

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.
John Fioretta, fiorettajohn@gmail.com or
Jan Rein, janny007@sbcglobal.net
Move to Amend’s Law & Research Committee Co-Chairs
Donald Trump and Joe Biden need to address the economic, environmental, political and social harms caused by corporate constitutional rights at Thursday's last presidential debate, asserts Move to Amend.
Donald Trump and Joe Biden need to address the economic, environmental, political and social harms caused by corporate constitutional rights at Thursday's last presidential debate, asserts Move to Amend. The national grassroots coalition has been organizing for the past decade to pass a 28th Constitutional Amendment that would abolish all constitutional rights for corporate entities and would end the legal doctrine that political money spent in elections is equivalent to First Amendment-protected free speech.
Calls on the candidates and the Commission on Presidential Debates to merely create a civil debate format and an agenda focusing on urgent current issues is a massive disservice to the American people if the abuses to people, communities, the environment and the quest for democracy from Supreme Court-invented constitutional rights for corporations are not directly addressed.
Corporate constitutional rights are a root cause of why so many issues that the public supports never becomes reality. Medicare for All has been blocked by insurance and other medical-related corporations which have hijacked First Amendment "political free speech rights" by investing in political campaigns. Consumer's right to know potentially dangerous ingredients in food and other commercial products have been thwarted by agribusiness and chemical corporations claiming First Amendment "rights not to speak." After lying about climate change for decades, fossil fuel corporations now try to avoid liability for the harm they have caused by invoking multiple constitutional "rights." Effort by local community leaders to provide preferential support to local businesses over "big box" merchants during the pandemic would be overturned in court, as in the past, by corporate claims of "discrimination" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to apply exclusively to free slaves.
The group says that candidates and the Commission should review it's recently produced series: The Case Against Corporate Constitutional Rights. The three-part series documents how corporate constitutional rights have no legal basis; have fueled the climate crisis; have negatively affected property rights, environmental protection, worker safety, and community health; and have concealed important information from consumers and employees.
Move to Amend is the main organizational catalyst of the We the People Amendment (H.J.R. 48). The proposed Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) has 74 House co-sponsors. More than 680 political jurisdictions across the nation have passed resolutions or citizen-driven ballot initiatives calling for the amendment.
For more information about Move to Amend, email info@movetoamend.org or call 916-318-8040.
MovetoAmend.org is a coalition supported by hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals dedicated to ending the illegitimate legal doctrines that prevent the American people from governing ourselves.
"Every senator took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and honoring that oath means using the Senate's confirmation authority to protect the independence of federal law enforcement."
In a letter to US senators Thursday, more than two dozen legal and advocacy groups expressed their commitment to "the rule of law and the independence of federal law enforcement" as they urged the Senate to reject President Donald Trump's impending nomination of acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche to officially take the helm of the Department of Justice.
Considering that Blanche previously directly represented Trump as his defense attorney in three separate criminal cases, said the groups, which form the Not Above the Law Coalition, "Blanche as attorney general would represent a new low, and an unprecedented corruption of the institution itself."
"In 2023, Blanche left his law firm to become Trump's personal criminal defense attorney across three concurrent cases: the hush money trial, the federal classified documents case, and matters related to January 6th," wrote the coalition, which includes Democracy Defenders Fund, End Citizens United, and Public Citizen. "For two years, he had one job: Keep local, state, and federal investigators away from his client Donald Trump, and in particular, to shield Trump from the Justice Department.
"Now he controls that very federal agency," said the organizations, noting that he still operates as "Trump's lawyer."
Since joining the administration—first as deputy attorney general serving alongside former Attorney General Pam Bondi, and then taking over for her in an acting capacity after she was fired—Blanche has refused to recuse himself from all matters pertaining to Trump, considering his former work representing the president; boasted that the FBI "cleaned house" after firing career prosecutors who had been involved in investigating Trump; filed motions to vacate seditious conspiracy convictions of several people who attacked the US Capitol on January 6; and created a since-blocked $1.8 billion "slush fund" meant to disburse money to Trump's allies due to what the president views as unfair prosecutions.
"The only thing that changed when Blanche walked into the DOJ is that now the American people are paying the bill while he weaponized the department against Trump’s perceived enemies and cut deals for his boss."
Blanche has also played a major role in weaponizing the DOJ against Trump's "perceived enemies," including the Southern Poverty Law Center and former FBI Director James Comey, both of whom he obtained indictments for.
The Not Above the Law Coalition said the "Block Blanche" campaign launched by the letter would target senators who show willingness to confirm the compromised nominee.
The co-chairs of the group—including Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, Kelsey Herbert of MoveOn, and Brett Edkins of Stand Up America—emphasized that Blanche "is not America's attorney general."
"He was Donald Trump's criminal defense lawyer and personal fixer before working for the Justice Department, and he never stopped," they said. "The only thing that changed when Blanche walked into the DOJ is that now the American people are paying the bill while he weaponized the department against Trump’s perceived enemies and cut deals for his boss."
"Every senator took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and honoring that oath means using the Senate's confirmation authority to protect the independence of federal law enforcement," the co-chairs added. "We're here to remind them of this duty to our nation."
The groups added that Blanche's conduct and the announcement of his nomination make clear that "former Attorney General Pam Bondi wasn't removed because she crossed a line. She was removed because she didn't cross enough of them. Blanche's appointment escalates the weaponization of the DOJ beyond what even Bondi would execute."
"The Senate has a constitutional obligation to answer one question," said the groups. "Does the Justice Department serve the American people, or does it serve Donald Trump?"
"That this administration would direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots is shameful."
A leading civil rights organization on Wednesday accused the US Postal Service of unlawful complicity in President Donald Trump's assault on mail-in voting, which he launched in late March with an alarming executive order that is facing its own legal challenges.
With a new legal motion filed in a federal court in Washington, DC, the NAACP is challenging rules the Postal Service unveiled last week that would require states to notify USPS "of the individuals to whom they are mailing a mail-in or absentee ballot." The rules would also "identify new standards for the envelope design and review for outbound and return ballot envelopes."
The NAACP's filing—which reignites a pandemic-era legal fight—warns that under the proposed rule, "USPS would refuse to transmit mail-in ballots in states that did not use specific envelopes with specific codes, and would refuse to deliver ballots for voters not included on a state-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List."
That would violate a previous USPS agreement, reached in 2021, to prioritize "timely delivery of election mail" and run afoul of federal law, the motion argues, calling for a swift injunction to stop the Postal Service from implementing the rules.
“The proposed rule manifests USPS’ intent to disregard its commitment to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF). “This all is part of a coordinated effort by this Administration to create chaos and confusion in our elections, which creates particular dangers for Black voters who are already at the greatest risk of suffering discrimination in voting. The attempt to usurp the right of eligible voters to cast mail-in ballots is directly contrary to the legally enforceable agreement the parties reached in this case, and to USPS’ obligations under federal law. We are confident it will be rejected by the courts.”
Allison Zieve, director of Public Citizen Litigation Group—which joined LDF in filing the suit on behalf of the NAACP—said it is "shameful" that the Trump administration would "direct USPS to adopt measures to impede voters from casting their ballots."
"And that USPS would allow itself to be used for political purposes to advance the president’s irrational objection to mail-in voting is disgraceful, unlawful, and contrary to the commitments it made to settle our [2020] litigation," Zieve added.
The proposed USPS rules stem from an executive order that Trump issued on March 31, instructing the agency to obtain from states "a list of voters eligible to vote in a federal election in such state to whom the state intends to provide a mail-in or absentee ballot to be transmitted via the USPS." Trump directed his handpicked postmaster general, David Steiner, to advance "provisions specifying that the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual" who is not included on state mail-in ballot participation lists.
Last week, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, DC declined to immediately block the president's executive order. But another federal judge in Boston "sharply questioned" Trump's order during a hearing for a similar yet separate legal challenge earlier this week.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the latter case said in a statement after Tuesday's hearing that "the Trump administration is attempting to seize that power for itself with an unlawful and dangerous executive order."
"Together with our courageous clients, we’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop further chaos in our elections, uphold the rule of law, and protect the millions of citizens who rely on mail-in voting, including people with disabilities, students, rural voters, and the elderly," the attorneys said. "We won't let the Trump administration continue to trample on the fundamental right to vote.”
"If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright," the Maryland Democrat said.
Though acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has said President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “weaponization” slush fund is now “dead,” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin on Thursday unveiled draft legislation that would eliminate what he describes as a “super pardon” buried in the Department of Justice settlement reached last month.
While Blanche—whom Trump said he plans to nominate for a full term as attorney general—has backed off the fund that would allow the DOJ to disburse taxpayer money to Trump allies and January 6 insurrectionists amid bipartisan backlash, a news release from Raskin’s (D-Md.) office on Thursday said the acting AG has done nothing to rescind “the mother of all sweetheart deals he tucked into his unprecedented settlement with Trump.”
The settlement, created in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for improperly leaking his tax returns, gives Trump, his entire family, and all their business ventures total and permanent immunity for “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” not only before the IRS, which Trump sued in the case that led to the settlement, but also before “other agencies or departments.”
The Maryland Democrat also said that despite retreating on the "weaponization" fund, the DOJ is still using its Judgment Fund to improperly reward the president's allies.
According to the Washington Post, as of April, the DOJ had already paid $8.5 million to prominent Trump allies who claimed to have been wrongly targeted by the Biden administration, even though no court formally determined that they had been.
“If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright,” Raskin said. “But no one should be fooled by Trump and Blanche’s tactical pause: Nothing has been dismantled, and nothing has been renounced. Trump’s scheme to raid the Judgment Fund, bankroll political allies using taxpayer cash, and score a sweeping Super Pardon is alive and well and remains a clear and present threat to our constitutional order.”
Raskin, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a new legislative package on Thursday, aiming to destroy the remaining vestiges of the DOJ deal and ensure that future presidents can never use federal settlements to reward themselves.
The Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments (BLANCHE) Act, bars sitting presidents from entering settlements for money damages with the federal government and requires independent judicial oversight of any such agreements, including ones that grant the president "super pardons" like the one granted to Trump by the DOJ.
“My legislative package would end the slush fund, outlaw collusive settlements, and make clear that no president can use taxpayer dollars to cut partisan loyalty reward checks,” Raskin said.
He also introduced the Constitutional Rights Defense Act, which would allow individuals to file suits against the federal government when their rights are violated by agents of the state.
In contrast with the January 6 Capitol riot participants who have been claiming compensation under the fund, Raskin said his bill "ensures that all people who have actually had their constitutional rights violated by the government will have access to justice."
Raskin has previously introduced legislation that would block the use of federal funds to finance the Trump IRS settlement and prohibit payouts to January 6 Capitol riot participants and other Trump allies, including family members.
"Congress must act with urgency to shut down this presidential plunder once and for all,” Raskin said.