Why won’t Congress act? Because they’re on the take. Courtesy of Citizens United and its predecessors voted into law by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court…
I don't see a way out; it is already too late. Politicians (and judges) are blatant in their corruption and when caught out, they just laugh at us. Look at Judge Canon, for example, could she be any more blatantly pro-Trump (and anti law?) The damage done by Trump's SCOTUS will never be acknowledged by the right and they are there for the long haul. Democrats REFUSE to even consider expanding the court, as they should do, for balance. The court (IMO) should have one justice from each state. Why not?
Oligarchs own all the levers of power and most of the media. I've watched stalwarts, such as WaPo and NYTimes take hard right turns over this past year. Citizens have no rights, except the right to buy stuff, with their stagnant wages, from the oligarchs. If they can take the right to physical autonomy from half the country, with very little real resistance in many quarters, they can do anything else they want. Oligarchs never give up power until the pitchforks come out. Even then, their resources allow them to weather the storms unscathed. They are psychotic devourers, mad with their ravenous greed. Republicans use propaganda and angertainment to control the population and when that fails (circus only works until the bread runs out), they will use force. That's the "logic" behind Trump's proposed gulags.
The 2024 election will tell the tale. If Trump and his minions prevail, we're done. It's back to the medieval model of lords and serfs (TBH, we are pretty much there.) Yet, even if Democrats prevail, I don't have a lot of faith in the Democrats to address any of our most pressing problems. Imagine for a moment, they have all three branches of government. What can they do that can't be stopped by the extremist SCOTUS? They may want to address the issues, but SCOTUS has ensured they must be on the take as well, or they will never hold office.
Thanks for mentioning Aileen Cannon. Merrick Garland saw to it that the documents trial was moved to South Florida where Cannon sits, and then saw to it that she was chosen to preside.
Garlands excuse is as transparent as my front window, that the trial was being held where the crime occurred. A fat lie. The crime occurred in DC when Nauta loaded the boxes on the plane.
And the excuse, which the media and pundits were eager to buy, was that Cannon was chosen by chance (the so called wheel, named after the wheel of fortune) regardless Garland can remove her (with cause, and there is plenty of it) from jurisdiction, and even move the trial to DC. But he won't. he is in the tank with the Republicans (and has been like forever), lots of proof but this one sticks out. Although the FBI has solid evidence against Matt Gaetz, that he broke federal law, like the Mann Act. Garland has let him sit there in Congress destroying our Democracy, when he should be in prison. Gaetz, despite the evidence, will not be indicted by Garland, nor will he indict any of the traitors who sit in Congress.
I get flamed badly when I point this out on most "liberal" forums. They have all manner of excuses, mostly centered around "he just has to be very careful." It's been three years. He never wanted to indict as he is more concerned with his political future than that of the country's. He should have been fired long ago. Garland is, I suspect, behind the scenes fighting against accountability. Merrick the Meek.
Hard core leftists wear the same blinders as hard core rightists. It maybe Merrick the weak, that is you assuming good faith. Not me, considering his background, his inactions, I can't assume good faith.
The problem with "liberals" is that most of them are airheads, and just like the MAGAts, circle the wagons to protect their treasured hero's. Like the MAGAts they have to reflexively defend Biden and his appointees, regardless of their "sins" incompetence or inaction.
To admit error is in their mind, is to surrender to the other side.
Most people see politics, even deadly politics as a game, like football, instead of wearing Sweat shirts and Tshirts with the teams name, they wear baseball caps and Tshirts with their "champion's name"
I have no truck with them, as I have no truck with the professors and students who have lined up on the side of HAMAS (and I am considered an antisemite by the ADL and others because I am anti Zionist, just like I am anti fascist or anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti any form of social control and social or political terrorism.
I am however a committed progressive (without a party). I am opposed to sectarianism, racism, LGBT phobia. Capitalism, meaning the 4th Reich of the Rich not entrepreneuralism, and to usury,interest in return for risk is not usury, 25% or more for using a credit card is usury.
Trump signed an Executive Order within his first days of office forbidding Executive Branch appointees from lobbying for five years after employment in the Administration. Obviously doesn't think it applies to him, his daughter, son in law and other members of his administrations.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, requires all active registrants to file quarterly activity reports with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and Secretary of the U.S. Senate. he Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018 (the JACK Act), amended the LDA requires all registrations (LD-1) and quarterly activity reports (LD-2) to include:
“for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description of the offense.”
To comply with this requirement and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the disclosure, all registrants must list the required information for every listed lobbyist with any prior conviction of an offense involving one of the JACK Act’s listed predicates (a “predicate offense”). Once a JACK Act disclosure is required for a listed lobbyist, that disclosure will be required on every future registration or quarterly report that includes that lobbyist.
CRIMINALPENALTY.—Whoever knowingly and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this Act shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.
In general, gifts that lobbyists are NOT allowed to give:
*Cash or cash equivalent (stock, gift card, voucher);
*Food or beverages (and what might be considered a meal) in a one-on-one setting;
*Anything provided to an entity that is maintained or controlled by a Member, officer, or employer of the House;
*A charitable contribution on the basis of a designation, recommendation, or other specification of a Member, officer, or employee of the House;
*A contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or employee of the House;
*A financial contribution or expenditure relating to a conference, retreat, similar event, sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional organization for or on behalf of Members, officers, or employees of the House.
*Items that can be accepted must be valued at less than $10, such as a greeting card, or clothing item.
Exceptions to the Gift Rule
1. Briefings as Widely-Attended Events
If the sponsor of the briefing is not a registered lobbyist and does not employ or retain such a person, then House Members and employees may generally accept a gift, including a meal, valued at less than $50. If the sponsor does employ or retain a lobbyist, free attendance and House/Senate-catered food may still be acceptable if the event qualifies as a widely attended event.
A widely-attended event must meet the following criteria in the House and Senate:
Charity fundraising events are permissible if the “free attendance” includes all or part of the cost of admission; local transportation to and from the event; food, refreshments, entertainment, and instructional materials for all event attendees. The event’s primary purpose must be to raise funds to benefit an organization qualified under 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Educational events may be attended for smaller groups (without the 25 non-Congressional attendee min. requirement); universities, foundations, think tanks, non-profits, or non-advocacy organizations can host them.
The invitation comes from the event organizer directly;
Secondary groups (consultants, etc.) are allowed to send follow-ups to this invitation.
The event organizer invites 25+ people with the reasonable expectation that they can attend and are not members, Senators, officers, or employees of Congress or their spouses;
Those 25 invitees cannot include persons associated with the organizing host(s)
The event is open to the public or a range of people (professionals in a specific industry, etc.);
Attendance is related to official or representational duties;
There must be a substantive agenda for the event;
This could entail learning about a topic that will assist with House work or meeting with constituents, etc. Purely entertainment, professional development, or charitable activities are not official duties.
2. Receptions
Members and employees may attend an event (free attendance) and accept food or refreshment of a nominal value (appetizers, hors d’oeuvres, refreshments). There is no per person dollar limit, however no meals (including low-cost) are allowed to be accepted.
The names of the majority in the Citizens United v FEC need to be listed individually not merely as a whole. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Feckless John Roberts, intellectual anchor Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. All this insane reasoning emanated from the Lewis Powell memorandum and his decision in First National Bank v Belotti - which arguably provided the template for Citizens United v FEC. Names are relevant.
A justice unduly influenced should at least have recused. Citizens overruled Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.
Do you think that the AG Merrick Garland, or any AG will ever bring criminal action against a justice of SCOTUS? I don't think that they have the balls, and Garland, based on his inaction's and his past , is in the tank with the Republicans
Such a constitutional amendment will never pass Congress, nor be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. The Equal Rights Amendment, sits there with one vote waiting to be ratified, but when in the short interregnum when Democrats controlled Congress they didn't bother to pass a bill extending the time period for ratification.
Google sez: The ERA was not ratified to the Constitution because the deadline passed without having the necessary support from three-fourths of states. Congress does not have the authority to change a resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment after it is submitted to the states or after the deadline is reached.
However Article V of the Constitution gives Congress two powers related to constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court has held that Congress' power to propose constitutional amendments includes the power to set ratification deadlines. And to set them means they have the power to change them.
Merrick Garland is averse to holding anyone with power/money accountable. He's useless and a big part of the problem. He'll never touch a SCOTUS justice.
Well - perhaps in the case of Thomas. His actions appear so egregious as to warrant some intervention. Constitutional amendment - could go the way of the ERA. Adding 4 justices - not until there is control of Congress by Dems and a Dem prez. Criminal action for bribery - I think the politics are supportable. Which code section? Just curious, not contentious.
