WEBVTT - Senator Whitehouse on Right-Wing Think Tanks Manipulation 

0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:04.600
<v Speaker 1>Welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. As you've heard

0:00:04.640 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 1>me say a few times. Now, we launched a spinoff

0:00:08.560 --> 0:00:13.720
<v Speaker 1>podcast called Damages. It's following all of the climate litigation

0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:16.480
<v Speaker 1>that's happening all over the world right now. There are

0:00:16.560 --> 0:00:21.639
<v Speaker 1>over eighteen hundred climate cases in courts all over the

0:00:21.680 --> 0:00:25.239
<v Speaker 1>world at the moment, so obviously we're not keeping tabs

0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:27.479
<v Speaker 1>on every single one of them, but we are trying

0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:31.440
<v Speaker 1>to follow quite a few, and we're doing a season

0:00:31.520 --> 0:00:35.280
<v Speaker 1>right now that turned out to be pretty timely. We're

0:00:35.479 --> 0:00:38.800
<v Speaker 1>explaining a lot of different kind of ins and outs

0:00:38.840 --> 0:00:42.319
<v Speaker 1>of the legal system and the various strategies that are

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>being used both to try to further climate action and

0:00:46.159 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>to try to block it. So go check that out,

0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>especially as we all prepare for the ruling in West

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.960
<v Speaker 1>Virginia versus EPA. I'm still hoping the court will say

0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>we don't actually need to rule on this, there's no

0:01:02.000 --> 0:01:06.759
<v Speaker 1>problem that we can solve here, but you know, probably

0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>wishful thinking at any rate. Today's episode of Damages is

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>one that I think is so important I wanted to

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:17.760
<v Speaker 1>bring it to you in full here. It is about

0:01:18.280 --> 0:01:23.319
<v Speaker 1>amicus briefs. I know sounds very legal and wonky, but

0:01:23.480 --> 0:01:28.480
<v Speaker 1>these are briefs that are prepared by lawyers who are

0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:33.319
<v Speaker 1>quote unquote friends of the court. This idea came about,

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:35.959
<v Speaker 1>you know, in the days when the Internet didn't exist

0:01:36.040 --> 0:01:40.120
<v Speaker 1>and libraries weren't even all that accessible, and the court

0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.080
<v Speaker 1>could look to experts in different fields, or you know,

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>folks who had worked on similar cases for insight into

0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 1>how to rule on a particular case. I've been noticing

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.200
<v Speaker 1>a huge increase in these. I've also noticed that lots

0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:59.320
<v Speaker 1>of different right wing organizations have very well funded amicus

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:03.960
<v Speaker 1>brief probe and I've been wondering why that is, because,

0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:07.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, is any judge really surprised to hear that

0:02:07.440 --> 0:02:11.800
<v Speaker 1>the Cato Institute is anti regulation? Probably not. I wanted

0:02:11.800 --> 0:02:13.799
<v Speaker 1>to figure out what was going on here, and so

0:02:13.919 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>I talked to the person who knows the most about

0:02:17.320 --> 0:02:19.720
<v Speaker 1>it and has been trying to really get on top

0:02:19.760 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>of this issue, and that is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from

0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 1>the state of Rhode Island. He joins me in this

0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 1>episode today to explain why there's been an increase, why

0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:34.280
<v Speaker 1>that matters, and how it impacts all of the various

0:02:34.320 --> 0:02:37.400
<v Speaker 1>things that the Court is doing now. Hope you enjoy it.

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:53.160
<v Speaker 1>Here we go, Welcome back to damages. I'm Amy Westerveldt Today.

0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Another super wonky legal thing. Vice word to God is fascinating.

0:02:57.800 --> 0:03:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Amiicus briefs or amikus briefs. It's Latin, and I hear

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:07.160
<v Speaker 1>lawyers pronounce it both ways. If you know the correct pronunciation,

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:12.160
<v Speaker 1>please just share it with me at any rate. Amicus

0:03:12.560 --> 0:03:16.480
<v Speaker 1>or amkus is Latin for a friend, so these are

0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:19.720
<v Speaker 1>also sometimes referred to as friend of the court briefs.

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:25.840
<v Speaker 1>And way back before the Internet and before large accessible libraries,

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:30.840
<v Speaker 1>even judges and their clerks couldn't so easily look up

0:03:31.040 --> 0:03:33.520
<v Speaker 1>other cases that were relevant to the case at hand,

0:03:34.040 --> 0:03:37.360
<v Speaker 1>so lawyers or other experts would submit these briefs that

0:03:37.400 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 1>would point out similarities between the cases they were hearing

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:45.720
<v Speaker 1>and previous cases. It evolved over the years to include

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:49.720
<v Speaker 1>expert briefs more generally, but in the last decade or

0:03:49.760 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 1>so it has morphed into something else entirely just a

0:03:54.360 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 1>mountain of anonymously funded briefs pushing particular agendas, especially since

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 1>the passage of Citizens United in twenty ten, which enabled

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:10.920
<v Speaker 1>endless amounts of anonymous corporate funding. There's just been an explosion. Now,

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:15.400
<v Speaker 1>as you might assume, the Supreme Court does have disclosure

0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:20.520
<v Speaker 1>rules about these things, of course it does, but they're ridiculous.

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.200
<v Speaker 1>You only have to disclose funding if it went toward

0:04:23.279 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 1>the actual hands on, manual production of the brief, So

0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 1>like if Charles Koch paid someone to type that brief,

0:04:33.760 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>you have to disclose it. But if you funded an

0:04:36.279 --> 0:04:40.479
<v Speaker 1>entire amicus program at your think tank, you don't. Just

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:43.880
<v Speaker 1>to give you a sense of how rapidly this is

0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:48.400
<v Speaker 1>exploding right now, Amichi filed seven hundred and eighty one

0:04:48.520 --> 0:04:53.599
<v Speaker 1>briefs in the twenty fourteen Supreme Court term. That was

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:59.159
<v Speaker 1>a more than eight hundred percent increase from the nineteen

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:03.839
<v Speaker 1>fifties and a ninety five percent increase from nineteen ninety five,

0:05:04.520 --> 0:05:07.400
<v Speaker 1>and the number of filings has just continued to rise

0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>since then. In the court's twenty nineteen term, Amichi filed

0:05:11.600 --> 0:05:15.360
<v Speaker 1>nine hundred and eleven briefs. The twenty twenty term featured

0:05:15.400 --> 0:05:19.760
<v Speaker 1>almost nine hundred and forty. Some high profile cases will

0:05:19.800 --> 0:05:24.760
<v Speaker 1>even draw more than one hundred amicus briefs. And there's

0:05:24.800 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 1>another disturbing trend. Amichi's showing up at the Cerciari stage

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>or cert that's the phase when the Supreme Court is

0:05:32.480 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 1>being petitioned to hear a case or reject it. Between

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:40.880
<v Speaker 1>nineteen eighty two and twenty fourteen, the percentage of petitions

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:45.760
<v Speaker 1>with at least one cert stage amicus more than doubled.

0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:48.520
<v Speaker 1>When I first started looking into this, it really didn't

0:05:48.520 --> 0:05:52.520
<v Speaker 1>make sense, because I thought, is any judge really going

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:57.039
<v Speaker 1>to be surprised or swayed by a brief from the

0:05:57.080 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Cato Institute that says, we don't think you should regulate business.

0:06:01.480 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 2>No.

0:06:02.760 --> 0:06:05.960
<v Speaker 1>But here's the thing. They're not swayed by the organization.

0:06:06.600 --> 0:06:10.680
<v Speaker 1>They're swayed by the attorney representing them. And any good

0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:15.000
<v Speaker 1>amicist program worth its dark money knows which lawyers will

0:06:15.040 --> 0:06:19.359
<v Speaker 1>get which judge's attention at the cert stage. These connected

0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:22.719
<v Speaker 1>lawyers can improve the chances of the Court viewing the

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:27.440
<v Speaker 1>case as sir worthy at any stage. Seasoned members of

0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:32.040
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court bar add credibility to amicus briefs. The

0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.479
<v Speaker 1>late Justice Ruth Ginsberg actually talked about this in a

0:06:35.520 --> 0:06:38.800
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and eight interview. She said clerks often divide

0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 1>the amicus briefs into three piles. Those that you can

0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:46.839
<v Speaker 1>skip entirely. Those that should be skimmed and those that

0:06:46.880 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 1>should be read and full. If the attorney submitting the

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:54.320
<v Speaker 1>amicus brief has significant experience before the court, it would

0:06:54.360 --> 0:06:58.039
<v Speaker 1>be more likely that their brief would be placed in

0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:03.160
<v Speaker 1>a higher priority pile. So it is actually an effective strategy,

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:07.599
<v Speaker 1>and more and more Supreme Court justices are actually citing

0:07:07.640 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 1>amicus briefs in their rulings. From twenty eight to twenty thirteen,

0:07:12.560 --> 0:07:16.240
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court cited amicus briefs six hundred and six

0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:20.680
<v Speaker 1>times in four hundred and seventeen opinions. Between the nineteen

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 1>ninety four and two thousand and three terms, the Court's

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:28.160
<v Speaker 1>majority opinion referenced an amicus brief only thirty eight percent

0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:32.320
<v Speaker 1>of the time, and in earlier terms like nineteen forty

0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 1>six to nineteen fifty five, it was less than twenty

0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.360
<v Speaker 1>percent of the time. So it's gone from about eighteen

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:42.480
<v Speaker 1>percent in the fifties to more than one hundred percent today.

0:07:42.960 --> 0:07:46.440
<v Speaker 1>Another tactic folks will use with amicus briefs is to

0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:50.320
<v Speaker 1>gather so many of them that it gives the justices

0:07:50.640 --> 0:07:53.600
<v Speaker 1>the sense that there's some kind of consensus behind one

0:07:53.680 --> 0:07:56.960
<v Speaker 1>side or the other. Of course, what all of this

0:07:57.080 --> 0:08:00.840
<v Speaker 1>points to is the ability of people with deep pockets

0:08:01.040 --> 0:08:04.120
<v Speaker 1>to tilt the courts in their favor. You would think

0:08:04.120 --> 0:08:07.640
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court would just improve its disclosure requirements

0:08:07.720 --> 0:08:10.280
<v Speaker 1>and be done with it, but for some reason, it

0:08:10.320 --> 0:08:13.840
<v Speaker 1>hasn't done that. So in the meantime, Sheldon white House,

0:08:13.920 --> 0:08:17.160
<v Speaker 1>the Senator from the great state of Rhode Island, has

0:08:17.280 --> 0:08:22.640
<v Speaker 1>proposed legislation that would force the issue. He's here today

0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:26.120
<v Speaker 1>to walk us through that legislation and why the Supreme

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:31.600
<v Speaker 1>Court resists transparency and how this whole amicus thing is

0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:40.280
<v Speaker 1>really messing with democracy. That's coming up after this quick break.

0:08:47.040 --> 0:08:51.880
<v Speaker 2>You press on the Supreme Court to take action, and

0:08:51.960 --> 0:08:57.000
<v Speaker 2>their first response is to pretend that there's no problem, and.

0:08:56.920 --> 0:08:59.840
<v Speaker 3>Then you keep pressing, and.

0:09:02.880 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 2>Ultimately within the Judiciary somebody realizes, okay, actually is a problem, and.

0:09:12.840 --> 0:09:15.880
<v Speaker 3>They begin to do some work on it.

0:09:16.800 --> 0:09:19.280
<v Speaker 2>I don't know whether that's quietly blessed by the Supreme

0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:20.960
<v Speaker 2>Court or despite.

0:09:22.240 --> 0:09:26.959
<v Speaker 3>The Supreme Court, but it's happened twice.

0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:31.839
<v Speaker 2>It happened first on Amica's disclosure, where the Supreme Court

0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:36.320
<v Speaker 2>said nothing to see here or not a problem, go away,

0:09:36.360 --> 0:09:39.000
<v Speaker 2>but then the Judicial Conference said, Okay, this is actually

0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 2>a really serious question, and they set up a special

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:49.120
<v Speaker 2>committee to look into it, and Judge Malett as a

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:54.960
<v Speaker 2>part of that discussion in the public meeting, I guess said, hey,

0:09:55.000 --> 0:09:57.640
<v Speaker 2>we really got to know who the power is behind

0:09:57.640 --> 0:10:00.280
<v Speaker 2>the throne on these.

0:10:01.559 --> 0:10:02.520
<v Speaker 3>Amicus briefs.

0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 2>And she's obviously respected DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge.

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:15.959
<v Speaker 2>So despite the Supreme Court's indifference, that has been taken

0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:23.280
<v Speaker 2>up within the Federal judiciary, and then recently the peculiar

0:10:23.960 --> 0:10:33.079
<v Speaker 2>failure of the Court to disclose gifts in the form

0:10:33.120 --> 0:10:39.600
<v Speaker 2>of so called personal hospitality, which is read by the

0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:42.280
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court does not require that you even know the

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:47.880
<v Speaker 2>person who's giving you personal hospitality, not exactly the customary

0:10:47.920 --> 0:10:55.440
<v Speaker 2>definition of the word personal right. But again, I wrote

0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:58.160
<v Speaker 2>a letter asking for an explanation to all the different

0:10:58.160 --> 0:11:01.720
<v Speaker 2>Circuit Courts of Appeal, and after ignoring it for quite

0:11:01.720 --> 0:11:05.680
<v Speaker 2>a long time, on the eve of our hearing, the

0:11:05.720 --> 0:11:12.240
<v Speaker 2>circuit courts sent in a joint response, I think again

0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:17.800
<v Speaker 2>through the judicial conference, saying Okay, you're right, this is serious,

0:11:17.880 --> 0:11:20.680
<v Speaker 2>and we're going to have a group of people look

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.200
<v Speaker 2>at it once again. I don't know if that is

0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:27.120
<v Speaker 2>despite the Supreme Court or because they got a quiet

0:11:27.120 --> 0:11:28.839
<v Speaker 2>signal for the Supreme Court saying.

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:34.640
<v Speaker 3>You better, you better look into this white house and

0:11:34.720 --> 0:11:35.520
<v Speaker 3>go away.

0:11:36.320 --> 0:11:39.360
<v Speaker 2>Right the place that we've been through the same routine

0:11:39.360 --> 0:11:41.319
<v Speaker 2>with them, which is they pretend that everything is fine,

0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:46.200
<v Speaker 2>and it's only when you persist that somebody then acknowledges.

0:11:45.720 --> 0:11:47.880
<v Speaker 3>No, it is not fine. It is really wrong.

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:53.640
<v Speaker 2>And now we have these you know, ongoing reviews. But

0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:56.120
<v Speaker 2>it would be far better if the Court from the

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.080
<v Speaker 2>get go took this seriously, took it up, you know,

0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:02.800
<v Speaker 2>of its own volish and didn't put us through all these.

0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.640
<v Speaker 3>Delays and prevarications. Mm hmmmmmm.

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:11.720
<v Speaker 4>Do you think there's a sense that the threat of

0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:16.760
<v Speaker 4>Congress legislating this versus them setting their own rules kind

0:12:16.760 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 4>of drives it along as well, It makes them take

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:20.160
<v Speaker 4>it more seriously.

0:12:22.720 --> 0:12:28.480
<v Speaker 2>Lord knows what the what the reason is for them

0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:34.199
<v Speaker 2>to be so obtuse about which seemed to be unbelievably

0:12:34.240 --> 0:12:40.600
<v Speaker 2>obvious ethics and conflicts problems. Yeah, but I do think

0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:48.400
<v Speaker 2>that knowing that Congress isn't going away has created some

0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:54.440
<v Speaker 2>faint with of accountability, at least in the Judicial Conference,

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:55.680
<v Speaker 2>if not in the Supreme Court.

0:12:56.440 --> 0:12:57.440
<v Speaker 3>Mm hmmm hmm.

0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:00.959
<v Speaker 4>It seems to me and Please me if I'm wrong,

0:13:01.000 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 4>But it seems to me like in a lot of

0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:08.000
<v Speaker 4>these cases, the justices themselves probably do have some inkling

0:13:08.040 --> 0:13:12.559
<v Speaker 4>of who's funding what, but this would provide more transparency

0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:15.120
<v Speaker 4>for the public. Is that is that accurate?

0:13:15.280 --> 0:13:18.200
<v Speaker 5>Or do you think that judges themselves are often in

0:13:18.240 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 5>the dark too, to the extent of.

0:13:24.280 --> 0:13:29.400
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court justices are in the dark about who's behind

0:13:30.520 --> 0:13:35.560
<v Speaker 2>some of these right wing em achy That is a

0:13:35.760 --> 0:13:41.560
<v Speaker 2>case of willful blindness m because they often they often

0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:47.120
<v Speaker 2>go and sit with these groups and with their funders

0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:53.320
<v Speaker 2>mm hmm at Federalist Society dinners when all the drums

0:13:53.360 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 2>come together.

0:13:55.120 --> 0:13:55.320
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:13:55.880 --> 0:14:01.080
<v Speaker 2>So if if you can't figure that out as you're

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:06.960
<v Speaker 2>sitting at the Federal Society gala, at the table with

0:14:07.360 --> 0:14:13.880
<v Speaker 2>front group organizations and those who fund them, then you

0:14:13.960 --> 0:14:18.400
<v Speaker 2>have a problem of perspicacity on becoming of a judge.

0:14:20.760 --> 0:14:25.240
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, yeah, but you think it would. I mean it

0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:25.760
<v Speaker 5>seems to.

0:14:26.920 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 2>The problem is if everybody knew, then the story would

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:34.720
<v Speaker 2>get far worse for the court, because what we have

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:39.360
<v Speaker 2>right now is these little flotillas of right wing ammicky

0:14:39.480 --> 0:14:44.480
<v Speaker 2>show up, they ask the Court to do X. The

0:14:44.480 --> 0:14:47.840
<v Speaker 2>Court almost invariably does X. Or at least some part

0:14:47.920 --> 0:14:53.760
<v Speaker 2>of X, and there's a stunning.

0:14:54.920 --> 0:14:55.440
<v Speaker 3>Win rate.

0:14:56.640 --> 0:15:03.440
<v Speaker 2>M And if it were public who was behind those briefs,

0:15:04.360 --> 0:15:05.720
<v Speaker 2>it would make the problem.

0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:07.160
<v Speaker 3>Of the win rate look even worse.

0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:14.040
<v Speaker 2>Right, It would cross reference, likely with funders of Republican

0:15:14.080 --> 0:15:19.120
<v Speaker 2>senators who participated in packing the court with these right

0:15:19.160 --> 0:15:27.640
<v Speaker 2>wing operative judges, and it would trace back to entities

0:15:28.480 --> 0:15:34.280
<v Speaker 2>funding the selection of these very justices, right right. So

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:36.720
<v Speaker 2>this is they know enough to know that this is

0:15:36.760 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 2>a world in which they don't like, they don't want

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:43.360
<v Speaker 2>the information to get out there because of their own problems.

0:15:42.920 --> 0:15:43.680
<v Speaker 3>Right right.

0:15:45.200 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 4>I know I read in your I read I was

0:15:47.280 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 4>just saying, Megan before you get on that.

0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:54.800
<v Speaker 5>I read your Law Journal article again this morning, and

0:15:54.880 --> 0:15:57.360
<v Speaker 5>I know you noted a few different groups that show

0:15:57.440 --> 0:16:02.640
<v Speaker 5>up a lot. Are there any particular atturnes who are

0:16:02.720 --> 0:16:04.800
<v Speaker 5>kind of like popular picks of.

0:16:04.720 --> 0:16:08.320
<v Speaker 4>These groups to be counsel on these briefs?

0:16:08.720 --> 0:16:11.400
<v Speaker 2>Yes, there are, and I just don't have them top

0:16:11.440 --> 0:16:14.480
<v Speaker 2>of mind. But there are some, you know, pretty regular

0:16:14.560 --> 0:16:19.760
<v Speaker 2>frequent flyers in the legal regime around this. The most

0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:23.160
<v Speaker 2>obvious one who comes to mind right now, in the

0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:28.239
<v Speaker 2>wake of this wretched cruise versus Federal.

0:16:27.960 --> 0:16:34.040
<v Speaker 3>Election Commission decision. Yeah, is Don mcgon right.

0:16:34.320 --> 0:16:36.920
<v Speaker 2>Don mcgonn, who picked the last three judges or was

0:16:36.960 --> 0:16:40.680
<v Speaker 2>told who to pick by the Federalist Society, the White

0:16:40.680 --> 0:16:42.480
<v Speaker 2>House Council during their selection.

0:16:42.240 --> 0:16:43.080
<v Speaker 3>Let's put it that way.

0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:58.520
<v Speaker 2>And Mitch McConnell, who orchestrated their confirmation through extraordinary obstacles like,

0:16:58.600 --> 0:17:03.880
<v Speaker 2>for instance, faking an FBI background investigation, faking an FBI

0:17:04.000 --> 0:17:10.960
<v Speaker 2>supplemental background investigation for Kavanaugh. They're on the same brief

0:17:11.000 --> 0:17:14.200
<v Speaker 2>telling the court what to do, and the big surprise,

0:17:14.359 --> 0:17:15.000
<v Speaker 2>the court.

0:17:16.320 --> 0:17:21.000
<v Speaker 3>Does as instructive right, right, I mean, if.

0:17:20.840 --> 0:17:22.359
<v Speaker 2>You want to if you want to look at a

0:17:22.520 --> 0:17:26.320
<v Speaker 2>like payback loop, Yeah, Chris, the FC is like the

0:17:26.359 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 2>perfect payback loop.

0:17:29.200 --> 0:17:34.440
<v Speaker 4>That case in general is pretty stunning on multiple levels of.

0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 2>Well, but also totally predictable because the Federalist Society justices

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:46.480
<v Speaker 2>are absolutely determined to expand the role of dark money

0:17:47.600 --> 0:17:51.840
<v Speaker 2>for very obvious but also very unfortunate political reasons.

0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:54.280
<v Speaker 4>M m m hm.

0:17:54.320 --> 0:17:55.840
<v Speaker 5>So I wanted, I know you have to go in,

0:17:55.920 --> 0:17:58.679
<v Speaker 5>but I had one more question, just in terms of

0:17:59.359 --> 0:18:02.920
<v Speaker 5>I'm assuming that there are various dark money funded efforts

0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:07.919
<v Speaker 5>against these disclosures. Have you come up against any I

0:18:07.920 --> 0:18:12.840
<v Speaker 5>don't know, obvious kind of dark money funded opposition to

0:18:13.520 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 5>improving disclosure and transparency.

0:18:17.640 --> 0:18:23.160
<v Speaker 2>Yes, I mean there's a whole right wing media operation

0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:28.280
<v Speaker 2>to try to discredit it and to point out that

0:18:28.320 --> 0:18:34.800
<v Speaker 2>it's hypocritical of Democrats to play by the rules and

0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 2>at the same time want to clean up the rules.

0:18:37.680 --> 0:18:44.600
<v Speaker 2>M that's not an actual hypocrisy, but they frame it

0:18:44.720 --> 0:18:47.440
<v Speaker 2>as one as part of their narrative.

0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:52.280
<v Speaker 3>Right, so you certainly see that in action.

0:18:52.840 --> 0:18:56.760
<v Speaker 2>And of course there's this mad rush to build a constitution,

0:18:57.200 --> 0:19:01.120
<v Speaker 2>mad rush for the court to build a constitutional right

0:19:01.200 --> 0:19:09.640
<v Speaker 2>to dark money. We'll get ahead of our legislation requiring

0:19:09.640 --> 0:19:11.240
<v Speaker 2>disclosure of dark money.

0:19:12.920 --> 0:19:13.200
<v Speaker 4>Right.

0:19:13.680 --> 0:19:15.720
<v Speaker 3>And if you want to go back to Emicky the

0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:18.040
<v Speaker 3>case in which they did that, I mean, it's just

0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:19.160
<v Speaker 3>a beauty of a case.

0:19:19.920 --> 0:19:25.760
<v Speaker 2>It's called Americans for Prosperity Foundation versus Bonta at the

0:19:25.840 --> 0:19:28.840
<v Speaker 2>end of the day went through a number of respondents

0:19:28.840 --> 0:19:31.040
<v Speaker 2>as the officials changed in California.

0:19:31.080 --> 0:19:34.480
<v Speaker 3>But Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is.

0:19:34.480 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 2>The five oh one C three twin to the Koch

0:19:38.840 --> 0:19:44.520
<v Speaker 2>Brothers five oh one C four battleship Americans for Prosperity

0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:51.280
<v Speaker 2>with massive overlap between the two, same address, overlapping boards.

0:19:50.800 --> 0:19:54.040
<v Speaker 3>Same staff. You could pierce the corporate veil between the

0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:54.920
<v Speaker 3>two with a banana.

0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:19:56.920 --> 0:19:57.120
<v Speaker 5>Yeah.

0:19:57.240 --> 0:20:04.440
<v Speaker 2>And they pick Americans for Prosperity Foundation as the petitioner

0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:10.240
<v Speaker 2>to try to get this dark money constitutional right to

0:20:10.320 --> 0:20:18.800
<v Speaker 2>have a foundation. And when they do that, fifty at

0:20:18.920 --> 0:20:22.480
<v Speaker 2>least fifty. It's actually more, but it gets harder and

0:20:22.520 --> 0:20:25.119
<v Speaker 2>harder to prove as you get into these small groups

0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:28.760
<v Speaker 2>with no records, but at least fifty dark money.

0:20:28.760 --> 0:20:30.840
<v Speaker 3>Amiky showed up at.

0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:38.960
<v Speaker 2>The Cerchiurari stage, at the cert stage to push the

0:20:39.000 --> 0:20:40.560
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court to take up this case.

0:20:42.600 --> 0:20:44.600
<v Speaker 3>And by the way, it lurked for a very.

0:20:44.440 --> 0:20:47.520
<v Speaker 2>Long, strange period of time at the Supreme Court, and

0:20:47.560 --> 0:20:49.760
<v Speaker 2>they only took it up once they had Judge Barrett

0:20:49.880 --> 0:20:53.400
<v Speaker 2>giving them six and they only took it up literally

0:20:53.640 --> 0:20:59.320
<v Speaker 2>two days after the attack on the Capitol, when everybody

0:20:59.320 --> 0:21:00.160
<v Speaker 2>in America.

0:20:59.840 --> 0:21:06.000
<v Speaker 3>Was looking elsewhere. Wow, January eighth, they took the case up.

0:21:07.560 --> 0:21:10.720
<v Speaker 2>So they've got the case of the twin of the

0:21:10.760 --> 0:21:16.600
<v Speaker 2>Koch brothers political battleship supported by fifty dark money front

0:21:16.600 --> 0:21:23.720
<v Speaker 2>groups that they take onto their docket in the shadow

0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:30.680
<v Speaker 2>of the attack on the Capitol, and sure enough, they

0:21:30.720 --> 0:21:34.360
<v Speaker 2>create a constitutional right to dark money for.

0:21:34.240 --> 0:21:39.479
<v Speaker 4>This group, right right. I've been looking at this with

0:21:39.600 --> 0:21:44.720
<v Speaker 4>respect to the climate cases because the very specific argument

0:21:44.760 --> 0:21:50.119
<v Speaker 4>they're making about political speech in those cases is I

0:21:50.119 --> 0:21:52.600
<v Speaker 4>don't know. It keeps jumping out to me as like

0:21:52.840 --> 0:21:56.040
<v Speaker 4>a broadening of the citizens United stuff. And I think

0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:57.880
<v Speaker 4>they're going to try to get it to the Supreme

0:21:57.920 --> 0:22:00.800
<v Speaker 4>Court and blur the line between fraud in mine.

0:22:02.160 --> 0:22:04.840
<v Speaker 3>Absolutely absolutely.

0:22:07.640 --> 0:22:10.399
<v Speaker 2>I think if you look at the tobacco fraud case

0:22:11.480 --> 0:22:15.800
<v Speaker 2>that the Department of Justice won, it makes an extremely

0:22:15.880 --> 0:22:21.199
<v Speaker 2>good template for a climate fraud case against the fossil

0:22:21.200 --> 0:22:22.080
<v Speaker 2>fuel industry.

0:22:25.440 --> 0:22:26.840
<v Speaker 3>The Supreme Court never took it up.

0:22:28.160 --> 0:22:33.040
<v Speaker 2>The DOJ one big in a just devastating decision by

0:22:33.080 --> 0:22:39.439
<v Speaker 2>the DC District Court, which was powerfully upheld in a

0:22:40.040 --> 0:22:47.080
<v Speaker 2>unanimous decision by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and

0:22:47.200 --> 0:22:48.240
<v Speaker 2>the Supreme Court.

0:22:48.040 --> 0:22:50.479
<v Speaker 3>Declined to review it.

0:22:51.359 --> 0:22:55.560
<v Speaker 2>So that's floating out there as a template and a

0:22:55.600 --> 0:23:00.439
<v Speaker 2>way to end corporate fraud. But just you wait for

0:23:00.520 --> 0:23:07.120
<v Speaker 2>these guys to say that, oh, well, when it's petitioning government,

0:23:07.960 --> 0:23:12.679
<v Speaker 2>right exactly, Yeah, then there's special protection here in the

0:23:12.680 --> 0:23:17.280
<v Speaker 2>government of all people is in the worst possible position

0:23:17.560 --> 0:23:22.600
<v Speaker 2>to police fraud against itself because they treat government as

0:23:22.600 --> 0:23:24.880
<v Speaker 2>an interested party rather than as.

0:23:25.240 --> 0:23:27.760
<v Speaker 3>The popular summation of the public will.

0:23:28.760 --> 0:23:29.000
<v Speaker 5>Right.

0:23:29.280 --> 0:23:30.360
<v Speaker 3>So yeah, you could see that.

0:23:30.600 --> 0:23:32.560
<v Speaker 2>You could see that coming just as clearly as you

0:23:32.560 --> 0:23:34.160
<v Speaker 2>could see the FPF case coming.

0:23:34.920 --> 0:23:41.280
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, yeah, oh, no problem, go vote. Thank you so

0:23:41.400 --> 0:23:43.639
<v Speaker 4>much for your time, and I'll.

0:23:43.119 --> 0:23:45.960
<v Speaker 3>Keep you guys. There's lots of good material and we

0:23:46.000 --> 0:23:49.479
<v Speaker 3>haven't been so thank you, thank you, thank you.

0:23:50.040 --> 0:23:52.800
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, thanks a lot. I have a bite.

0:23:57.440 --> 0:23:59.680
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this time. Thanks for listening, and we'll

0:23:59.720 --> 0:24:09.800
<v Speaker 1>see you next week. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production.

0:24:10.320 --> 0:24:14.119
<v Speaker 1>Our editor and senior producer is Sarah Ventry, mixing and

0:24:14.160 --> 0:24:17.920
<v Speaker 1>mastering by Mark Bush. The show is written and reported

0:24:17.960 --> 0:24:21.840
<v Speaker 1>by me Amy Westerveld, with additional reporting by Karen Savage,

0:24:22.000 --> 0:24:25.960
<v Speaker 1>Meg Duff, and Lindall Rawlins. Our fact checker is Woo

0:24:26.040 --> 0:24:29.600
<v Speaker 1>Dan Yan. Our First Amendment Attorney is James Wheaton of

0:24:29.640 --> 0:24:33.600
<v Speaker 1>the First Amendment Project. Our theme song this season is

0:24:33.680 --> 0:24:37.760
<v Speaker 1>Burden the Hand by Fornown. Artwork is by Matthew Fleming.

0:24:38.160 --> 0:24:40.920
<v Speaker 1>The show is supported in part by a generous grant

0:24:40.920 --> 0:24:44.440
<v Speaker 1>from the File Foundation. If you'd like to support our work,

0:24:44.520 --> 0:24:48.080
<v Speaker 1>please rate, or review the podcast wherever you're listening and

0:24:48.200 --> 0:24:51.080
<v Speaker 1>share it with friends. Thanks for listening, and we'll see

0:24:51.119 --> 0:24:51.800
<v Speaker 1>you next time.

0:25:00.320 --> 0:25:01.520
<v Speaker 5>Stop that that