Republicans are attacking dark money... LOL...

[pasayten]

Republicans are attacking a dark money group's support for Ketanji Brown Jackson despite blocking Democratic-led bills to disclose donors at least 10 times since 2010
bmetzger@insider.com (Bryan Metzger) - 1h ago


Republicans are attacking Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson over her support from a dark money group.
But Republicans have blocked bills to expose dark money donors 10 different times since 2010.
Mitch McConnell doubled down on his support for dark money on Tuesday when asked about the contradiction.
With Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings underway, Republicans have called attention to the fact that a liberal dark money group, Demand Justice, was an early supporter of her nomination to the court.

"Judge Jackson was the favored choice of far-left dark-money groups that have spent years attacking the legitimacy and structure of the Court itself," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement shortly after she was nominated by President Joe Biden.

Even during Tuesday afternoon's confirmation hearings, Senate Republican leadership distributed an email to reporters entitled "Democrats Let The Dark Money Flow And Like Its Power," which largely focused on a recent New York Times report about how Democrats have increasingly benefited from political spending by nonprofit entities, which aren't required by law to disclose their donors.

Inside the personal finances of Joe Biden's possible Supreme Court nominees
President Joe Biden has pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court.
Insider obtained the most recent financial records for four potential Supreme Court nominees.
Some of these potential nominees have held individual stocks or investment properties.
Justice Stephen Breyer's retirement announcement has prompted a speculative frenzy over who President Joe Biden will nominate to the Supreme Court. Biden has previously vowed to appoint a Black woman as his Supreme Court justice. His short list initially included at least a dozen people, and Biden since said he's done a "deep dive" on "abut four people."

Biden is expected to make a final decision by the end of February to replace Breyer and has already begun to reach out to potential candidates, according to CNN.

Insider obtained the most recently available financial disclosure forms for four potential candidates: US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, US District Judge J. Michelle Childs of South Carolina, and US District Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner of Georgia.

The financial disclosures, obtained through the Free Law Project, provide a revealing, if incomplete, picture of their personal finances. The documents in part list salary information, outside income, past positions, travel reimbursements and perks, and details about their various financial investments, including stocks and rental properties.

Some of these investments could conceivably pose conflicts of interest at a time when the public's opinion of the Supreme Court is plummeting, according to recent polls.

The number of Americans who have favorable views of the Supreme Court declined to 54% in January 2022 from 70% in August 2020, according to a new survey by Pew Research Center. A recent Gallup poll painted an even bleaker picture for the high court.

"The public is paying attention to the Supreme Court in a way that I don't think it has in the past because it has both the perception and the reality of being increasingly partisan," said Renee Knake Jefferson, a University of Houston law professor.

Jefferson told Insider that it's unclear what the recusal process would look like for any Supreme Court nominee who may have certain investments that could pose an ethical conflict. But it will be something that Biden will carefully have to monitor, Jefferson said.

Ethical conflicts of federal judges has been at the center of controversy since the Wall Street Journal published a report that found that more than 130 federal judges broke the law by overseeing cases in which they or their family members had a financial interest.

This Supreme Court nomination process also comes on the heels of Insider's "Conflicted Congress" project that found that dozens of lawmakers — including those in the US Senate who will vote on a Supreme Court nomination — had potential financial conflicts or violated the law by failing to properly disclose their own stock transactions. Congress is actively debating whether to strengthen these rules — including whether to require Supreme Court justices or all federal judges to disclose more information about their personal finances.

Below are details about four leading Supreme Court nominee candidates' personal finances. This article will be updated as financial disclosures become available for other potential Supreme Court nominees.

Read the original article on Business Insider
And other Republicans, including Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have also taken up the line of attack.


Demand Justice, a progressive nonprofit advocacy group that focuses on influencing the judiciary and has endorsed increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court in order to "restore ideological balance," was an early backer of Jackson's nomination.

It's true that Democrats have increasingly become beneficiaries of the dark money that they've long decried,

"If you want to remove Donald Trump, you push all the buttons you can — you use all the tools you can," former Rep. Steve Israel of New York, the one-time chairman of House Democrats' campaign arm, told Insider in 2020.

But it's also true that plenty of conservative dark money groups, including the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, have played a role in shaping the court and its attendant confirmation battles for years.

And Republicans, despite their tough words on dark money, have repeatedly blocked attempts to shed light on who's contributing to dark money groups several times.

"The idea that Republicans are now claiming that they're against dark money, even though they have blocked every attempted legislation to get rid of dark money, says something," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer at his Tuesday press conference.

"Members of the Senate who are now expressing concern about undisclosed spending have had numerous opportunities to address the influence of unlimited, secret money poured into our elections by wealthy special interests," Adav Noti, Vice President and Legal Director at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement to Insider. "To reduce political corruption, we need real action to ensure transparency and end dark money."

The 2010 Citizen United Supreme Court decision, which effectively abolished campaign spending limits, unleashed a torrent of new anonymous, or so-called "dark money," spending by nonprofit advocacy groups in US politics.

Democratic alarm over the 5-4 decision kicked off a years-long effort by the party to reign in the new spending by enacting new legislation. When it comes to dark money, the primary vehicle for that has been the "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act," which Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island has introduced in every Congress since 2010.

But Senate Republicans have successfully blocked the measure from reaching the necessary 60 votes to open debate on legislation at least 10 times over the years, including two standalone votes in 2010, two in 2012, and as an amendment to the budget in 2015.

The bill's provisions were then incorporated into Democratic-led anti-corruption and voting rights bills, which were blocked by Republicans five different times across 2021 and 2022.

Each time, not a single Republican has voted in favor of advancing the bill, and McConnell has led the charge against it.

In a 2012 floor speech, he declared that dark money was a "problem that doesn't exist" and compared the effort to disclose dark money groups' donors to the "creation of a modern day Nixonian enemies list." He also said one of the bill's main purposes was to "create the impression of mischief where there is none."

Schumer indicated to reporters on Tuesday that another standalone vote on the bill could be coming soon.

'I hope very much we can get rid of it on both sides'

Sen. Whitehouse, perhaps the most outspoken advocate against dark money in the Senate, acknowledged Republicans' dark money charges while questioning Jackson on Tuesday.

"I'll be the first to concede that there is dark money on both sides, and I hope very much we can get rid of it on both sides shortly by legislation," he said. "But there is a difference, I believe, between a dark money interest rooting for someone, and right-wing dark money interests having a role in actually picking the last three Supreme Court justices."

The Rhode Island Democrat went on to detail the significant influence that conservative dark money groups had during the Trump administration, including vetting and involvement in the judicial selection process.

And despite McConnell's previous statements on dark money, he and other Republicans seem to be asking the same questions and making the same insinuations they once condemned.

"What do these folks know that Senators may not?" McConnell rhetorically asked in a recent floor speech. But McConnell made clear on Tuesday that he sees no inconsistency in his record.

Asked at his weekly press conference by NBC's Sahil Kapur whether he was open to supporting the DISCLOSE Act, McConnell chuckled. "I've been pretty clear on this for 25 years," he said, adding that he's "in favor of the way campaigns and issues are currently funded" and "there are rational reasons for not having disclosure for those entities."

Asked by Insider why voters should take Republicans' concerns about Demand Justice seriously, McConnell indicated that he was more concerned by the group's goals than the fact that it doesn't disclose its donors.

"The reason it's relevant is the leftist groups who are [nonprofits] are hugely enthusiastic about this nominee," he said, alluding to Demand Justice's support for growing the size of the court. "Which leads you to ask the question, why are they enthusiastic about this nominee?"

Read the original article on Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com/republi ... ell-2022-3