Or perhaps appoint 4 more supreme justices - one for each circuit. Congress can attach some guidelines with budget strings. A constitutional amendment in the current US political climate seems a stretch.
As usual, Thom puts it together better than any other. I will tell you how bad I think it is. I am retired and 71, and I am recommending to my children, that they should look into relocating to Scandinavia.
Costa Rica is cheaper and Spanish is much easier to learn than a Scandivnavian language.
My preference is Panama, their currency is the American Dollar,their coinage is minted in the Philadelphia Mint, same stock, size weight as U.S. Coins, just a different reverse and obverse
I also know the country and it's people. Then again at 84 and with deficits, I am too old and out of shape to travel, and I need to be near my PCP and medical center who has my records, and can bill Medicare and my secondary insurance.
Costa Rica sounds pretty good. I'm pretty sure they don't want old Americans messing up their healthcare. Staying here will probably lead to no healthcare also. Anyone over age 60 should take responsibility for this mess and defend their offspring. Being a hardcore leftist, I predicted overpopulation and pollution would destroy the world. Hardcore leftists don't like religion or unlimited greed or the family units and they don't get caught up in red meat trivial issues like the moderate liberals and the moderate Republicans, if there are any anymore.
consider myself a Leftist, but not a Marxist. Marx was not who leftists think he was. In fact he championed exploiting labor by hiring them at market wages, and in that he was opposed to the Dickensian Maximum wage. He appeared to champion the working class, is proletariat, and opposed to the middle class, the bourgeoisie, but had zilch to say about the ruling class, those who funded him as the League of Just Men.
The elite have always feared and hated the middle class, because the middle class was the ladder up which the lower class could ascend and the ladder down which the ruling class descended. Eliminate the bourgeoisie, the middle class and you eliminate the threat to the ruling class
This old lady has wishful thinking now and then that she might have married her Canandian connection. Oh, well. Meanwhile, the terrible irony is that the Scandinavians actually support mothers of actual children!
Hi Thom, Thanks for writing this. My question is what is the status of 18 U.S. Code § 201-Bribery of public officials and witnesses? Is that not still current law? Is there a way for this law to be used to destroy Citizen's United. Because the effects of Citizen's United has allowed political bribery to be "OK"! And we should all be very afraid of that! Look at where it has gotten us so far! Our elected officials take money with strings attached with glee!
The cold water of reality. Howeve, can't congress (just not this one) discipline SCOTUS, and have the AG prosecute (which knowing Garland, he will not do).
Whatever laws exist, depend on the Attorney General doing something. And all evidence is that Merrick Garland is a lifelong Republican, a conservative who won't prosecute Republicans, unless forced to by peers. Biden allows him to act or not act. Trump did not and will not. Trump will use the DOJ and IRS to go after his enemies, and that could happen because Biden has "principles"
Biden is shaping up to be America's Hindenburg. In 1925, Hindenburg returned to public life to become the second elected president of the German Weimar Republic. Personally opposed to Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, Hindenburg nonetheless played a major role in the political instability that resulted in their rise to power, by appointing Hitler Reichs Chancellor.
Maybe the majority of Justices are fine with the Nazification of our Democracy by billionaires. Maybe if the MSM had called Reaganomics "trickle-out" vs "trickle-down" the "TRICK" might have been more obvious to the voters who bought that now-empirically-invalidated economic theory. Corporate profits always trickle up and the always cause working-class wealth to trickle out (then up).
Ringing true leak, Jenna whatsit, about Trump's sycophants "We don't care" about T. is just staying.... So familiar to me, raised by emblematic authoritarian, exceptionally well-educated, on whom "empirically-invalidated" would have made not the slightest impression. They don't care. They will never care. They are congenitally programmed to be oblivious to their own experience of reality, EVEN IF educated in conventional history, literature, etc. We are facing a stone wall minority who have gerrymandered minority hegemony and are impervious to the concept of "the general welfare".
When you look at GenZ and most Millennials in social settings, they are not interacting much. Most are staring into their mobile phones. Many younger generations constantly struggle with who they are. Social welfare is a foreign concept trumped by notoriety (followers and Likes on social media). They no longer define their identities by their social milieu but by their digital personas - often very different. That likely helps to explain why research is reporting over 45% of GenZs have abnormal anxiety levels. They don't know who they really are to some extent.
Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and all the Trumps are great examples. They all seem to be in politics or business to gain popularity dominance - not to help improve society. Anxious people are not sure which is their true self - or at least how to tie the two together into their selfhood. So they conflate notoriety with identity and live loveless lives. It is noteworthy than none of the 3 MAGAs I mentioned have stable mates. Even Melania is just a Trump-trophy as Donald is her status trophy. Hard to see how general welfare has any relevance to such people in government.
My concern is that we’ll be stuck in the morass of legalized campaign finance bribery and that it will become more entrenched and impossible to escape.
My sadness is, that the corruptible have to be elected to office to start with. Who could have seen Kristen Sinema coming? I was in the Sonoma County, CA liberal community for some happy years, and am enduringly aware of the slightly weird, perverse and compelling "grooming" that takes place in the "Bohemian Grove," which long predates Citizens United et. al. The real shakers and movers literally conclude with a ceremony of freedom from care, which means no guilt if their power and profit happen to kill any number of victims. Kristen will never get in there, though. No penis.
Kyrsten Sinema started out on the right foot, but I think she started to prioritize getting money from big campaign donors and her friendships with more right wing legislators over actually getting things accomplished for her donors.
Keep telling people over and over about the SUPREME court's corruption and its history. What the corrupt repubs have done and do affect us all. Money blinds their consciouses, if they have any left. Congress can do nothing worthwhile as long as the destroyer fascist/gop continue to cause chaos. They know what they're doing! Money-grubbers Manchin and Sinema (filibuster lovers) know what they are doing as well. It's so obvious that they want to destroy democracy (so they can have a little more power -- they think). SCOTUS thinks it's above it all. It's not. Not every member has sold their soul, just enough to make the whole thing useless for now. Maybe forever. I doubt the Trump "supporters" plan to wait for the next election to overthrow our country. Rhetoric and actions are becoming too blatant and ugly. WHY won't people wake up? Please keep telling us and all you can tell what's going on. Every focus you write about is so important. Ruthie B
It seems there has never before been mass "information" technology as now. And it seems "plutocrats" exploit "monetized" access to distribution. You make an observation. Any ideas how to respond?
Starting with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the U.S. Congress has been on the attack to negate the power of organized workers. Reagan actively pushed American businesses to relocate production outside of the USA. No worry about unions at a factory in communist Vietnam or communist China. Capitalists should love communism when it is in fascist form and able to suppress workers. In Vietnam the Nike shoes are made by women earning 16 cents an hour but the money saved goes to the Nike management as with Apple with its iphones.
With the demise of strong unions to influence politicians these men and women have sought funding from Wall Street, the energy companies, the weapons companies, and the banksters. Too many workers have drunk the Kool-aid and think that unions are bad and better to trust the factory owners to act in the best interests of their employees.
Capitalism has always depended on slave labor from its inception. Whether it is with captured men and women from Africa or by displacing families from public commons as in Great Britain and sending them to Australia, this is the ugly side of capitalism that economists choose to ignore.
As a 60 year old who graduated in 1981, my entire working life has been under Reaganomics. I put myself through college and grad school and continue to work my a** off to provide my kid with the same only to have the GOP create a “Cat Food Commission” for people like me????? I cannot even begin to express my anger! They ripped us off with retirement bs, the 2008 crisis, school loans, jacking up the costs of food, housing and healthcare and they want to blame us??? Zero respect and no moral compass. While I was able to get an education, without supports, many my age or with disabilities will be living Dickens... in the words of Scrooge “if they would rather die (than go to a poorhouse) they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Absolutely correct. Trump in 2016 taught Congress a phenomenal lesson. It's OK to GRIFT. Trump did it and so can we! So much more $$ than previously considered de rigueur. And they've accelerated their rate beyond anything we've seen still.
I don't see a way out; it is already too late. Politicians (and judges) are blatant in their corruption and when caught out, they just laugh at us. Look at Judge Canon, for example, could she be any more blatantly pro-Trump (and anti law?) The damage done by Trump's SCOTUS will never be acknowledged by the right and they are there for the long haul. Democrats REFUSE to even consider expanding the court, as they should do, for balance. The court (IMO) should have one justice from each state. Why not?
Oligarchs own all the levers of power and most of the media. I've watched stalwarts, such as WaPo and NYTimes take hard right turns over this past year. Citizens have no rights, except the right to buy stuff, with their stagnant wages, from the oligarchs. If they can take the right to physical autonomy from half the country, with very little real resistance in many quarters, they can do anything else they want. Oligarchs never give up power until the pitchforks come out. Even then, their resources allow them to weather the storms unscathed. They are psychotic devourers, mad with their ravenous greed. Republicans use propaganda and angertainment to control the population and when that fails (circus only works until the bread runs out), they will use force. That's the "logic" behind Trump's proposed gulags.
The 2024 election will tell the tale. If Trump and his minions prevail, we're done. It's back to the medieval model of lords and serfs (TBH, we are pretty much there.) Yet, even if Democrats prevail, I don't have a lot of faith in the Democrats to address any of our most pressing problems. Imagine for a moment, they have all three branches of government. What can they do that can't be stopped by the extremist SCOTUS? They may want to address the issues, but SCOTUS has ensured they must be on the take as well, or they will never hold office.
Thanks for mentioning Aileen Cannon. Merrick Garland saw to it that the documents trial was moved to South Florida where Cannon sits, and then saw to it that she was chosen to preside.
Garlands excuse is as transparent as my front window, that the trial was being held where the crime occurred. A fat lie. The crime occurred in DC when Nauta loaded the boxes on the plane.
And the excuse, which the media and pundits were eager to buy, was that Cannon was chosen by chance (the so called wheel, named after the wheel of fortune) regardless Garland can remove her (with cause, and there is plenty of it) from jurisdiction, and even move the trial to DC. But he won't. he is in the tank with the Republicans (and has been like forever), lots of proof but this one sticks out. Although the FBI has solid evidence against Matt Gaetz, that he broke federal law, like the Mann Act. Garland has let him sit there in Congress destroying our Democracy, when he should be in prison. Gaetz, despite the evidence, will not be indicted by Garland, nor will he indict any of the traitors who sit in Congress.
I get flamed badly when I point this out on most "liberal" forums. They have all manner of excuses, mostly centered around "he just has to be very careful." It's been three years. He never wanted to indict as he is more concerned with his political future than that of the country's. He should have been fired long ago. Garland is, I suspect, behind the scenes fighting against accountability. Merrick the Meek.
Hard core leftists wear the same blinders as hard core rightists. It maybe Merrick the weak, that is you assuming good faith. Not me, considering his background, his inactions, I can't assume good faith.
The problem with "liberals" is that most of them are airheads, and just like the MAGAts, circle the wagons to protect their treasured hero's. Like the MAGAts they have to reflexively defend Biden and his appointees, regardless of their "sins" incompetence or inaction.
To admit error is in their mind, is to surrender to the other side.
Most people see politics, even deadly politics as a game, like football, instead of wearing Sweat shirts and Tshirts with the teams name, they wear baseball caps and Tshirts with their "champion's name"
I have no truck with them, as I have no truck with the professors and students who have lined up on the side of HAMAS (and I am considered an antisemite by the ADL and others because I am anti Zionist, just like I am anti fascist or anti Muslim, anti Christian, anti any form of social control and social or political terrorism.
I am however a committed progressive (without a party). I am opposed to sectarianism, racism, LGBT phobia. Capitalism, meaning the 4th Reich of the Rich not entrepreneuralism, and to usury,interest in return for risk is not usury, 25% or more for using a credit card is usury.
Trump signed an Executive Order within his first days of office forbidding Executive Branch appointees from lobbying for five years after employment in the Administration. Obviously doesn't think it applies to him, his daughter, son in law and other members of his administrations.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995 as amended by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, requires all active registrants to file quarterly activity reports with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and Secretary of the U.S. Senate. he Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018 (the JACK Act), amended the LDA requires all registrations (LD-1) and quarterly activity reports (LD-2) to include:
“for any listed lobbyist who was convicted in a Federal or State court of an offense involving bribery, extortion, embezzlement, an illegal kickback, tax evasion, fraud, a conflict of interest, making a false statement, perjury, or money laundering, the date of the conviction and a description of the offense.”
To comply with this requirement and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the disclosure, all registrants must list the required information for every listed lobbyist with any prior conviction of an offense involving one of the JACK Act’s listed predicates (a “predicate offense”). Once a JACK Act disclosure is required for a listed lobbyist, that disclosure will be required on every future registration or quarterly report that includes that lobbyist.
CRIMINALPENALTY.—Whoever knowingly and corruptly fails to comply with any provision of this Act shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.
In general, gifts that lobbyists are NOT allowed to give:
*Cash or cash equivalent (stock, gift card, voucher);
*Food or beverages (and what might be considered a meal) in a one-on-one setting;
*Anything provided to an entity that is maintained or controlled by a Member, officer, or employer of the House;
*A charitable contribution on the basis of a designation, recommendation, or other specification of a Member, officer, or employee of the House;
*A contribution or other payment to a legal expense fund established for the benefit of a Member, officer, or employee of the House;
*A financial contribution or expenditure relating to a conference, retreat, similar event, sponsored by or affiliated with an official congressional organization for or on behalf of Members, officers, or employees of the House.
*Items that can be accepted must be valued at less than $10, such as a greeting card, or clothing item.
Exceptions to the Gift Rule
1. Briefings as Widely-Attended Events
If the sponsor of the briefing is not a registered lobbyist and does not employ or retain such a person, then House Members and employees may generally accept a gift, including a meal, valued at less than $50. If the sponsor does employ or retain a lobbyist, free attendance and House/Senate-catered food may still be acceptable if the event qualifies as a widely attended event.
A widely-attended event must meet the following criteria in the House and Senate:
Charity fundraising events are permissible if the “free attendance” includes all or part of the cost of admission; local transportation to and from the event; food, refreshments, entertainment, and instructional materials for all event attendees. The event’s primary purpose must be to raise funds to benefit an organization qualified under 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Educational events may be attended for smaller groups (without the 25 non-Congressional attendee min. requirement); universities, foundations, think tanks, non-profits, or non-advocacy organizations can host them.
The invitation comes from the event organizer directly;
Secondary groups (consultants, etc.) are allowed to send follow-ups to this invitation.
The event organizer invites 25+ people with the reasonable expectation that they can attend and are not members, Senators, officers, or employees of Congress or their spouses;
Those 25 invitees cannot include persons associated with the organizing host(s)
The event is open to the public or a range of people (professionals in a specific industry, etc.);
Attendance is related to official or representational duties;
There must be a substantive agenda for the event;
This could entail learning about a topic that will assist with House work or meeting with constituents, etc. Purely entertainment, professional development, or charitable activities are not official duties.
2. Receptions
Members and employees may attend an event (free attendance) and accept food or refreshment of a nominal value (appetizers, hors d’oeuvres, refreshments). There is no per person dollar limit, however no meals (including low-cost) are allowed to be accepted.
Trump/MAGA pays about as much attention to this law as they do the rest of them. And DOJ, under Garland, simply looks the other way.
The names of the majority in the Citizens United v FEC need to be listed individually not merely as a whole. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Feckless John Roberts, intellectual anchor Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. All this insane reasoning emanated from the Lewis Powell memorandum and his decision in First National Bank v Belotti - which arguably provided the template for Citizens United v FEC. Names are relevant.
Typically SCOTUS would need another case to review that relies on Citizens as precedent.
To reverse Citizens' United might get "material" evidence that that the opinion of say, Thomas was influenced (which is possible).
Analogous to Brady v. Maryland, which is a criminal case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
A justice unduly influenced should at least have recused. Citizens overruled Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.
E. G. Bribery. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
Financial disclosure penalties
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(c)
The Attorney General may bring a criminal action against any individual who:
knowingly and willfully falsifies information required to be reported or
knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.
https://www.oge.gov/web/278eguide.nsf/content/for+ethics+officials+document~1.06:+failure+to+file+and+falsification+penalties
As it stands probably need a Constitutional amendment.
Great post Daniel.
Do you think that the AG Merrick Garland, or any AG will ever bring criminal action against a justice of SCOTUS? I don't think that they have the balls, and Garland, based on his inaction's and his past , is in the tank with the Republicans
Such a constitutional amendment will never pass Congress, nor be ratified by 2/3rds of the states. The Equal Rights Amendment, sits there with one vote waiting to be ratified, but when in the short interregnum when Democrats controlled Congress they didn't bother to pass a bill extending the time period for ratification.
Google sez: The ERA was not ratified to the Constitution because the deadline passed without having the necessary support from three-fourths of states. Congress does not have the authority to change a resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment after it is submitted to the states or after the deadline is reached.
However Article V of the Constitution gives Congress two powers related to constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court has held that Congress' power to propose constitutional amendments includes the power to set ratification deadlines. And to set them means they have the power to change them.
Do you think that the AG Merrick Garland, or any AG will ever bring criminal action against a justice of SCOTUS?
Possible.
No I do not, therefore we are royally screwed.
Merrick Garland is averse to holding anyone with power/money accountable. He's useless and a big part of the problem. He'll never touch a SCOTUS justice.
Well - perhaps in the case of Thomas. His actions appear so egregious as to warrant some intervention. Constitutional amendment - could go the way of the ERA. Adding 4 justices - not until there is control of Congress by Dems and a Dem prez. Criminal action for bribery - I think the politics are supportable. Which code section? Just curious, not contentious.
Or perhaps appoint 4 more supreme justices - one for each circuit. Congress can attach some guidelines with budget strings. A constitutional amendment in the current US political climate seems a stretch.
So does expanding the court. The answer is criminal law to the rescue.
Ok - let’s go with this notion - especially with Clarence. What charge? Again - not being contentious, just curious.
See above.
As usual, Thom puts it together better than any other. I will tell you how bad I think it is. I am retired and 71, and I am recommending to my children, that they should look into relocating to Scandinavia.
Costa Rica is cheaper and Spanish is much easier to learn than a Scandivnavian language.
My preference is Panama, their currency is the American Dollar,their coinage is minted in the Philadelphia Mint, same stock, size weight as U.S. Coins, just a different reverse and obverse
I also know the country and it's people. Then again at 84 and with deficits, I am too old and out of shape to travel, and I need to be near my PCP and medical center who has my records, and can bill Medicare and my secondary insurance.
Costa Rica sounds pretty good. I'm pretty sure they don't want old Americans messing up their healthcare. Staying here will probably lead to no healthcare also. Anyone over age 60 should take responsibility for this mess and defend their offspring. Being a hardcore leftist, I predicted overpopulation and pollution would destroy the world. Hardcore leftists don't like religion or unlimited greed or the family units and they don't get caught up in red meat trivial issues like the moderate liberals and the moderate Republicans, if there are any anymore.
consider myself a Leftist, but not a Marxist. Marx was not who leftists think he was. In fact he championed exploiting labor by hiring them at market wages, and in that he was opposed to the Dickensian Maximum wage. He appeared to champion the working class, is proletariat, and opposed to the middle class, the bourgeoisie, but had zilch to say about the ruling class, those who funded him as the League of Just Men.
The elite have always feared and hated the middle class, because the middle class was the ladder up which the lower class could ascend and the ladder down which the ruling class descended. Eliminate the bourgeoisie, the middle class and you eliminate the threat to the ruling class
This old lady has wishful thinking now and then that she might have married her Canandian connection. Oh, well. Meanwhile, the terrible irony is that the Scandinavians actually support mothers of actual children!
Hi Thom, Thanks for writing this. My question is what is the status of 18 U.S. Code § 201-Bribery of public officials and witnesses? Is that not still current law? Is there a way for this law to be used to destroy Citizen's United. Because the effects of Citizen's United has allowed political bribery to be "OK"! And we should all be very afraid of that! Look at where it has gotten us so far! Our elected officials take money with strings attached with glee!
The final authority on any law is SCOTUS, and they've determined that "independent expenditures" are neither bribes nor even campaign contributions...
The cold water of reality. Howeve, can't congress (just not this one) discipline SCOTUS, and have the AG prosecute (which knowing Garland, he will not do).
Can make them disclose that they made an expenditure.
Whatever laws exist, depend on the Attorney General doing something. And all evidence is that Merrick Garland is a lifelong Republican, a conservative who won't prosecute Republicans, unless forced to by peers. Biden allows him to act or not act. Trump did not and will not. Trump will use the DOJ and IRS to go after his enemies, and that could happen because Biden has "principles"
Biden is shaping up to be America's Hindenburg. In 1925, Hindenburg returned to public life to become the second elected president of the German Weimar Republic. Personally opposed to Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, Hindenburg nonetheless played a major role in the political instability that resulted in their rise to power, by appointing Hitler Reichs Chancellor.
Maybe the majority of Justices are fine with the Nazification of our Democracy by billionaires. Maybe if the MSM had called Reaganomics "trickle-out" vs "trickle-down" the "TRICK" might have been more obvious to the voters who bought that now-empirically-invalidated economic theory. Corporate profits always trickle up and the always cause working-class wealth to trickle out (then up).
Ringing true leak, Jenna whatsit, about Trump's sycophants "We don't care" about T. is just staying.... So familiar to me, raised by emblematic authoritarian, exceptionally well-educated, on whom "empirically-invalidated" would have made not the slightest impression. They don't care. They will never care. They are congenitally programmed to be oblivious to their own experience of reality, EVEN IF educated in conventional history, literature, etc. We are facing a stone wall minority who have gerrymandered minority hegemony and are impervious to the concept of "the general welfare".
When you look at GenZ and most Millennials in social settings, they are not interacting much. Most are staring into their mobile phones. Many younger generations constantly struggle with who they are. Social welfare is a foreign concept trumped by notoriety (followers and Likes on social media). They no longer define their identities by their social milieu but by their digital personas - often very different. That likely helps to explain why research is reporting over 45% of GenZs have abnormal anxiety levels. They don't know who they really are to some extent.
Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and all the Trumps are great examples. They all seem to be in politics or business to gain popularity dominance - not to help improve society. Anxious people are not sure which is their true self - or at least how to tie the two together into their selfhood. So they conflate notoriety with identity and live loveless lives. It is noteworthy than none of the 3 MAGAs I mentioned have stable mates. Even Melania is just a Trump-trophy as Donald is her status trophy. Hard to see how general welfare has any relevance to such people in government.
My concern is that we’ll be stuck in the morass of legalized campaign finance bribery and that it will become more entrenched and impossible to escape.
My sadness is, that the corruptible have to be elected to office to start with. Who could have seen Kristen Sinema coming? I was in the Sonoma County, CA liberal community for some happy years, and am enduringly aware of the slightly weird, perverse and compelling "grooming" that takes place in the "Bohemian Grove," which long predates Citizens United et. al. The real shakers and movers literally conclude with a ceremony of freedom from care, which means no guilt if their power and profit happen to kill any number of victims. Kristen will never get in there, though. No penis.
Kyrsten Sinema started out on the right foot, but I think she started to prioritize getting money from big campaign donors and her friendships with more right wing legislators over actually getting things accomplished for her donors.
Keep telling people over and over about the SUPREME court's corruption and its history. What the corrupt repubs have done and do affect us all. Money blinds their consciouses, if they have any left. Congress can do nothing worthwhile as long as the destroyer fascist/gop continue to cause chaos. They know what they're doing! Money-grubbers Manchin and Sinema (filibuster lovers) know what they are doing as well. It's so obvious that they want to destroy democracy (so they can have a little more power -- they think). SCOTUS thinks it's above it all. It's not. Not every member has sold their soul, just enough to make the whole thing useless for now. Maybe forever. I doubt the Trump "supporters" plan to wait for the next election to overthrow our country. Rhetoric and actions are becoming too blatant and ugly. WHY won't people wake up? Please keep telling us and all you can tell what's going on. Every focus you write about is so important. Ruthie B
Government of the people by the plutocrats for the plutocrats.
It seems there has never before been mass "information" technology as now. And it seems "plutocrats" exploit "monetized" access to distribution. You make an observation. Any ideas how to respond?
AMEN!!
Starting with passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the U.S. Congress has been on the attack to negate the power of organized workers. Reagan actively pushed American businesses to relocate production outside of the USA. No worry about unions at a factory in communist Vietnam or communist China. Capitalists should love communism when it is in fascist form and able to suppress workers. In Vietnam the Nike shoes are made by women earning 16 cents an hour but the money saved goes to the Nike management as with Apple with its iphones.
With the demise of strong unions to influence politicians these men and women have sought funding from Wall Street, the energy companies, the weapons companies, and the banksters. Too many workers have drunk the Kool-aid and think that unions are bad and better to trust the factory owners to act in the best interests of their employees.
Capitalism has always depended on slave labor from its inception. Whether it is with captured men and women from Africa or by displacing families from public commons as in Great Britain and sending them to Australia, this is the ugly side of capitalism that economists choose to ignore.
As a 60 year old who graduated in 1981, my entire working life has been under Reaganomics. I put myself through college and grad school and continue to work my a** off to provide my kid with the same only to have the GOP create a “Cat Food Commission” for people like me????? I cannot even begin to express my anger! They ripped us off with retirement bs, the 2008 crisis, school loans, jacking up the costs of food, housing and healthcare and they want to blame us??? Zero respect and no moral compass. While I was able to get an education, without supports, many my age or with disabilities will be living Dickens... in the words of Scrooge “if they would rather die (than go to a poorhouse) they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Absolutely correct. Trump in 2016 taught Congress a phenomenal lesson. It's OK to GRIFT. Trump did it and so can we! So much more $$ than previously considered de rigueur. And they've accelerated their rate beyond anything we've seen still.