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
accountability
The Self-Serving Supreme Court Is Exonerating Corrupt Officials For Its Own Benefit
The court is letting other government officials off the hook to shelter itself from scrutiny about the justices’ own deep-seated corruption.
Oct 30, 2024
Opinion by opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved toward a judicial framework that insulates justices from growing public concern about their own corruption. In a series of cases, the court has overturned corruption convictions of public officials who received substantial gifts and other things of value in exchange for government favors in decisions that detail the officials’ egregious behavior and yet absolve them of it.
In his law review article “Corruption and the Supreme Court,” Georgetown law professor Josh Chafetz exposes the self-serving nature of these decisions: The court is letting other government officials off the hook to shelter itself from scrutiny about the justices’ own deep-seated corruption.
Professor Chafetz’s disturbing theory is borne out by the evidence. In five cases concerning public corruption heard within the past decade, the Supreme Court issued in each one an opinion that diminished anti-corruption statutes by either framing them as too broad and vague, or by recategorizing corrupt behavior as simple acts natural to government life. As Chafetz stated to The New York Times, which recently wrote an article about his work:
In all five of the decisions, the court’s message has been that “federal law must be interpreted so as not to cover behavior that looks, to any reasonable observer, sketchy as hell...” Taken together, he added, the decisions make a basic point and a more subtle one. The basic one, he said, is that “the justices keep letting crooked politicians off the hook.”
From honest services fraud to quid pro quobribery, in case after case in which the Department of Justice, a U.S. district court, a unanimous jury, and a U.S. court of appeals have found the official’s conduct to be egregious enough to warrant a felony conviction, the Supreme Court has thrown out convictions and shielded government officials from accountability. And as Chafetz explained, it has done this to shield its own misconduct from criticism. The justices responsible for weakening our anti-corruption laws include not just Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, whose records of lavish gifts have recently been exposed, but all justices who in at least some cases voted unanimously to throw out the convictions of corrupt government officials.
The Supreme Court’s forgiving rhetoric on corruption is not new. Its recent opinions emerge from dangerous precedent set in campaign finance law cases, like Citizens United. The Supreme Court has overlooked evidence of undue influence in elections by entities capable of vast political spending, and instead informed the federal and state governments that their only legitimate anti-corruption state interest is in blocking quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. That skyscraper bar, which notoriously is difficult to document, has proven deficient and led to unprecedented levels of campaign spending where the risk of corruption can only be higher. The court’s early refusal to enforce a thorough and meaningful framework of corruption created a slippery slope, unraveling corruption law altogether. And now, the Supreme Court is relieving public officials accused of serious misconduct at all levels.
The Supreme Court’s shocking leniency on matters of corruption does not quell growing concerns about public erosion of trust in government systems, but rather pushes to the public a reimagination of its own corruption as being equally ordinary. It is not. The Supreme Court’s tolerance of public corruption is a self-serving feat to insulate the justices from growing reports about the court’s own corruption. It must end now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil Needs to Be Held Accountable for Its Climate Deception
Ultimately, the future of accountability for the fossil fuel industry is up to us.
May 02, 2024
Oil companies knew since the 1950s that their product was causing catastrophic climate damage. The industry never supported the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, despite their many public statements to the contrary. Companies like BP and Shell understood the dangers of methane emissions from ‘natural’ gas, but marketed it as a clean energy solution anyways. Over the last decade, the industry has spent over $700 million on university research to promote a lasting role for fossil fuels in our energy future. ExxonMobil’s security chief is “tracking” climate activists’ whereabouts, while the American Petroleum Institute monitors their social media feeds.
Those are just some of the revelations from a 65-page report released by the Senate Budget committee ahead of a hearing on Wednesday into Big Oil disinformation. The report is the culmination of a three-year investigation into the industry’s “denial, disinformation, and doublespeak,” an inquiry which the industry tried to stymie at nearly every turn, withholding information, resisting subpoenas, and then swamping the committee with over 100,000 pages of meaningless documents.
Despite the industry’s efforts, the report is a damning portrayal of Big Oil’s decades-long crusade to simultaneously block meaningful climate action while extracting more government support for false solutions like ‘natural’ gas (aka methane) and carbon capture and sequestration. Over the course of thousands of emails, top executives, lobbyists, and PR advisors debate how to lobby against important regulations, greenwash the industry’s reputation, shape university research agendas, and mislead the public about the threat of fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel industry isn’t going to give it up willingly. Which means that the next phase of the effort to hold Big Oil accountable is going to have to pursue the industry with sharper teeth.
And that’s all from the content they were willing to share, which begs the question: what did they decide to redact? If these are the documents the industry felt best represent their harmless day-to-day operations, what sorts of bombshells are they covering up? The committee’s report reads like the flickering of a flashlight in a dark basement, giving us a snapshot of the subterranean world of Big Oil deception, while raising the question, what else hides in these dark corners?
Whatever it is, the fossil fuel industry isn’t going to give it up willingly. Which means that the next phase of the effort to hold Big Oil accountable is going to have to pursue the industry with sharper teeth.
At the federal level, that means getting the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into Big Oil disinformation. Twenty members of Congress have already sent a letter to DOJ urging such an investigation and after this week’s hearing and report, pressure will only grow. What’s needed now is for President Biden and the White House to throw their weight behind the idea. Congress can also pay their part by pursuing a more aggressive “make polluters pay” agenda, taking up bills like a windfall profits tax, which would go after Big Oil profiteering, and the Polluter Pays Climate Fund, which would make the industry pay their fair share to deal with climate damages.
At the city and state level, we need to see more lawsuits to prosecute the industry for climate damages and disinformation. Over 30 cities and states have already filed suit, but with thousands of communities already paying the costs of extreme weather, sea level rise and other climate impacts, we could see hundreds of new cases in the years to come. Lawsuits aren’t the only tool at our disposal: five states are now pursuing “climate superfund” bills that would make Big Oil pay for climate impacts by contributing to a fund based on their share of historic emissions. Vermont could pass its version as early as this summer.
Ultimately, the future of Big Oil accountability is up to us. The fossil fuel industry has spent billions on its efforts to lull us to sleep with fairy tales about ‘algae fuels’ or ‘natural’ gas. This week’s hearing was another wake up call to the reality of their deception and lies. Let’s not let it go to waste.
Keep ReadingShow Less
SEC Accused of Bending to Industry Pressure by Omitting Key Measure in New Climate Rule
"The SEC's decision to bow to industry pressure against comprehensive climate disclosure requirements is a disservice to both the planet and investors," said one expert.
Mar 06, 2024
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released a climate disclosure rule on Wednesday that will require public companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks, but the new rule does not include requirements for companies to report emissions related to their supply chains.
The SEC seemingly bent to big business interests after many major companies pressured the commission to omit the supply chain aspect of the rule.
"Under the original proposal, large companies would have been required to disclose not just planet-warming emissions from their own operations, but also emissions produced along what's known as a company's 'value chain'—a term that encompasses everything from the parts or services bought from other suppliers, to the way that people who use the products ultimately dispose of them. Pollution created all along this value chain could add up," The New York Timesreports.
The new rule only requires that companies report their direct greenhouse gas emissions and the risks they're exposed to from climate-related natural disasters and extreme heat.
Climate risks are financial risks. This @SECGov decision will let big corporations off the hook by not requiring disclosure of emissions throughout their supply chains. That means big promises with little accountability to deliver emissions reductions. Unacceptable. https://t.co/HjO4d1XyZu
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 6, 2024
Charles Slidders, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, criticized the weakened rule in a statement.
"The SEC's decision to bow to industry pressure against comprehensive climate disclosure requirements is a disservice to both the planet and investors," Slidders said. "In an era of urgent need for more sustainable practices, greater transparency, and reliable information on corporate climate impacts and risks, the lack of ambition reflected in this rule represents a step backward that could ultimately undermine efforts to mitigate climate change and protect investors' interests."
David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's climate program, said in a statement that the SEC had "caved to special interests and was cowed by litigation risk." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said it was "unfortunate" that the SEC had watered down the rule.
"Climate-related risks are financial risks, and investors have a right to know the full scope of a public company's emissions profile. This SEC decision will let big corporations off the hook in the United States, allowing them to avoid disclosure of emissions from throughout their supply chains," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
While the SEC may be refusing to require that companies disclose how their supply chains affect the climate, the state of California doesn't have any problem doing that. The state passed a bill in September that requires large companies to disclose this information.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular