Judge Screws Over Stacey Abrams To Give Brian Kemp Fundraising Advantage

A judge in Georgia has ruled against gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams after Abrams tried to challenge a new Georgia law in court that gives an unfair fundraising advantage to incumbents - like Brian Kemp who signed the law. Abrams must now wait until she is officially the nominee to raise "unlimited" amounts of money, something that Kemp does not have to wait for. Farron Cousins explains what's happening.

Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected!

Connect with Farron on Twitter

*This transcript was auto-generated. Please excuse any typos.

A judge in the state of Georgia, decided to screw over Stacey Abrams, the, uh, democratic candidate for governor in the state of Georgia, by not overturning a state law that basically allows the incumbents. People like Brian Kemp on the Republican side to raise unlimited money for their campaigns. Stacy Abrams is not the official nominee of the democratic party yet until the primary that takes place in late may, even though she's running, unopposed has no opponent at all. She's going to be the nominee. She can't raise unlimited money. The judge says until she gets that official title, which of course, as we know, gives Brian Kemp and all of the other incumbents in the state of Georgia, an unfair advantage. They can raise money handover fist. At this point, Stacy Abrams is still limited. Oh, and by the way, you know, who signed that bill into law, Brian Kemp self.

And of course he did it to give himself an unfair advantage. Here's what the law is. According to CNN, the law lets the governor, the Lieutenant governor party nominees for those positions and the majority and minority caucuses in the state house and state Senate to form committees that can raise unlimited cash, including during legislative sessions. So basically if you are the incumbent or once you become the official nominee, which again does not happen until after the primary, you could raise unlimited money, but if you're just, you know, running and it's a crowded primary, you don't quite have that title yet. And you're not an incumbent, sorry, you're limited. And the judge looked at this and said, Hey, you know, I'd love to help you here. But if I do that, I basically have to rewrite this law. And that's just not cool.

You, you could also throw it out. You dip. I mean, really that judges do that all the time. They look at a law and say, yeah, this isn't constitutional. get this outta here. I'm striking down the law. But this judge was like, man, there's nothing I can do. It sucks for you, right? State C. Well, I'll see ya have a great day. Hmm. Not, not, not exactly. You know, the, the brightest legal mind out there on the bench, right? You, you do know you can declare the, these laws UN unconstitutional and throw him out. But you know, you didn't wanna do that cuz I think you want Brian Kemp to have this unfair advantage. I think you want these Republicans to be able to raise unlimited money while Stacy Abrams remains kneecap for the next month and a half that's what's going on here.

That was the point of this piece legislation. Brian Kemp signed it into law himself to give himself an unfair advantage in the next gubernatorial race, which of course is happening right now. I don't see how any judge, however conservative you are can look at this and tell me that this is constitutional. In fact, the judge even hinted that, Hey, if you had asked me to just strike down the whole law, I may have done that. She doesn't have to ask you to do that. You actually could have on that in your ruling, but you decided to screw her over instead. She doesn't have to specifically state, I need this, this, this X, Y, Z. You know subpoint no, she doesn't have to. You're the judge overseeing a case regarding this law seeking to challenge the law itself. You could have said, Hey, this whole law can't stand. Sorry, bra, try again. But you didn't. And then you tried to pin the blame on Stacy Abrams for not specifically asking you to do that. I hope Abrams files a challenge. I hope she absolutely says, okay, that's how you wanna play it. I'm gonna challenge this whole law as unconstitutional because in my view it clearly is if as Republicans tell us money is free speech, you are literally limiting the free speech abilities of people like Stacy Abrams by not allowing them to have as much free speech as her Republican opponents.