Wyden, R Sen

primary on cli hawk

musk retweet herit econ bs nearly sank?

AI Overview

The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (H.R. 7024) by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 40-3 on January 19, 2024. The roughly $79 billion package was subsequently passed by the full House of Representatives. [1, 2, 3]

The bipartisan tax framework—spearheaded by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden—included several key provisions: [1, 2]

Child Tax Credit (CTC): Expanded the child tax credit to benefit families with lower incomes, modifying the phase-in to apply to each child individually and increasing the maximum refundable amount. [1]
Business Deductions: Allowed businesses to immediately deduct domestic research and experimentation (R&D) expenses rather than amortizing them over multiple years. [1, 2]
Depreciation & Expensing: Extended 100% bonus depreciation for businesses investing in machinery and equipment. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Housing and Disaster Relief: Increased the allocation for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and provided tax relief for victims of federally declared disasters. [1, 2]
Employee Retention Credit (ERC): Imposed stricter rules and higher penalties to end fraudulent Employee Retention Credit claims to help pay for the package. [1]

You can track the full legislative history, committee reports, and detailed bill text on Congress.gov. [1, 2, 3]

---

mma

Right-wing media react to Trump's slush fund for allies with unquestioning loyalty — and some vague skepticism

Written by Sophie Lawton

:{Published 05/21/26

Some right-wing media figures are jumping on board with the Trump administration's newest effort to support MAGA allies despite numerous questions about its legality; a few are voicing light skepticism of the plan.

This week, the Department of Justice announced that the Trump family had agreed to drop a legally questionable $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for the creation of a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” According to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the fund's intended recipients are “victims of lawfare and weaponization” by the federal government. Critics of the move are calling the idea a “slush fund,” and The New York Times called the deal “highly unusual” and wrote that the fund is “a pipeline to funnel taxpayer money to President Trump’s allies.”

Some right-wing media figures have been praising the fund, calling it a great idea and complementing Trump for his “patriotic” use of the number 1776 while ignoring the more problematic details of the fund.

Newsmax host Carl Higbie staunchly defended the fund, claiming that Trump has “dropped — he dropped — his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS in exchange for a $1.776 — 1776 — billion-dollar fund set up for truth and justice compensation for people who were victims of Biden's weaponization of government” and that “Trump and his family will get $0 in exchange for just simply an apology from the IRS and a fund set up for every other person who Biden targeted.”

:{Video

Citation

From the May 18, 2026, edition of Newsmax's Carl Higbie: Frontline

Fox's Sean Hannity said the Department of Justice “rightly agreed to set aside the patriotic amount of $1.76 billion to settle other claims like this.”

:{Video

Citation

From the May 19, 2026, edition of Fox News' Hannity

Trump's former co-deputy director of the FBI Dan Bogino praised the fund and the Trump administration on his podcast, saying that “things are happening all over the place, good, positive things.”

Another right-wing podcaster, Vince Coglianese, said on his show that the fund “sounds like justice” and said, “I think it's perfectly wonderful.”

Coglianese also suggested a few people and groups who could benefit from the fund, including anti-abortion activist Mark Houck, other “conservatives who stood outside of abortion mills” and who faced charges, “parents at school board meetings” complaining about curricula and gender-neutral bathrooms who he said were attacked by the FBI and left-wing groups, and “traditional Catholics” who he claimed were targeted by Biden's FBI.

:{Video

Citation

From the May 19, 2026, edition of VINCEstreamed on Rumble

Greg Kelly took to his Newsmax show to make specific claims about the legal precedent for the fund, stating, “The US government gets sued all the time, and they make settlements. This is not an outlandish arrangement. It actually makes a lot of sense.”

Kelly also claimed that the announcement of the fund came after he sat down with Trump and proposed a “compensation fund for the January 6ers.”

:{Video

Citation

From the May 19, 2026, edition of Newsmax's Greg Kelly Reports

The DOJ also claims there is precedent for this type of fund, saying it’s similar to the Obama-era "Keepseagle" case. In reality, the fund seems to have little legal basis.

As Mike Masnick wrote for Techdirt, the fund was created as a settlement offer because “Trump needed to drop that lawsuit in order to end it before a judge called bullshit on the fact that he was negotiating with himself to take $10 billion from American taxpayers.”

Masknick also refuted the DOJ claims of legal precedent, writing, “The Keepseagle settlement was approved by a court in response to a class action lawsuit. Here, this fund, is being created in a manner deliberately to avoid having the court review it.”

A New York Times piece reported that “legal experts struggled to make sense of this week’s developments, saying tentatively that it was unlikely anyone could sue to stop the moves.” The article noted nevertheless that the fund’s creation is a “jarring shock to the conventional understanding of the constitutional system.”

Reuters quoted Tax Law Center policy director Brandon DeBot calling the fund a “breathtaking abuse of the tax and legal system" and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) calling it a “slush fund” that represented “a stunning act of corruption.”

Some Republican lawmakers have spoken out against the fund, such as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who said he doesn't “see a purpose” for it, and others seem bothered by the lack of details surrounding where the money might go. “I’ve got more questions than I’ve heard answers for,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

January 6 Capitol Police Officers have sued to block the fund on the grounds that it violates the 14th Amendment's prohibition on using federal funds for “any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

Even a few right-wing media voices have been lightly skeptical of the move.

On Fox's Special Report, guest anchor Trace Gallagher admitted that “who gets the money and where it comes from is a bit unclear.”

Special Report's reporting on the topic also included clips of Sens. John Kennedy (R-LA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) asking for clarity on where the money is coming from and “the legality of creating a fund that Congress hasn't had anything to say about.”

The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro touched on the matter, saying on his show, “I'm generally against slush funds, to be clear. I do not like them. I think there are other ways of pursuing redress for grievances in this fashion. However, many of the myths that you're hearing about it are overstated.”

Megyn Kelly said on her podcast about the fund, “I don't like it,” explaining that she'd rather see individual suits. But she also made false correlations between this move and Obama's Keepseagle fund, saying, “This was created by Barack Obama,” and, “The same media that's now ripping Trump to shreds for doing it said nothing, nothing when Barack Obama started it. … So I really have no tolerance for their cries and protestations about what Trump is doing.”

Already, January 6 rioters, election deniers, and Trump allies are lining up for a chance at the taxpayer money.

### True the Vote founder hopes “we will see some level of compensation” from Trump's weaponization fund

05/21/26 11:50 AM EDT

### Enrique Tarrio: “Every J6er needs to be able to get some type of funds” from Trump's weaponization money

05/20/26 5:26 PM EDT

### Newsmax's Greg Kelly defends Trump “weaponization” fund: “This is not an outlandish arrangement”

05/20/26

---

an 4 26

no lnx

Trump's son-in-law has a $5 billion problem

:{Jared Kushner applauds during U.S. President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026.

Thom Hartmann March 20, 2026

There are several clear winners from Trump’s attack on Iran:

— Russia, who can again fund its violence against Ukraine with new oil revenue and now claims its unprovoked attack on that nation is consistent with this new Trump Doctrine;

— Saudi Arabia, which has long hated Iran and lobbied since at least 2008 for the US to attack that country;

— the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has similarly pushed America to attack Iran since at least 2010;

— the American defense weapons industry, which is making additional billions;

— Don Jr. and Eric, who have taken a big position in a drone-manufacturing business, getting them in on the Pentagon gravy train;

— Donald Trump himself, who’s succeeded in largely pushing Epstein off the front page;

— and Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s called for American strikes against Iran since 1992 and will stay out of prison as long as the war continues.

The losers include:

— The credibility of the United States and the rule of international law;

— the families of 13 dead and 140 injured American soldiers and airmen,

— the families of at least 160 dead Iranian little girls and thousands of other dead civilians in a dozen countries,

— American taxpayers who’re paying for the bombs;

— and future prospects for world peace.

But the biggest winner may be Jared Kushner, who apparently pushed Trump to initiate the war while he’s trying to solicit $5 billion from the same Arab states that have been begging American administrations for decades to attack Iran.

Back on March 5th, I speculated here on Hartmann Report that Kushner and Witkoff had been negotiating with Iran in bad faith, possibly to get the Iranian leadership to meet together in one place so Netanyahu (who used to sleep in Kushner’s bedroom) could kill them all with a missile strike.

Three years earlier, I laid out the backstory of how Kushner allegedly helped MBS take over the Saudi kingdom and was richly rewarded with $2 billion to fund his new investment venture.

Now, The New York Times is reporting that Kushner is back at the Arab trough, trying to pick up an additional $5 billion for his company from the same states that have been begging America to attack Iran for decades.

This represents a massive and apparently corrupt conflict of interest, as Congressman Jamie Raskin and Senator Ron Wyden pointed out when they called for an investigation into Kushner acting as an unregistered foreign agent in violation of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. They wrote:

“This revelation is deeply disturbing, as Mr. Kushner appears to be influencing U.S. foreign policy by acting as a political consultant to the Saudi government while also accepting their money. … Mr. Kushner’s proximity to President Trump and the potential for political interference warrants the appointment of a Special Counsel.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, in a brilliant imitation of Vladimir Putin, is threatening news organizations for their reporting on the War. He seems upset about news stories that Trump may have ignored warnings from his top generals that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz if we attacked them; those reports appear to be well-sourced.

And it appears it was Kushner who was one of the main cheerleaders for this war, risks to world oil supplies and the possibility of the conflict igniting WWIII be damned.

Trump himself said that Kushner had advised him that Iran was preparing to strike America, something that’s patently impossible; they don’t have any missiles capable of reaching the United States and had just offered to sign a new deal promising never to develop any. Nonetheless, Trump — in an eerie echo of Bush’s lies about Iranian WMD — told America:

“Within a week, [Iran was] going to attack us, 100 percent. They were ready. They had all these missiles, far more than anyone thought, and they were going to attack us.”

Did I mention that Kushner is asking the Saudis and Emiratis for another $5 billion? As Popular Information reported:

“Kushner’s largest investor is the Saudi Arabian government, which provided Kushner with $2 billion in funding in 2021. Each year, Saudi Arabia pays Kushner 1.25% of its investment, $25 million, as a ‘management fee.’ Meaning he has received in excess of $100 million from the Saudi government over the last few years.

“Notably, ‘Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman made multiple private phone calls to Trump’ in February, advocating a U.S. attack,’ according to reporting in the Washington Post. Trump’s comments reveal that Kushner used his role in Geneva to push Trump toward the outcome favored by his biggest client. Affinity Partners also received more than $200 million from the UAE. According to CNN, behind the scenes, the UAE was also lobbying Trump to strike Iran.”

Never before in American history have US negotiators had massive personal financial stakes in the outcome of their own negotiations. It’s a clear violation of the Constitution’s and US law’s ban on foreign emoluments, and possibly numerous anti-bribery laws.

With Congress paralyzed by terrified, spineless Republicans refusing to even look into the possibility that billionaire Trump, billionaire Kushner, billionaire Witkoff, and billionaires in the Middle East have thrown America into war just to enrich themselves, the burden has fallen on the American press.

Which has produced the predictable squeals from Carr and the billionaire Murdoch family’s Fox “News” propaganda channel, and from Whiskey Pete Hegseth, giggling about how things are going to change when David Ellison takes over CNN.

Threats notwithstanding, our elected officials need to step up now to defend both the First Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, and the lives of our men and women in uniform.

Even lacking subpoena power, Democratic leadership should convene shadow hearings to investigate this possible double-dealing that’s already killed Americans and threatens to plunge the entire world into flames.

At the very least, they should spend a few weeks holding public, on‑the‑record hearings into whether this Iran war is being steered from Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Kushner’s investment firm instead of the Pentagon.

With their Benghazi spectacle that followed the death of four Americans, Republicans taught us that when our officers and enlisted people die abroad, Congress has a duty to drag every decision‑maker before the cameras; Democrats should apply that same standard now, and ask under oath whether Trump, Kushner, and their billionaire partners are profiting from a war they helped ignite.

---

an 10 25

no lnx

Trump isn't the gravest threat to our democracy

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks during a Navy 250 Celebration in Norfolk, Virginia, U.S. October 5, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Thom HartmannNovember 01, 2025

Some data points for your consideration:

Last Saturday in Chicago’s affluent Old Irving Park neighborhood, Donald Trump’s secret, masked police violently pulled a 67‑year‑old U.S. citizen — a member of a local running club returning to his home from a run — out of his car and threw him to the street, where they assaulted him with such force that they broke six ribs and left him with internal bleeding.

Trump is openly taking bribes, publicly ordering political prosecutions, murdering people in naked violation of both US and international law, all while claiming the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity from prosecution for any crime.

An MIT study finds that lies presented as news travel six times faster across social media than truths.

While more than 75 percent of Americans trusted the news 50 years ago, today that number is a mere 28 percent, with only 8 percent of Republicans believing what they see or read in mainstream outlets.

These are all the same story, and they all largely derive from a single source, a mind poison that was introduced into the American (and world) mindstream in a big way about two decades ago.

It’s called the algorithm, and if we’re to survive as a republic it must be regulated the same way we regulate anything else that produces addictive, compulsive behavior that twists and distorts people’s lives.

Possibly the greatest threat to humanity at this moment is the algorithm.

It can twist and wreck people’s minds and lives — tear apart families and destroy countries — in a way that can be more rapid and more powerful than heroin, cocaine, or fentanyl. And yet it is completely unregulated.

An algorithm is a software program/system that inserts itself between humans as we attempt to communicate with each other. It decides which communications are important and which are not, which communications will be shared and which will not, what we will see or learn and what we will not.

As a result, in a nation where 48 percent of citizens get much or most of their news from social media, the algorithms driving social media sites ultimately decide which direction society will move as a result of the shared information they encourage or suppress across society.

When you log onto social media and read your “feed,” you’re not seeing (in most cases) what was most recently posted by the people you “follow.” While some of that’s there, the algorithm also feeds you other posts it thinks you’ll like based on your past behavior, so as to increase your “engagement,” aka the amount of time you spend on the site and thus the number of advertisements you will view.

As a result, your attention is continually tweaked, led, and fine-tuned to reflect the goal of the algorithm’s programmers. Click on a post about voting, for example, and the algorithm then leads you to election denial, from there to climate denial, from there to Qanon.

Next stop, radicalization or paralysis. But at least you stayed along for the ride and viewed a lot of ads in the process.

Algorithms used in social media are not tuned for what is best for society. They don’t follow the rules that hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution have built into our cultures, religions, and political systems.

They don’t ask themselves, “Is this true?” or “Will this information help or hurt this individual or humanity?”

Instead, the algorithms’ main purpose is to make more money for the billionaires who own the social media platforms.

If telling you that, as Trump recently said, climate change “may affect us in 300 years” makes for more engagement (and more profit for the social media site) than does telling the truth about fossil fuels, it will get pushed into more and more minds.

No matter that such lies literally threaten human society short-term and possibly the survival of the human race long-term.

As Jaron Lanier told the Guardian:

“People survive by passing information between themselves. We’re putting that fundamental quality of humanness through a process with an inherent incentive for corruption and degradation. The fundamental drama of this period is whether we can figure out how to survive properly with those elements or not.”

Those of a certain age or students of the advertising business may remember when Vance Packard’s book The Hidden Persuaders set off a panic across America in the 1960s, claiming that movies and TV shows were inserting micro-bursts of advertisements that flew below the radar of consciousness but nevertheless changed behavior.

The classic example was popcorn flashing on movie screens with the words “Buy Now!” It provoked a panic in Congress and multiple attempts at legislation to outlaw it before the practice was debunked as ineffective.

But algorithms are far from ineffective. They’re arguably one of the most powerful forces on the planet today.

The premise of several books, most famously Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, is that the collection of massive amounts of data about each of us — then massaged and used by “automated” algorithms to increase our engagement — is actually a high-tech form of old fashioned but extremely effective thought control.

She argues that these companies are “intervening in our experience to shape our behavior in ways that favor surveillance capitalists’ commercial outcomes. New automated protocols are designed to influence and modify human behavior at scale as the means of production is subordinated to a new and more complex means of behavior modification.” (Emphasis hers.)She notes that “only a few decades ago US society denounced mass behavior-modification techniques as unacceptable threats to individual autonomy and the democratic order.” Today, however, “the same practices meet little resistance or even discussion as they are routinely and pervasively deployed” to meet the financial goals of those engaging in surveillance capitalism.

This is such a powerful system for modifying our perspectives and behaviors, she argues, that it intervenes in or interferes with our “elemental right to the future tense, which accounts for the individual’s ability to imagine, intend, promise, and construct a future.” (Emphasis hers.)

Social media companies have claimed that their algorithms are intellectual properties, inventions, and trade secrets, all things that fall under the rubric of laws designed to advance and protect intellectual property and commerce.

In my book The Hidden History of Big Brother: How the Death of Privacy and the Rise of Surveillance Threaten Us and Our Democracy, I argue that algorithms should be open-source and thus publicly available for examination.

