

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Seth Hoy, seth.hoy@nyu.edu, 646-292-8369 or Laurie Kinney, lkinney@justiceatstake.org, 202-588-9454
With less than two weeks to November 4th, political parties, outside groups, and state Supreme Court candidates have spent more than $9.1 million on TV ads this election cycle, including primaries and off cycle elections, according to FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG analyzed by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake. For just the general election, TV ad spending for state Supreme Court races totals more than $6.1 million.
Political parties and outside groups have dominated TV ad spending this year with nearly 63 percent of the total ad buys since January, according to an analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG data. Michigan leads the nation in TV ad spending with approximately $2.9 million spent to date, according to FCC filings and Kantar Media/CMAG estimates.
"This high level of spending is consistent with the spending we saw in 2010 midterm judicial races," said Alicia Bannon, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Special interest groups continue to dump money into state Supreme Court races in an attempt to stack the deck in their favor. Voters should feel like our courts are fair and impartial, not political playgrounds where business interests and lawyers can tilt the scales of justice with their pocketbooks."
"Once again, large sums are being spent to buy up courts," said Executive Director Bert Brandenburg of Justice at Stake, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money and politics in judicial elections. "Dark money and hardball politics are turning judicial campaigns into auctions, and judges are trapped in the middle, pressured to answer to donors and supporters who appear before them in court. Every state that elects judges needs to take steps to keep cash out of the courtroom."
Although TV ad spending will increase dramatically in the remaining days before Election Day, activity in several states stands out:
Last Minute Spending Surge in Illinois Retention Race
A group called "Campaign for 2016" has spent $826,700 this month on a TV ad attacking Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who is seeking retention for a new 10-year term, according to state disclosure forms. The ad targets Justice Karmeier for overturning multimillion dollar judgments against Philip Morris and State Farm in two high-profile cases, after the companies "push[ed] four million dollars" into Justice Karmeier's 2004 election. Justice Karmeier declined requests for recusal in both cases and disputes the characterization of the companies' involvement in his campaign.
Campaign for 2016 has collected $1.3 million in contributions, all from lawyers and law firms involved in the Philip Morris and State Farm cases, according to according to state campaign disclosures.
Republican Party Spends Big in Michigan
The Michigan Republican Party has spent an estimated $1,761,200 on a TV ad supporting David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and James Robert Redford, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG. Candidate spending in Michigan's Supreme Court race is also high -- FCC filings show David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and Richard Bernstein have booked 3,078 ads totaling $1,224,697. Together, this spending totals $2,985,897 -- the highest spending documented so far this fall.
Conservative Group Continues to Target State Judicial Races
The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which announced a "Judicial Fairness Initiative" earlier this year to support conservative judges and candidates, continues spending on targeted state judicial races.
In Montana, the RSLC has booked more than $144,490 in TV ad purchases, according to FCC data, with a criminal justice-themed ad supporting Supreme Court candidate Lawrence VanDyke in his race against incumbent Justice Michael Wheat.
The RSLC has also infused money into a lower court race in Missouri, contributing $100,000 to Cole County circuit judge candidate Brian Stumpe through its Missouri-based PAC. The PAC is reportedly intending to spend an additional $100,000 in support of Stumpe's campaign as well. Cole County contains the state capital and hears many high-profile cases challenging state laws. In a tie-dye themed ad, the RSLC characterizes incumbent Judge Pat Joyce as siding with "radical environmentalists."
In the May 6th North Carolina Supreme Court primary, the RSLC contributed $900,000 to Justice for All NC, a group that spent significant sums on attack ads against Justice Robin Hudson. The RSLC also gave money to the Tennessee Forum during Tennessee's retention elections this summer. The Tennessee Forum aired ads accusing the Tennessee Supreme Court justices up for retention of being "liberal on crime."
Candidate Spending Up in North Carolina
Candidates for four seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court have been the only source of TV spending this fall, responsible for over $1.6 million in TV ad buys, in contrast to an avalanche of TV spending from outside groups in the state's primary. The nine North Carolina judicial candidates have raised more than $2.2 million this cycle, due in part to the elimination of the state's public financing program back in 2013. Since 2008, total candidate fundraising had not surpassed the $200,000 mark in any race.
In the state's May 6th Supreme Court primary, 76 percent of the $1.3 million spent was raised by two groups, Justice for All North Carolina and North Carolina Chamber IE PAC.
TV ads can be viewed on the Brennan Center's Buying Time 2014 page here.
GENERAL ELECTION TV AD SPENDING BY STATE
Totals reflect data from FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Illinois
Ohio
New Mexico
Montana
Michigan
North Carolina
NOTE: Many ads were booked jointly by two candidates. In some instances, this reflects the candidates' decision to run combined campaign ads together. In other instances, it reflects several TV buys that were made by one ad agency representing multiple candidates.
FCC advertising data are based on publicly available contract files uploaded to the FCC website. Please note that the FCC site is continually updated, and totals currently displayed on the FCC site may have changed since the publication of totals in this release.
Spending estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG are based on captured satellite data in the nation's largest media markets. CMAG's calculations do not reflect ad agency commissions or the costs of producing advertisements, nor do they reflect the cost of ad buys on local cable channels. Cost estimates are revised by Kantar Media/CMAG when it receives updated data, resulting in some fluctuations in the reported ad spending.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."