Republican's Covertly spend $250 million to Control the
How the Rich make Laws by paying for Court Decisions
The president's Supreme Court nominee is to terminate
healthcare under Obamacare.
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.
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
Center for Media and Democracy say which foundations funded the brief writers in that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) case:-
Sixteen right-wing foundations
gave $69 million since 2014 to get the
|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|
|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||
And if you look at those 80 decisions, they fall into four categories over and over again.
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
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 Network, SPN,
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 )
see SPN EXPOSED
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.
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
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 [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org ]
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" <email@example.com > 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
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.
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
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:-
The Republican platform, say that a Republican president will appoint judges who will reverse Roe, Obergefell, and Obamacare .
SOURCE Senator Whitehouse and ExposedByCMD
"if an opening comes in the last year of President Trumpís term weíll wait until the next election".