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
thom tillis
'Idiotic': GOP Senator Proposes Cutting Funds for States That Bar Trump From Ballot
Sen. Thom Tillis' bill also states that the Supreme Court "shall have sole jurisdiction to decide" cases involving the Constitution's insurrection clause.
Dec 20, 2023
Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis announced late Tuesday that he plans to introduce legislation to slash federal funding for states whose lawmakers or judges disqualify presidential candidates from the ballot, as Colorado's Supreme Court did with former President Donald Trump in a landmark ruling.
Tillis (N.C.) said in a statement following the decision that "regardless of whether you support or oppose former President Donald Trump, it is outrageous to see left-wing activists make a mockery of our political system by scheming with partisan state officials and pressuring judges to remove him from the ballot."
"American voters, not partisan activists, should decide who we elect as our president," he added.
Tillis' legislation, titled the Constitutional Election Integrity Act, would prevent federal funds from being used to "administer any election for federal office in a state that has in effect a law or policy to prohibit a candidate for the office of president who is otherwise eligible from appearing on the ballot for such office using Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
The bill also states that the U.S. Supreme Court—which is likely to hear the Trump campaign's appeal of the Colorado ruling in the coming weeks—"shall have sole jurisdiction to decide" matters related to Section 3, which is known as the insurrection clause. The clause bars those who have "engaged in insurrection" from holding office.
Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), called Tillis' bill "an idiotic response" to the Colorado Supreme Court's decision.
"If the Supreme Court overturns CO this will be unnecessary, if they uphold it will be unconstitutional," Fritschner wrote on social media.
Following Tuesday's ruling, Trump's presidential campaign expressed "full confidence" that the U.S. Supreme Court—which consists of three Trump-appointed justices—will "quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits."
Legal efforts to bar Trump from the 2024 ballot under the insurrection clause are currently underway in more than a dozen states across the U.S.
In recent weeks, judges in Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire have ruled that Trump—who is currently facing more than 90 criminal charges, including several stemming from his incitement of the January 6, 2021 attack—can stay on the states' presidential primary ballots despite what even some conservative scholars say is a clear legal case for disqualification under the 14th Amendment.
A majority of Colorado's high court agreed with that position, ruling Tuesday that Trump's actions in the lead-up to the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol constituted engagement in insurrection and were therefore disqualifying under the 14th Amendment.
"We do not reach these conclusions lightly," the decision reads. "We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach."
The ruling is stayed until January 4, 2024, the day before the deadline to certify Colorado's presidential primary ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
CFPB Has Returned $240 Million to Constituents of GOP Lawmakers Attacking Agency
"These lawmakers," said one advocate, "should answer to their constituents why they'd rather represent their industry donors at the expense of everyday families."
Aug 09, 2023
Residents of U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry's home state of North Carolina won back more than $24 million from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Civil Penalty Fund between 2012 and 2022—but that hasn't stopped the Republican lawmaker from spearheading an effort to significantly weaken the agency.
Government watchdog Accountable.US on Wednesday released a report detailing the money that the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund, which compensates victims of misconduct by financial companies, has returned to the constituents of Republican lawmakers who are intent on attacking the agency—as well as the donations those same politicians have taken from the industry the CFPB regulates.
"Republicans in Congress should be celebrating the fact the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recouped billions of dollars for families who've been ripped off by bad actors in the financial industry," said Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US' Economic Security & Corporate Power program. "Instead, many Republicans are rooting for efforts to defund and defang the nation's top consumer advocate."
The group's report shows that in 10 states including North Carolina, Arizona, South Carolina, and Michigan, constituents have been awarded compensation totaling more than $240 million from the CFPB's fund.
In North Carolina, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has joined McHenry in attacking the CFPB, accusing the bureau of "undertaking a name-and-shame campaign to coerce banks who were following the established prudential standards for the crime of listening to their previous federal regulators."
Judging from his attacks on the CFPB, said Accountable.US, Tillis "would prefer if tens of thousands of North Carolinians were vulnerable to scams from the likes of predatory lenders and greedy big banks."
