The Rich buy Republican Politicians and Court Decisions



• HomeRepublican Propaganda MillsFake News Cancer on All of UsRepublican Tax Cut ScamTrump wouldnít be President if not for Robert MercerKochs buy the 2016 Election for $889 mil.Horowitz's supporters take over the White HouseRupert Murdoch Indoctrinates the MobThe Rich buy Republican Politicians and Court DecisionsIs the US Senate to be Controlled by the Richest Politician?We Don't Need a Green New Deal ?Donald Trump Facts CheckDifference between the PartiesGun deaths per State -  Suicide separateInvestigations of Republican Propaganda MillsDISSENT in Overturn of Roe vs WadeFive Republican-Sponsored SUPREME COURT Justices allow GERRYMANDERING84% Republicans get their news from FoxTax Excessive Corporate ProfitsSite Map •

•  •

Republican's Covertly spend $250 million to Control the Nation's Courts
                               to reverse Roe, to reverse Obamacare, and to reverse Obergefell

How the Rich make Laws by paying for Court Decisions 

The president's Supreme Court nominee is to terminate healthcare under Obamacare.

That is the presidentís statement, so when we react to that, donít act as if we are making this stuff up. This is what President Trump said.
This is what the Republican platform says: reverse Obamacare.
Senator after senator, including many in this committee, filed briefs saying that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) should be thrown out by courts.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) v. Sebelius, has a lot of  money behind it.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses, until it filed the NFIB v. Sebelius case, had its biggest donation ever of $21,000.
In the year that it went to work on the Affordable Care Act, ten wealthy donors gave $10 million.

 Roe v. Wade. Same thing.  The president has said that reversing Roe v. Wade will happen automatically because he is putting pro-life justices on the Court. Why would we not take him at his word? The Republican Party platform says it will reverse Roe.

Senators here, including Senator Hawley, have said I will vote only for nominees who acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided, and their pledge to vote for this nominee.

The Republican brief in June Medical said Roe should be overruled.

 Judge Barrett, the Susan B Anthony Foundation is running advertisements right now saying that you are set to give our pro-life country a Court that it deserves.

National Organization for Marriage, the big group that opposes same-sex marriage, and the Republican platform says it wants to reverse Obergefell.
And the Republican brief filed in the case said same-sex relationships donít fall within any constitutional protection.

In all cases, thereís big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity.

  • One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society. It is was managed by Leonard Leo, and it has taken over the selection of judicial nominees.
    How do we know that? Because Trump has said so over and over again. His White House counsel said so.
     So we have an anonymously funded group controlling judicial selection run by this guy Leonard Leo.
  • Then in another lane, we have again anonymous funders running through something called the Judicial Crisis Network, which is run by Carrie Severino, and it is doing PR and campaign ads for Republican judicial nominees.
    It got a $17 million donation in the Garland-Gorsuch contest.
    It got another single $17 million donation to support Kavanaugh.
    Somebody, perhaps the same person, spent $35 million to influence the United States Supreme Court.
  • And then over here you have a whole array of legal groups, also funded by dark money, which have a different role.
    They bring cases to the Court. They donít wind their way to the Court, they get shoved to the Court by these legal groups, many of which ask to lose in Lower Courts so they can get quickly to the Well Stocked Supreme Court !

In the Consumer Financial Protection Board case there were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 amicus briefs filed, and every single one of them was a group funded by something called DonorsTrust.

DonorsTrust is a gigantic device for the Republican Rich.  Itís just a way of anonymizing donors.

And the Bradley Foundation, funded eight out of the 11 briefs. 

Center for Media and Democracy say which foundations funded the brief writers in that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) case:-

  • The Bradley Foundation gave $5.6 million to those groups.
  • DonorsTrust, gave $23 million to those brief writing groups.
  • The grand total was $69 million to the groups that were filing amicus briefs, pretending that they were different groups.

Sixteen right-wing foundations gave $69 million since 2014 to get the
Supreme Court
to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Donor  Amount
Adolph Coors Foundation


Bradley Impact Fund $1,363,000
Charles Koch Foundation $12,986,462
Charles Koch Institute $517,134
Donors Capital Fund $2,522,680


Dunn Foundation $4,450,000
Ed Uihlein Family Foundation $408,000
F.M. Kirby Foundation $672,500
John William Pope Foundation $1,895,175
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $5,579,500
Mercer Family Foundation $1,200,000
Pierre F. and Enid Goodrich Foundation


Sarah Scaife Foundation $7,550,000
Searle Freedom Trust $4,550,000
William H. Donner Foundation


TOTAL $68,872,156

80 cases under Chief Justice Roberts that were decided 5 to 4 ! Republican donors funded those cases! 
It was an 80 to zero, 5 to 4 Republican Rout, - a Ransacking.

Those cases are about controlling Government and the Law. (The EXECUTIVE BRANCH is already controlled by the rich)

And if you look at those 80 decisions, they fall into four categories over and over again.

  1. Unlimited Dark Money in Politics. Citizens United is the famous one, but itís continued since with McCutcheon and weíve got one coming up now.
    Always the five for unlimited money in politics. Never protecting against money dark money in politics, despite the fact that they said it was going to be transparent.

    And who wins when you allow unlimited dark money in politics? A very small group who have unlimited money to spend and a motive to spend it. They win. Everybody else loses.
  2. Knock the Civil Jury down. Whittle it down to a nub. The civil jury was in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in our darn Declaration of Independence, but itís annoying to big corporate powers because you can swagger your way as a big corporate power through Congress.
    You can go and tell the president (who you paid to be elected) what to do. He will put your stooges into the EPA.
    Itís all great until you get to the civil jury, because they have an obligation, under the law to be fair to both parties irrespective of their size.

    You canít bribe them. Youíre not allowed to. Itís a crime to tamper with the jury.
     Itís standard practice to tamper with Congress. You donít want to be answerable before a jury.

    And so one after another, these 80 5-to-4 decisions have knocked down, whittled away at, the civil jury, a great American institution.
  3.  Weaken Regulatory Agencies.
    A lot of this money is polluter money. The Koch Industries is a polluter, the fossil fuel industry is a polluter. Who else would be putting buckets of money into this and wanting to hide who they are behind DonorsTrust or other schemes?

    Polluters want weak regulatory agencies. You want ones that you can box up and run over to Congress and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress.
    Over and over and over again, these decisions are targeted at regulatory agencies to weaken their independence and weaken their strength.
  4.  Voting. Why on earth the Court made the decision, a factual decision Ė not something appellate courts are ordinarily supposed to make, -- that nobody needed to worry about minority voters being discriminated against, or that legislators would try to knock back their ability to vote.
    These five made that finding in Shelby County against bipartisan legislation from both houses of Congress, hugely passed, on no factual record.

    What followed? State after state passed Voter Suppression laws. One so badly targeting African Americans that two courts said it was surgically tailored against minority voters.

    And Gerrymandering, the other great control. Bulk gerrymandering where you go into a state, like the Red Map project did in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and you pack Democrats so tightly into a few districts that all the others become Republican majority districts. And those states send a delegation to Congress that has a huge majority of Republican members, like 13 to 5,  where the Democratic five actually won the popular vote.

    Youíve sent a delegation to Congress that is out of step with the popular vote of that state and court after court figured out how to solve that, and the Supreme Court said nope. 5 to 4 again. Nope. Weíre not going to take an interest in that question.

 In all these areas where itís about political power for big special interests, and people who want to fund campaigns, and people who want to get their way through politics without actually showing up, doing it behind DonorsTrust and other groups, doing it through these schemes over and over again.

If someone wanted to make a Bias case against the Supreme Court and show an 80-to-0 pattern.
 Making a Bias argument to a jury.  Saying 80-to-0 is just a bunch of flukes - would be laughed out of court !

All five-four  -- all Republican. So something is not right with this Court. And dark money has a lot to do with it.
Special interests have a lot to do with it.  Whoever is hiding behind DonorsTrust has a lot to do with it, and the Bradley Foundation orchestrating its amici over at the Court has a lot to do with it.

And itís not just in the Consumer Financial Protection Board case. You might say well that was just a one-off.
Hereís Janus, the anti-labor case that had a long trail through the Court, through Friedrichs, and through Knox, and through other decisions.

And SourceWatch and ProPublica (on the Bradley Foundation) did some work about this. Hereís DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.
And hereís the Bradley Foundation. And they totaled giving $45 million to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 groups that filed amicus briefs, pretending to be different groups, and both of the lawyer groups in the case, funded by DonorsTrust, funded by Bradley Foundation in Janus. (

  State Policy NetworkSPN, 
is a web of right-wing ďthink tanksĒ and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom.
As of March 2019, SPN's membership totals 162. 

Today's SPN is the tip of the spear of far-right, nationally funded policy agenda in the states that supports
extremists in the Republican Party.

Has a technology platform to 
get union members to leave their union and offer competitive benefits.Ē
( ďdiscounts to major retailers, from Target to Microsoft.Ē ) 

This is happening over and over and over again, and it goes beyond just the briefs. It goes beyond just the amicus presentations.
The Federalist Society Ė remember this group that is acting as the conduit and that Donald Trump has said is doing his judicial selection?
Theyíre getting money from the same foundations, from DonorsTrust, $16.7 million and the Bradley Foundation, $1.37 million. From the same group of foundations total, $33 million.

Donors to the Federalist Society, 2014-present
The same 16 foundations that fund the amicus brief filers all give to the Federalist Society.

     Donor  Amount
DonorsTrust $16,733,100
Mercer Family Foundation $4,850,000
Donors Capital Fund $4,231,120
Charles Koch Foundation $2,419,264
Searle Freedom Trust $1,551,000
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $1,375,000
Ed Uihlein Family Foundation $1,000,000
John William Pope Foundation $250,000
Adolph Coors Foundation $230,000
Pierre F. and Enid Goodrich Foundation $210,000
Dunn Foundation $150,000
F.M. Kirby Foundation $120,000
William H. Donner Foundation $45,000
Bradley Impact Fund $15,250
Charles Koch Institute $6,400
TOTAL $33,286,134
 Internal Revenue Service, Sourcewatch
Get the CSV data
  Created with Datawrapper
Carrie Severino

Leonard Leo

So you can start to look at these, and you can start to tie them together. The legal groups, all the same funders over and over again, bringing the cases and providing us orchestrated chorus of amici.
Then the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here.
The Washington Post wrote a big expose about this, and that made Leonard Leo a little hot, a little bit like a burned agent. So he had to jump out. And he went off to go do anonymously-funded voter suppression work. Guess who jumped in to take over the selection process in this case for Judge Barrett? Carrie Severino made the hop. So once again, ties right in together.

So, Center for Media and Democracy did a little bit more research. Hereís a Bradley Foundation memo that theyíve published. The Bradley Foundation is reviewing a grant application asking for money for this orchestrated amicus process, and what do they say in the staff recommendation? It is important to orchestrate Ė their word, not mine Ė important to orchestrate high-caliber amicus efforts before the Court.

Page 3 of 2015 Bradley Summary Judicial Education Project Proposal 150K

The plaintiff teachers are asking the Court to overrule its precedents allowing states to mandate any
union fees.

Various amici in Friedrichs likely will include current and former governors, state attorneys general,
First Amendment scholars, and leading Bradley-supported education-reform entities including PRl.

At this writing, two or three others may be commissioned.

Some of the briefs are being put together by attorneys with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Jones Day.
The additional ones may be done by Bancroft & Associates, Boyden Gray & Associates, and
Kirkland & Ellis - again, with former clerks of justices on most of them.

Budget information: JEP's annual overall expense budget in its fiscal-year 2015 is $2,060,000.
Each of the two amicus-brief efforts costs approximately $250,000, for a total of $500,000.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: At this highest of legal levels, it is often very important to orchestrate
high-caliber amicus efforts that showcase respected, high-profile parties who are represented by the very
best lawyers with strong ties to the Court.
Such is the case here, with King and Friedrichs, even given Bradley's previous philanthropic investments in the actual, underlying legal actions.
Therefore, staff recommends a $150,000 grant to JEP for the amicus representation.

They also note that Bradley has done previous philanthropic investments in the actual underlying legal actions. So Bradley is funding Ė what do they call Ė philanthropically investing in, the underlying legal action and then giving money to groups to show up in the orchestrated chorus of amici. That canít be good.

And it goes on, because they also found this email. This email comes from an individual at the Bradley Foundation, and it asks our friend, Leonard Leo, who used to run the selection process, is there a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to which Bradley could direct any support of the two Supreme Court amicus projects other than DonorsTrust? I donít know why they wanted to avoid the reliable identity-scrubber DonorsTrust, but for some reason they did.

Page 6 of 2014 Bradley, Leonard Leo, Neil Corkery, Carrie Severino Judicial+Education+Project

Can you get us a contact person there, or have someone send us a letter with their tax-exempt status, board, and budget? ...
Thanks .... -MH

From: Leonard Leo [ ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 6:00 PM
To: Michael Hartmann
Ce: Daniel Schmidt; Leonard Leo
Subject: Re: Quick question

Yes, Judicial Education Project could take and allocate.

On Dec 16, 2014 1:51 PM, "Michael Hartmann" < > wrote:


Is there a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to which Bradley could direct any support of
the two Supreme Court amicus projects other than Donors Trust? ....


So Leonard Leo writes back on Federalist Society address Ė so donít tell me that it isnít Federal Society business Ė on Federalist Society, on his address, he writes back, yes, send it to the Judicial Education Project, which could take and allocate the money.
And guess who works for the Judicial Education Project? Carrie Severino, who also helped select this nominee, running the Trump Federalist Society selection process.

So the connections abound. In the Washington Post article, they point out that the Judicial Crisis Networkís office is on the same hallway in the same building as the Federalist Society, and when they sent their reporter to talk to somebody at the Judicial Crisis Network, somebody from the Federalist Society came down to let them up.

This more and more looks like itís not three schemes, but itís one scheme with the same funders selecting judges, funding campaigns for the judges, and then showing up in court in these orchestrated amicus flotillas to tell the judges what to do.

On the Judicial Crisis Network, youíve got the Leonard Leo connection, obviously. She hopped in to take over for him with the Federalist Society. Youíve got the campaigns that Iíve talked about, where they take $17 million contributions. Thatís a big check to write, $17 million, to campaign for Supreme Court nominees. No idea who that is or what they got for it. Youíve got briefs that she wrote. The Republican senators filed briefs in that NFIB case signed by Ms. Severino.

The woman who helped choose this nominee has written briefs for Republican senators attacking the ACA. Donít say the ACA is not an issue here.
And by the way, the Judicial Crisis Network funds RAGA, the Republican Attorneys General Association, and it funds individual Republican attorneys general.
And guess who the plaintiffs are in the Affordable Care Act case? Republican attorneys general.

Trump joined them because he didnít want to defend, so heís in with the Republican attorneys general. But hereís the Judicial Crisis Network campaigning for Supreme Court nominees, writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act, supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case, and leading the selection process for this nominee.

Here is the page off the brief. Here is where they are. Mitch McConnell, and on through the list, Senator Collins, Senator Cornyn, Senator Hoeven, Senator ó whoís still here? Marco Rubio. Itís a huge assortment of Republican senators who Carrie Severino wrote a brief for against the Affordable Care Act. So this is a, to me, pretty big deal. Iíve never seen this around any court that Iíve ever been involved with, where thereís this much dark money and this much influence being used.

Hereís how the Washington Post summed it up. This is ďa conservative activist behind-the-scenes campaign to remake the nationís courts,Ē and itís a $250 million dark money operation. $250 million is a lot of money to spend if youíre not getting anything for it. So that raises the question, what are they getting for it?

Well, I showed the slide earlier on the Affordable Care Act. And on Obergefell and on Roe v. Wade, thatís where they lost. But with another judge, that could change. Thatís where the contest is. Thatís where The Republican Party platform tells us to look at how they want judges to rule, to reverse Roe, to reverse the Obamacare cases, and to reverse Obergefell and take away gay marriage. That is their stated objective and plan.


REPUBLICAN SENATOR HYPOCRITES include Mitch McConnell, Grassley , Cruz , Graham
They stalled the election to the Supreme Court of
Garland with the opposite arguments they are making today

 We have some very hypocritical 180 turnarounds.  Back when it was Garland versus Gorsuch :-

And Graham made his famous hold-the-tape promise "if an opening comes in the last year of President Trumpís term weíll wait until the next election". Thatís 180 reversal.
Senator Cruz said "you donít do this in an election year". Thatís 180 reversal.
"the American people should have a say in the Courtís direction". Of course, of course, said Mitch McConnell. Thatís 180 reversal.
Senator Grassley said "the American people shouldnít be denied a voice". Thatís 180 reversal too.

When you find hypocrisy in the daylight, look for power in the shadows. 

There are some pretty high stakes here's three of them:-

  1. Roe v. Wade,
  2. Obergefell, and the
  3. Obamacare cases.

The Republican platform, say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe, Obergefell, and Obamacare .

SOURCE Senator Whitehouse and ExposedByCMD

Lindsey Graham

"if an opening comes in the last year of President Trumpís term weíll wait until the next election".