1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:04,600
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. As you've heard

2
00:00:04,640 --> 00:00:08,360
Speaker 1: me say a few times. Now, we launched a spinoff

3
00:00:08,560 --> 00:00:13,720
Speaker 1: podcast called Damages. It's following all of the climate litigation

4
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:16,480
Speaker 1: that's happening all over the world right now. There are

5
00:00:16,560 --> 00:00:21,639
Speaker 1: over eighteen hundred climate cases in courts all over the

6
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:25,239
Speaker 1: world at the moment, so obviously we're not keeping tabs

7
00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:27,479
Speaker 1: on every single one of them, but we are trying

8
00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:31,440
Speaker 1: to follow quite a few, and we're doing a season

9
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:35,280
Speaker 1: right now that turned out to be pretty timely. We're

10
00:00:35,479 --> 00:00:38,800
Speaker 1: explaining a lot of different kind of ins and outs

11
00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:42,319
Speaker 1: of the legal system and the various strategies that are

12
00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:45,680
Speaker 1: being used both to try to further climate action and

13
00:00:46,159 --> 00:00:50,040
Speaker 1: to try to block it. So go check that out,

14
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 1: especially as we all prepare for the ruling in West

15
00:00:55,640 --> 00:00:58,960
Speaker 1: Virginia versus EPA. I'm still hoping the court will say

16
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:01,800
Speaker 1: we don't actually need to rule on this, there's no

17
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:06,759
Speaker 1: problem that we can solve here, but you know, probably

18
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:12,000
Speaker 1: wishful thinking at any rate. Today's episode of Damages is

19
00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:14,800
Speaker 1: one that I think is so important I wanted to

20
00:01:14,840 --> 00:01:17,760
Speaker 1: bring it to you in full here. It is about

21
00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:23,319
Speaker 1: amicus briefs. I know sounds very legal and wonky, but

22
00:01:23,480 --> 00:01:28,480
Speaker 1: these are briefs that are prepared by lawyers who are

23
00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:33,319
Speaker 1: quote unquote friends of the court. This idea came about,

24
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:35,959
Speaker 1: you know, in the days when the Internet didn't exist

25
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:40,120
Speaker 1: and libraries weren't even all that accessible, and the court

26
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:44,080
Speaker 1: could look to experts in different fields, or you know,

27
00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:48,040
Speaker 1: folks who had worked on similar cases for insight into

28
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:51,960
Speaker 1: how to rule on a particular case. I've been noticing

29
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:55,200
Speaker 1: a huge increase in these. I've also noticed that lots

30
00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:59,320
Speaker 1: of different right wing organizations have very well funded amicus

31
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:03,960
Speaker 1: brief probe and I've been wondering why that is, because,

32
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: you know, is any judge really surprised to hear that

33
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:11,800
Speaker 1: the Cato Institute is anti regulation? Probably not. I wanted

34
00:02:11,800 --> 00:02:13,799
Speaker 1: to figure out what was going on here, and so

35
00:02:13,919 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 1: I talked to the person who knows the most about

36
00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:19,720
Speaker 1: it and has been trying to really get on top

37
00:02:19,760 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 1: of this issue, and that is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from

38
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:25,920
Speaker 1: the state of Rhode Island. He joins me in this

39
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:30,959
Speaker 1: episode today to explain why there's been an increase, why

40
00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:34,280
Speaker 1: that matters, and how it impacts all of the various

41
00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:37,400
Speaker 1: things that the Court is doing now. Hope you enjoy it.

42
00:02:37,600 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 1: Here we go, Welcome back to damages. I'm Amy Westerveldt Today.

43
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:57,280
Speaker 1: Another super wonky legal thing. Vice word to God is fascinating.

44
00:02:57,800 --> 00:03:03,160
Speaker 1: Amiicus briefs or amikus briefs. It's Latin, and I hear

45
00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,160
Speaker 1: lawyers pronounce it both ways. If you know the correct pronunciation,

46
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 1: please just share it with me at any rate. Amicus

47
00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:16,480
Speaker 1: or amkus is Latin for a friend, so these are

48
00:03:16,520 --> 00:03:19,720
Speaker 1: also sometimes referred to as friend of the court briefs.

49
00:03:20,600 --> 00:03:25,840
Speaker 1: And way back before the Internet and before large accessible libraries,

50
00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:30,840
Speaker 1: even judges and their clerks couldn't so easily look up

51
00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:33,520
Speaker 1: other cases that were relevant to the case at hand,

52
00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 1: so lawyers or other experts would submit these briefs that

53
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:40,880
Speaker 1: would point out similarities between the cases they were hearing

54
00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 1: and previous cases. It evolved over the years to include

55
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:49,720
Speaker 1: expert briefs more generally, but in the last decade or

56
00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:54,040
Speaker 1: so it has morphed into something else entirely just a

57
00:03:54,360 --> 00:04:01,200
Speaker 1: mountain of anonymously funded briefs pushing particular agendas, especially since

58
00:04:01,240 --> 00:04:04,760
Speaker 1: the passage of Citizens United in twenty ten, which enabled

59
00:04:05,000 --> 00:04:10,920
Speaker 1: endless amounts of anonymous corporate funding. There's just been an explosion. Now,

60
00:04:11,400 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: as you might assume, the Supreme Court does have disclosure

61
00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: rules about these things, of course it does, but they're ridiculous.

62
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:23,200
Speaker 1: You only have to disclose funding if it went toward

63
00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:29,000
Speaker 1: the actual hands on, manual production of the brief, So

64
00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:33,240
Speaker 1: like if Charles Koch paid someone to type that brief,

65
00:04:33,760 --> 00:04:36,080
Speaker 1: you have to disclose it. But if you funded an

66
00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:40,479
Speaker 1: entire amicus program at your think tank, you don't. Just

67
00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:43,880
Speaker 1: to give you a sense of how rapidly this is

68
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 1: exploding right now, Amichi filed seven hundred and eighty one

69
00:04:48,520 --> 00:04:53,599
Speaker 1: briefs in the twenty fourteen Supreme Court term. That was

70
00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 1: a more than eight hundred percent increase from the nineteen

71
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:03,839
Speaker 1: fifties and a ninety five percent increase from nineteen ninety five,

72
00:05:04,520 --> 00:05:07,400
Speaker 1: and the number of filings has just continued to rise

73
00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:11,520
Speaker 1: since then. In the court's twenty nineteen term, Amichi filed

74
00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:15,360
Speaker 1: nine hundred and eleven briefs. The twenty twenty term featured

75
00:05:15,400 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: almost nine hundred and forty. Some high profile cases will

76
00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:24,760
Speaker 1: even draw more than one hundred amicus briefs. And there's

77
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:29,000
Speaker 1: another disturbing trend. Amichi's showing up at the Cerciari stage

78
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:32,400
Speaker 1: or cert that's the phase when the Supreme Court is

79
00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 1: being petitioned to hear a case or reject it. Between

80
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:40,880
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty two and twenty fourteen, the percentage of petitions

81
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:45,760
Speaker 1: with at least one cert stage amicus more than doubled.

82
00:05:46,320 --> 00:05:48,520
Speaker 1: When I first started looking into this, it really didn't

83
00:05:48,520 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 1: make sense, because I thought, is any judge really going

84
00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:57,039
Speaker 1: to be surprised or swayed by a brief from the

85
00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:01,080
Speaker 1: Cato Institute that says, we don't think you should regulate business.

86
00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 2: No.

87
00:06:02,760 --> 00:06:05,960
Speaker 1: But here's the thing. They're not swayed by the organization.

88
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 1: They're swayed by the attorney representing them. And any good

89
00:06:10,720 --> 00:06:15,000
Speaker 1: amicist program worth its dark money knows which lawyers will

90
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:19,359
Speaker 1: get which judge's attention at the cert stage. These connected

91
00:06:19,400 --> 00:06:22,719
Speaker 1: lawyers can improve the chances of the Court viewing the

92
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:27,440
Speaker 1: case as sir worthy at any stage. Seasoned members of

93
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:32,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court bar add credibility to amicus briefs. The

94
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,479
Speaker 1: late Justice Ruth Ginsberg actually talked about this in a

95
00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight interview. She said clerks often divide

96
00:06:38,839 --> 00:06:42,720
Speaker 1: the amicus briefs into three piles. Those that you can

97
00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:46,839
Speaker 1: skip entirely. Those that should be skimmed and those that

98
00:06:46,880 --> 00:06:49,960
Speaker 1: should be read and full. If the attorney submitting the

99
00:06:50,000 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: amicus brief has significant experience before the court, it would

100
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:58,039
Speaker 1: be more likely that their brief would be placed in

101
00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:03,160
Speaker 1: a higher priority pile. So it is actually an effective strategy,

102
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:07,599
Speaker 1: and more and more Supreme Court justices are actually citing

103
00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:12,320
Speaker 1: amicus briefs in their rulings. From twenty eight to twenty thirteen,

104
00:07:12,560 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court cited amicus briefs six hundred and six

105
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:20,680
Speaker 1: times in four hundred and seventeen opinions. Between the nineteen

106
00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 1: ninety four and two thousand and three terms, the Court's

107
00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:28,160
Speaker 1: majority opinion referenced an amicus brief only thirty eight percent

108
00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:32,320
Speaker 1: of the time, and in earlier terms like nineteen forty

109
00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:35,200
Speaker 1: six to nineteen fifty five, it was less than twenty

110
00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:38,360
Speaker 1: percent of the time. So it's gone from about eighteen

111
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:42,480
Speaker 1: percent in the fifties to more than one hundred percent today.

112
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:46,440
Speaker 1: Another tactic folks will use with amicus briefs is to

113
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:50,320
Speaker 1: gather so many of them that it gives the justices

114
00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 1: the sense that there's some kind of consensus behind one

115
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 1: side or the other. Of course, what all of this

116
00:07:57,080 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: points to is the ability of people with deep pockets

117
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:04,120
Speaker 1: to tilt the courts in their favor. You would think

118
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court would just improve its disclosure requirements

119
00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:10,280
Speaker 1: and be done with it, but for some reason, it

120
00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:13,840
Speaker 1: hasn't done that. So in the meantime, Sheldon white House,

121
00:08:13,920 --> 00:08:17,160
Speaker 1: the Senator from the great state of Rhode Island, has

122
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:22,640
Speaker 1: proposed legislation that would force the issue. He's here today

123
00:08:22,840 --> 00:08:26,120
Speaker 1: to walk us through that legislation and why the Supreme

124
00:08:26,160 --> 00:08:31,600
Speaker 1: Court resists transparency and how this whole amicus thing is

125
00:08:31,640 --> 00:08:40,280
Speaker 1: really messing with democracy. That's coming up after this quick break.

126
00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:51,880
Speaker 2: You press on the Supreme Court to take action, and

127
00:08:51,960 --> 00:08:57,000
Speaker 2: their first response is to pretend that there's no problem, and.

128
00:08:56,920 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 3: Then you keep pressing, and.

129
00:09:02,880 --> 00:09:11,040
Speaker 2: Ultimately within the Judiciary somebody realizes, okay, actually is a problem, and.

130
00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 3: They begin to do some work on it.

131
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:19,280
Speaker 2: I don't know whether that's quietly blessed by the Supreme

132
00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:20,960
Speaker 2: Court or despite.

133
00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:26,959
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court, but it's happened twice.

134
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:31,839
Speaker 2: It happened first on Amica's disclosure, where the Supreme Court

135
00:09:31,880 --> 00:09:36,320
Speaker 2: said nothing to see here or not a problem, go away,

136
00:09:36,360 --> 00:09:39,000
Speaker 2: but then the Judicial Conference said, Okay, this is actually

137
00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:41,920
Speaker 2: a really serious question, and they set up a special

138
00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:49,120
Speaker 2: committee to look into it, and Judge Malett as a

139
00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:54,960
Speaker 2: part of that discussion in the public meeting, I guess said, hey,

140
00:09:55,000 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 2: we really got to know who the power is behind

141
00:09:57,640 --> 00:10:00,280
Speaker 2: the throne on these.

142
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:02,520
Speaker 3: Amicus briefs.

143
00:10:02,840 --> 00:10:07,400
Speaker 2: And she's obviously respected DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge.

144
00:10:07,480 --> 00:10:15,959
Speaker 2: So despite the Supreme Court's indifference, that has been taken

145
00:10:16,040 --> 00:10:23,280
Speaker 2: up within the Federal judiciary, and then recently the peculiar

146
00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:33,079
Speaker 2: failure of the Court to disclose gifts in the form

147
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 2: of so called personal hospitality, which is read by the

148
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 2: Supreme Court does not require that you even know the

149
00:10:42,280 --> 00:10:47,880
Speaker 2: person who's giving you personal hospitality, not exactly the customary

150
00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:55,440
Speaker 2: definition of the word personal right. But again, I wrote

151
00:10:55,480 --> 00:10:58,160
Speaker 2: a letter asking for an explanation to all the different

152
00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:01,720
Speaker 2: Circuit Courts of Appeal, and after ignoring it for quite

153
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:05,680
Speaker 2: a long time, on the eve of our hearing, the

154
00:11:05,720 --> 00:11:12,240
Speaker 2: circuit courts sent in a joint response, I think again

155
00:11:12,280 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 2: through the judicial conference, saying Okay, you're right, this is serious,

156
00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:20,680
Speaker 2: and we're going to have a group of people look

157
00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:23,200
Speaker 2: at it once again. I don't know if that is

158
00:11:23,280 --> 00:11:27,120
Speaker 2: despite the Supreme Court or because they got a quiet

159
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:28,839
Speaker 2: signal for the Supreme Court saying.

160
00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:34,640
Speaker 3: You better, you better look into this white house and

161
00:11:34,720 --> 00:11:35,520
Speaker 3: go away.

162
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:39,360
Speaker 2: Right the place that we've been through the same routine

163
00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:41,319
Speaker 2: with them, which is they pretend that everything is fine,

164
00:11:42,240 --> 00:11:46,200
Speaker 2: and it's only when you persist that somebody then acknowledges.

165
00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:47,880
Speaker 3: No, it is not fine. It is really wrong.

166
00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:53,640
Speaker 2: And now we have these you know, ongoing reviews. But

167
00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 2: it would be far better if the Court from the

168
00:11:56,160 --> 00:11:59,080
Speaker 2: get go took this seriously, took it up, you know,

169
00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:02,800
Speaker 2: of its own volish and didn't put us through all these.

170
00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:07,640
Speaker 3: Delays and prevarications. Mm hmmmmmm.

171
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:11,720
Speaker 4: Do you think there's a sense that the threat of

172
00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:16,760
Speaker 4: Congress legislating this versus them setting their own rules kind

173
00:12:16,760 --> 00:12:19,360
Speaker 4: of drives it along as well, It makes them take

174
00:12:19,400 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 4: it more seriously.

175
00:12:22,720 --> 00:12:28,480
Speaker 2: Lord knows what the what the reason is for them

176
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:34,199
Speaker 2: to be so obtuse about which seemed to be unbelievably

177
00:12:34,240 --> 00:12:40,600
Speaker 2: obvious ethics and conflicts problems. Yeah, but I do think

178
00:12:40,679 --> 00:12:48,400
Speaker 2: that knowing that Congress isn't going away has created some

179
00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:54,440
Speaker 2: faint with of accountability, at least in the Judicial Conference,

180
00:12:54,480 --> 00:12:55,680
Speaker 2: if not in the Supreme Court.

181
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:57,440
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm hmm.

182
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:00,959
Speaker 4: It seems to me and Please me if I'm wrong,

183
00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:02,880
Speaker 4: But it seems to me like in a lot of

184
00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:08,000
Speaker 4: these cases, the justices themselves probably do have some inkling

185
00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:12,559
Speaker 4: of who's funding what, but this would provide more transparency

186
00:13:12,600 --> 00:13:15,120
Speaker 4: for the public. Is that is that accurate?

187
00:13:15,280 --> 00:13:18,200
Speaker 5: Or do you think that judges themselves are often in

188
00:13:18,240 --> 00:13:23,040
Speaker 5: the dark too, to the extent of.

189
00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:29,400
Speaker 2: Supreme Court justices are in the dark about who's behind

190
00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:35,560
Speaker 2: some of these right wing em achy That is a

191
00:13:35,760 --> 00:13:41,560
Speaker 2: case of willful blindness m because they often they often

192
00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:47,120
Speaker 2: go and sit with these groups and with their funders

193
00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:53,320
Speaker 2: mm hmm at Federalist Society dinners when all the drums

194
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:53,920
Speaker 2: come together.

195
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:55,320
Speaker 3: Right.

196
00:13:55,880 --> 00:14:01,080
Speaker 2: So if if you can't figure that out as you're

197
00:14:01,080 --> 00:14:06,960
Speaker 2: sitting at the Federal Society gala, at the table with

198
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:13,880
Speaker 2: front group organizations and those who fund them, then you

199
00:14:13,960 --> 00:14:18,400
Speaker 2: have a problem of perspicacity on becoming of a judge.

200
00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:25,240
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, but you think it would. I mean it

201
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 5: seems to.

202
00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:30,360
Speaker 2: The problem is if everybody knew, then the story would

203
00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:34,720
Speaker 2: get far worse for the court, because what we have

204
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:39,360
Speaker 2: right now is these little flotillas of right wing ammicky

205
00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:44,480
Speaker 2: show up, they ask the Court to do X. The

206
00:14:44,480 --> 00:14:47,840
Speaker 2: Court almost invariably does X. Or at least some part

207
00:14:47,920 --> 00:14:53,760
Speaker 2: of X, and there's a stunning.

208
00:14:54,920 --> 00:14:55,440
Speaker 3: Win rate.

209
00:14:56,640 --> 00:15:03,440
Speaker 2: M And if it were public who was behind those briefs,

210
00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:05,720
Speaker 2: it would make the problem.

211
00:15:05,480 --> 00:15:07,160
Speaker 3: Of the win rate look even worse.

212
00:15:08,120 --> 00:15:14,040
Speaker 2: Right, It would cross reference, likely with funders of Republican

213
00:15:14,080 --> 00:15:19,120
Speaker 2: senators who participated in packing the court with these right

214
00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:27,640
Speaker 2: wing operative judges, and it would trace back to entities

215
00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:34,280
Speaker 2: funding the selection of these very justices, right right. So

216
00:15:34,360 --> 00:15:36,720
Speaker 2: this is they know enough to know that this is

217
00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:39,720
Speaker 2: a world in which they don't like, they don't want

218
00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:43,360
Speaker 2: the information to get out there because of their own problems.

219
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:43,680
Speaker 3: Right right.

220
00:15:45,200 --> 00:15:47,240
Speaker 4: I know I read in your I read I was

221
00:15:47,280 --> 00:15:48,680
Speaker 4: just saying, Megan before you get on that.

222
00:15:48,760 --> 00:15:54,800
Speaker 5: I read your Law Journal article again this morning, and

223
00:15:54,880 --> 00:15:57,360
Speaker 5: I know you noted a few different groups that show

224
00:15:57,440 --> 00:16:02,640
Speaker 5: up a lot. Are there any particular atturnes who are

225
00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:04,800
Speaker 5: kind of like popular picks of.

226
00:16:04,720 --> 00:16:08,320
Speaker 4: These groups to be counsel on these briefs?

227
00:16:08,720 --> 00:16:11,400
Speaker 2: Yes, there are, and I just don't have them top

228
00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:14,480
Speaker 2: of mind. But there are some, you know, pretty regular

229
00:16:14,560 --> 00:16:19,760
Speaker 2: frequent flyers in the legal regime around this. The most

230
00:16:19,920 --> 00:16:23,160
Speaker 2: obvious one who comes to mind right now, in the

231
00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:28,239
Speaker 2: wake of this wretched cruise versus Federal.

232
00:16:27,960 --> 00:16:34,040
Speaker 3: Election Commission decision. Yeah, is Don mcgon right.

233
00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:36,920
Speaker 2: Don mcgonn, who picked the last three judges or was

234
00:16:36,960 --> 00:16:40,680
Speaker 2: told who to pick by the Federalist Society, the White

235
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:42,480
Speaker 2: House Council during their selection.

236
00:16:42,240 --> 00:16:43,080
Speaker 3: Let's put it that way.

237
00:16:44,880 --> 00:16:58,520
Speaker 2: And Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated their confirmation through extraordinary obstacles like,

238
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:03,880
Speaker 2: for instance, faking an FBI background investigation, faking an FBI

239
00:17:04,000 --> 00:17:10,960
Speaker 2: supplemental background investigation for Kavanaugh. They're on the same brief

240
00:17:11,000 --> 00:17:14,200
Speaker 2: telling the court what to do, and the big surprise,

241
00:17:14,359 --> 00:17:15,000
Speaker 2: the court.

242
00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:21,000
Speaker 3: Does as instructive right, right, I mean, if.

243
00:17:20,840 --> 00:17:22,359
Speaker 2: You want to if you want to look at a

244
00:17:22,520 --> 00:17:26,320
Speaker 2: like payback loop, Yeah, Chris, the FC is like the

245
00:17:26,359 --> 00:17:28,280
Speaker 2: perfect payback loop.

246
00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:34,440
Speaker 4: That case in general is pretty stunning on multiple levels of.

247
00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 2: Well, but also totally predictable because the Federalist Society justices

248
00:17:42,280 --> 00:17:46,480
Speaker 2: are absolutely determined to expand the role of dark money

249
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:51,840
Speaker 2: for very obvious but also very unfortunate political reasons.

250
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:54,280
Speaker 4: M m m hm.

251
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:55,840
Speaker 5: So I wanted, I know you have to go in,

252
00:17:55,920 --> 00:17:58,679
Speaker 5: but I had one more question, just in terms of

253
00:17:59,359 --> 00:18:02,920
Speaker 5: I'm assuming that there are various dark money funded efforts

254
00:18:02,960 --> 00:18:07,919
Speaker 5: against these disclosures. Have you come up against any I

255
00:18:07,920 --> 00:18:12,840
Speaker 5: don't know, obvious kind of dark money funded opposition to

256
00:18:13,520 --> 00:18:15,560
Speaker 5: improving disclosure and transparency.

257
00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:23,160
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean there's a whole right wing media operation

258
00:18:23,320 --> 00:18:28,280
Speaker 2: to try to discredit it and to point out that

259
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:34,800
Speaker 2: it's hypocritical of Democrats to play by the rules and

260
00:18:34,880 --> 00:18:36,800
Speaker 2: at the same time want to clean up the rules.

261
00:18:37,680 --> 00:18:44,600
Speaker 2: M that's not an actual hypocrisy, but they frame it

262
00:18:44,720 --> 00:18:47,440
Speaker 2: as one as part of their narrative.

263
00:18:48,480 --> 00:18:52,280
Speaker 3: Right, so you certainly see that in action.

264
00:18:52,840 --> 00:18:56,760
Speaker 2: And of course there's this mad rush to build a constitution,

265
00:18:57,200 --> 00:19:01,120
Speaker 2: mad rush for the court to build a constitutional right

266
00:19:01,200 --> 00:19:09,640
Speaker 2: to dark money. We'll get ahead of our legislation requiring

267
00:19:09,640 --> 00:19:11,240
Speaker 2: disclosure of dark money.

268
00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:13,200
Speaker 4: Right.

269
00:19:13,680 --> 00:19:15,720
Speaker 3: And if you want to go back to Emicky the

270
00:19:15,800 --> 00:19:18,040
Speaker 3: case in which they did that, I mean, it's just

271
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:19,160
Speaker 3: a beauty of a case.

272
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:25,760
Speaker 2: It's called Americans for Prosperity Foundation versus Bonta at the

273
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 2: end of the day went through a number of respondents

274
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 2: as the officials changed in California.

275
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:34,480
Speaker 3: But Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is.

276
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:38,760
Speaker 2: The five oh one C three twin to the Koch

277
00:19:38,840 --> 00:19:44,520
Speaker 2: Brothers five oh one C four battleship Americans for Prosperity

278
00:19:46,040 --> 00:19:51,280
Speaker 2: with massive overlap between the two, same address, overlapping boards.

279
00:19:50,800 --> 00:19:54,040
Speaker 3: Same staff. You could pierce the corporate veil between the

280
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:54,920
Speaker 3: two with a banana.

281
00:19:55,840 --> 00:19:56,040
Speaker 1: Yeah.

282
00:19:56,920 --> 00:19:57,120
Speaker 5: Yeah.

283
00:19:57,240 --> 00:20:04,440
Speaker 2: And they pick Americans for Prosperity Foundation as the petitioner

284
00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 2: to try to get this dark money constitutional right to

285
00:20:10,320 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 2: have a foundation. And when they do that, fifty at

286
00:20:18,920 --> 00:20:22,480
Speaker 2: least fifty. It's actually more, but it gets harder and

287
00:20:22,520 --> 00:20:25,119
Speaker 2: harder to prove as you get into these small groups

288
00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:28,760
Speaker 2: with no records, but at least fifty dark money.

289
00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:30,840
Speaker 3: Amiky showed up at.

290
00:20:30,640 --> 00:20:38,960
Speaker 2: The Cerchiurari stage, at the cert stage to push the

291
00:20:39,000 --> 00:20:40,560
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to take up this case.

292
00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:44,600
Speaker 3: And by the way, it lurked for a very.

293
00:20:44,440 --> 00:20:47,520
Speaker 2: Long, strange period of time at the Supreme Court, and

294
00:20:47,560 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 2: they only took it up once they had Judge Barrett

295
00:20:49,880 --> 00:20:53,400
Speaker 2: giving them six and they only took it up literally

296
00:20:53,640 --> 00:20:59,320
Speaker 2: two days after the attack on the Capitol, when everybody

297
00:20:59,320 --> 00:21:00,160
Speaker 2: in America.

298
00:20:59,840 --> 00:21:06,000
Speaker 3: Was looking elsewhere. Wow, January eighth, they took the case up.

299
00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:10,720
Speaker 2: So they've got the case of the twin of the

300
00:21:10,760 --> 00:21:16,600
Speaker 2: Koch brothers political battleship supported by fifty dark money front

301
00:21:16,600 --> 00:21:23,720
Speaker 2: groups that they take onto their docket in the shadow

302
00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:30,680
Speaker 2: of the attack on the Capitol, and sure enough, they

303
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:34,360
Speaker 2: create a constitutional right to dark money for.

304
00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:39,479
Speaker 4: This group, right right. I've been looking at this with

305
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:44,720
Speaker 4: respect to the climate cases because the very specific argument

306
00:21:44,760 --> 00:21:50,119
Speaker 4: they're making about political speech in those cases is I

307
00:21:50,119 --> 00:21:52,600
Speaker 4: don't know. It keeps jumping out to me as like

308
00:21:52,840 --> 00:21:56,040
Speaker 4: a broadening of the citizens United stuff. And I think

309
00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:57,880
Speaker 4: they're going to try to get it to the Supreme

310
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:00,800
Speaker 4: Court and blur the line between fraud in mine.

311
00:22:02,160 --> 00:22:04,840
Speaker 3: Absolutely absolutely.

312
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:10,399
Speaker 2: I think if you look at the tobacco fraud case

313
00:22:11,480 --> 00:22:15,800
Speaker 2: that the Department of Justice won, it makes an extremely

314
00:22:15,880 --> 00:22:21,199
Speaker 2: good template for a climate fraud case against the fossil

315
00:22:21,200 --> 00:22:22,080
Speaker 2: fuel industry.

316
00:22:25,440 --> 00:22:26,840
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court never took it up.

317
00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:33,040
Speaker 2: The DOJ one big in a just devastating decision by

318
00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:39,439
Speaker 2: the DC District Court, which was powerfully upheld in a

319
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:47,080
Speaker 2: unanimous decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and

320
00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:48,240
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court.

321
00:22:48,040 --> 00:22:50,479
Speaker 3: Declined to review it.

322
00:22:51,359 --> 00:22:55,560
Speaker 2: So that's floating out there as a template and a

323
00:22:55,600 --> 00:23:00,439
Speaker 2: way to end corporate fraud. But just you wait for

324
00:23:00,520 --> 00:23:07,120
Speaker 2: these guys to say that, oh, well, when it's petitioning government,

325
00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:12,679
Speaker 2: right exactly, Yeah, then there's special protection here in the

326
00:23:12,680 --> 00:23:17,280
Speaker 2: government of all people is in the worst possible position

327
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:22,600
Speaker 2: to police fraud against itself because they treat government as

328
00:23:22,600 --> 00:23:24,880
Speaker 2: an interested party rather than as.

329
00:23:25,240 --> 00:23:27,760
Speaker 3: The popular summation of the public will.

330
00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:29,000
Speaker 5: Right.

331
00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:30,360
Speaker 3: So yeah, you could see that.

332
00:23:30,600 --> 00:23:32,560
Speaker 2: You could see that coming just as clearly as you

333
00:23:32,560 --> 00:23:34,160
Speaker 2: could see the FPF case coming.

334
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:41,280
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, oh, no problem, go vote. Thank you so

335
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:43,639
Speaker 4: much for your time, and I'll.

336
00:23:43,119 --> 00:23:45,960
Speaker 3: Keep you guys. There's lots of good material and we

337
00:23:46,000 --> 00:23:49,479
Speaker 3: haven't been so thank you, thank you, thank you.

338
00:23:50,040 --> 00:23:52,800
Speaker 4: Yeah, thanks a lot. I have a bite.

339
00:23:57,440 --> 00:23:59,680
Speaker 1: That's it for this time. Thanks for listening, and we'll

340
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:09,800
Speaker 1: see you next week. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production.

341
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:14,119
Speaker 1: Our editor and senior producer is Sarah Ventry, mixing and

342
00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:17,920
Speaker 1: mastering by Mark Bush. The show is written and reported

343
00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:21,840
Speaker 1: by me Amy Westerveld, with additional reporting by Karen Savage,

344
00:24:22,000 --> 00:24:25,960
Speaker 1: Meg Duff, and Lindall Rawlins. Our fact checker is Woo

345
00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:29,600
Speaker 1: Dan Yan. Our First Amendment Attorney is James Wheaton of

346
00:24:29,640 --> 00:24:33,600
Speaker 1: the First Amendment Project. Our theme song this season is

347
00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:37,760
Speaker 1: Burden the Hand by Fornown. Artwork is by Matthew Fleming.

348
00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:40,920
Speaker 1: The show is supported in part by a generous grant

349
00:24:40,920 --> 00:24:44,440
Speaker 1: from the File Foundation. If you'd like to support our work,

350
00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:48,080
Speaker 1: please rate, or review the podcast wherever you're listening and

351
00:24:48,200 --> 00:24:51,080
Speaker 1: share it with friends. Thanks for listening, and we'll see

352
00:24:51,119 --> 00:24:51,800
Speaker 1: you next time.

353
00:25:00,320 --> 00:25:01,520
Speaker 5: Stop that that