Corruption and anti-democratic rot in the two-party system

ProPublica reported on how one provision of the December 2017 tax cut for rich people and big corporations law came into being:

In November 2017, with the administration of President Donald Trump rushing to get a massive tax overhaul through Congress, Sen. Ron Johnson stunned his colleagues by announcing he would vote “no.”

Johnson’s demand was simple: In exchange for his vote, the bill must sweeten the tax break for a class of companies that are known as pass-throughs, since profits pass through to their owners. Johnson praised such companies as “engines of innovation.” Behind the scenes, the senator pressed top Treasury Department officials on the issue, emails and the officials’ calendars show.

Within two weeks, Johnson’s ultimatum produced results. Trump personally called the senator to beg for his support, and the bill’s authors fattened the tax cut for these businesses. Johnson flipped to a “yes” and claimed credit for the change. The bill passed.

The Trump administration championed the pass-through provision as tax relief for “small businesses.”

Confidential tax records, however, reveal that Johnson’s last-minute maneuver benefited two families more than almost any others in the country — both worth billions and both among the senator’s biggest donors.

Dick and Liz Uihlein of packaging giant Uline, along with roofing magnate Diane Hendricks, together had contributed around $20 million to groups backing Johnson’s 2016 reelection campaign.  

The expanded tax break Johnson muscled through netted them $215 million in deductions in 2018 alone, drastically reducing the income they owed taxes on. At that rate, the cut could deliver more than half a billion in tax savings for Hendricks and the Uihleins over its eight-year life.

That speaks for itself: Quid pro quo. Pay-to-play. Corruption parading as free speech. 

In another ProPublica article, Republican anti-democratic rage over the 2020 election is still white hot. It appears to be intensifying in at least the some places, not softening. ProPublica writes:

HOOD COUNTY, Texas — Michele Carew would seem an unlikely target of Donald Trump loyalists who have fixated their fury on the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from the former president.

The nonpartisan elections administrator in the staunchly Republican Hood County, just an hour southwest of Fort Worth, oversaw an election in which Trump got some 81% of the vote. It was among the former president’s larger margins of victory in Texas, which also went for him.

Yet over the past 10 months, Carew’s work has come under persistent attack from hard-line Republicans. They allege disloyalty and liberal bias at the root of her actions, from the time she denied a reporter with the fervently pro-Trump network One America News entrance to a training that was not open to the public to accusations, disputed by the Texas secretary of state’s office, that she is violating state law by using electronic machines that randomly number ballots.

Viewing her decisions as a litmus test of her loyalty to the Republican Party, they have demanded that Carew be fired or her position abolished and her duties transferred to an elected county clerk who has used social media to promote baseless allegations of widespread election fraud.

That speaks for itself: Anti-democratic American-style fascism that demands loyalty to the fascist Republican Party, not loyalty to democracy, voting rights, or election integrity. And this is from rank and file Republicans, not national elites.

Finally, multiple sources have reported that Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) has received significant campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. She is one of two conservative Democratic Senators who are blocking passage of two infrastructure bills. She refuses to give reasons for her opposition other than to say the bill she opposes is too big at $3.5 trillion. The reconciliation bill imposes a requirement for the government to negotiate drug prices instead of letting companies charge whatever they can get away with. Based on those facts, (campaign contributions, her silence, and corporate profits at stake) one can reasonably conclude that Sinema is giving pay back to the pharma industry for their generosity.

Salon writes:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the controversial Arizona Democrat who threatens to derail President Biden's legislative agenda, received more than $750,000 in donations from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. After that, she announced her opposition to a Democratic plan to lower prescription drug costs.

Sinema told White House officials that she opposes House and Senate bills that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug costs, sources told Politico this week. Democrats estimate these bills would save $450 billion over the next decade and thereby pay for a large portion of President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion spending plan.  

Sinema is a longtime favorite of the pharmaceutical industry and now appears ready to undermine Biden's entire agenda as Big Pharma wages a lobbying blitz in hopes of torpedoing the bill, which nearly 90% of voters support. Sinema and several House Democrats who oppose the drug pricing plan have received major financial support from the industry. Given a 50-50 Senate and a narrow House majority of 220 to 212 (with three seats currently vacant), their opposition could sink the proposal or even the entire budget bill.

Sinema has received $519,988 from PACs and individuals in the pharmaceutical industry throughout her political career, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. She brought in more than $120,000 in pharma contributions between 2019 and 2020 even though she is not up for re-election until 2024. Sinema has also received $190,161 from donors in the pharmaceutical manufacturing space and $62,797 from the medical supplies industry.

That speaks for itself: Quid pro quo. Pay-to-play. Corruption parading as free speech. Contrary public opinion be damned.

Questions: Is our two-party system seriously corrupted by campaign contributions? Is democracy under serious attack by an American style fascism or authoritarianism?

The Eastman memo: A fascist plan to subvert an election

The Washington Post writes about a way to overthrow the US government that a legal adviser to the ex-president wrote to steal the 2020 election for him:

it’s a good bet that most people have never even heard of the Eastman memo.

That says something troubling about how blasé the mainstream press has become about the attempted coup in the aftermath of the 2020 election — and how easily a coup could succeed next time.

The memo, unearthed in Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s new book, is a stunner. Written by Trump legal adviser John Eastman — a serious Establishment Type with Federalist Society cred and a law school deanship under his belt — it offered Mike Pence, then in his final days as vice president, a detailed plan to declare the 2020 election invalid and give the presidency to Trump.

In other words, how to run a coup in six easy steps.

Pretty huge stuff, right? You’d think so, but the mainstream press has largely looked the other way. Immediately after the memo was revealed, according to a study by left-leaning Media Matters for America, there was no on-air news coverage — literally zero on the three major broadcast networks: ABC, NBC and CBS. Not on the evening newscasts watched by more than 20 million Americans, far greater than the audience for cable news. Not on the morning shows the next day. And when Sunday rolled around, NBC’s “Meet the Press” was the only broadcast network show that bothered to mention it. (Some late-night hosts did manage to play it for laughs.)

“The Horrifying Legal Blueprint for Trump’s War on Democracy” read the headline on Jonathan Chait’s piece in New York magazine’s Intelligencer section. And in the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie took it on with “Trump Had a Mob. He Also Had a Plan.” The Post’s Greg Sargent hammered away at it.

Some national newspapers paid attention, but not much. USA Today with a story; the New York Times with a few paragraphs dropped deep into a sweeping news analysis.

For the most part, the memo slipped past the public — just another piece of flotsam from the wreckage of American society, drifting by unnoticed.

Questions: 

1. Has the MSM failed to report responsibly on the Eastman memo, or is it merely an aberrant curiosity of little importance and the MSM did a fine job by mostly ignoring it?

2. Is corporate ownership and/or capitalism of news media mostly compatible with competent, professional journalism, or mostly incompatible? Does it matter that corporations are people and unlimited dark money can flow to politicians to buy them? 

Status check: The Democrats and judicial nominees

Under current broken government circumstances, political partisan appointments to the federal bench are the most direct way to move politics to the left, right or anywhere else. Congress is hopelessly broken by hyper-partisan fascist Republicans. Republicans in power don't compromise unless there is absolutely no alternative. Democracy demands compromise. Republican refusal to compromise is anti-democratic authoritarianism.

Under our fascist and crackpot ex-president backed by a fascist and crackpot Republican Party Senate, putting radical right judges on the federal bench was a top priority. Arguably the top priority. What is it under Biden and the Dems?

Wikipedia writes about the status of judicial nominees as of Sept. 30, 2021:

This is a comprehensive list of all Article III and Article IV United States federal judges appointed by President Joe Biden as well as a partial list of Article I federal judicial appointments, excluding appointments to the District of Columbia judiciary.[1]

As of September 30, 2021, the United States Senate has confirmed 14 Article III judges nominated by Biden: five judges for the United States courts of appeals and nine judges for the United States district courts. There are 27 nominations currently awaiting Senate action: eight for the courts of appeals and 19 for the district courts. There are currently five vacancies on the U.S. courts of appeals, 71 vacancies on the U.S. district courts, two vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade,[2][3] and 32 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Biden's first term (11 for the courts of appeals and 21 for district courts).[4][5] Biden has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

In terms of Article I courts, as of September 30, 2021, the Senate has not confirmed any judges nominated by Biden. There are currently two nominations to Article I courts awaiting Senate action; both for the United States Court of Federal Claims. There are currently four vacancies on the United States Court of Federal Claims, two on the United States Tax Court, and one on the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. On March 2, 2021, Biden designated Elaine D. Kaplan as Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims.[6]

Regarding Article IV territorial courts, as of September 30, 2021, the Senate has not confirmed any judges nominated by Biden. Biden has not elevated any judges to the position of Chief Judge.

Questions: 

1. What grade should Biden, Schumer and Senate Democrats reasonably get so far about putting Democratic judges on the federal bench, A, B, C, D or F? 

2. Should Biden's choices not be called Democrats, and if not, why not? Since Republican judges are clearly partisan Republican politicians, should Democrats take the "high ground" and not worry too much about political partisanship, or are we now past that and it's time to drop the pretense?

Words of inspiration… or not.

 

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."  –Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

What do you think?  First, let me plant some mixed seeds in your brain, just for the hell of it:

• I believe it beyond question
• I believe it, but with caveats
  
• I don’t believe it, period
  
• What a crock, but it makes people feel better
  
• Only after we’ve exhausted every other possibility
• Correlates based on certain variables (e.g., skin pigmentation, bank account balance, how well-connected one is, based on one's GPS situation, other)
• Morality and justice are ECCs (essentially contested concepts) that are in the eye of the beholder
• The moral universe keeps changing the goal posts and can’t be kept up with in a timely manner
• There is no "universal arbitrator" of morality and justice
  
• God decides justice and morality, not man
• Justice is just a four seven letter word
• Idealistic, bleeding-heart bullshit
• Theoretical, not real.  Wake up and smell the corruption
  
• “The [arc] wall is high, and too hard to climb,” a la Juliette
• “I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows”
• “What’s morality got to do, got to do with it?”
• “A tree grows in Brooklyn,” but that’s about the extent of it
• “There is a rose in Spanish Harlem.”  And she’s mostly effed.

Okay, okay, getting a little weird here just for the dramatization (and I know it 😉).  Anyway, here’s the question:

Do you believe that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice?

Bloviate.  And recommend.