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
conflict of interest
Alito and Thomas Urged to Recuse From Key Case Over 'Cozy Ties' to Right-Wing Kingpin
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families," said a watchdog group leader.
Mar 19, 2025
Ahead of U.S. Supreme Court arguments next week, a watchdog group asserted Wednesday that right-wing Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas must recuse themselves from a case "whose outcome could have sweeping consequences," citing "significant conflicts of interest" due to their relationships with "conservative kingpin Leonard Leo."
In Federal Communications Commissionv. Consumers' Research, a right-wing group is challenging the constitutionality of the FCC's Universal Service Fund program.
Vox's Ian Millhiser reported Wednesday that "if the Supreme Court accepts an argument raised by a federal appeals court, which struck down the federal program, it would bring about one of the biggest judicial power grabs in American history, and hobble the government's ability to do, well, pretty much anything."
In the new report about Alito and Thomas, the watchdog Accountable.US issued a similar warning about the case's potential impacts: "Effectively defunct for almost a century, the nondelegation doctrine prohibits Congress from passing off its legislative power to federal agencies... Reviving the doctrine would cripple agencies' ability to govern consumer safeguards, social security, Medicare, and more during a time when the Trump administration has begun to slash federal agencies."
"Now before the high court, the case presents an obvious conflict of interest for many of the justices who are personally tied to (and in some cases, friends of) the conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is closely connected to Consumers' Research," the analysis explains, pointing to reporting that Leo is the group's "main backer."
While "all six conservatives now sitting on the Supreme Court can credit Leo with helping to shepherd their confirmations," the watchdog's report states, the right-wing legal activist is "close personal friends" with Alito and Thomas.
According to the report:
- Leo has known Justice Thomas since the early 1990s when Leo was clerking in D.C. Since then, Leo has traveled with Thomas and invited him to his personal residence in Maine. The justice is also the godfather to one of Leo's daughters. Justice Thomas' wife, Ginni, has previously called Leo her "hero" and "mentor." Over the past 15 years, Leo and Ginni have worked together on several projects, operationalizing the outside game of conservative dark money and politics.
- Leo has also traveled with Justice Alito, most notably to Alaska on a private fishing trip (which Justice Alito did not disclose at the time). Leo's Federalist Society has also sponsored numerous trips overseas for Alito, some of them attended by Leo himself.
"Americans deserve a legal system that isn't influenced by billionaires and special interest backers pushing an agenda at the expense of working families. Justices Thomas and Alito's cozy ties to Leonard Leo and thereby Consumers' Research fly straight in the face of that, and present a clear conflict of interest impeding their ability to rule impartially on the case," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone in a statement.
"Public trust in the Supreme Court is already at an all-time low because of misguided conduct by justices–this case threatens to degrade it further," Ciccone continued. "The Supreme Court simply cannot be trusted to defend the Constitution if it doesn't adopt an obligatory, enforceable code of conduct that cleans up the impropriety that's existed on the court for years. Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves and restore a semblance of integrity to the highest court."
In addition to releasing the report, Accountable.US and two other groups, Take Back the Court and United for Democracy, argued for Alito and Thomas' recusal in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts—who on Tuesday publicly condemned right-wing attacks on the federal judiciary.
"The Supreme Court has been engulfed by corruption scandals, many of which centering around the right-wing justices' overly friendly relationships with powerful billionaires and special interests," United for Democracy senior adviser Meagan Hatcher-Mays said Wednesday. "At the same time that Justices Thomas and Alito were accepting lavish gifts and trips from billionaires, they were hearing cases with those same billionaires' legal interests at stake."
"It's impossible for the American public to trust in Supreme Court rulings when this kind of glad-handing is taking place," she added. "The appearance of impropriety is clear in FCC v. Consumers' Research given Leonard Leo's long-time friendship with Justices Thomas and Alito and his financial entanglements with Consumers’ Research. Justices Thomas and Alito must recuse themselves immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls Grow for Federal Probe Into Possible 'Criminal' Musk Corruption at Aviation Agency
"The public has a right to know that their tax dollars are being spent in the public's best interest and not to benefit a government employee's financial interests," according to a recent ethics complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center.
Mar 17, 2025
The drum beat for a federal probe into whether billionaire and GOP donor Elon Musk violated conflict of interest law through his dealings with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is growing louder following reporting that technology from Musk's Starlink, the satellite network developed by its company SpaceX, will be involved in upgrading the FAA air traffic control system.
On Monday, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting Inspector General at the Transportation Department, Mitch Behm, demanding an investigation into whether Musk's activities at the FAA have violated the criminal conflict of interest statute. The letter was first reported by The Guardian on Monday.
"We are concerned that Musk... may be using his government role to benefit his own private company," the senators wrote.
The letter, sent by Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) cites coverage from The Washington Post, which in late February reported that the FAA was considering canceling a $2.4 billion Verizon contract to upgrade the FAA's communication system "that serves as the backbone of the nation's air traffic control system" and award the work to Starlink, citing unnamed sources.
The letter follows an ethics complaint, filed last week by the nonpartisan legal group Campaign Legal Center (CLC) to Behm, also asking for an investigation into whether the FAA's business transactions with Starlink "are improper due to violations of the criminal conflict of interest law."
Both the letter from the Democratic senators and the CLC complaint cite a section of federal statute that prohibits government employees—including special government employees, which is Musk's designation—from "participat[ing] personally and substantially" in any "particular matter[s]" in which the employee, their spouse, their companies, or other business partners have any "financial interest."