Both lawmakers were among those who signed an amicus brief in support of a federal lawsuit brought by the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA), a group that represents the predatory payday lending industry, which aims to strike down the bureau's funding structure through the Federal Reserve. The group and a number of Republicans have claimed the CFPB should be funded through appropriations passed by Congress.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case when it reconvenes in October.
Accountable.US found that in the 10 states in its report, the Republicans who signed the amicus brief have received more than $51 million from people and political action committees affiliated with financial companies regulated by the CFPB.
McHenry has taken more than $5.4 million from the industry, while Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has received more than $4.8 million. Scott has denounced the bureau as "an agency that lacks transparency and seeks to operate beyond its jurisdiction."
Other lawmakers featured in the group's report include Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has taken more than $315,000 from the industry and has called the CFPB a "rogue organization" that "ought to be zeroed out"; Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), who has repeatedly proposed legislation to gut the agency and has taken $3.9 million from the industry; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who told a group of lobbyists in 2017 that he would overturn a CFPB rule preventing bans on class-action lawsuits against Wall Street companies. McConnell has taken more than $9.2 million from the industry during his career.
"The CFPB helped put money back into the pockets of over 27,000 Kentuckians," said Accountable.US, "but McConnell would rather represent his industry donors in Senate at their expense."
The agency has returned nearly $20 million to Michigan residents, $45.7 million to New Yorkers, and $28.2 million to Pennsylvanians—but Republican lawmakers who represent those states have also signed the amicus brief in the CFSA case and have collectively taken millions of dollars from the industry the CFPB is tasked with regulating.
"The industry's goal," said Accountable.US, is to "leave everyday families vulnerable to tricks, debt traps, discrimination, and outright scams from the likes of predatory lenders and greedy big banks."
The group's report suggested that goal is shared by many GOP lawmakers.
"These lawmakers," said Zelnick, "should answer to their constituents why they'd rather represent their industry donors at the expense of everyday families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Harlan Crow Also Bankrolled GOP Lawmakers Blocking SCOTUS Ethics Reform
A new analysis shows Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have received more than $450,000 from the same GOP megadonor who has lavished Justice Clarence Thomas with undisclosed gifts.
May 09, 2023
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday sent a letter asking Harlan Crow—the billionaire GOP megadonor who has secretly showered U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts since the mid-1990s—to provide a full accounting of his financial ties to Thomas and any other judges on the high court.
It comes as "no surprise" that none of the panel's nine Republicans signed the letter, Accountable.US declared Tuesday, because they have collectively accepted nearly half a million dollars in campaign cash from Crow since the turn of the century, as a new analysis from the watchdog group shows.
Last month, one day after ProPublica published its bombshell report on Crow's under-the-table funding of near-annual luxury vacations for Thomas—the first of what would become many revelations about the two men's financial relationship—Accountable.US calculated that the current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $453,300 from Crow between 2001 and 2022. The group revised that figure up to $457,000 on Tuesday in light of a $3,700 donation Crow made to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) earlier this year.
The following is a list of Crow's total contributions to the nine GOP lawmakers on the panel as well as their affiliated PACs and joint fundraising committees, in descending order:
- Cornyn: $294,800
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa): $46,600
- Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.): $23,900
- Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas): $23,500
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.): $20,600
- Sen. Mike Lee (Utah): $19,500
- Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.): $13,400
- Sen. John Kennedy (La.): $8,300
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): $6,400
"There should be bipartisan outrage about the undisclosed gifts and travel billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow has given Justice Thomas," Accountable.US president Kyle Herrig said last month. "Senate Judiciary Republicans should join their Democratic colleagues to act. However, their silence so far may be because they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Crow as well."
"The highest court in the land should have the highest ethical standards," he added. "When it doesn't, Congress should exert its oversight authority."
Not only have Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with apparent conflicts of interest refused to join their Democratic colleagues in trying to establish enforceable ethics rules for the Supreme Court, but they have attempted to downplay the seriousness of the court's growing crisis of legitimacy.
Several of the panel's GOP members used last week's hearing on proposed Supreme Court ethics reforms—a hearing Chief Justice John Roberts refused to testify at despite mounting evidence of possible corruption involving Thomas and others, including Roberts himself as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch—as "an opportunity for political grandstanding and performative outrage," Accountable.US noted Tuesday.
\u201cNEW BLOG: The Supreme Court is facing a full-blown legitimacy crisis thanks to the corruption of three of its conservative justices.\n\nWithout reform, public trust in one of our core American institutions will continue to plummet \ud83d\udc47\nhttps://t.co/cygCcY8TsJ\u201d— Accountable.US (@Accountable.US) 1683654643
"Cornyn claimed Congress did not have the authority to regulate the courts due to separation of powers—a claim that was disproven by an expert witness that testified at the hearing," Accountable.US pointed out. "Cruz claimed the hearing was not about judicial ethics, but instead, was an attempt to attack Justice Thomas for having rich friends."
Lee went so far as to say that "when this chapter of American history is written, those who attack Justice Thomas today will be justly dismissed as intolerant bigots."
Meanwhile, Graham, the ranking member, accused the left of trying to "delegitimize the court and cherry-pick examples to make a point." Echoing his right-wing ally, Grassley argued that recent revelations are part of a long-term effort to "cast doubt on certain judges and justices, all because the left is opposed to recent court rulings."
Kennedy, for his part, denounced "attacks on conservative justices" as "targeted" and "exaggerated" and dismissed proposed Supreme Court ethics rules as "unnecessary."
Two days after right-wing senators accused reform advocates of launching what Cruz called a "smear campaign" against Thomas, ProPublica revealed that Crow also paid tens of thousands of dollars for the jurist's grandnephew to attend a pair of elite private schools. This came after earlier exposés about Crow footing the bill for yacht trips, buying and remodeling Thomas' mother's home, and more.
Given the mounting evidence of potential connections between Crow's gifts, which Thomas sought to keep hidden, and Thomas' inclination to rule in ways favorable to his superrich benefactor, calls for the judge to resign or face impeachment are growing.
Not only does Crow have links to numerous right-wing groups involved in Supreme Court cases since Thomas was first confirmed to the bench in 1991, but his own real estate company, Crow Holdings, was directly implicated in a 2021 case before the court.
As The Lever reported last month, Thomas voted to end the Covid-era federal eviction moratorium after Crow Holdings called the lifesaving policy a threat to its "profit margins." Now, as a group of New York City landlords prepares to ask the high court to overturn local rent control laws condemned by Crow Holdings—a move that would endanger rent stabilization efforts nationwide—"there is no indication" Thomas would recuse himself, the outlet noted.
Moreover, as Common Dreams reported last week, an Americans for Tax Fairness analysis of campaign finance data shows that after Thomas provided a deciding vote in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Crow family's average annual campaign contributions soared by 862%, from $163,241 before 2010 to $1.57 million since.
This massive increase, which is partly reflected in Crow's donations to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, underscores how the 5-4 ruling that effectively legalized unlimited political spending has strengthened the wealthy's ability to shape electoral outcomes, further undermining U.S. democracy.
On Tuesday, The Leverargued that the main goal of Crow and other billionaires who provide gifts and outside money to members of the Supreme Court is not to obtain certain decisions in specific cases, given that the court's right-wing ideologues would likely rule conservatively anyway, but to prevent GOP appointees from becoming more liberal over time—a phenomenon that has occurred in the past.
Alluding to Monday's letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), The Washington Post reported that "if Crow ignores the request for information by the committee's May 22 deadline, it's unclear what Durbin's next move would be."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is returning to Capitol Hill after an illness kept her away from the Senate since February. Feinstein's absence has left Durbin without a majority on the panel, enabling the GOP minority to impede action, but her return would open up options.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin did not rule out the possibility of a subpoena, saying that "everything is on the table."
In addition to the implementation of robust ethics rules, progressives have called for other far-reaching changes to disempower the country's "rogue" Supreme Court justices, including expanding the court. Seats have been added seven times throughout U.S. history.
Polling data shows that public approval of the nation's chief judicial body has decreased sharply in the months since its reactionary supermajority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion care, among other harmful and unpopular decisions. According to a survey conducted last month, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults no longer have confidence in the high court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular