This Woman Staged a Cross Burning to Help Elect First Black Mayor of Colorado Springs
Supporters flocked toward Yemi Mobolade, Colorado Springs' first Black mayor, when he was in the running following what appeared to be a serious racial threat. However, the threat in question may have been less of a threat and more of a cruel campaign strategy, police say.
Deanna West pleaded guilty in Denver federal court to the 2023 incident. Prosecutors claim West was one of three conspirators who staged a cross burning and sent photos and videos of it to the news and local organizations as if it was an attack targeting Mobolade, NBC reports.
West's plea says the motive behind the hate crime hoax was to gather sympathy points for Mobolade's campaign, painting him as the victim of racial violence and sparking outrage on his behalf.
The report says one of the alleged conspirators messaged Mobolade ahead of the incident saying they were 'mobilizing their squadron in defense and for the final push in the end.' Court documents also say the two had a five-minute conversation following the cross-burning.
While Mobolade he did indeed win the May 2023 election after the hoax went viral, he denied having any knowledge of the incident.
Attorneys for West's co-defendants claimed their actions were the likes of 'political theater' and were protected by their First Amendment rights to free speech, the report says. They also argued that no one was threatened by the cross burning as only the defendants bore witness to it.
That argument didn't help West any given she was charged with conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States and using instrumentalities of interstate commerce to maliciously convey false information to intimidate someone by means of fire, per KOAA News5.
West faces a maximum of five years in prison. Her two buddies are still awaiting trial, the report says.
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
31 minutes ago
Supreme Court to hear Republican challenge to campaign spending limits
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear a Republican challenge to limits on federal campaign spending in its next term, which will begin in October. Congress has capped the amount of money parties and campaign organizations can spend on advertising in direct coordination with the candidates, but the justices will hear arguments on whether those caps are legal. The case, NRSC v. Federal Elections Commission, centers on whether "coordinated party expenditure" limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court's decision in the campaign finance dispute could open the floodgates for coordinated spending into the 2026 midterms elections. National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Rep. Richard Hudson and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. Tim Scott celebrated the Supreme Court taking up the case. "The government should not restrict a party committee's support for its own candidates," they said. "These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court's decision to hear our case. Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRCC and NRSC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond." Coordinated party expenditure limits for 2025 range from $127,200 to $3,946,100 for Senate races, depending on each state's voting age population. For House nominees in states with only one representative, the limit is $127,200; and for House nominees in all other states, the limit is $63,600. The Supreme Court on Monday added seven cases to its docket for next term, with more to be announced later this week. In another high-profile case, Cox Communications v. Sony Entertainment Group, the court will consider questions who bears responsibility for the illicit sharing of copyrighted music over the internet.
Washington Post
37 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending
The Supreme Court will hear a significant campaign finance case next term that will examine whether it violates the Constitution to restrict the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates. The national Republican senatorial and congressional committees, then-Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and then-Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) filed suit over the limits in 2022, saying they conflict with the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Major Campaign Finance Challenge
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a major challenge to longstanding limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Such limits on coordinated spending were established under a 1974 law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal and restrict party committees from coordinating with a candidate to spend money on campaign advertising, In November 2022, Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator, and Steve Chabot, an Ohio congressman at the time, sued arguing that the limits violated the First Amendment. They were joined by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'A political party exists to get its candidates elected,' lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and other challengers wrote in their brief asking the court to take the case. 'Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates.' The case could dramatically reshape how campaigns are funded and the relationship between the parties and their candidates for office. The challengers pointed to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had rejected the suit, citing a 2001 decision by the Supreme Court, Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, that found that limits on coordinated spending were justified. Without such limits, the majority reasoned, wealthy donors could circumvent limits on contributions to individual candidates by simply routing money to political parties instead. In the decision, Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that the appeals court would uphold the limits based on the 2001 Supreme Court case, but agreed that 'coordinated party expenditure limits' stood in tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. That landmark 2001 decision stemmed from a dispute between the Federal Election Commission and the Colorado Republican Party, which argued that limits on coordinated spending infringed on its right to unfettered political speech. Under the Trump administration, the election commission has sided with the challengers, filing a brief to say that it agrees that such restrictions violate the First Amendment. The Democratic National Committee, which filed a motion to intervene in the case, has indicated it will defend the campaign finance restrictions before the court. 'The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party expenditures that are coordinated with candidates' campaigns,' lawyers for the D.N.C. wrote a brief to the court. According to the Federal Election Commission, the current limits, which vary depending on each state's voting age population, can be as much as $3.9 million for Senate candidates and as much as $127,200 for House candidates in states with only one representative. For House candidates in other states, the limit is $63,600.
