

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.
"The lack of options for real accountability highlights why we so desperately need robust judicial ethics reform—now," said one ethics watchdog.
Calls for impeachment proceedings against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas intensified Thursday amid new reporting that revealed several specific conflicts of interest related to the justice's financial ties to right-wing real estate magnate and Republican donor Harlan Crow.
Following a bombshell report by ProPublica earlier this month regarding trips Thomas took on Crow's private jet, his superyacht, and to his properties in New York and Texas which had not been included in financial disclosures as required by federal law, the conservative justice brushed off criticism by saying he benefited only from "personal hospitality from close personal friends" and that Crow "did not have business before the court."
While also denying any ethics breaches, Crow, who has donated at least $13 million to Republican politicians, acknowledged in an interview with The Dallas Morning News that "every single relationship... has some kind of reciprocity."
The truth of that admission became clearer Thursday as The Guardian reported on findings in the judicial record, which showed Crow's ties to right-wing groups that have been involved in Supreme Court cases since Thomas was first confirmed to the bench in 1991.
The Texas billionaire was part of anti-taxation group Club for Growth's "founders committee," which helped direct its policymaking, in 2003 when the group filed an amicus brief challenging the McCain-Feingold Act, a campaign finance reform law.
"DOJ is the only agency positioned to truly hold Thomas accountable, because Thomas's conduct is more than unethical—it's likely criminal."
Thomas wrote a blistering dissent when the court permitted the law to stand against the wishes of Club for Growth and other right-wing groups. As The Guardian reported, at this point Crow had already "showered Thomas with several lavish gifts" including "a 1997 flight from Washington to northern California on Crow's private jet to attend an all-male retreat at Bohemian Grove" and a $150,000 donation to create a wing dedicated to the justice at a library in Savannah, Georgia.
Crow also held seats on the boards of at least three right-wing organizations that have written amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases; is a longtime trustee of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, which has filed numerous supporting briefs; and is on the board of the Hoover Institution, which filed an amicus brief challenging student debt relief.
Thomas' involvement with Crow raises questions not only about whether the billionaire has "business before the court," said Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "Nowadays it's consorting with those... whose business is the court—who are deeply enmeshed in the efforts to capture and corrupt the court."
Several progressives have demanded that Thomas be impeached as the latest alleged ethics breach has come to light—amid ongoing outcry regarding the justice's refusal to recuse himself from cases involving the January 6, 2021 insurrection and the 2020 election, which his wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, pushed to overturn.
Following Thursday's revelations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) doubled down on a call for an investigation into Thomas both by the Supreme Court and by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
"DOJ is the only agency positioned to truly hold Thomas accountable, because Thomas' conduct is more than unethical—it's likely criminal," said CREW.
The group acknowledged that "accountability through the legal system in this case is likely to be slow and limited," and suggested Congress hold impeachment proceedings against Thomas.
While the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to pass articles of impeachment, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced this month that he plans to hold a hearing on May 2 regarding ethics at the Supreme Court, and on Thursday called on Chief Justice John Roberts to testify.
"The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the court's ethical standards. I invite you to join it, and I look forward to your response," Durbin wrote in a letter to Roberts.
Democrats currently lack subpoena power on the committee due to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) absence, which leaves them without a majority. The 89-year-old lawmaker is out indefinitely on medical leave and the GOP this week blocked an effort to temporarily replace her on the panel.
"The lack of options for real accountability highlights why we so desperately need robust judicial ethics reform—now," said CREW on Thursday. "It is outrageous that the Supreme Court doesn't have a binding code of conduct, so there's no way to enforce justices' compliance with ethics and recusal rules."
Staging what they have dubbed "the New Hampshire Rebellion," a group lead by Harvard intellectual and activist Lawrence Lessig set out for a 185 mile journey across the "live free or die" state on Saturday, calling attention to what they see as one of the most important issues in U.S. politics today--the dire need for campaign finance reform.

"On Saturday, we begin a walk across the state of New Hampshire, to launch a campaign to bring about an end to the system of corruption that we believe infects DC. This is the New Hampshire Rebellion," states Lessig in a recent op-ed.
The march will pay homage to a similar attempt by famed activist Dorris Haddock, or "Granny D," who, fifteen years ago at the age of 88, marched across the United States from Los Angeles to Washington DC with a sign reading "Campaign Finance Reform" across her chest.
"Haddock is credited with helping to galvanize public will around the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act," Al Jazeera America reports, "which was signed into law in 2002." However, two months after Haddock passed away at the age of 100, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of big donors, and the politicians who use them, in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, "which undid many of the limits put in place on campaign finance and heralded a new era in unprecedented spending by special interests and corporations."
Lessig said he expects over 100 people to join him along the way as they stop in over a dozen towns over the course of two weeks. The group will hold events and public discussions centered around the issues of big money in politics--and how to cleanse such influence from the democratic process.
Citing the importance of New Hampshire in U.S. presidential elections, being the site of the first presidential primary, the goal of the walk will be to convince voters to pressure candidates on the issue of campaign finance reform.
"Along the way, we will recruit everyone we can to do one thing: We want them to ask every presidential candidate at every event between now and January 2016, this one question: 'How will YOU end the system of corruption in DC?'" Lessig writes.
Lessig continues:
A system of corruption, not particular crimes. Our focus is not Rod Blagojevich; it is the system of campaign funding in which fundraising is key, and the funders represent the tiniest fraction of the 1%. That system, we believe, corrupts this democracy. (We, and 71% of Americans according to a recent poll.) And until that system changes, no sensible reform on the right or the left is possible. Politicians may continue to play this fundraising game. We believe that New Hampshire can change it.
As this question gets asked, we will record the responses. Literally. And post them. And through allied campaigns, we will put pressure on the candidates to surface this issue -- and if we're lucky -- make it central to their campaigns.
The walk begins in Dixville Notch, NH, the place the first 2016 presidential ballots will be cast and will end in Nashua, NH, on the day Granny D was born.
The activists embark Saturday January 11th, exactly one year after the the suicide of internet activist Aaron Swartz, a close friend and colleague of Lessig's.
"I wanted to find a way to mark this day," Lessig writes. "I wanted to feel it, as physically painful as it was emotionally painful one year ago, and every moment since. So I am marking it with the cause that he convinced me to take up seven years ago and which I am certain he wanted to make his legacy too."
Lessig is asking anyone who can to join the walk and sign an online petition to pressure candidates to take on the issue.
Lessig talks about the New Hampshire Rebellion:
Lawrence Lessig talks about the New Hampshire Rebellion (Animated)Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and founder of the Rootstrikers, ...
It's been three years since the Supreme Court issued its outrageous decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, overturning the flimsy campaign finance protections afforded under McCain-Feingold law. The case opened the floodgates to billions of dollars perverting our elections, much of it completely unreported, and some amount even coming from foreign corporations and governments. The Court literally legalized bribery, and wealthy individuals and special interests took full advantage of it.
It's been three years since the Supreme Court issued its outrageous decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, overturning the flimsy campaign finance protections afforded under McCain-Feingold law. The case opened the floodgates to billions of dollars perverting our elections, much of it completely unreported, and some amount even coming from foreign corporations and governments. The Court literally legalized bribery, and wealthy individuals and special interests took full advantage of it.

At the crux of the crisis are two core legal doctrines. One is "corporate personhood," a court-created precedent that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings. The other is "money equals free speech."
An amendment to the US Constitution is the only lasting solution to this problem. The only amendment worth fighting for MUST address both doctrines. As a quick refresher, here is are some examples of we must abolish ALL corporate constitutional rights:
Since the problem of corporate constitutional rights is multidimensional, the solution must be comprehensive.
One hundred and sixty years ago, those who believed the section of the Constitution (Art 4, Sec 2) defining people as property (slavery) was fundamentally immoral didn't call for ending one or two dimensions of slavery. They didn't organize to establish legislation through Congress, or a Slavery Protection Agency, nor ask slaveholders to sign a voluntary code of conduct to treat slaves a little less harshly. They called for abolition of the institution of slavery.
And today, the Move To Amend coalition suggests that we should not limit our vision and actions. Yes corporate money in elections is a problem. So let's make sure our solution actually gets to the root causes.
Let's set out to amend the constitution in a way that abolishes all rights wrongly granted to the corporate form over the last two centuries. Let's put an end to the institution of corporate constitutional rights itself.
Nothing less is worth the considerable time and learning, grit and energy, required to amend the Constitution.
Why not make the result worth the effort?
To get involved in the grassroots movement to amend the Constitution, sign the petition at www.MoveToAmend.org.