The reason so many algorithms are so toxic is because they are fine-tuned or adjusted to maximize engagement to benefit advertisers, who then pay the social media company, with little or no consideration for their impact on individuals or society.

Even more insidious, a billionaire social media company owner with a political agenda can program his algorithm to promote a particular politician, point of view, or a story that might help or destroy a politician or political party. Or even destroy a nation’s citizens’ faith in their government, media, or in democracy itself.

One way to get this under control is to require social media companies to ditch the algorithm and its associated advertising revenue model, and work instead on a subscription model with a modest fee.

Nigel Peacock and I saw this at work for the nearly two decades that we ran over 20 forums on CompuServe back in the 1980s and ’90s. Everybody there paid a membership fee to CompuServe and there was no advertising, so we had no incentive to try to manipulate their experience beyond normal moderation. There was no algorithm driving the show.

Replacing secret algorithms with subscriptions — or requiring they be publicly available in plain English so everybody can see how they’re being manipulated — would reduce the amount of screen time and the level of “screen addiction” so many people experience.

There’s an absolute consensus among both social scientists, psychologists, and political scientists that reducing algorithm-driven screen addiction would be a good thing for both individual mental health and the cohesion and health of our society.

But lacking a change in business model, the unique power social media holds to change behavior for good or ill — from Twitter spreading the Arab Spring, to Facebook provoking a mass slaughter in Myanmar, to both helping Russia elect Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024 — cries out for regulation, transparency, or, preferably, both.

Three years ago, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Yvette Clarke, (D-NY) introduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022, which would do just that.

“Too often, Big Tech’s algorithms put profits before people, from negatively impacting young people’s mental health, to discriminating against people based on race, ethnicity, or gender, and everything in between,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a co-sponsor of the legislation.“It is long past time,” she added, “for the American public and policymakers to get a look under the hood and see how these algorithms are being used and what next steps need to be taken to protect consumers.”

And — let’s not forget — to protect our democracy, our nation, and our planet.

The morbidly rich people who own our social media, focused more on adding more billions to their money bins than the consequences of their algorithms, don’t seem particularly concerned about these issues. Instead, they appear to be intentionally tweaking their algorithms to promote content that agrees with their political views and economic interests (although we can’t be sure because they keep them secret).

But it’s a safe bet that without the “enraging effect” of algorithmic amplification of outrage and hate, Donald Trump would never have become president, most Americans wouldn’t support brutal ICE tactics out of fear of brown people, and we wouldn’t today live in a nation where one in five households have stopped speaking with each other because of politics.

Right now, the Trump administration and Republican politicians don’t want to touch this subject because they believe Zuckerberg, Musk, and others who control the algorithms are using them to the GOP’s advantage.

But that sword can cut both ways, when public outrage reaches the point where it’s more profitable for the tech billionaires to promote anger against those in power than those currently on the outside.

It’s way past time to end the algorithmic manipulation of the American mind.

Pass it along (because the algorithm probably won’t).

---

7 25 GMAIL

Read our_full blog post_on our website.

An attempt to defund the District of Columbia’s consumer protection lawsuit against Big Oil is part of a wider attack on climate accountability lawsuits

As Big Oil and its allies lobby to shield the fossil fuel industry from a growing number of climate deception lawsuits, Congress is now taking aim at a case filed by the nation’s capital.

Recently proposed legislation would prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims” — a clear attack on D.C.’s ongoing lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.

“The fossil fuel industry and its allies are trying to kill any and all lawsuits that would hold Big Oil companies accountable for their climate lies and the damage they’ve caused — and this assault on D.C.’s ability to enforce its own consumer protection laws is part of their playbook,” said CCI President Richard Wiles.

Read our full blog post on our website:

July 24, 2025

As Big Oil and its allies lobby to shield the fossil fuel industry from a growing number of climate deception lawsuits, Congress is now taking aim at a case filed by the nation’s capital.

Under a newly released appropriations bill, Congress would prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims.” The legislation clearly targets D.C.’s ongoing lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell, which argues the companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by engaging in misleading acts and practices around the marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products. In April, a D.C. court rejected the Big Oil companies’ motions to dismiss the case, bringing it one step closer to trial.

The attack on D.C.’s case comes after 16 Republican attorneys general asked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to help erect a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies against climate lawsuits. Among its tactics, the attorneys general recommended that the federal government restrict funding for state and local governments that seek to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate damages.

:{:{CCI and nearly 200 other groups have urged Congress to support climate accountability and oppose immunity for Big Oil. Now a growing number of public officials are joining those calls. U.S. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. in Congress, vowed to fight the attack on D.C.’s lawsuit. The National Association of Counties, representing thousands of county officials across the U.S., is urgingCongress to reject any legislation that “would limit or preempt counties’ access to courts or give companies immunity from lawsuits over damages and costs.” }:

And Oregon’s congressional representatives called for President Trump to rescind an order that targeted state climate actions. “Governments, residents, businesses, and others must have access to legal and legislative remedies in order to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, seek justice, and make polluters pay for the damage they have caused,” they wrote.}:

“No industry should be above the law, especially one as powerful and harmful as Big Oil,” said CCI’s Wiles. “Members of Congress must reject this underhanded attempt to help Big Oil escape accountability and protect access to the courts for every community.”

REF 1 CCI

June 26, 2025

As communities across the country get closer than ever to putting Big Oil companies on trial for decades of climate lies, fossil fuel industry allies are ramping up their efforts to secure blanket immunity for the industry and protect oil companies from facing accountability for their harmful deception.

In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, more than a dozen Republican attorneys general this month called on the Department of Justice to recommend legislation aimed at barring the courthouse doors for dozens of communities’ fighting to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their ongoing climate deception and the harm it has caused. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a “desperate” and “highly unusual” request from many of the same attorneys general that sought to block states from suing Big Oil. Having failed to escape accountability in court, Big Oil lobbyists have reportedly been urging members of Congress to pass legal protections for the companies.

The new letter includes a laundry list of legislative recommendations, including creating a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies “similar to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005,” (PLCAA) — the notorious law that gave broad immunity to gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits for injuries “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm. Victims of gun violence and their families have said that PLCAA has taken away their constitutional right to be heard in court and has shut down avenues for accountability and the healing it can bring.

"This is simply the latest in a long line of desperate maneuvers to help the fossil fuel industry escape accountability in court for their well-documented climate deception and the astronomical damage it has caused,” said CCI President Richard Wiles about the letter. “They want dishonest and polluting corporations to be completely above the law, and if they get their way they would block access to the courts for communities, businesses, and their own constituents who have been harmed by Big Oil."

During a farcical Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday that sought to cast doubt on climate accountability cases, one of those attorneys general, Kris Kobach from Kansas, was pressed by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal about his opposition to lawsuits against Big Oil. Blumenthal pointed out that Connecticut and other states are suing ExxonMobil for lying about the harms of its products — just as Kansas is suing Pfizer for, in Kobach’s words, making “certain representations about their product that turned out to be contrary to the information they had.”

IFrame Content

Under questioning, Kobach conceded that "I'm not saying the claims [against Big Oil] are wrongly brought." But when he tried to blame individuals for their fossil fuel use, Blumenthal, who successfully sued tobacco companies as Connecticut Attorney General, pointed out the flaw in that logic.

“I could take the words exactly that you’ve just uttered and substitute ‘tobacco,’ and they would be identical to what the tobacco industry was saying about our lawsuit at the time,” Blumenthal commented.

At the top of the hearing, Ranking Member Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island explained that climate accountability lawsuits come down to a simple question: Who should pay for climate damages? Taxpayers, or the fossil fuel companies responsible for the climate crisis?

IFrame Content

KICKASS

Earlier this year, nearly two hundred groups, including CCI, called on members of Congress to oppose any efforts to shield Big Oil companies from legal accountability.

REF 2

July 23, 2025

Members of Oregon’s congressional delegation are urging President Trump to repeal an “unprecedented and illegal” executive order that aims to block local governments’ attempts to hold Big Oil companies accountable for climate deception and damages. The letter, signed by U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden along with five of Oregon’s six House representatives, comes as oil companies and their allies have ramped up their attempts to escape the growing number of climate accountability lawsuits filed against them.

“Our communities across the country are suffering grave threats to our public health, safety, and economic security as a result of Big Oil’s climate deception and pollution,” the letter says. “Governments, residents, businesses, and others must have access to legal and legislative remedies in order to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, seek justice, and make polluters pay for the damage they have caused.”

The administration’s April executive order called on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to “expeditiously take all appropriate action” to stop climate accountability lawsuits that “could result in crippling damages” for fossil fuel companies. In response, the Justice Department sued Hawai’i and Michigan in an attempt to block those states from filing previously announced lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. In response, Hawai’i officially filed its climate deception lawsuit against Big Oil and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel vowed to move forward with her plan to sue fossil fuel companies, calling the Justice Department’s lawsuit “at best frivolous and arguably sanctionable.”

The Oregon letter also questions the legality of the administration’s actions, arguing that the executive order “threatens the ability of states and localities to hold polluters responsible for the costs of their actions.”

“Extreme weather events are already harming households across the country, and the impacts are only going to get worse,” the letter says. “Trillions of dollars will be needed for our country to adapt to the climate future, as well as to help people rebuild in the face of natural disasters. The question is who is going to be responsible for paying those costs: taxpayers, or the oil and gas companies that have profited from the crisis?”

More than one in four Americans live in a community suing oil companies for their climate deception. Oregon’s most populous county, Multnomah County, is suing ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and other fossil fuel companies for knowingly fueling extreme weather events like the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome, which killed 69 county residents. In recent court filings, experts noted that Multnomah County was unaware that the heat dome was even possible because of the “misinformation fossil fuel producers have long used to deny or downplay the magnitude and timing of harmful climate change.”

“As members of Oregon’s congressional delegation, we will not stand idly by while this Administration attempts to undercut efforts to combat climate chaos,” Oregon’s congressional delegation letter states. “The Administration cannot only respect the principle of states' rights when it thinks the state is right. We urge you to repeal your executive order so that states are able to protect their citizens as they see fit.”

Oregon’s letter is signed by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, and U.S. Representatives Suzanne Bonamici, Maxie Dexter, Janelle Bynum, Val Hoyle, and Andrea Salinas.

---

an 3 25

Despite his pledge of "maximum transparency," Elon Musk has gone to great lengths to obscure the names and activities of staffers working for his Department of Government Efficiency—even claiming at one point that it is illegal to publicly identify members of the advisory commission.

That didn't stop Wired from publishing a story on Thursday that names 10 DOGE operatives who have infiltrated the Social Security Administration, which is facing deep staffing cuts that advocates warn could impact the delivery of benefits.

The staffers, according to Wired, are Akash Bobba, Scott Coulter, Marko Elez, Luke Farritor, Antonio Gracias, Gautier Cole Killian, Jon Koval, Nikhil Rajpal, Payton Rehling, and Ethan Shaotran. The list "includes a number of young engineers whose presence at the SSA has not been reported."

"This team appears to be among the largest DOGE units deployed to any government agency," the outlet noted. "Many of them have worked or interned at Musk companies such as Tesla and SpaceX, and the majority of them have also appeared at other government agencies in recent weeks, as part of DOGE's incursion into the government."

Three of the DOGE staffers—Gracias, Koval, and Rehling—don't seem to have any prior government experience," Wired observed, "but Gracias does have a long history with Musk—he worked at Tesla for 14 years as a company director and helped Musk take the company public."

The details came amid widespread alarm and legal action over DOGE staffers' access to highly sensitive information at SSA, which administers benefits to tens of millions of Americans.

Bloombergreported Thursday that "at least seven DOGE staffers have been granted access to a database known as the Master File of Social Security Number Holders and SSN Applications, also known as Numident."

"They currently have read-only access as they try to connect the dots between Social Security numbers and possible fraudulent benefits," Bloomberg added.

Both Musk and President Donald Trump have falsely claimed in recent weeks that tens of millions of dead people are receiving Social Security benefits.

Wired reported that "one of the tasks the DOGE cohort will be assigned is how people identify themselves to access their benefit payments."

"Experts with decades of experience at the agency are now worried that DOGE operatives working across multiple agencies increases the risk of SSA data being shared outside of the agency, or that their inexperience will lead to them breaking systems entirely," the outlet added.

Leland Dudek, whom Trump installed as acting SSA commissioner last month, has acknowledged to senior agency staff that Musk's lieutenants are now effectively in the driver's seat at the department, making key decisions despite their lack of knowledge of SSA systems.

"Are we going to break something?" Dudek asked during a recent closed-door meeting with SSA staffers and advocates. "I don't know."

The new reporting on DOGE staffers' presence at SSA comes as Democratic lawmakers are demanding an investigation into Musk's activities at the agency amid mounting concerns that he wants to privatize Social Security.

In a letter to the Republican chair of the Senate Finance Committee earlier this week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and other Democratic senators warned that DOGE staffers' "unfettered access" to SSA data raises "a profound risk of causing irreparable harm to the agency's systems and Americans' financial security."

===

an 12 24

Tom Cotton blocks bill to shield journalists from betraying sources

// TPM

Reporters are used to the two-facedness, particularly in the Trump era: Republicans interact with them in the Capitol hallways, leak them information or spin behind closed doors, then go to the floor or a rally and whip up listeners against these “enemies within.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) did the two-step Tuesday, blocking a federal shield bill that would protect journalists from being forced to reveal confidential sources due, in part, to reporters’ supposed “long record of endangering our troops.”

“Passage of this bill would turn the United Senate into the active accomplice of deep state leakers, traitors and criminals, along with the America-hating and fame-hungry journalists who help them out,” he said on the Senate floor.

He mused that it should be called “The Alexander Vindman Protection Act,” referring to the former NSC employee who testified against Donald Trump during his first impeachment.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the bill’s primary sponsor, posted on Bluesky: “I’m not taking my foot off the gas. I’ll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law.”

Wyden also introduced the Free Speech Protection Act last week, a parallel press protection bill that would have shielded journalists from frivolous lawsuits. TPM broke the news of the legislation earlier this month.

Both bills face long odds without robust Republican support. But some advocacy groups are calling for creativity — and persistence — in the face of a looming Trump presidency.

“We need more than speeches about the PRESS Act’s importance. We need action,” Freedom of the Press Foundation Director of Advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement after Cotton objected to Wyden’s request to pass the bill via unanimous consent Tuesday. “Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law — whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own — even if it means shortening lawmakers’ holiday break.”

---}:

an 7 24

Two Senate Democrats have published a list of roughly three dozen lavish gifts Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas received from right-wing billionaires during his time on the Court.

On the eve of the Independence Day holiday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Thomas for "possible violations of ethics and tax laws" in his "repeated and willful omissions" of gifts from wealthy benefactors.

"The scale of the potential ethics violations by Justice Thomas, and the willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws, exceeds the conduct of other government officials investigated by the Department of Justice for similar violations," Whitehouse and Wyden wrote. "The breadth of the omissions uncovered to date, and the serious possibility of additional tax fraud and false statement violations by Justice Thomas and his associates, warrant the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate this misconduct."

On page 14 of the PDF Whitehouse posted to his Senate website, there are two lists of gifts to Thomas. The first list describes gifts from far-right real estate magnate Harlan Crow, and the second list shows gifts from other wealthy sponsors, like entrepreneur Anthony Welters — who "loaned" Thomas a luxury RV and then later forgave the loan — and billionaire Wayne Huizenga.

The gifts from Crow date back to 2003, and list excursions like "Yacht trip to Russia and the Baltics" and Helicopter to Yusipov Palace, St. Petersburg." Out of the roughly two dozen gifts Crow gave to Thomas, four are private school tuition payments for his grand-nephew. Many of Crow's other gifts were private jet flights and yacht cruises, including one Sens. Whitehouse and Wyden described as "around Greek islands."

And out of the gifts on the second list, three were from Huizenga, two were from Welters, and five were from former Berkshire Hathaway board member David Sokol. Billionaire Warren Buffett, who owns Berkshire Hathaway, forced Sokol out in 2011 after he learned that Sokol bought a stake in a company he later convinced Buffett's company to buy. Buffett called Sokol's actions "inexplicable" and "inexcusable."

"No government official should be above the law. Supreme Court justices are properly expected to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to comply with the federal tax code," the senators wrote. "We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure, false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders and intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan."

In 2023, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Davide Cay Johnston commented that it was possible Thomas could face "criminal prosecution" by not paying taxes on the previously undisclosed gifts from Crow and others. He opined that any lower-level court judge would not be able to avoid the charges if they failed to pay taxes on gifts worth millions of dollars.

"What Clarence Thomas has done would result in not only any judges in America being removed from the bench, but there is a good chance it would result in criminal prosecution for income tax fraud and for false filings in his mandatory financial ethics disclosure statements," Johnston said in December.

Last month, anti-corruption watchdog group Fix the Court totaled Thomas' gifts and found that the conservative jurist had received approximately $4 million in gifts dating back to 2004 – far more than any other justice on the Supreme Court. And of the 193 gifts Thomas received, he only listed 27 on his required financial disclosure reports.

Click here to read Whitehouse and Wyden's full letter to Garland.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/to-us-oligarchs-majority-views-on-taxing-the-rich-count-for-little/

noah b

With one political party entirely committed to expanding inequality, and the other divided on the issue, overwhelming public support and commonsense ethical commitments don’t carry much weight.

That’s how oligarchies consolidate. The wealthy horde power and wealth, then that power and wealth gives them the ability to shape institutions to further increase their power and wealth.

Yellen has had some successes in restraining wealthy and corporate power. She negotiated an international agreement with 136 countries to implement a global corporate minimum tax of 15 percent.

At some point, corruption stops being a bug in democracy and starts becoming a feature of oligarchy.

Has the US passed that threshold?

Based on the sweeping and effective resistance to commonsense solutions to reign in wealthy tax scofflaws, the answer is not encouraging.

Since the 1970s, the United States has become steadily and inexorably more economically unequal. According to Pew, upper income families have brought in a larger and larger share of total income.

US income inequality is the highest of all G7 nations. Its Gini coefficient is .434, well above second highest UK at .392.

In 1968, the top 20 percent of households earned 43 percent of national income. By 2018, the top 20 percent of households earned 52 percent.

In 1989, the richest 5 percent of families had 114 times as much wealth as families in the second poorest income tier. In 2016, they had 248times as much wealth.

In 2020, the 50 richest Americans had almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the US population.

This massive concentration of wealth is also a massive concentration of power. The wealthiest people have access to the best lawyers, the best tax attorneys and the most powerful politicians.

That means that it is very difficult for the government to restrain them, or to create a more equitable economy and society against their wishes.

That’s how oligarchies consolidate. The wealthy horde power and wealth, then that power and wealth gives them the ability to shape institutions to further increase their power and wealth. [amp fdbk]

An example of oligarchical power is billionaire tax evasion. A recent IRS study found that wealthy Americans conceal more than 20 percent of their earnings. They are able to do this because of complex accounting scams involving offshore tax shelters.

The lost tax costs the government at least $175 billion a year in revenue. The top 1 percent of earners are responsible for a third of unpaid federal taxes.

In addition to these straightforwardly illegal accounting tricks, the very wealthy also benefit from at least nominally legal loopholes.

For instance, wealthy people have many assets that increase in value over time, but they do not pay taxes on those assets until they sell them.

They can borrow against those assets without paying taxes, since again the assets aren’t considered income. Then, if they die before selling the assets, they can pass them on to their heirs using trusts and other accounting shenanigans to avoid the estate tax.

ProPublica called this strategy Buy, Borrow, Die. It’s a key method for hoarding generational wealth, and entrenching oligarchy.

The Biden administration, led by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, have proposed strong measures to rein in billionaire corruption. In part, they want to restrain inequality. In part, they hope to fund other priorities like climate mitigation and anti-poverty measures in the administration’s Build Back Better infrastructure plan.

To address billionaire tax evasion, BBB included $80 billion to boost capacity and staff at the IRS. That would help make up for the steady budget-cuts under Republican administrations. Those have led to a 60 percent decrease in audits of taxpayers who earn more than $1 million. Biden said the investment would allow the IRS to collect $400 billion in taxes.

Biden, Yellen and Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden have also been pushing for a billionaire tax to force the very wealthy to pay taxes on the increased value of their assets.

This would strike at the heart of the oligarchic “Buy, Borrow, Die” lifestyle. It would force the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share, like everyone else, every year, year after year.

Policies that prevent the rich from escaping a tax burden everyone has to pay should be easy to pass in a democracy. You’d think preventing billionaires from cheating on their taxes would be a popular policy.

And you’d be correct.

A 2019 poll, for example, showed that 76 percent of Americans agreed that the wealthiest should pay more in taxes. Proposals to tax income over $10 million at 70 percent — a huge increase over current rates — obtained more than 50 percent support.

In an oligarchy, though, public support doesn’t necessarily count for all that much.

A notorious 2015 study found that politicians were much more likely to listen to and follow the political preferences of economic elites than those of the less affluent.

You can see that playing out in the politics of billionaire taxation.

Build Back Better, which included the beefed-up IRS funding, was scuttled by millionaire West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, in large part, reportedly, because he was worried that poor parents would spend money on drugs.

A wealthy politician refused to enforce the law against billionaires because he was worried that poor people are natural criminals.

That is what you call class consciousness.

Wyden’s proposal to end “Buy, Borrow, Die” also failed after opposition from Manchin. It was of course opposed by Senate Republicans, whose main goal is to shovel as much money as possible to the rich in as short a time as possible.

Yellen has had some successes in restraining wealthy and corporate power. She negotiated an international agreement with 136 countries to implement a global corporate minimum tax of 15 percent. This would make it harder for businesses to escape tax burdens by moving their corporate offices. Congress still has to pass the treaty, but Yellen said she was confident they would do so.

The corporate minimum tax is a substantial achievement. But it’s also a small dam erected against the tsunami of inequality in the US.

With one political party entirely committed to expanding inequality, and the other divided on the issue, overwhelming public support and commonsense ethical commitments don’t carry much weight.

The wealthy have been expanding their power and influence for decades in the US. The result is that the US regularly chooses to make the rich richer rather than helping the poorest feed their children.

The outlook for change is likely to be even bleaker if Republicans recapture one or both legislative chambers in November.

Yellen and Biden are to be commended for fighting an ongoing rearguard action against corruption. But if government inability to restrain corruption is a feature of oligarchy, then the US is already well down a path that it is very difficult to retrace.

---

no lnx twit nice table

https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/us-billionaires/

Top 10 US billionaires got $1 billion richer every day of pandemic

Jake Johnson and Common Dreams January 20, 2022

The 10 wealthiest billionaires in the U.S. have added roughly $1 billion to their collective fortune every day—or around $12,600 per second—since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed millions of people across the globe and thrown countless lives into chaos.

The billionaire wealth update comes courtesy of the progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), which released an analysis Wednesday estimating that the combined net worth of the 10 richest people in the U.S. has more than doubled since March 2020, reaching $1.35 trillion this week.

"The pandemic has been very good to American billionaires, especially the top 10," said ATF executive director Frank Clemente, who noted that billionaires' pandemic profits will likely not be taxed because they consist largely of unrealized capital gains.

Sen. Ron Wyden's (D-Ore.) proposal to subject the unrealized capital gains of the mega-wealthy to taxation has gone nowhere in Congress.

"Their obscene rise in wealth—all of it potentially untaxed—stands in stark contrast to the lot of America's working families, who've struggled through almost two years of a health crisis and economic uncertainty including most recently, rising prices," Clemente said. "Chairman Wyden's Billionaires Income Tax would better align the fortunes of America's richest of the rich with the needs of average Americans."

[nice table/stats]

ATF's analysis is the latest in a series of new studies highlighting the extent to which the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the decades-long trend of soaring wealth inequality in the U.S. and worldwide.

Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported,Oxfam International released an analysis showing that the 10 richest men in the world have doubled their combined wealth since the pandemic began. Meanwhile, the anti-poverty group noted, "the incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off because of Covid-19."

On Tuesday, a coalition of progressive organizations including the Fight Inequality Alliance and the Institute for Policy Studies estimated that a modest annual wealth tax on global millionaires and billionaires would raise $2.52 trillion dollars a year, enough money to lift 2.3 billion people out of poverty.

In an open letter published Wednesday morning, a group of more than 100 rich individuals voiced support for such a tax, warning that "history paints a pretty bleak picture of what the endgame of extremely unequal societies looks like."

"For all our well-being—rich and poor alike—it's time to confront inequality and choose to tax the rich," reads the letter, which was addressed to political and economic elites. "If you don't, then all the private talks won’t change what's coming—it's taxes or pitchforks. Let's listen to history and choose wisely."

---

an 10 21

no lnx twt

'Pelosi absolutely destroyed' the proposed tax on billionaires, says Democratic insider

Kenny Stancil and Common Dreams October 28, 2021

Although right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin publicly attacked a proposed billionaires' tax almost as soon as it was unveiled, one journalist argued Wednesday that blaming the West Virginia coal baron for shooting down the popular provision is an oversimplification that lets other conservative Democrats—including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who reportedly criticized the measure behind closed doors—off the hook.

Just hours after Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced his plan to make a few hundred super-rich tax dodgers pay a fairer share, Manchin threw cold water on the idea, calling it divisive to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to fund expanded public benefits and climate action by "targeting" those with $1 billion in assets or $100 million in annual income for three straight years. That led House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) to declare that congressional support for the proposal is insufficient.

Given that he has done so much to weaken the Build Back Better Act, many believe Manchin alone is responsible for killing the billionaires' tax, but Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent made the case that this emerging narrative ignores the role played by other corporate Democrats.

For example, Pelosi, a multimillionaire from California, "sharply faulted the proposal at a caucus meeting earlier this week, according to a Democratic aide who overheard the remarks," wrote Sargent. "This aide told me Pelosi pronounced it a PR stunt that wouldn't accomplish anything."

"Pelosi absolutely destroyed it," said the aide.

According to Sargent:

Another senior Democratic aide rejected this idea, saying that Pelosi's criticism was confined to the fact that at the time there was no bill text for the proposal. Democrats coalesced around it only in recent days.

"The speaker expressed frustration Monday that there was no text and therefore impossible to score," this aide told me. "The thrust of her comments were about it being too late in the process not to have a codified proposal."

As Common Dreams has reported, the combined net worth of the nation's 745 billionaires skyrocketed by $2.1 trillion over the past year and a half, as millions were devastated by the Covid-19 pandemic and its economic repercussions. Taxing billionaires' unrealized stock gains emerged as a potential revenue-raiser after right-wing Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)—swimming in campaign cash from Wall Street—single-handedly blew up her party's plan to hike taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Sinema and other Big Pharma-bankrolled Democrats, including Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Reps. Kathleen Rice (N.Y.), Scott Peters (Calif.), and Kurt Schrader (Ore.), have also undermined a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs, which would have protected Americans from deadly price-gouging and saved the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars per year—leaving the party scrambling to figure out how to pay for its increasingly anemic reconciliation bill.

Regarding the billionaires' tax, Sargent argued that "other Democrats are waiting in the cloakroom to kill it with no fingerprints."

Neal, for instance, "has questioned whether it will hold up in court. That would dovetail with Pelosi's private opposition, and both of them working together suggest there may be plenty of other House Democrats privately opposed."

Moreover, "other Senate Democrats appear to oppose the proposal but don't want to say so openly," Sargent added. "After all, it's not easy to come down on the side of protecting the wealth of billionaires."

---

KYRSTEN SINEMA USED THE WINERY WHERE SHE INTERNED TO FUNDRAISE WITH PRIVATE EQUITY

The Arizona senator, who is blocking tax increases on the rich, spent the summer courting donors who stand to lose under major tax reform.

Daniel BoguslawDaniel Boguslaw

September 26 2021,

THE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR threatening to block the party’s ambitious social policy agenda in order to preserve former President Donald Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthy spent last summer interning at a winery owned by the private equity baron Bill Price.

In the summer of 2020, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., interned at Three Sticks, a winery in Sonoma, California, owned by Bill Price, co-founder of the private equity leviathan TPG Capital. According to the job description, interns “assist in all facets of harvest work including cleaning and sanitizing equipment, sorting fruit, punchdowns, making basic additions and managing fermentations according to winemaker instructions, barrel work, and other winery-related tasks.”

Sinema’s personal financial disclosures show that she was paid $1,117.40 in wages for her work. But an ensuing fundraiser at Three Sticks, held in August, netted her campaign coffers much more.

Sinema has told Democratic colleagues, according to the New York Times, that she will oppose any tax increases on either corporate or personal rates, essential pillars of the legislation. Her opposition to tax hikes on the rich comes amid a major spending blitz to encourage her to stand against any tax increases on private equity executives or hedge funds.

The same summer that Sinema completed her internship, Three Sticks was one of three stops on a weekend fundraising tour. Tickets to the fundraiser cost $5,000 per guest, with contributions going toward both her own campaign committee and the Getting Things Done political action committee, a leadership PAC used to support fellow congressional moderates such as New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer. Sinema courted major donors that summer, including Lyft CEO Logan Green, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and of course Price himself, who contributed $5,000.

In the past two years, Sinema has received tens of thousands of dollars in maxed out donations from private equity partners like Price and investment firm CEOs.Now, many of those same senior firm executives stand to lose millions to the IRS if a bill targeting the carried interest tax loophole is included as part of the Senate’s budget reconciliation process. Those executive donors include senior directors at TPG and billionaire Blackstone CEO Jonathan Gray.

Sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse, the Ending the Carried Interest Loophole Act would require hedge fund managers and private equity executives to pay taxes on their income at the same rates as other workers, ending favored treatment for such executives. Right now, their compensation is not considered income. It is instead classified as a tax deferrable capital gain, subject to far lower rates, despite its near-identical function.

In June, the private equity industry lobby launched a pressure campaign targeting Sinema and fellow Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly to leave the carried interest tax loophole intact.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the bill would raise more than $63 billion over 10 years, serving as an important part of the pay for — the taxes used to offset new spending — in Democrats’ proposed $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation plan. Sinema has repeatedly described the plan as too expensive.

Multiple congressional aides who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity said that Sinema’s office has been silent on whether or not she will support closing the loophole, despite her concern over the price tag of her party’s budget reconciliation bill and the vast sums the carried interest tax could raise.

BEFORE OPENING HIS winery, Price co-founded TPG, one of the largest private equity firms in the world, in 1992. Despite announcing his departure from TPG in 2006, Price listed TPG as his employer on a 2020 Federal Election Commission filing with the title of “partner emeritus.” A spokesperson for Price told The Intercept, “Bill Price no longer has any affiliation with TPG and has not for a decade.” When shown a copy of the FEC filing, the same spokesperson did not respond for further comment. In 2019, during the college admissions pay-to-play scandal, Price’s connection to the firm resurfaced when he defended Bill McGlashan, the husband of his wife’s sister and a senior TPG partner he brought to the firm in 2004. TPG did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Last week, Sinema announced explicit opposition to yet another critical budget reconciliation revenue mechanism:Democrats’ drug pricing plan,which various estimates say could save the government between $450 and $700 billion over 10 years. In July, Sen. Mitch McConnell called Sinema’s rejection of the budget reconciliation price tag “very courageous.”

As The Daily Poster first reported, Sinema, who has raised over $500,000 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, was featured in ads by a pharma-funded dark-money group just before she went public with her opposition to drug pricing legislation. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that since entering Congress, Sinema has also grossed well over $6 million in donations from the finance, insurance, and real estate industry.

Earlier this month, the Chamber of Commerce put out a report claiming that closing the carried interest tax loophole would cost almost 5 million jobs and create billions in tax shortfalls.

“The carried interest loophole rewards one narrow class of workers, fund managers, whose compensation already is in the stratosphere compared to almost everyone else, with a deeply discounted income tax rate. It’s indefensible,” Bob Lord, tax counsel at Americans for Tax Fairness, told The Intercept.

“Carried interest also allows fund managers to defer tax on their compensation until the fund’s investments are sold. The rest of us pay tax on our labor income currently, not years later,” Lord said. “Apologists at the Chamber of Commerce justify this travesty with claims the country would lose jobs if fund managers paid tax at the same rate as the rest of us. By that logic, why wouldn’t we reduce their rate to zero? More jobs, right? Or perhaps the IRS should pay them? Even more jobs, right? How any member of Congress would take the Chamber of Commerce seriously here mystifies me.”

COMPARED TO HER Democratic colleagues and corporate donors, Sinema’s personal financial disclosures are sparse. Her 2020 filing lists two retirement plans, adormant consulting business, and income generated from a teaching job at Arizona State University alongside her paltry internship income. This places Sinema’s personal finances in sharp contrast to the income generated by congressional allies like Joe Manchin, who has grossed millions from his coal interests over the course of the past decade.

When it comes to raising campaign cash though, few outmatch Sinema’s zeal for fundraisers and phone banking. According to multiple Democrats who served with Sinema in the House, she was the only member who seemed to actively love being in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee call center, claiming a couch for her sole personal use and complaining to other members when they had to leave to vote.

In 2020, she delivered a keynote speech followed by a fundraiser at SFVegas, the lavish securities conference held at the Aria Resort and Casino in Las Vegas and featured in the film “The Big Short.” Former British Prime Minister Theresa May headlined last year’s conference.

Sinema gave a keynote address at a Women in Securitization event before a fundraising reception sponsored by the Structured Finance PAC, which has donated tens of thousands of dollars to powerful members of the House Financial Services Committee such as Reps. Gregory Meeks and Carolyn Maloney. Sinema’s recent votes and public posturing suggest that the cash and advertising blitz launched by financial industry lobbyists may have achieved their intended effect.

In August, Sinema was the only Democrat to vote against an amendment to “establish a reserve fund relating to protecting family farms, ranches, and small businesses while ensuring the wealthy pay their fair share.” A day later, she voted against “a reserve fund relating to increasing the progressivity of the tax code.”

Sinema’s dramatic rightward shift toward the barons of finance and pharmaceuticals at the cost of progressive tax reform stands in sharp contrast to her childhood origin story, in which she talks about having grown up in an abandoned gas station without electricity or running water, at one point living out of a car.

In response to a colleague’s expression of support after anNPR story detailing her family’s struggles with financial hardship, Sinema, then a representative, speaking to colleagues in the Democratic cloakroom just off the House floor, deadpanned: “Yeah, voters love that stupid shit. They eat it up.”

---

===

--> IMPEACH

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/democrats-say-the-gops-attempt-to-smear-biden-accidentally-exposed-a-trump-officials-corrupt-scheme/

igor salon

the Republican report aimed at raising questions about the dealings of Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden in Ukraineappears to have accidentally implicated former Energy SecretaryRick Perry in an energy scheme in the foreign nation, according to the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

Republicans led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., released their much-hyped report on Hunter Biden’s role at the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma on Wednesday. However, it found no evidence of actual wrongdoing and relied largely on debunked claims, old statements and narratives pushed as part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

But the report did find new evidence related to Perry’s actions in Ukraine while he served in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet.

Amos Hochstein, a member of the supervisory board at the state-owned Ukrainian energy firm Naftogaz, told lawmakers that Perry “inappropriately pressured the Ukrainian government” to place Texas oil executive Robert Bensh on the board of the company while officials at the Department of Energy pressured the government to sign a deal with a “private business entity connected to Mr. Bensh,” according to a letter Wyden sent to Department of Energy Inspector General Teri Donaldson.

perry also pressured the Ukrainian government to place one of his longtime campaign supporters, Michael Bleyzer, on the board during a trip to Ukraine for President Volodymyr Zelensky’s inauguration in 2019, Wyden wrote. Bleyzer and his partner were later awarded a drilling contract in the country.

“Mr. Bleyzer’s contract that he was awarded was despite the fact that he was not the highest bidder in the process,” Hochstein told lawmakers. “Other . . . bids were higher, and therefore, Ukraine chose a bid that paid itself less.”

The heads of the state-owned Naftogaz conglomerate have since filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the contract, arguing that the Ukrainian government acted “illegally and with bias” in agreeing to the deal, Wyden noted.

“Witness testimony in this investigation has directly implicated former Secretary Rick Perry in alleged wrongdoing, and the department more broadly, in a scheme to undermine anti-corruption efforts that were implemented by Ukraine in partnership with the international community,” Wyden wrote.

Politico reported last year that Perry — who along with then-Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker were the “three amigos” who pushed a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine — played an active role in the Trump administration’s pressure on Zelensky, which ultimately led to thepresident’s impeachment.

ProPublica reported earlier this month that Perry repeatedly pushed deals that “were potentially worth billions of dollars to Perry’s friends and political donors” and could “stand to benefit” the secretary himself. Two of the deals, including one worth $20 billion, went to the Texas firm Energy Transfer. Perry served on the company’s board before and after his stint at the Energy Department and bought shares now worth about $800,000 three months after leaving his post, according to the report.

Ethics experts told the outlet that Perry’s efforts were violations of federal regulations. His actions also caught the attention of federal prosecutors, though he is reportedly not the target of any investigations.

The interview with Hochstein was part of the Senate Republicans’ investigation into whether Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma affected U.S. foreign policy. The report asserted that his position was “problematic and did interfere in the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine.” However, it did not include any new evidence suggesting his role affected the Obama administration’s policy. It also acknowledged that “the extent to which Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clear.”

Wyden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the probe pushed “Russian disinformation.” He further described it as “an attempted political hit job facilitated by the State Department.”

A Finance Committee aide told Talking Points Memo that finding new evidence against the Trump administration “was certainly not Republicans’ goal.”

“While Republicans’ Ukraine investigation showed Vice President Biden did nothing wrong,” the aide said, “it succeeded in implicating former Secretary Perry in a corrupt scheme to pressure the Ukrainian government to change the board of Naftogaz.”

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/documents-were-illegally-withheld-during-interior-secretary-confirmation-process-watchdog/

a report by the Interior Department Inspector General reveals that President Trump’s top Interior Solicitor, Daniel Jorjani, illegally withheld public documents prior to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s Senate confirmation hearing and then “perjured himself under oath,” according to a statement by the Western Values Project.

Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the Westlands Water District and big oil companies, is currently promoting a plan to increase Delta water exports to the Westlands Water District and other corporate agribusiness interests in California’s San Joaquin Valley while fast-tracking a plan to raise Shasta Dam on the Sacramento River.

The raising of Shasta Dam will inundate the remaining sacred sites of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe on the McCloud River and will spell disaster for imperiled Sacramento winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley steelhead populations.

An analysis by Western Values Project details Jorjani’s perjury. “This is nothing short of a criminal act, and Trump’s political appointees need to be held accountable,” said Jayson O’Neill, Western Values Project Director. “Withholding public documents, filtering potentially incriminating communications, and then lying about it under oath should result in Jorjani’s immediate removal, but that seems unlikely in President Trump’s and Secretary Bernhardt’s corrupt swamp."

according to O’Neill, “Western Values Project (WVP) first exposed the political ‘awareness review’ policy at Interior back in March of 2019. At the center of the new policy that allowed Trump’s political appointees to review and withhold critical and potentially incriminating public documents was former key-Koch network employee Daniel Jorjani.”

In June 2019, WVP and Campaign for Accountability, along with three other watchdog groups, filed a complaint with Interior’s watchdog that spurred an investigation of the political “awareness review” process of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests at the department.

“An analysis by WVP found that numerous media outlets, including The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Politico, The Hill, and others, as well as watchdog organizations, were subject to the political awareness review, causing delays and, in some cases, limiting responsive public documents being released,” WVP reported.

Yesterday, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., called for a criminal investigation into Jorjani after the Office of the Inspector General’s new report confirmed that DOI political appointees “may have violated a court order” by withholding documents to protect Secretary David Bernhardt during his confirmation process.

The IG’s findings further reveal that Jorjani “misled the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about his role in reviewing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) productions during his confirmation,” according to Wyden and Grijalva.

Wyden, a senior member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Grijalava, Chair of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, issued the following joint statement:

“Not since the Teapot Dome scandal have we seen a more corrupt Interior Department. Political appointees at the agency have put their ideologically-based personal interests over the interests of the American people, violating the public trust upon which the Department of the Interior is based.

“Officials at Interior are now on the record admitting what we suspected all along: they orchestrated a cover-up to protect Secretary Bernhardt during his confirmation, and all but lied to Congress about it. We call on the Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into whether or not Jorjani perjured himself before Congress when he assured the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that there was no ‘heightened’ FOIA review process.”

The new OIG report outlines the findings of its investigation regarding alleged interference in the FOIA process, including:

Shortly after the nomination of David Bernhardt to become Secretary of the Interior, “then Counselor to the Secretary Hubbel Relat directed staff from the DOI’s Office of the Solicitor (SOL) and members of the DOI’s FOIA staff to temporarily withhold documents related to Bernhardt from an upcoming release of documents” from a February 2019 FOIA production.
One attorney advisor “recalled being told later that Relat’s direction to withhold Bernhardt-related documents in the FOIA litigation was because Bernhardt was awaiting his confirmation hearing. The attorney also remembered that this direction from Relat was to remain in place until after Bernhardt’s confirmation.”
Relat admitted to the OIG: “[M]y approach was that information that we have a legal obligation to disclose, . . . we disclose . . . and release. No questions asked, . . . but that sensitive information that we’re not legally obligated to disclose, we should treat more strategically in terms of when and how . . . it’s disclosed . . . this is an approach that I discussed with Dan Jorjani.”
While Daniel Jorjani said he didn’t remember explicitly discussing the order with Relat, he stated: “Either I came up with the idea—and I would like to think I’m smart enough to do that—or Hubbel [Relat], being proactive, said, ‘Oh, can we do this compliantly and consistent with the court’s direction,’ and then ran it past me. . . . It would be one of those two, I would think.”

During his confirmation hearing, members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee asked Mr. Jorjani about his involvement in reviewing FOIA requests, according to Wyden and Grijalva.

