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
bribery
Wisconsin AG Sues to Block Musk's Multimillion Dollar Election Eve Voter Bribe
Attorney General Josh Kaul accused the world's richest person and top Trump adviser of "a blatant attempt to violate" Wisconsin's election bribery law.
Mar 28, 2025
Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to stop Elon Musk—the world's richest person and a senior adviser to President Donald Trump—from handing out $1 million checks to voters this weekend in an apparent blatant violation of bribery law meant to swing next Tuesday's crucial state Supreme Court election.
"Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote for a particular person," the lawsuit notes. "Musk's announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11. This must not happen."
On Thursday, Musk announced on his X social media site that he will "give a talk" at an undisclosed location in Wisconsin, and that "entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges."
"I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesmen for the petition," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and de facto head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency wrote.
As Common Dreamsreported earlier last week, Musk's super political action committee, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition stating that they reject "the actions of activist judges who impose their own views" and demand "a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
The cash awards—which critics have decried as bribery—are part of a multimillion dollar effort by Musk and affiliated super PACs to boost Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, the Trump-backed, right-wing state Supreme Court candidate locked in a tight race with Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.
Left-leaning justices are clinging to a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Schimel are vying to fill the seat now occupied by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who is not running for another 10-year term. Control of the state's highest court will likely impact a wide range of issues, from abortion to labor rights to voter suppression.
Musk has openly admitted why he's spending millions of dollars on the race: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn." That's what he said while hosting Schimel and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for a discussion on X last weekend.
"In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin," Musk argued. "It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman issued a statement Friday calling Musk's planned cash giveaway a "last-minute desperate distraction."
"Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for," Honeyman added, "and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Instead of Pausing a Ban on Bribing Foreign Officials, Trump Should Strengthen It
Not only should the FCPA be vigorously enforced to stop bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies, but the law must also be strengthened to combat the flip side of the corruption coin—foreign bribes accepted by American officials.
Feb 25, 2025
On February 10, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order that directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA was the first law in modern history to ban a country’s own citizens and companies from bribing foreign officials.
Citing the law as one of the “excessive barriers to American commerce abroad,” President Trump has instructed the attorney general to—at her discretion—“cease the initiation of any new FCPA investigations or enforcement actions.” The executive order further requires the DOJ to provide remedial measures for those who have faced "inappropriate" penalties as a result of past FCPA investigations and guilty verdicts.
This move by the Trump administration to pause enforcement of the foreign bribery law now and allow it to be put on the shelf later risks a revival of the pre-1970s period, when bribery was a routine practice among major U.S. arms contractors.
If President Trump is serious about his campaign pledge to “stop the war profiteering and to always put America first,” it is the worst possible time to shelve the FCPA, given that bribery by U.S. companies is alive and well.
In the post-Watergate reform period in Congress, in late 1975 and early 1976, Idaho Sen. Frank Church’s Subcommittee on the Conduct of Multinational Corporations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee exposed widespread foreign bribery on the part of U.S. oil and aerospace firms, with the starring role played by Lockheed Martin, which bribed officials in Japan, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Mexico, and Colombia in pursuit of contracts for its civilian and military aircraft.
The revelations caused political turmoil in the recipient countries, led to the resignation of Lockheed’s two top executives, and prompted Congress to pass the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.
The repercussions were most severe in Japan, where Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was arrested and convicted of receiving bribes in the scandal—the first time a sitting Japanese prime minister had been arrested, in what one analyst called “Japan’s biggest scandal of the postwar era.”
Sen. Church made it clear that in his mind, the problem went far beyond the question of corruption: “It is no longer sufficient to simply sigh and say that is the way business is done. It is time to treat the issue for what it is: a serious foreign policy problem.”
Among the issues he cited were potential destabilization of democratic allies and closer ties with reckless, dictatorial regimes driven by financial motivations rather than careful consideration of U.S. security interests.
As noted above, President Trump’s primary reason for freezing enforcement of the anti-bribery law is that he believes it has been used unfairly, to the detriment of U.S. companies and U.S. security. This argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
First of all, there is no evidence that outlawing bribery has hurt the U.S. arms industry. The United States has been the world’s largest arms supplier by a large margin for 25 of the past 26 years, and major U.S. arms offers reached near record levels of $145 billion last year.
The real issue is how to stop dangerous, counterproductive arms transfers, not how to make it easier to cash in on sales that too often undermine U.S. interests.
A 2022 Quincy Institute study found that U.S.-supplied weapons were present in two-thirds of the world’s active conflicts, and that at least 31 clients of the U.S. arms industry were undemocratic regimes. Fueling conflicts and supporting reckless authoritarian regimes are destabilizing to regions of importance to U.S. security. They also risk drawing the United States into a direct, boots-on-the-ground conflict.
If President Trump is serious about his campaign pledge to “stop the war profiteering and to always put America first,” it is the worst possible time to shelve the FCPA, given that bribery by U.S. companies is alive and well. Just last October, RTX (formerly known as Raytheon) was forced to pay over $950 million in fines after it was found to have engaged in multiple schemes to defraud the Department of Defense and violate the FCPA and the Arms Export Control Act by paying bribes to Qatari officials in pursuit of major military contracts with that nation.
Not only should the FCPA be vigorously enforced to stop bribery of foreign officials by U.S. companies, but the law must also be strengthened to combat the flip side of the corruption coin—foreign bribes accepted by American officials. The recent sentencing of former Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to 11 years in prison after being found guilty of bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, and acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Egypt and Qatar underscores the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms.
Menendez’s guilty verdict as well as Rep. Henry Cuellar’s (D-Texas) indictment on charges that included unlawful foreign influence and bribery reveal how those who wield influence over American foreign policy can be paid off in exchange for exerting unwarranted influence on behalf of a foreign government.
The debate over bribery may be obscuring a larger truth: U.S. arms sales policy is in desperate need of an overhaul. The governing legislation—the Arms Export Control Act—was passed in 1976, when the world was a very different place than it is today.
The law gives Congress the authority to block a major arms sale by passing a joint resolution of disapproval in both houses. But given that they would be opposing a sale already approved by the Executive Branch, they would likely need a veto-proof majority. This standard is too hard to meet. For example, when Congress voted against a sale of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia in the midst of that nation’s brutal intervention in Yemen, the measure was vetoed by President Trump
A major change that could have a significant impact on U.S. arms sales decisions is legislation that would “flip the script” by requiring an affirmative vote of Congress before major sales to key countries are allowed to go forward. This would strengthen Congress’ hand and make it easier to stop reckless sales that might fuel conflict or enable human rights abuses.
Instead of lifting restrictions on bribery to grease the wheels for additional foreign arms sales by U.S. weapons makers, Congress and the Trump administration should be crafting a policy designed to make sure overseas arms sales are governed by U.S. national interests, not special interests that profit from selling ever more weaponry to any and all customers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Justice Department Moves to Complete 'Openly Corrupt Legal Bailout' of Eric Adams
"The Adams case confirms that as long as Bondi is in office, the rule of law will be subordinate to Trump's personal motivations."
Feb 15, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's Justice Department formally moved Friday night to drop charges against Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams after at least seven federal prosecutors resigned, refusing to carry out what's been described as an "openly corrupt legal bailout."
In a new filing signed by veteran prosecutor Edward Sullivan, the Department of Justice requested "dismissal without prejudice of the charges" against Adams, who was indicted last year on multiple counts of wire fraud, bribery, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations after an investigation that began in 2021. "Without prejudice" means the charges could be brought again.
It's an open question how Dale Ho, the judge overseeing the case, will respond. Some experts say he could reject the DOJ's request on the grounds that it is politically motivated.
The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, has said openly that its push to dismiss the charges against Adams has nothing to do with the "strength of the evidence" against Adams.
Rather, the decision is a remarkably transparent effort to ensure the New York City mayor's full cooperation with Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.
Sullivan reportedly signed the new Justice Department filing under significant duress. According to Reuters, Bove "told the department's career public integrity prosecutors in a meeting on Friday that they had an hour to decide among themselves who would file the motion," signaling they would all be fired if no one capitulated.
"The volunteer was Ed Sullivan, a veteran career prosecutor, who agreed to alleviate pressure on his colleagues in the department's public integrity section," Reutersreported, citing two unnamed sources. "Sullivan's decision came after the attorneys in the meeting contemplated resigning en masse, rather than filing the motion to dismiss... There are approximately 30 attorneys in the Public Integrity Section."
"I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me."
Brewing opposition inside the Justice Department exploded into public view this week as prosecutors opted to step down rather than carry out the DOJ leadership's orders to seek dismissal of the Adams charges.
Danielle Sassoon, former interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who announced her departure earlier this week, wrote in a letter to Bondi on February 12 that she was "baffled by the rushed and superficial process" by which the decision to drop the charges against Adams was reached, "in seeming collaboration with Adams' counsel and without my direct input."
In a footnote of the letter, Sassoon described a meeting she and members of her team attended with Bove—who previously served as a member of Trump's personal legal team—and Adams' counsel.
"Adams' attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed," Sassoon wrote. "Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting's conclusion."
Shortly before the Justice Department submitted its new filing on Friday, Hagan Scotten, a federal prosecutor assigned to the Adams case, announced his resignation in a scathing letter to Bove.
"No system of ordered liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives," Scotten wrote. "Any assistant U.S. attorney would know
that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way."
"If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion," he added. "But it was never going to be me."
Ahead of the DOJ's filing, Adams appeared on "Fox & Friends" alongside Trump immigration czar Tom Homan in what one observer characterized as a hostage video "broadcast live on national television."
During the segment, Homan smilingly threatened that if Adams "doesn't come through" for the Trump administration, "we won't be sitting on a couch; I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'"
In a separate sitdown with Homan on Thursday, Adams committed to "return federal immigration agents to the Rikers Island jail complex in New York City," Politicoreported.
Thinly veiled Homan warning to Adams: “If he doesn’t come through … I’ll be in his office, up his butt, saying, Where the hell is the agreement we came to” pic.twitter.com/Pq0msJXZGb
— Emily Ngo (@emilyngo) February 14, 2025
In a column on Friday, The American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote that it is "striking just how awesomely gratuitous this all is."
"Nixon sacked his attorney general because the investigation was closing in on him personally and he wanted to escape. It was corrupt, but it made sense as a desperate last-ditch effort," they wrote. "Trump is letting Adams off the hook because he wants a stooge dependent on his goodwill in the mayor's seat while his deportation goons run riot in New York. That's a modest benefit at best; the mayor has limited tools to prevent ICE operations, though he's already offered up Rikers Island, the notorious prison that was due to close, as a migrant detention center."
"And it shows that the most willing enabler of Trump corruption in the entire government is Attorney General Bondi," Cooper and Dayen added. "This is approximately how she ran the Justice Department in Florida, doing favors for her donors and allies while firing attorneys in the department who got in the way, like the prosecutors looking into foreclosure fraud. The Adams case confirms that as long as Bondi is in office, the rule of law will be subordinate to Trump's personal motivations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular