SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Public Citizen Condemns January 6 Attack Ahead of Possible Pardons
It’s been four years since a mob of MAGA extremists attacked the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from then-President Donald Trump to then-President-elect Joe Biden.
Public Citizen Co-Presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman issued the following statements:
“January 6th was a devastating attack on our nation's democracy, " said Gilbert. “President-elect Donald Trump has once again showed us his disregard for the rule of law as he signals his eagerness to pardon the criminals responsible for the deadly insurrection. The incoming administration believes that their word trumps historical facts. A potential flurry of pardons of January 6 attackers would be an affront to our democracy and a blatant rewrite of history. Attempting to overturn an election through violence should neither be celebrated nor pardoned. We condemn former and future President Trump's commitment to a corrupted justice system.”
“Political violence is a hallmark of authoritarianism and a direct threat to a functioning democracy,” said Weissman. “The January 6 perpetrators – including Donald Trump – should be shunned, not celebrated; punished, not pardoned.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
And the Winners of the 2024 Shkreli Awards for Worst Healthcare Profiteering Are...
"All these stories paint a picture of a healthcare industry in desperate need of transformation," said the head of the think tank behind the awards.
Jan 07, 2025
The "winners" of the annual Shkreli Awards—named after notorious "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli and given to the 10 "worst examples of profiteering and dysfunction in healthcare"—include a Texas medical school that sold body parts of deceased people without relatives' consent, an alleged multibillion-dollar catheter scam, an oncologist who subjected patients to unnecessary cancer treatments, and a "monster monopoly" insurer.
The Shkreli Awards, now in their eighth year, are given annually by the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based think tank "advocating bold ideas for a just and caring system for health." A panel of 20 expert judges—who include physicians, professors, activists, and others—determine the winners.
This year's awardees are:
10: The University of North Texas Health Science Center "dissected and distributed unclaimed bodies without properly seeking consent from the deceased or their families" and supplied the parts "to medical students as well as major for-profit ventures like Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson," reporting revealed.
9:
Baby tongue-tie cutting procedures are "being touted as a cure for everything from breastfeeding difficulties to sleep apnea, scoliosis, and even constipation"—despite any conclusive evidence that the procedure is effective.
8: Zynex Medical is a company facing scrutiny for its billing practices related to nerve stimulation devices used for pain management.
7: Insurance giant Cigna is under fire for billing a family nearly $100,000 for an infant's medevac flight.
6: Seven suppliers allegedly ran a multibillion-dollar urinary catheter billing scam that affected hundreds of thousands of Medicare patients.
5: Memorial Medical Center in Las Cruces, New Mexico allegedly refused cancer treatment "to patients or demanding upfront payments, even from those with insurance."
4: Dr. Thomas C. Weiner is a Montana oncologist who allegedly "subjected a patient to unnecessary cancer treatments for over a decade," provided "disturbingly high doses of barbiturates to facilitate death in seriously ill patients, when those patients may not have actually been close to death," and "prescribed high doses of opioids to patients that did not need them." Weiner denies any wrongdoing.
3: Pharma giant Amgen was accused of pushing 960-milligram doses of its highly toxic cancer drug Lumakras, when "a lower 240mg dose offers similar efficacy with reduced toxicity"—but costs $180,000 less per patient annually at the lower dose.
2: UnitedHealth allegedly exploited "its vast physician network to maximize profits, often at the expense of patients and clinicians," including by pressuring doctors "to reduce time with patients and to practice aggressive medical coding tactics that make patients seem as sick as possible" in order to earn higher reimbursements from the federal government."
🥁🥁🥁
1: Steward Health Care CEO Dr. Ralph de la Torre was accused of orchestrating "a dramatic healthcare debacle by prioritizing private equity profits over patient care" amid "debt and sale-leaseback schemes" and a bankruptcy that "left hospitals gutted, employees laid off, and communities underserved" as he reportedly walked away "with more than $250 million over the last four years as hospitals tanked."
"All these stories paint a picture of a healthcare industry in desperate need of transformation," Lown Institute president Dr. Vikas Saini said during the award ceremony, according toThe Guardian.
"Doing these awards every year shows us that this is nothing new," he added. "We're hoping that these stories illuminate what changes are needed."
The latest Shkreli Awards came just weeks after the brazen assassination of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealth subsidiary UnitedHealthcare. Although alleged gunman Luigi Mangione has pleaded not guilty, his reported manifesto—which rails against insurance industry greed—resonated with people across the country and sparked discussions about the for-profit healthcare system.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Should Make Your Blood Boil': Top NC Court Blocks Certification of Democratic Justice's Win
One journalist warned that the state court "laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election" in favor of Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs' GOP challenger, Jefferson Griffin.
Jan 07, 2025
Democracy defenders across the United States on Tuesday responded with alarm to Republicans on the North Carolina Supreme Court blocking certification of incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs' November victory to review GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin's attempt to toss out over 60,000 votes.
Over 5.5 million people voted in the election, and after two recounts, Riggs is ahead by just 734 votes. Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, has been contesting the results for weeks. The North Carolina State Board of Elections moved the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II—an appointee of Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—sent it back to the state judicial system on Monday.
Although the board notified the North Carolina Supreme Court that it intended to appeal Myers' decision—and it did so later Tuesday—four of the five Republican justices still granted the temporary stay and wrote in their order that "in the absence of a stay from federal court, this matter should be addressed expeditiously because it concerns certification of an election."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs."
Riggs did not participate in the Tuesday decision due to her involvement with the case. The court's only other Democrat, Justice Anita Earls, dissented—arguing that Griffin's motion is "procedurally improper," and even if it were not, his request "should be denied because he has failed to meet the standard for granting preliminary relief."
"Griffin seeks to retroactively rewrite the rules of the election to tilt the playing field in his favor. His filings amount to a broadside legal attack, raising a laundry list of statutory and constitutional objections to long-established election laws," Earls wrote, calling out the high court's "indulgence of this sort of fact-free post-election gamesmanship."
Republican Justice Richard Dietz also dissented, citing "our state's corollary to a federal election doctrine known as the 'Purcell principle'" and warning that "permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state's election rules—and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules—invites incredible mischief."
Attorneys, journalists, Democratic leaders, and political observers in North Carolina and across the country were similarly critical.
With its stay and schedule for filings over the next few weeks, "the state's highest court laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election and handing the seat to Riggs' GOP challenger," wrote Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent.
Berman also laid out some long-term and national impacts of this battle:
Riggs' victory would give Democrats a shot at retaking the court's majority after 2028. That would allow them to oversee the state's redistricting process in 2031. That is particularly consequential because the current majority on the court upheld heavily gerrymandered maps drawn by the Republican-controlled state Legislature that allowed Republicans to pick up three U.S. House seats in November—just enough to maintain control of the chamber and ensure one-party rule in D.C.
Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias declared on social media Tuesday that "the GOP is mounting the largest, most brazen post-election disenfranchisement effort since Trump's frivolous litigation in 2020. This time, however, they may get away with it and the legacy media is largely asleep."
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is now chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the state court's actions "alarming" and stressed that "the vote is the voice and the power of the people. It is not for a court to decide the outcome of an election. In a functioning democracy the will of the people—as expressed in an election—prevails."
"Should the North Carolina Supreme Court throw out lawful ballots, it could potentially overturn the results of a free and fair election—achieving the same goal as those who perpetuated a violent coup attempt on our nation's capitol just four years ago," he said, referring to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. "This must not be tolerated."
"I am concerned that the very recent actions of the court presage a continued diminution of a democracy already under attack in North Carolina," he added. "The arrogant, anti-democracy move to stop the certification of a free and fair election while this court considers whether or not to throw out 60,000 lawfully cast ballots underscores that."
The News & Observer reported Tuesday that "the vast list of challenged voters ensnared people from assistants to state lawmakers to Riggs' own parents."
According to the North Carolina newspaper:
A News & Observer analysis of the challenges found that Black voters were twice as likely to have their votes challenged as white voters.
The challenge that affected the largest number of voters was Griffin's argument that voters who did not have a driver's license number or Social Security number on file should not have been allowed to vote.
State election officials say there are myriad reasons a voter may not have those numbers in the database—many of which are no fault of their own. But Griffin argued it could lead to ineligible voters being able to cast a ballot.
Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who left office earlier this month after two terms, said Tuesday that "Riggs won and the recount confirmed it. Republicans want to toss thousands of legal votes in the trash because they don't like the outcome. This shouldn't be about party politics—this should be about making sure every vote counts and that our elections still mean something."
The battle over the North Carolina Supreme Court is part of what The New York Timesdescribed as "the bar-fight nature of politics in the state," where voters in November also elected Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to succeed term-limited Cooper and ended the GOP supermajority in the General Assembly—leading to last-minute attempts by Republican lawmakers to limit Stein's power.
Vowing that the North Carolina Democratic Party "will continue to fight for justice," its chair, Anderson Clayton, said in a Tuesday statement that Riggs "won her seat fair and square" and "deserves her certificate of election."
"We are only in this position due to Jefferson Griffin refusing to accept the will of the people," Clayton added. "He is hell-bent on finding new ways to overthrow this election but we are confident that the evidence will show, like they did throughout multiple recounts, that she is the rightful winner in this race."
The outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Jaime Harrison, also weighed in, blasting "what has become a monthslong, anti-democratic campaign at taxpayers' expense against Justice Allison Riggs."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs," he said. "Make no mistake—these craven attacks on North Carolina voters are an affront to this country's foundational values of democracy and the rule of law."
Harrison also pointed to Trump supporters' deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol in 2021, saying that "one day after the four-year anniversary of January 6, Republicans are once again attempting to overturn an election in plain sight."
Ben Wikler, who is running to be the next DNC chair, said Tuesday that "the crisis of democracy didn't end with Trump's victory—it got worse. When North Carolina's state Supreme Court is blocking certification of a state Supreme Court election, the house is on fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden DOJ Sues Major Landlords Over Algorithmic Price Fixing
"If you mess with the price of rent, be prepared to meet the DOJ on the other side of that scheme!" wrote the American Economic Liberties Project.
Jan 07, 2025
The U.S.Justice Department on Tuesday announced that it has added six landlords as defendants in an antitrust lawsuit that the agency initially filed against the real estate software company RealPage, which the DOJ accused of engaging in a price fixing scheme that allows reduced competition between landlords so they can increase rents.
At the center of the case is RealPage's "algorithmic pricing software," which generates rent price recommendations using software based on their and their rivals' "competitively sensitive information," which they submit to RealPage, according to an August statement from the Department of Justice regarding the initial complaint.
The new complaint alleges that the six companies—Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC; Blackstone's LivCor LLC; Camden Property Trust; Cushman & Wakefield Inc and Pinnacle Property Management Services LLC; Willow Bridge Property Company LLC; and Cortland Management LLC—"participated in an unlawful scheme to decrease competition among landlords in apartment pricing, harming millions of American renters," according to a Tuesday statement from the Department of Justice.
The landlords collectively operate more than 1.3 million units in 43 states and the District of Columbia, according to the agency.
The Department of Justice alleges that in addition to using RealPages's "anticompetitive pricing algorithms," the companies coordinated in a number of ways, including "communicating with competitors' senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics" and participating in "user groups" hosted by RealPage, during which landlords would discuss, for example, how to modify the software's pricing methodology and the companies' own pricing strategies.
"While Americans across the country struggled to afford housing, the landlords named in today's lawsuit shared sensitive information about rental prices and used algorithms to coordinate to keep the price of rent high," said Doha Mekki, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, in the Tuesday statement.
Two states, Illinois and Massachusetts, have also joined the suit as plaintiffs.
The American Economic Liberties Project, a group that urges government to confront corporate concentration, touted the updates to the lawsuit, writing Tuesday, "If you mess with the price of rent, be prepared to meet the DOJ on the other side of that scheme!"
Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog Accountable.US, said in a Tuesday statement that "corporate landlords like Camden Property Trust, one of the landlord companies included in today's complaint, have reaped hundreds of millions in profits while using RealPage's algorithm, and that's just the tip of the iceberg."
According to the Tuesday release from the Department of Justice, pending a consent decree which must be approved by the court, the DOJ may resolve its claims against one of the landlords, Cortland, which would then cooperate with the Justice Department's investigation and litigation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular