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
Durbin Demands Answers on Bondi's Foreign, Corporate Lobbying Clients
"I remain concerned about her ability to serve as an attorney general who will put her oath to the Constitution ahead of her fealty to Donald Trump," said the senator.
Jan 10, 2025
Ahead of a planned confirmation hearing for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat on Friday joined government watchdogs in raising alarm over Bondi's past lobbying work.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the panel's ranking member, asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to turn over information regarding Bondi's past registration as a foreign agent working on behalf of countries including Qatar, Kosovo, and Zimbabwe.
Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida, did not list foreign clients as potential conflicts of interest on her Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, said Durbin, who met with her earlier this week.
Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the DOJ is "privy to a number of disclosures, including details on any written or oral contracts as well as money spent and received while lobbying," reportedThe Hill.
"To understand the extent to which her work as a FARA-registered lobbyist may create potential conflicts of interest should she be confirmed as attorney general, the committee requires additional information from the Department of Justice that is not otherwise available," Durbin wrote to the DOJ.
The senator also asked the National Archives and Records Administration to disclose to the committee records on more than 25 companies Bondi lobbied for, including Major League Baseball (MLB), Amazon, and General Motors (GM).
The DOJ in 2023 asked a federal court not to extend MLB's exemption from antitrust laws, and the department has reached settlements with Amazon and GM, along with other companies Bondi lobbied for.
"The role of the attorney general is to oversee an independent Justice Department that upholds the rule of law and is free of undue political influence," said Durbin on Wednesday. "Given Ms. Bondi’s responses to my questions, I remain concerned about her ability to serve as an attorney general who will put her oath to the Constitution ahead of her fealty to Donald Trump."
Durbin raised the concerns following the release of reports by Public Citizen and Accountable.US, on Bondi's history of lobbying work.
Accountable.US found that at least five of Bondi's major corporate lobbying clients "faced DOJ fines, investigations, or related scrutiny that could pose serious conflicts if she is confirmed as AG."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Battle to Stop the Monopolization of Live TV Has Begun
Fubo’s case against the launch of a new Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox sports streaming service may determine whether the live television market of the future includes a robust number of distributors, or is controlled entirely by programming giants.
Aug 07, 2024
Since the launch of cable television, bundling has defined the consumer’s experience. Expensive program packages have always offered a mix of broadly desired and niche programming. The opportunity to buy a slender package of channels tailored to our individual interests has always been out of reach. It was impossible to get what you wanted, without getting what you did not. These bundling requirements have long been dictated by the programming giants like Disney, Warner Bros., and Fox, who control several of the key channels that distributors like cable companies need to offer in order to remain viable.
From the late 2000s to the early 2010s, several on-demand internet streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max, many of which are owned by those same programming giants, came about to offer cheaper access to narrower sets of content, though they rarely offered meaningful options for viewing the live programmatic content available on cable. Then, as more and more consumers sought to have their media delivered over the internet, the advent of live programmatic internet streaming services like Fubo and Sling TV helped recreate the experience of traditional cable. While those services initially innovated, offering slender and specialized live viewing experiences, in recent years they have suffered the same bundling issues that defined the cable industry.
The key to understanding the evolution of television markets is sports. Sports is by far the most popular form of live broadcast entertainment. And because well over 90% of televised sporting events are consumed live in real time, and because consumers have demonstrated a much higher willingness to pay premium rates for live sports content over live television programming, sports are broadly understood as the linchpin of linear television markets. And while no love has been lost between traditional cable providers and live programmatic streaming services, their shared ability to leverage sports contents’ unique appeal has allowed both industries to remain viable for now. (Though cable providers continue to lose market share to live programmatic streaming services with each passing year.) This is despite the longstanding costly licensing deals and onerous channel bundling requirements imposed on them by the large programming giants, namely Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox.
Local television stations, which largely rely on carriage fees from redistribution through cable providers, stand to face massive hits to their bottom lines—a loss that could have profound consequences for the broadcast journalism that often serves as the only source of news in information deserts around the country.
This status quo, however, is unstable, largely due to the ongoing pressure on programmers to unbundle popular sports. In that light, the announcement of a new partnership between Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox on a sports-centric live programmatic streaming service, Venu Sports, may sound like a revelation to the average consumer. But as demonstrated by a case seeking to block the new partnership brought by Fubo—another live programmatic streaming service—the launch of this service may determine whether the live television market of the future includes a robust number of distributors, or is controlled entirely by programming giants Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Fox.
While sports fans may be eager to finally be able to access the narrow product they have long desired, a monopoly over live sports offerings threatens to harm consumers broadly by driving out any potential distribution competitors to the programming giants. These giants, which also control large swaths of other pieces of the media industry (including Disney’s direct ownership of live programmatic service Hulu + Live TV), control the distribution rights of over 80% of national live sports broadcasts, and over 50% of the cumulative national and regional sporting events rights. With that market power, these giants could destroy what remains of the cable television market and stifle competition in the market for live programmatic streaming services before it fully gets off the ground.
Fubo argues as much in their complaint. Fubo, which launched in 2015 as FuboTV, has a particularly strong case to make against why the coercive practices imposed by the programming giants should be cause for grave alarm among antitrust authorities. In their case, they recount their decade-long effort to negotiate such a sports-centric streaming service with the programming giants. While initially successful, the company claims that it quickly faced resistance once its model gained steam.
In a section of the complaint titled “The Empire Strikes Back” (a jab at lead defendant Disney’s vast media empire, which includes the Star Wars franchise) the company claims its rapid early growth was quickly squashed by the programming monopolists, which Fubo claims used more burdensome bundling requirements as well as a series of kickbacks and most-favored-nation clauses with non sports-centric live programming streamers (including Disney’s Hulu + Live TV) to make Fubo’s preferred packages economically inviable. With these onerous requirements still in place and the launch of Venu Sports imminent, the company claims it may soon be forced out of business altogether. That existential concern led Fubo to seek a preliminary injunction stopping the launch of the partnership, which is being heard from August 6 through August 9, with a decision expected within a few weeks’ time.
While Fubo’s story is uniquely galling, it is far from alone in its worries about the ripple effect the launch of the joint venture could have on sports leagues and the entire live television ecosystem. Local television stations, which largely rely on carriage fees from redistribution through cable providers, stand to face massive hits to their bottom lines—a loss that could have profound consequences for the broadcast journalism that often serves as the only source of news in information deserts around the country.
The very sports leagues whose content stands to be distributed by the new joint venture have also expressed alarm at the prospect the three giants may begin bidding for licenses as a unit, which would drastically reduce the number of license buyers in the market and potentially kneecap licensing revenue growth. And satellite television providers Dish Network and DirecTV, which have long sought greater flexibility over their channel offerings, have filed affidavits in the case supporting Fubo’s claims. ACA Connects—a trade group representing hundreds of small and mid-sized broadband, video, and phone providers who often but heads with the satellite giants—also released a scathing statement about the deal.
The Department of Justice and federal lawmakers have heeded those cries, and have promised to scrutinize the terms of any final deals once they are released—though they have expressed frustration over the programming giants’ ongoing refusal to answer basic conflict of interest questions mere months before Venu Sports is expected to launch.
Despite this broad coalition of opponents and skeptics, Fubo’s case for a preliminary injunction remains marred by uncertainty. Even though they present many of the same practical anti-competitive challenges, federal courts have historically been reluctant to police joint ventures with the same force as full-blown mergers. Should the programming giants successfully squash a preliminary injunction, it is uncertain whether federal enforcers and the potential jurors Fubo has asked to decide the case can muster the will to put the cat in the bag, especially if Venu Sports’ competitors suffer the swift devastation they claim is likely. What is certain, though, is that as the hearing over the new service’s launch unfolds this week, the entire live entertainment industry is tuning in.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Alito?
Because, for him, the end—achieving national “godliness”—justifies the means, Alito’s approach to his job is disingenuous and dishonest.
Jun 26, 2024
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has frequently proclaimed his determination to impose his religious views on the entire country. Alito’s tendency toward Christian nationalism—“the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way”—isn’t new. But in a Supreme Court justice, it’s especially dangerous. And lately Alito has become more outspoken on the subject.
Addressing the Federalist Society in 2020, he said, “In certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”
In a May 11, 2024 commencement speech at a Catholic college in Ohio, he told graduates, “Freedom of religion is… imperiled. When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community, or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm.”
It’s not clear what is more remarkable—that a sitting Supreme Court justice holds extreme religious views “that can’t be compromised” or that Alito discusses those draconian views so freely with a stranger at a public gathering.
At a June 3 meeting of the Supreme Court Historical Society, liberal documentary filmmaker Lauren Windsor approached Alito. “As a Catholic and as someone who, like, really cherishes my faith,” she said, “I just don’t, I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that, like, needs to happen for the polarization to end. I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”
Alito agreed with Windsor, saying that she was “probably right” that one side or another is going to win. Along with four of the five other justices comprising the court’s conservative block, he is also a Catholic.
“I mean, there can be a way of working—a way of living together peacefully,” Alito added, “but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Windsor continued, “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that—to return our country to a place of godliness.”
Alito replied, “I agree with you.”
It’s not clear what is more remarkable—that a sitting Supreme Court justice holds extreme religious views “that can’t be compromised” or that Alito discusses those draconian views so freely with a stranger at a public gathering.
Religious Absolutism in Practice
Left unsaid was Alito’s more startling point: His definition of “godliness” doesn’t include all religions. The resulting arrogance leads to a simple view of the world as a constant struggle between good and evil. Personal religious beliefs become the sole criterion by which to categorize all conduct. Such myopia creates an unwarranted confidence in one’s own moral certainty where reasonable people disagree.
Alito isn’t just an ordinary citizen advocating his personal preferences. He’s one of nine Supreme Court justices at the top of the country’s judicial system. He casts votes and writes opinions that affect every facet of American life. And because, for him, the end—achieving national “godliness”—justifies the means, Alito’s approach to his job is disingenuous and dishonest.
Never before in its history had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right in its entirety and conferred it on the states.
Facts don’t matter. They yield to a simplistic approach to everything: Abandon secularism and promote “godliness”—as Alito defines it.
For example, wrapping himself in false history under the guise of “originalism” in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, he wrote the 2022 majority opinion that obliterated 50 years of precedent under Roe v. Wade and removed a woman’s right to control her own pregnancy. And he persuaded five other justices to join him, including all three appointees of former President Donald Trump.
As the dissenters in that case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, emphasized, Alito got the supposed historical justification for his aberrant ruling “embarrassingly” wrong. But the consequences were dramatic: Never before in its history had the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded an individual right in its entirety and conferred it on the states.
Alito didn’t care. Precedent and actual history were irrelevant. He got the religious result he wanted and imposed it on the entire nation.
Passing the Blame
Only 30% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers. In the cosmic battle between good and evil, they believe that they are God’s boots on the ground. They were at the front lines in the fight to overturn the 2020 election of President Joe Biden. And they helped to mobilize Trump supporters on January 6.
Flags associated with the insurrection and Christian nationalism have flown outside Alito’s two homes. But when called to account, Alito couldn’t take the heat. He blamed his wife for flying outside his Virginia residence an upside-down American flag on January 17, 2021. It’s a universal symbol of dire distress that the pro-Trump mob promoted on January 6 in connection with the bogus “Stop the Steal” movement. Alito said that his wife flew the flag after a confrontation with a neighbor, but the confrontation actually occurred weeks later—in mid-February. Alito’s excuse fell apart.
Likewise, Alito pointed an accusing finger at his wife for flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside the Alitos’ New Jersey beach house in 2023. He claimed not to have known its political or religious significance.
Above the Law
If you’re Samuel Alito, none of the rules applies to you. Unlike the rest of the federal judiciary and every state court, U.S. Supreme Court justices have no mandatory ethical requirements. The court has no process for forcing recusal in cases where a justice has a clear conflict of interest. And it has no recourse for dealing with a justice who accepts thousands of dollars in gifts from individuals or groups seeking influence.
When the media exposed Alito’s free travel on a billionaire’s private jet to a luxury fishing resort in Alaska, he responded that if he hadn’t taken the seat, it would have remained empty. So the fact that the one-way ride would have cost him more than $100,000 was somehow irrelevant, and he didn’t have to disclose it pursuant to federal law.
Huh?
When they were kids, I wonder how often Alito and Thomas told their teachers that the dog ate their homework. Or when caught doing something wrong replied with comedian Flip Wilson’s line, “The devil made me do it.”
When it comes to flouting ethical standards, Alito’s conservative colleague, Justice Clarence Thomas, is even worse. Over 20 years, Thomas received unreported gifts worth millions of dollars. Alito took second place with $170,000.
In Alito’s conversation with Lauren Windsor during which he agreed that America should return to a place of “godliness,” she asked what could be done to restore public trust in the court—which is at record lows. Alito blamed the media: “I wish I knew. I don’t know. It’s easy to blame the media, but I do blame them because they do nothing but criticize us. And so, they have really eroded trust in the court.”
Clarence Thomas has the same attitude. Complaining recently about the “nastiness and lies” he has faced, he called Washington, D.C. a “hideous place” and one reason that he and his wife, Ginni—who was intimately involved in promoting the January 6 insurrection—“like RVing.”
The Thomas’ also probably like traveling in their luxury motorcoach because a millionaire forgave the $267,000 loan that Thomas used to buy it.
When they were kids, I wonder how often Alito and Thomas told their teachers that the dog ate their homework. Or when caught doing something wrong replied with comedian Flip Wilson’s line, “The devil made me do it.”
How do you solve a problem like Alito—or Thomas?
Shine a spotlight on them.
Wait for them to retire or die.
And vote for a President who will not fill their seats with like-minded replacements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular