An extinction event for the GOP.

January 20, 2023

          The most important story on Thursday was the introduction of a proposed constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United decision. A group of Democratic lawmakers led by Rep. Adam Schiff introduced the amendment. Passage and ratification of such an amendment will be a long and arduous task. Indeed, Schiff re-introduces the same proposed amendment at the beginning of each new session of Congress. Ridding politics of dark money will be the single most important step in returning our government to one that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

          The text of the proposed amendment is simple and clear:

Congress and the States may regulate and impose reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

          The import of the amendment is to overrule the holding in Citizens United that prohibits Congress from limiting independent expenditures on political campaigns by corporations, PACs, or associations. As Professor Laurence Tribe noted on Twitter,

Adam Schiff has introduced a vital, well-crafted amendment to reduce the corrupting role of money and corporate wealth in our politics, one of the key sources of weakness in our democracy. It won't be enacted anytime soon, but it needs to come to a vote.

          What can you do to help the eventual passage of the proposed amendment? Make it part of every interaction you have with a member of Congress or state legislator. How do you contact your congressional representative or senator? Visit Jessica Craven’s wonderful site Chop Wood, Carry Water, which always has a link for calling the member of Congress who represents you!

          We must continue to shine the spotlight on the issue of political corruption through dark money. Remember JD Vance? But for a $15 million subsidy by billionaire Peter Theil, Vance would be an unknown venture capitalist working in obscurity in Silicon Valley. Instead, he is Theil’s errand boy in the Senate. Theil effectively canceled the voting power of 8 million citizens of Ohio. That isn’t right. If we keep the proposed amendment at the top of the issues list, we will “normalize” the expectation that it will be enacted at some point in the future. Let’s reclaim our democracy. Support the constitutional amendment to overrule Citizens United!

Developments in the courts.

          There were positive developments in the courts on Thursday for those hoping for accountability for the crimes and abuses of the prior administration.

A.   Trump’s lawyers sanctioned nearly $1 million.

          Trump filed suit in federal court in Florida claiming that Hillary Clinton and others tried to undermine the 2016 presidential election by pointing out that Russian state-actors intervened to support Trump. On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed that case and awarded $938,000 in sanctions against Trump’s attorneys. See The Hill, Federal judge sanctions Trump, attorneys over $900,000 for ‘a continuing pattern of misuse of the courts’.

          Per The Hill, the federal judge issued a

blistering, 46-page order found that Trump and his attorneys brought the case in bad faith as part of what Middlebrooks called a broader “plan, or at least a playbook” by Trump and his attorneys to misuse the courts for political ends. The judge laid out “telltale signs” of this conduct, including “provocative and boastful rhetoric,” “a political narrative carried over from rallies,” disregard for legal principles, attacks on the news media and “when a ruling is adverse, accusations of bias on the part of judges.” 

          Kudos to the judge for taking the time to expose and explain the sanctionable conduct. Trump is running out of lawyers willing to defend him because of the frequency with which his attorneys are disbarred, jailed, or hit with monetary sanctions. Such actions will reduce future abusive lawsuits by Trump and others. Good!

B.   Peter Navarro fails in bid to dismiss prosecution for contempt of congressional subpoena.

          Peter Navarro was Trump's trade advisor and a co-conspirator in the attempted coup on January 6th. (He helped develop and implement the “fake electors” scheme.) The J6 Committee issued a subpoena to Navarro, who publicly and flagrantly defied the subpoena. Congress referred the matter to the DOJ, which then filed a criminal contempt proceeding against Navarro. On Thursday, a federal judge denied Navarro’s motion to dismiss the indictment, thereby requiring Navarro to stand trial next month for contempt of Congress. See CNN, Judge refuses to dismiss Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress case and clears the way for trial.

          Recall that Steve Bannon was convicted of the same crime and sentenced to four months in jail. (Bannon’s conviction is currently on appeal.) Navarro sought dismissal of the case on the ground that his testimony was shielded by a claim of executive privilege. But the judge rejected that argument, stating:

[Navarro] has offered neither a sworn affidavit nor testimony from him or the former President. His contention rests only on his counsel’s representations, which are not evidence. Without actual proof, the court cannot find that there was a formal invocation of privilege by the former President.

          Because Navarro will not be permitted to present his main defense at trial (i.e., executive privilege), he will be convicted and sentenced to jail, like Bannon.

C.   The Supreme Court issues a report stating it cannot identify the person who leaked a draft of the Dobb’s opinion.

          After Politico published a draft opinion of the Dobbs decision (overturning Roe v. Wade), Chief Justice John Roberts authorized the Marshal of the Supreme Court to conduct an investigation to identify the leaker. The Court has now released the results of the Marshal’s investigation and announced that the leaker could not be identified based on a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. The report is here: Dobbs Public Report.

          The report has been met with derision and mockery. The Marshal’s office interviewed ninety-seven witnesses but did not interview the justices themselves. To be precise, the Report does not include the justices in the description of those interviewed. Given intervening reports accusing Justice Alito of leaking the outcome of the Hobby Lobby decision, the decision not to interview the justices is tantamount to not wanting to know the truth. See Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Supreme Court leak report: The justices don't want to know who leaked Dobbs. (“[T] the fiction that nobody believes it could be a justice is the only thing still holding the court together.”)

          As many commentators have noted, the leak of the draft may have been a felony within the jurisdiction of the FBI to investigate—but the Court apparently sought to avoid scrutiny of the federal agency charged with investigating felonies. Indeed, by asking the Marshal of the Supreme Court (not the US Marshal’s Office) to investigate the leak, the justices appointed someone who is an employee of the Court and who answers to nine people who were logically suspects in the leak.

          To make matters worse, John Roberts then asked a private investigation firm (The Chertoff Group) to issue an opinion that said, “there is not sufficient evidence present for prosecution or other legal action.” In other words, the Report effectively insulates members of the Court and its employees from criminal prosecution. Why??

          One more oddity: The report released by the Court is titled “Public Report.” (The Court’s release says, “A public version of the Marshal’s report is attached.”)  Is there a “private version” of the report that was not released to the public? What does it contain? Why wasn’t it released?

          Add this sorry development to the long list of John Roberts’ failures of leadership.

          And proving that there is no story that Trump cannot make worse, he called for the imprisonment of the journalists who published the leaked draft. See HuffPo, Trump Wants Reporters Arrested To Find Source Of Leaked SCOTUS Draft Abortion Ruling.

Speaking of Trump. . . .

          Whenever you start to feel bad about perceived challenges for the Democratic nominee in 2024, do a reality check by considering those faced by Republicans. A key component to Trump’s unlikely success is that he has convinced Christian Evangelicals to support an unrepentant sinner whose lifestyle mocks every value they hold dear. One would therefore expect that Trump would be careful to curry favor with and express gratitude for support from Christian Evangelicals. You would be wrong. To Trump, the only thing that matters is unquestioned loyalty. If you cross that line, you are dead to Trump—no matter who you are.

          Rumors have begun circulating that some Evangelical leaders are interviewing potential 2024 challengers to Trump—who immediately blasted Evangelicals for “disloyalty.” See NYPost, Donald Trump blasts evangelicals for ‘disloyalty’ over lack of 2024 support. During an online interview, Trump touted his success in appointing three justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. He then noted that Evangelicals have not publicly supported his 2024 candidacy and stated:

That’s a sign of disloyalty. There’s great disloyalty in the world of politics, and that’s a sign of disloyalty.

          Trump also slammed Evangelicals for the poor Republican showing in 2022, claiming that after he delivered an anti-abortion Supreme Court, “they just disappeared” during the election.

          Evangelicals no longer need Trump to achieve their half-century quest to overturn Roe v. Wade.   Will they abandon him? Ignore him? Support someone else? Any of those outcomes will lead to increasingly ugly confrontations between Trump and his former base. As always, we should not count on Republicans to defeat themselves, but we should acknowledge that we are not the only party facing electoral challenges.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Thanks to the many readers who decided to become paying subscribers to support the important work of this community. As a perk of your new membership, please join the discussion in the Comments section! As always, anyone can reach me directly by “replying” to the email that delivers the newsletter to your inbox, regardless of subscription status.

        Astute observers of politics will note that I “buried the lead” in waiting to comment on the fact that the US reached its borrowing limit on Thursday. As a result, the Treasury began a series of “extraordinary measures” to manage available cash to avoid default. Under current estimates, the US has sufficient cash (or equivalents) to fully fund government operations until mid-June.

          The media will spill oceans of ink about the potential consequences of a default and the political maneuvers available to avoid a default. For the moment, it is probably sufficient to note that the financial markets have accounted for the risk of default by acting as though the US will not defaults on its debt or authorized spending. That is a good sign.

          Paul Krugman explained in an op-ed in the NYTimes that there are four ways a crisis can be averted: (a) a discharge petition in the House to force a vote on increasing the debt limit; (b) minting a trillion dollar coin and depositing it into an account at the Treasury; (c) issuing “premium” bonds that effectively increase borrowing power by granting higher rates of return, and (d) deciding that the President has authority under the 14th Amendment to ensure that the debts of the US are honored.

          The details of the above strategies are complicated and beyond the scope of the current newsletter. But here is the point: there are multiple ways to avert a debt crisis, even if all (or most) Republicans in the House refuse to vote to increase the debt limit. While no one can guarantee that Republicans won’t do something monumentally stupid, Democrats can unilaterally avoid disaster. While that may not be the preferred solution, it is a solution, nonetheless.

          Do not let Republican threats vex you or destroy your sense of security and well-being—at least not any more than usual. We are not defenseless, and we have a political advantage in the Senate, the Oval Office, and in the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans who rate Social Security and Medicare as their most important legislative priorities. Republicans can read polls—and the polls tell them that a debt default will be an extinction event for the GOP.

          Talk to you tomorrow!