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
heritage foundation
Meet the Project 2025 Co-Author Who Wants to Run the FCC If Trump Wins
Brendan Carr knows who’s calling the shots in the modern GOP, so when he’s not fawning over Trump — a prerequisite for any potential appointee — he’s busy buttering up the world’s richest internet troll: Elon Musk.
Oct 03, 2024
By now you’ve probably heard of Project 2025 — the not-so-secret plan the Heritage Foundation cooked up for the next Republican administration, complete with a 900-page authoritarian playbook for overturning civil-rights laws, gutting environmental and labor protections, criminalizing abortion, and purging the federal government of any career workers who aren’t partisan loyalists.<
Project 2025’s contents are so noxious, unpopular and anti-democratic that even Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to distance himself from them — though at least 140 former Trump officials contributed to the plan.
What you might not know is that just one of Project 2025’s authors currently works for the federal government: Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the Federal Communications Commission.
Carr has sided with big companies and against the public interest on nearly every important issue to come before the FCC. He’s also learned what it takes to get ahead in Trumpworld: telling lies, cozying up to the far right, insisting Trump can do no wrong, sucking up to billionaires and telling more lies.
Angling to be FCC chairman in a possible Trump administration, this once mild-mannered government lawyer has gone full-on Fox News fire-breather in a despicable-if-calculated attempt to get a promotion.
Carr’s vision for the next FCC
There are serious ethical concerns about a sitting commissioner participating in Project 2025, with no clear lines as to where Carr’s government role ends and his role as a private citizen working in his “personal capacity” begins. That’s why in July a group of 16 House members called for the FCC’s inspector general to investigate whether Carr “may be misusing his official position as an executive-level employee of the FCC to craft and advance a political playbook to influence the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.”
Commissioner Carr’s contribution to Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership” is wrongheaded if relatively milquetoast compared to other chapters. He rants TikTok (which is not under the FCC’s jurisdiction) and China, unwisely calls for the elimination of Section 230 of the Communications Act, and endorses ways to enrich Elon Musk’s Starlink and right-wing broadcasters like Sinclair.
He makes it clear that under a future Chairman Carr, the FCC would do the bidding of big business unencumbered by notions of serving the public interest, helping those experiencing poverty or addressing racial disparities.
In a vacuum, this wouldn’t look too different from the reliably terrible ideas and complete corporate capture of previous Republican FCC chairs.
But Project 2025 isn’t a vacuum. It’s a cesspool.
The company Carr keeps
The priorities of the Heritage Foundation, which organized Project 2025, include banning the teaching of “critical race theory” (i.e., “accurate descriptions of U.S. history”) in public schools and universities, defaming the Black Lives Matter movement, denying climate change, amplifying false claims of voter fraud and attacking transgender kids.
Project 2025’s advisory board, organizational supporters and their known associates include an array of anti-abortion zealots, anti-vaxxers, Big Liars, book banners, climate deniers, conspiracy theorists, immigrant bashers and other assorted haters.
To achieve their Christian-nationalist goals, Heritage and its allies seek to undermine democratic checks and balances in favor of a system where near-absolute power is vested in the office of a strongman president. To quote the watchdogs at the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Project 2025 is “an authoritarian roadmap to dismantling a thriving, inclusive democracy for all.”
This is the company Carr keeps, and that alone should be reason enough to disqualify him from leading a future FCC.
But if you’re looking for more reasons, he’s providing plenty.
Fox News’ favorite commissioner
While the FCC is technically an independent agency, Carr’s binary worldview is simple: Democrats can do no right, and Trump can do no wrong.
Witness his recent appearance at a House hearing where he refused to speak out against Trump’s preposterous and dangerous suggestion that ABC should lose its broadcast licenses because its journalists tried to fact check the former president during a debate.
To be fair, fact-checking isn’t Carr’s forte. In an appearance on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria show, the commissioner happily agreed with the host while she made numerous misleading claims — several of which originated from Carr’s Twitter feed — about the efforts of the FCC and the Biden administration to expand affordable broadband access.
While Carr wrongly claims the Biden administration has “connected no one,” the reality is that the administration’s Affordable Connectivity Program helped 1-in-6 U.S. households connect to the internet before congressional intransigence interrupted its funding.
Congress and the Biden Treasury Department also have awarded $10 billion for broadband deployment, but that’s not even half of it. A bipartisan majority in Congress committed another $42 billion to expand high-speed Internet access in every state to support infrastructure and adoption programs. Under the infrastructure law that Congress passed, each state and U.S. territory had to design a plan to receive its slice of the funds. The job of Biden’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is to collect data, ensure state plans are in line with the law and allocate the funds to viable projects serving the communities that need it most.
Infrastructure projects like these take time, as they should given their historic nature — think rural electrification or the building of the U.S. highway system — but the benefits last far beyond a single presidential term.
For Carr and his partisan allies, the historic and popular effort underway to close the digital divide looks too much like a win for the other side, so they’ll say anything to undermine its progress. Fox — whose corporate bosses want a Republican-controlled FCC to do them special favors — is always ready to provide a platform.
Sucking up to Musk
Carr knows who’s calling the shots in the modern GOP, so when he’s not fawning over Trump — a prerequisite for any potential appointee — he’s busy buttering up the world’s richest internet troll: Elon Musk.
Carr is constantly caping for the would-be efficiency czar. At every opportunity, Carr bemoans “a campaign of regulatory harassment” the FCC is allegedly waging against Musk. The truth is that the FCC stepped in to prevent billions in taxpayer dollars from being wasted fattening Elon’s wallet while failing to get anyone better service — unless they were on a golf course or living on a highway median.
The background: During the waning days of the Trump administration, Musk’s Starlink satellite company snagged nearly $900 million in government subsidies with a promise to provide internet service to rural communities as part of a program known as the Rural Digital Opportunities Fund (RDOF).
Free Press was the first group to sound the alarm that a huge amount of taxpayer money was being wasted under RDOF to allegedly deploy internet service to uninhabited areas, big-box retail stores, airport runways and luxury resorts. Because the Trump FCC did such a shoddy job of designing the initial program, many of the beneficiaries — including Musk — were poised to cash in by promising to serve little pockets of land that already had service or where it was unlikely they’d ever sign up a single customer.
When FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel took leadership of the agency and scrutinized the plans, officials identified $2.5 billion about to be wasted on projects that didn’t meet the program’s basic requirements. So they took the money back.
I’m old enough to remember a time when Republicans claimed they cared about saving taxpayer dollars and fighting government waste. But Brendan Carr is too busy licking Musk’s cybertruck shoes to worry about his hypocrisy.
Fortunately, Carr’s record is beginning to get some attention from members of Congress — but more need to speak out about his dalliances with the far right and his trouble telling the truth. His actions and associations should disqualify him from ever serving as FCC chairman, no matter who the president is in 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Reveals How US Taxpayers Are Unwittingly Subsidizing Climate Lies
"It is high time for the American public to understand just how much charitable money is funding climate change disinformation and to recognize the key individuals behind this effort."
Sep 18, 2024
A report published Wednesday identifies nearly 140 "climate disinformation organizations" in the United States financed by wealthy donors who receive massive subsidies from the nation's taxpayers.
The analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and the Climate Accountability Research Project (CARP) explains that wealthy donors are "pouring billions of dollars" into nonprofit organizations to "advance misleading, self-serving agendas that do irreparable harm to our planet"—all while reaping the benefits of charitable contribution deductions in the U.S. tax code.
"Funds directed to fossil fuel industry-friendly think tanks and policy groups help turn disinformation into accepted truth and sow doubt about science," the analysis notes. "Then, these ideas get turned into action—or, more often, inaction—by the policy brass of lawmakers and presidential administrations."
The new report highlights "two troubling examples of this chain of influence: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, received $21 million in charitable contributions from 2020 to 2022; it bills itself as 'instrumental' both in blocking ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and in pressuring former President [Donald] Trump to withdraw from the 2016 Paris agreement."
"And the Heritage Foundation received $236 million in contributions over the same three years; this money allowed Heritage to write Project 2025, a policy blueprint overseen by several former Trump administration appointees, that proposes changes to the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency that would be disastrous for our climate," the report adds.
IPS and CARP estimate that donors to the two right-wing organizations were able to deduct "much of" their $257 million in gifts—effectively receiving major public subsidies.
"We are calling for fundamental transparency reforms so we can assess the total amount of taxpayer-subsidized charitable donations flowing to climate disinformation organizations."
In total, the report counts 137 "climate disinformation" nonprofits that received charitable donations between 2020 and 2022, with six of them focused "largely or entirely" on climate issues. The 137 organizations collectively received $5.8 billion in contributions over the three-year period examined in the analysis, which estimates that the total sum the nonprofits spent on climate disinformation "could range anywhere from a conservative $219 million into the billions of dollars."
The three "climate disinformation charities" that held the most in assets in 2022, according to the new report, were the Charles Koch Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Seminar Network.
Between 2020 and 2022, the climate disinformation groups that received the most in total contributions were the Seminar Network, the Stand Together Foundation, and the 85 Fund—an organization connected to Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo.
Chuck Collins, director of IPS' Program on Inequality and a co-author of the report, said in a statement that the analysis "provides some much-needed transparency so that the American public can understand the deceptive ways in which the rich seek to advance and protect their interests."
"Based on our findings from the data sources available to us, we are calling for fundamental transparency reforms so we can assess the total amount of taxpayer-subsidized charitable donations flowing to climate disinformation organizations," said Collins. "Many of these donors have built their fortunes in energy or the banking, insurance, transportation, and legal businesses that support the carbon-intensive industries, so they have strong personal interests in ensuring the world's dependence on fossil fuels."
The report notes that wealthy donors have recently been funneling billions of dollars into so-called donor-advised funds (DAFs), which IPS and CARP describe as a kind of "charitable bank account: a donor can donate to a personalized fund managed by a sponsoring nonprofit organization, and take a charitable deduction for that donation right away, but the donor then retains advisory privileges that let them recommend grants out of the fund to whichever charities they want, on whatever timeline they want."
IPS and CARP found that the three largest sponsors of DAFs between 2020 and 2022 were the National Philanthropic Trust, the Schwab Charitable Fund, and DonorsTrust.
"Because DAFs have a near-complete lack of donor and grantee reporting requirements, they allow for a high level of secrecy in donating funds," the report observes.
Private foundations are also major funders of climate disinformation, according to the new report, which lists the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, among others.
The report outlines a number of potential policy changes to stem the ability of individuals and organizations with fossil fuel ties to secretively finance climate disinformation with the help of taxpayer subsidies, including barring private foundations from "using grants to donor-advised funds to meet their payout requirements" and requiring DAF sponsors to disclose "the names of all individual donors who have contributed $10,000 or more to each DAF account."
"It is high time for the American public to understand just how much charitable money is funding climate change disinformation and to recognize the key individuals behind this effort," the analysis says.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dear Republican Friends: The Democratic Party Is Not Your Enemy
Sep 16, 2024
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." —Oliver Cromwell, 1650, imploring his executioners to reconsider
This is a missive directed to Republican voters, wherever it finds them. And here is the message: the Democratic Party is not your enemy.
No, your enemy is former U.S. President Donald Trump. He and the Republican Party care a great deal about your votes, but they don’t give a damn about you. They rely on your fierce loyalty to get elected and then betray you, serving instead the interests of great American corporations and a tiny stratum of immensely wealthy citizens. (The towering achievement of Trump’s presidency was a massive tax cut for precisely these clients.) The betrayal is not readily apparent, of course: It is disguised brilliantly and successfully with distortion, fabrication, and lies.
Donald Trump tells you the Democratic Party is a radical, far left, socialist enterprise and it must be defeated to protect the America we know and love. At his rallies you roar in approval, shouting USA! USA! USA!
Your patriotism is genuine and praiseworthy, but please heed Mr. Cromwell’s plea for open minds: Think it possible—just possible—you may be mistaken about the integrity of Mr. Trump, the Republican Party, and the messaging. Think it possible you are not being protected but victimized.
Let’s look at the evidence.
Mr. Trump is the spokesman and the Republican Party is the front group for corporate oligarchy, a tyrannical form of federal governance put in place decades ago, when corporate money overpowered American democracy. The well-being of the American people no longer takes priority in crafting public policy. Foremost now is the assurance of financial security for powerful corporations: creating new profit streams or enhancing and protecting those in place. This is what the Republican Party hides from view.
We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November.
Corporate oligarchy is comprised of the corporations, yes, who contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns eliciting the candidates’ favor and spend billions more in lobbying for quid pro quos. But it also includes individual corporate owners and managers, and conservative billionaires with similar interests who pour personal funds into friendly campaigns. (Think about Elon Musk, say, offering Trump $45 million per month to win this campaign.)
The core ideology of corporate oligarchy is neoliberalism: “Free market capitalism” best provides for society’s needs, and “government regulation” only degrades the process. It is legitimized by conservative think tanks—notably the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.—and disseminated by sympathetic media—think the Fox News empire and conservative talk radio which blankets the nation with right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The consequences of corporate oligarchy are not trivial.
American people are suffering today the largest increases in food prices in 50 years, while the corporations marketing food products are reaping unprecedented profits. In two years from 2020 to 2022 the Cargill corporation (grains and meat products) doubled its profits, from $3.3 billion to $6.7 billion. In just a single year, from 2021 to 2022, the profits of the Kraft-Heinz company (cheese products, condiments, frozen meals, snacks) rose 448%, from $225 million to $887 million; Cal-Maine Foods (the country’s largest egg producer) grew 718%, to $323 million.
Extortionate consumer prices are not the only outrage imposed by corporate oligarchy. The rampant social and economic injustices in our country today are not the consequences of a functioning democracy: They certainly do not reflect the wishes of the people. Unprecedented inequalities in wealth and income are producing a two-tiered society of opulence and hardship. Homeless colonies blossom coast to coast. A full 31.1 million Americans, almost 10% of our citizens, lack access to healthcare, suffering unnecessary illness and preventable death. A total of 13.5% of American households are “food insecure:” They don't have enough to eat. ChatGPT will tell you it costs up to $60,000 per year to live modestly in America; a minimum-wage worker earns $15,080. Do the math.
Fifty years ago America was flourishing. The middle class constituted almost two-thirds of the population, and it was thriving. A single income was sufficient to raise a family, buy a home, cover healthcare costs, send the kids to college, and retire in comfort. Today, with both parents working full time, this good life is out of reach.
The ravaging of the American people was driven by corporate oligarchy—nothing else, not “socialism,” not the Democratic Party.
Republican friends and neighbors, who is your enemy?
The Republican Party is, because it has been the driving force for the emergence of corporate oligarchy. The process began in 1971 with a lawyer who specialized in corporate mergers, who defended the tobacco industry in the smoking-and-cancer litigation, who advocated segregation in public schools, and who as a Supreme Court justice wrote the majority opinion that corporate political spending was an exercise in free speech.
His name was Lewis Powell, the progenitor of corporate oligarchy.
In 1971 the nation’s campuses were ablaze with protest, against the Vietnam War, against racism, against the savagery of capitalism. Ralph Nader was firing broadsides at American corporate corruption.
The United States Chamber of Commerce was alarmed. It commissioned Lewis Powell to propose a strategy for a corporate counterattack, and he did. On August 23, 1971 the Chamber published what came to be known as the “Powell Manifesto.” The Chamber carpet-bombed the business community with the Manifesto’s message: Corporate America needs to become politically active, quickly and massively. Especially vital was educating the American people about the virtue and vulnerability of “free market capitalism”: it can optimize society’s welfare only if it is uninhibited by “government regulation.” Neoliberalism had to become widely known and appreciated.
Corporate money rose quickly to the challenge, literally creating two of the most influential think-tanks in Washington today and funding a massive redevelopment of the third. The Adolph Coors Foundation and Koch Foundation provided the seed money that created the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, respectively, in 1973 and 1977. The American Enterprise Institute, pre-dating the Manifesto, was greatly enriched by the subsequent flood of corporate money flowing through a dozen conservative philanthropies.
Today these three powerhouses are virtual subsidiaries of the Republican Party, writing policy agendas for Republican presidents (cf. the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 written for Donald Trump) and providing revolving-door services: their members move seamlessly into staff positions in Republican administration, and when the party is defeated they return to the think tanks.
The pattern was established early. Soon after Ronald Reagan’s election, the Heritage Foundation submitted to the new Administration a list of 2,000 specific policy proposals aimed, among other objectives, at “reducing the size of the federal government.” By the end of Reagan’s first year in office 60% of them were implemented or initiated. Ronald Reagan said in later years the Heritage Foundation was a “vital force” in the achievements of his presidency.
The most vital achievement was Reagan’s suspension of the long-standing anti-trust laws. A staunch neoliberal, he reduced government regulation to allow free market capitalism to work its wonders. In doing so Reagan exposed the absurd contradiction in the neoliberal creed.
“Free market capitalism” will optimize a country’s economy only if intense competition for customers is present among many, many sellers. That’s Econ 101. Good for society, yes, but bad for the sellers who, historically, connive and conspire to minimize that competition—in the Golden Age of the late 1800’s, say, by the formation of “combines” and “trusts.” The sellers consolidated, becoming fewer and fewer but with greater and greater power to raise prices and reduce wages.
The counteroffensive was political, in the passage of the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts—government regulations—prohibiting “the restraint of trade.” Consolidation was made illegal, keeping free markets competitive for society’s benefit.
This we know: “free market capitalism” will benefit society only in the presence—not the absence—of “government regulation.” But neoliberalism gets it entirely backwards.
But Ronald Reagan bought in, virtually halting the enforcement of the anti-trust legislation, sparking a 50-year frenzy of mergers and acquisitions across the spectrum of the American economy.
Virtually every industry was consolidated into far fewer but immensely larger corporations. A quick ChatGPT query shows five grocery chains—Walmart, Kroger, Costco, Albertsons, and Ahold Delhaize—today control more than 60% of the market. (And Kroger and Albertson's are in the process of merging.)
The number of American corporations was cut in half concentrating American industries into literal oligopolies, with pricing power to match. Compared to European countries—where anti-trust laws remain in force—American families pay on average $5,000 more per year for living expenses.
Ronald Reagan’s neoliberalism did this. Republican friends your enemy is not the Democratic Party.
As the dwindling number of corporations expanded their economic clout they chafed at other government regulations—clean air and water, safe workplaces, fair labor practices—but had no means to do much about them. They lacked a corollary political clout.
Wittingly or otherwise the Republican Party provided this, too.
Since 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court has displayed without interruption a conservative majority—justices appointed by Republican presidents. And in that time the Court lit the fuse for corporate oligarchy to explode. It offered corporations the legal means of bribing Congressional candidates and tilting presidential elections as well—with corporate campaign contributions.
In the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the Court declared spending money is the equivalent of free speech. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Court declared corporate contributions to political campaigns were an exercise of free speech, too. Finally in the 2010 case Citizens United v. the FEC, the Court declared as unconstitutional any limits on those corporate campaign contributions.
It did so with this preposterous reasoning:
...this Court now concludes that independent [campaign] expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That [corporations] may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.
The Court with 100% predictability was dead wrong. In 1964—before the genesis of corporate oligarchy—77 percent of the American people trusted the federal government. Today—14 years after Citizens United—only 22 percent retain their “faith in democracy.”
But corporate campaign funding of public officials—some say the corporate purchase—is only one element of corporate oligarchy’s success. The other is the dominance of corporate lobbying, where obligated public officials get their marching orders to favor corporate interests over the public’s. Does corporate lobbying prevail? Corporations outspend citizens’ organizations in hiring lobbyists by a factor of 34:1.
Before the triumph of corporate oligarchy partisan conflict was congenial and productive. Republicans were conservatives, anxious to maintain the status quo which at a given point in time was quite satisfactory. Democrats were liberals, impatient with the status quo which at a given point in time could always be changed for the better. The two points of view were imperative in a functioning democracy and the tension between them produced public policy compromises that served the nation well, avoiding stasis on the one hand and turmoil on the other.
We can regain that form of governance.
Those of us in the rank and file of the political parties have far more in common than today’s bitter divisiveness suggests. We all love our country, cherishing its past and hopeful for its future; we treasure our families, honoring our predecessors and nurturing our children; and we find gratification in productive work and comfort in spiritual practice. We are ordinary Americans and conscientious citizens, millions and millions of us. We are the People, all of us victimized by corporate oligarchy and its patron, the Republican Party. If we put aside the partisan invective and focus on the imperative of restoring democracy, we can do it.
We must rid the corrupted Republican Party of its greedy corporate captors, and that means, first, Donald Trump and Republican Senators and Representatives must suffer a smashing defeat in November. Then, perhaps, the GOP can be rebuilt as the necessary and responsible voice of true conservatism—the indispensable countervailing force it was in the past. Democracy can flourish again.
Republican friends and neighbors, listen up.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular