Deceased U.S. lawmaker's social media endorses candidate for his vacant seat
Ranking member Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., speaks during a committee on House Administration Oversight Subcommittee and House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation Subcommittee joint hearing, April 19, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
More than a month after his death, Virigina congressman Gerry Connolly's social media accounts sprang back to life, endorsing his former chief of staff running to succeed him.
Connolly, who died on May 21 at the age of 75 following a battle with esophageal cancer, had previously endorsed James Walkinshaw before his death. But Tuesday's activity – with renewed posts on X and Facebook – surprised many online and sparked debate around digital afterlives for public figures.
'Early voting starts TODAY in Va-11! Before passing, Gerry Connolly endorses @JamesWalkinshaw to carry the torch,' Connolly's official account posted on X.
A nearly identical message appeared on his Facebook page.
Early voting starts TODAY in VA-11! This is our first chance to stand up for our workers, our schools, our democracy,... Posted by Gerry Connolly on Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Connolly represented Virgina's 11th congressional district, which includes parts of northern Virigina, since 2009. He served as the ranking Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee.
His death came weeks after announcing he would not seek re-election due to his battle with cancer.
Connolly's X account's bio states: 'All posts made with the consent of the Connolly's family.'
Walkinshaw, once Connolly's chief of staff and now a Fairfax County supervisor, remains one of the 10 Democratic candidates competing in the June 28 primary for the special election ballot.
This marks the second time in recent months that the social media accounts of a deceased U.S. lawmaker was activated after death.
The X account for Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), who died March 5, began following members of Congress and reporters in April.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
10 years after same-sex marriage became legal in U.S., support falls among Republicans
A decade after the Supreme Count decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S., support among Republicans now sits at 41 per cent, while among Democrats it's 88 per cent — the biggest gap between the two parties since Gallup started tracking the issue.
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
States can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 25, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) WASHINGTON -- A divided U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood in a ruling handed down Thursday amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider. The case centres on funding for other health-care services Planned Parenthood provides in South Carolina, but the ruling could have broader implications for Medicaid patients. The court split 6-3 in the opinion, with the three liberal justices dissenting. Public health-care money generally can't be used to pay for abortions. Medicaid patients go to Planned Parenthood for things like contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing, in part because it can be tough to find a doctor who takes the publicly funded insurance, the organization has said. South Carolina's Republican governor says no taxpayer money should go to the organization. The budget bill backed by U.S. President Donald Trump in Congress would also cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. That could force the closure of about 200 centers, most of them in states where abortion is legal, the organization has said. Gov. Henry McMaster first moved to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood in 2018 but was blocked in court after a lawsuit from a patient named Julie Edwards. Edwards wanted to keep going there for birth control because her diabetes makes pregnancy potentially dangerous, so she sued over a provision in Medicaid law that allows patients to choose their own qualified provider. South Carolina, though, argued that patients shouldn't be able to file those lawsuits. The state pointed to lower courts that have been swayed by similar arguments and allowed states such as Texas to block Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood. Public health groups like the American Cancer Society, by contrast, said in court papers that lawsuits are the only real way that Medicaid patients have been able to enforce their right to choose their own doctor. Losing that right would reduce access to health care for people on the program, which is estimated to include one-quarter of everyone in the country. Rural areas could be especially affected, advocates said in court papers. In South Carolina, US$90,000 in Medicaid funding goes to Planned Parenthood every year, a tiny fraction of the state's total Medicaid spending. The state banned abortion at about six weeks' gestation after the high court overturned it as a nationwide right in 2022. ------ By Lindsay Whitehurst
2 hours ago
Trump's 'revenge tax' on other countries could hit U.S.
A controversial tax being proposed by President Donald Trump's administration that could cost Canadians and Canadian businesses billions is also likely to cost the U.S. government, according to an assessment by a non-partisan U.S. congressional office. It is also likely to cost American companies by prompting investors from countries hit with the tax to move investments out of the U.S, according to the assessment. Dubbed the revenge tax, Section 899 of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act calls for a new withholding tax to be imposed (new window) on investment income paid out by American companies to investors who live in countries the U.S. government considers to have unfair or discriminatory taxes. Canada's digital services tax, which hits companies like Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a tax on revenue from Canadian users, is among the taxes the U.S. considers discriminatory. Top Canadian officials acknowledge privately that they are concerned by the prospect of Trump's new withholding tax and are closely watching what is happening in Washington — as are Canadian investors, companies, investment advisors and tax lawyers. Digital services tax in crosshairs Federal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne says he's standing by the tax — which has its first big payment due June 30 (new window) . The DST is in force and it's going to be applied, he told reporters on Parliament Hill last week. Two different versions of Section 899 are currently before Congress, but both versions risk hitting Canadians and Canadian companies with a new withholding tax. The version adopted by the House of Representatives would take effect quickly and impose a five per cent withholding tax on things like dividends to Canadians from U.S. companies, adding another five per cent each year to a maximum of 20 per cent. An amendment to that section, currently before the Senate, would delay the tax until 2027 and would top it out at 15 per cent. The Senate has not yet voted on the bill, although it is being pressured by Trump to approve the legislation by July 4, the U.S. national holiday. A study of Section 899 by the U.S. Congress's non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which performs a function similar to Canada's Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, predicts that the new tax would initially bring billions into the U.S. Treasury. However, it also predicts those revenues would then start to decline — and that by 2033 or 2034 it would actually lead to a drop in revenue. The version of Section 899 adopted by the House of Representatives is expected to rake in an estimated $116.3 billion US between 2025 and 2034 for the U.S. Treasury, with $12.5 billion US in 2026 rising to $28.7 billion US in 2027 and $31.8 billion US in 2028. However, the analysis projects that revenues would then start to decline. By 2033, the withholding tax is projected to cost the U.S. Treasury $4.8 billion US in lost revenue and, by 2034, $8.1 billion US. The amended version of Section 899 is projected to bring in only $52.2 billion US between 2025 and 2034. But by 2034 it too would cost the U.S. government $2.5 billion US in lost revenue. A source familiar with the JCT's work said its analysis assumes that the U.S. gross national product will remain fixed and foreign laws, like the DST, will not change. What it assumes will change, however, is the behaviour of individuals and companies to avoid the withholding tax. The JCT projects that the reduction in demand for direct and portfolio investment on the part of foreign investors will reduce the value of U.S. assets. In turn, that drop in value will lead to a loss in tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury. David Macdonald, senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said the JCT's analysis makes a very big assumption — that countries like Canada won't hit back at the U.S. with their own retaliatory taxes. He said the ongoing trade war (new window) has shown that Canada is willing to hit back. Should Canada retaliate, Macdonald said the U.S. is more exposed than Canada on the tax front because a lot of American companies operate here. They make a lot more profits in Canada than Canadian companies make in profits operating in the U.S., Macdonald said. Macdonald agreed with the JCT's assessment that the withholding tax could prompt an exodus of investment in U.S. securities, predicting that many companies are probably already figuring out ways to hedge their investments. He said this is bad for business and risks damaging the economies of both countries. Nobody wins a trade war and nobody wins a tax war, said Macdonald. Elizabeth Thompson (new window) · CBC News