"Public reports establish that the FAA began using Starlink services and considering contracts with the company in response to Musk's requests," according to the letter from CLC. "The public has a right to know that their tax dollars are being spent in the public's best interest and not to benefit a government employee's financial interests."
In early February, Musk—who has been deputized by U.S. President Trump to pursue cuts to government spending and personnel—said that his so-called Department of Government Efficiency(DOGE) will "aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system."
According to Bloomberg, a SpaceX engineer arrived at the FAA headquarters in late February to "deliver what he described as a directive from his boss Elon Musk: The agency will immediately start work on a program to deploy thousands of the company's Starlink satellite terminals to support the national airspace system."
"There is no effort or intent for Starlink to 'take over' any existing contract," SpaceX wrote on X in early March. The company said it is working in coordination with another prime contractor for the FAA's telecommunications infrastructure "to test the use of Starlink as one piece of the infrastructure upgrades so badly needed along with fiber, wireless, and other technologies."
Per Bloomberg, the FAA is already testing or actively using multiple Starlink terminals.
The CLC letter argues that reporting provides evidence that "the FAA's business relationship with Starlink is tainted by Musk's influence. Musk is a government official with broad authority who acts with direct support from the president. With this authority and support, he has openly criticized the FAA's contractors while directing the agency to test and use his company's services."
This "establish[es] a possible criminal conflict of interest violation, and an [Office of Inspector General] investigation is needed to determine whether the facts constitute a legal violation," per the CLC letter.
The requests to probe Musk's business connections to the FAA come as the U.S. has dealt with a series of plane crashes and accidents, which in some cases have been deadly, and has invited scrutiny of the country's air traffic control system.
John P. Pelissero, the director of a government ethics program at Santa Clara University, told the Post that it appears that "because of Musk's current position in DOGE and his closeness to Trump he and his company are getting an advantage and getting a contract," speaking of the potential Verizon contract cancellation.
"Who's looking out for the public interest here when you get the person who's cutting budgets and personnel from the FAA, suddenly trying to benefit from still another government contract?" Pelissero said, according to the Post.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Urges Medicare Nominee Oz to 'Divest From Financial Conflicts of Interest'
"By making these commitments, you would increase Americans' trust in your ability to serve the public interest during your time at CMS—rather than the special interests of companies in your network."
Mar 12, 2025
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday called on Dr. Mehmet Oz, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the federal agency in charge of Medicare, to divest all financial ties to Big Pharma and healthcare companies in order to avoid conflicts of interest and gain the public's trust.
"Congratulations on your nomination to serve as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)," Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to the celebrity heart surgeon and erstwhile purveyor of phony weight loss cures. "If confirmed, you will be expected to steward CMS' $1.5 trillion budget in the best interest of the over 140 million Americans on Medicare and Medicaid. Entering this role with financial conflicts of interest would undermine your effectiveness and the effectiveness of the programs you are slated to administer."
"To avoid this, I request that you agree to: divest any remaining financial interests in health-related companies or patents that you will have the power to influence, recuse from matters involving your former employers and clients, and, for at least four years after you leave office, not lobby CMS or join the industries that depend on CMS' work," the senator said.
"Entering this role with financial conflicts of interest would undermine your effectiveness and the effectiveness of the programs you are slated to administer."
"By making these commitments, you would increase Americans' trust in your ability to serve the public interest during your time at CMS—rather than the special interests of companies in your network," she added.
"You have deep ties to companies that could profit from your decisions at CMS," Warren noted. "You currently serve as a managing member or adviser of multiple healthcare and pharmaceutical firms with a financial stake in CMS policy, including how the agency sets payment rates and coverage determinations for Medicare and Medicaid."
Warren continued:
You also use your public platforms—including your website, TV show, TikTok, and Instagram pages—to promote drugs, such as Ozempic, produced by pharmaceutical companies that are currently seeking expanded CMS coverage approval and that are subject to government drug negotiations—which you would be responsible for conducting. You have been paid to push your show's viewers to enroll in the private alternative to Medicare, Medicare Advantage—a program run by private health insurers that overcharged CMS by at least $83 billion in 2024 alone.
Doctors have critiqued you for allegedly "promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain." Furthermore, much of your financial portfolio (worth at least $98 million) is invested in healthcare and pharmaceutical companies whose value is tied to CMS' regulatory work.
Last December, the watchdog Accountable.US revealed that Oz had invested as much as $56 million in three companies with direct CMS interests. In 2022, Oz's single biggest healthcare holding was up to $26 million in Sharecare, a digital health company Oz co-founded, and which became the exclusive in-home supplemental care program for 1.5 million Medicare Advantage customers.
On Tuesday, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen published a research brief examining the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on political lobbying by Medicare Advantage companies ahead of Oz's confirmation hearing, which is scheduled for Friday morning.
Warren and other Democratic lawmakers previously pressed Oz on his advocacy for Medicare privatization, including a 2020 call for enrolling all U.S. seniors in Medicare Advantage plans.
Last month, Oz pledged to divestfrom insurance companies and drugmakers and step down from his advisory positions if his nomination is confirmed.
"I appreciate that you have agreed to divest much of your portfolio and resign from your advisory posts," Warren wrote. "Still, given your close ties to the industry that you would regulate, if you are confirmed, the public would have reason to question your impartiality and commitment to serving the public's interest."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular