale of interests in approximately 90 venture capital funds, including Sequoia funds. The source close to Sacks emphasizes these divestments, noting that because of his government role, Craft Ventures must now run every AI and crypto-related deal past the White House ethics committee. This oversight, they suggest, makes it implausible to invest in feeder funds and smaller deals, given the volume of work that might entail for everyone involved. Clark argues that the underlying ethical framework remains flawed. The waivers themselves, she argues, are designed to provide legal cover rather than address ethical concerns. 'This is whitewashing,' she said. Complicating matters further, Sacks works as a government employee just 130 days per year – effectively every other week – while maintaining his commercial activities during off periods. In September, for example, Sacks and his co-hosts in their popular podcast, All In, will stage what has become an annual three-day conference to which attendees pay $7,500 per person to join. While legally permissible, these activities further blur the lines between his public and private roles. Some observers wonder whether Sacks – a self-made billionaire by Forbes' estimates – will declare victory and exit government service altogether. With the GENIUS Act now law, he may consider his primary mission accomplished: bringing cryptocurrency from the fringes to center stage. But that will likely take time. Sacks used a Fox News appearance yesterday to detail his immediate priorities following the act's passage, emphasizing the development of regulatory frameworks in three key areas, including defining market structure categories (securities versus commodities versus digital assets), expanding stablecoin regulations, and evaluating a potential national digital asset stockpile. Meanwhile, critics concerned about conflicts of interest argue the precedent has been set. The rapid passage of crypto-friendly legislation, combined with ongoing investments in AI companies serving the federal government, suggests that Sacks and others with similar arrangements have positioned themselves and their wider orbit to benefit from their government access. Whether this represents a new normal for Silicon Valley relations with Washington, or instead an aberration that future administrations will reverse, remains to be seen. What's clear is that traditional ethics frameworks may be inadequate for an era when venture capitalists can maintain their investment activities while simultaneously shaping the policies that determine those investments' future value. For now, the arrangement continues, protected by carefully crafted waivers that ethics experts have questioned but find legally unassailable. As Clark puts it: 'No one will be able to prosecute him.'
Forbes
26 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think
The CEO and President of National Public Radio (NPR), Katherine Maher, testifies during a House ... More committee hearing in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images) The House's vote to claw back more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has sparked the kind of uproar you'd expect: Outrage from public media defenders, laments about the death of educational programming, and dire predictions for civic discourse generally. But here's the thing no one wants to say out loud — there's actually a rational case one can make as to why defunding NPR and PBS isn't nearly as unreasonable as critics suggest. This post will attempt to separate the fundamentals of what just happened to NPR and PBS from the noise and the chaotic politics of the moment that led to the defunding — bearing in mind that there have been plenty of specious arguments and claims on both sides of the issue. The contrarian position here, in support of defunding, is certainly not a broadly popular one; that said, there is, in fact, a world where it can lead to a better outcome for all involved. Incidentally, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of the U.S. adults who responded said they were either in favor of the defunding (24%) or that they weren't sure (33%), compared to 43% who said the funding should continue. The arguments against taxpayers funding NPR and PBS To start, we can probably agree on some basic facts about public broadcasting. Like the fact that NPR and PBS were created in an era of media scarcity — that is, when Americans had a handful of TV channels, and news options were limited. That's no longer the case today. You and I live in a golden age of content abundance, where thousands of media outlets compete for attention across every imaginable platform. And that fact, in and of itself, automatically weakens the justification for taxpayer-funded programming, especially when there's no shortage of high-quality reporting, children's content, and arts programming already available. Which brings us to a second point that weakens the case further still: For those of you against these cuts — are each and every single one of you currently directly contributing any money to public media in the form of a donation? If not, why should taxpayers be forced to step up and do the thing that you think is necessary but won't do yourself? One could argue that there's also a First Amendment-adjacent argument to be had here. Setting aside the fact that citizens expect the press to hold power to account (rather than to regularly take its money), forcing taxpayers to financially support certain 'speech' sure seems like a clear violation of individual rights. People also shouldn't be compelled to subsidize viewpoints they may oppose, even indirectly. Else, why doesn't Newsmax or Breitbart get to likewise come before the federal government with outstretched hands? Of course, critics of the defunding will argue that NPR and PBS still serve a vital public interest. But that argument starts to fall apart when we confront the elephant in the room: Bias. NPR CEO Katherine Maher (who in the past has called the idea of truth a 'distraction') has defended her newsroom against accusations of bias, saying she welcomes feedback and insists the organization is nonpartisan. But to say that NPR is free of bias is to misunderstand how journalism works — and how the people who produce it are wired. Bias doesn't have to embrace a particular ideology, nor does it even have to be overt (for that matter, it's also not something that will ever be identified uniformly). Bias can show up in what stories are covered, what angles are emphasized, and what's left out. No newsroom is immune — not NPR, not Fox News, not anyone. Bias, like beauty, is in the eye of those who behold it. One can also credibly argue that not all bias is de facto 'bad.' Most of us, I'm sure, are biased in favor of things like democracy and free and fair elections (as opposed to their alternatives). Before you insist that public broadcasters occupy the dead center of the ideological spectrum, though, it would probably be worth taking a second look at things like NPR's early dismissal of the COVID lab-leak theory (no longer regarded as fringe) and its past resistance to covering stories perceived as helpful to President Trump. This leads me to my final point. I alluded above to the idea of an outcome where all sides are better off after decoupling NPR and PBS from the federal government. That's because NPR and PBS have already built strong foundations through audience-supported models. Their most loyal listeners and viewers have proven they're willing to give — not because they're forced to, but because they believe in the mission. And that is a far more stable and principled source of support than relying on federal funding, which can evaporate with a change in administration or the whims of lawmakers whose priorities often shift with the political winds. If anything, public media outlets like NPR and PBS might actually be in a stronger position long-term by fully embracing the model they already depend on: Earning the public's trust, delivering value, and letting the audience decide if it's worth sustaining.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chehalis teen officially announces candidacy for governor
Jul. 18—In American politics, being older and more experienced is often an advantage, with older politicians often edging out the younger competition. One young man from Chehalis sees things differently. Ethan Brunton, 15, officially announced his candidacy to be the next governor of Washington on Wednesday, July 16. For the event, Brunton gave a short speech in the conference room of the Vernetta Smith Chehalis Timberland Library where he pitched himself as young, bold and "grounded in truth." During the speech, he first addressed his age. While the young political hopeful is not yet eligible to take up residence in the Governor's Mansion, he will turn 18 just in time for the 2028 election. He said he sees his youth as an asset, noting his energy and disconnection from mainstream political establishments. "I'm done waiting for change, so I'm stepping up," Brunton said. "Age doesn't define leadership; conviction does." Brunton outlined his political platform, focusing his talking points on public safety, education and financial accountability and promising to fully fund the police, roll back government regulation and fight and advocate for the everyday worker and family. Brunton delivered his speech with vigor and passion and made sure to give the event an air of patriotism, flying an American flag and asking attendees — which included just two Chronicle journalists — to stand for the national anthem to start off the event. Brunton faces a few major obstacles as a gubernatorial candidate, with possibly the most significant being his age. While what he says about energy and new ideas stemming from his youth may be true, his young age also means he cannot yet accept campaign donations or participate in local elections as an active voter. Brunton has also yet to develop a local following. Brunton's campaign announcement comes early enough in the political cycle to give him plenty of time to keep working at it. The political hopeful has three years still to hone his skills, build his following and decide exactly what he plans to offer Washington state as a candidate for governor.