In response to one question, Jorjani confirmed that he served as the Department’s Chief FOIA Officer but stated, “I, myself, don’t review FOIAs or make determinations.”

In response to written follow-up questions from Wyden, Mr. Jorjani repeatedly stated “any review that is conducted is done so in accordance with the Department’s Awareness Review Process for Freedom of Information Act productions issued in May 24, 2018, and updated on February 28, 2019.”

Jorjani also explicitly denied the existence of any “heightened” awareness review process beyond the Department’s written policy, the two lawmakers noted.

Wyden and Grijalva said the Inspector General’s findings “confirm that Mr. Jorjani’s statements to Congress were not truthful.”

On September 24 of last year, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Daniel Jorjani to be the Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior with a 51-43 vote. Jorjani had been serving as the Principal Deputy Solicitor for Interior since May of 2017.

“As someone who has served as Solicitor of the Interior, I know Dan Jorjani will be an exceptional Solicitor and serve the American people admirably,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt after Jorjani was confirmed. “He will continue to distinguish himself with his integrity, his work ethic, his humility, and his sincere dedication to the Department’s mission.”

However, Jordani’s so-called “integrity” didn’t stop him from illegally withholding public documents prior to Bernhardt’s Senate confirmation hearing and then “perjuring himself under oath,” as WVP pointed out.

As Solicitor, Jorjani manages over 370 attorneys, encompassing divisions and offices that include ethics; energy and minerals; parks and wildlife; Indian affairs; land; water; and general law, spanning 16 regional and field offices along with the DOI’s Freedom of Information Act office. He also serves as the Regulatory Policy Officer on Interior’s Regulatory Reform Task Force and a member of the DOI’s Executive Resources Board.

From 2001 to 2009, Jorjani held several positions at the DOI under President George W. Bush, including Counselor to the Deputy Secretary and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget.

Background:

What is Corrupt Former Mega-Lobbyist Turned-Interior Secretary Bernhardt Trying to Hide?

Inspector General Confirms Investigation as Groups Uncover More Evidence of Political Interference at Interior

Senator Calls for Criminal Investigation Into Interior’s Nominated Solicitor for Lying About Public Records Political Meddling

Interior’s Watchdog Opens Investigation into Political Interference by Trump Appointees

---

omfg

Wyden

A peaceful protester in Portland was shot in the head by one of Donald Trump’s secret police. Now Trump and Chad Wolf are weaponizing the DHS as their own occupying army to provoke violence on the streets of my hometown because they think it plays well with right-wing media.

omg

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/mitch-mcconnells-patriot-act-expansion-would-give-bill-barr-unprecedented-spy-powers/

no lnx

julia Conley / Common Dreams May 14, 2020

Sen. Ron Wyden was joined by privacy advocates Wednesday in forcefully condemning a new proposed amendment to the PATRIOT Act put forward by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that would greatly expand the U.S. attorney general’s surveillance powers under FISA.

McConnell’s amendment, which the Senate began debating Wednesday as lawmakers took up thereauthorization of the 2001 PATRIOT Act, would explicitly permit the FBI to collect records of Americans’ internet search and browsing histories without a warrant. It would also mandate that Attorney General William Barr, and his successors, conduct an annual review of the FBI’s submissions into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.

Barr would be permitted to review for “accuracy and completeness” evidence presented to the FISA Court by the FBI regarding potential surveillance targets.

“Under the McConnell amendment, Barr gets to look through the web browsing history of any American—including journalists, politicians, and political rivals—without a warrant, just by saying it is relevant to an investigation,” Wyden told the Daily Beast this week, before speaking out against the amendment on the Senate floor.

Mitch McConnell is forcing a Senate vote on his amendment to give Bill Barr warrantless access to Americans’ browsing history. I’ve heard a lot of bad ideas in my lifetime, but this is one of the worst. Tune in as I explain why: https://t.co/r53nm2HxzA

— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) May 13, 2020...

---

https://theintercept.com/2020/04/14/one-nation-pfizer-lobbyist-drug-prices/

one NATION, ONE of the dark-money groups spending the most to back Republican candidates for Senate, added a former Pfizer lobbyist and U.S. Chamber of Commerce board member to its board of directors at the end of 2019. One Nation has spent $1.7 million already this year on ads praising the efforts of Republican senators, including the push for lower drug prices, a cause both Pfizer and the Chamber have lobbied against.

:{:{}:

The group is part of the network of conservative fundraisers — under the “Crossroads” umbrella — launched by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United. Former staffers for Crossroads GPS, the 501(c)(4) wing of Rove and Gillespie’s Super PAC, American Crossroads, started One Nation in 2015 after a yearslong fight with the Internal Revenue Service for tax-exempt status. Crossroads eventually received that status in 2016. Although the group has been relatively dormant since 2014, it maintains fundraising efforts and ended 2019 with $35.5 million cash on hand.

Ken W. Cole,who has long worked in government relations for companies like General Motors and Honeywell, as well as the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, joined the board of One Nation last year. The group listed Cole as a director on its latest annual report, filed to the Virginia State Corporation Commission in March, but he’s not yet listed publicly on its website.

Cole lobbied on behalf of Pfizer as senior vice president of government relations from 2010 to February 2018, on issues including drug pricing and drug shortages. Pfizer has placed the blame for high drug prices on health care providers and insurers, while it has fought recent legislative efforts aimed at reducing drug prices. Since at least 2014, Cole has also served on the board for the Chamber of Commerce, which has similarly opposed legislative efforts to cut drug costs or allow the government to fine companies for inflating prices.

Pfizer and the Chamber of Commercehave collectively spent just under $1 billion on lobbying over the last decade, with Pfizer typically spending around $10 million each year, and the Chamber spending more than $60 million. In recent years, that included efforts to kill legislation aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drug prices, including a bipartisan prescription drug-pricing bill put forward last September by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden. President Donald Trump has praised the bill and earlier this year called on Congress to pass legislation to address rising drug costs. The Senate bill, which Grassley has accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of sabotaging, remains deadlocked, while a companion bill in the House, which Pfizer and the Chamber also lobbied against, passed last year. The Chamber, meanwhile, supported a separate drug-pricing bill from Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo, saying that it “would help reduce drug prices without resorting to destructive price controls,” citing “inflation cap penalties” in the Grassley-Wyden bill and “government negotiation provisions” in the House bill.

Cole is currently the CEO and managing director of Cactus Consulting LLC, a firm registered in January 2019 in the District of Columbia, with principal offices based in Florida.

One Nation defended its board appointment of Cole, claiming that his work for Pfizer was not a conflict since he left the company early last year. “Ken has been a respected leader in a variety of different companies and industries. After he retired, we sought him out for his breadth of management experience and judgment,”One Nation President Steven Lawsaid in a statement to The Intercept. “Our boards provide guidance on macro issues like financial controls, budgets, compensation and management policies. They do not direct day-to-day activities.”

Law, the CEO of Crossroads GPS, American Crossroads, Senate Leadership Fund, and One Nation, is also a former chief of staff to McConnell and a former legal officer for the Chamber of Commerce.

AS A 501(C)(4) GROUP, One Nation is not required to disclose its donors, but voluntary disclosures from a number of interest groups shed light on its funds. The dark-money group received major contributions of $1 million in 2016 and 2017 from Andeavor, an oil company bought in 2018 by an Ohio petroleum conglomerate. In 2018, One Nation also received $50,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, and another $50,000 from the Real Estate Roundtable in 2017.

One Nationis the single largest group contributing to the Senate Leadership Fund, the McConnell-aligned Super PAC backing Republican Senate candidates. It’s the political action committee’s second-largest donor overall this cycle, after Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman. It has also contributed to conservative groups working on policy issues like abortion and gun rights, like the National Rifle Association and the Susan B. Anthony List:{, an anti-abortion group. The group has spent more than$1 million already this year backing Maine Sen. Susan Collins, including }:{ in}:January:{, }:February:{, and }:March:{ highlighting “Collins’ effort to lower the price of insulin.” Democrats note that Collins — like almost every other Republican — }:voted repeatedly against:{ the }:Affordable Care Act:{ and closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap. Collins has taken }:$431,604:{ from the pharmaceutical industry throughout her career. }:

Collins, whose chances of securing a fifth term became less certain after her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and increased criticism over her stance on abortion rights, is facing a challenge from Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, backed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Betsy Sweet, backed by Justice Democrats. In the wake of Collins’s vote to confirm Kavanaugh, activist Ady Barkan helped raise more than $4 million to support whoever wins the state’s Democratic primary in July.

In addition to Collins, One Nation is backing Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst:{and started running }:{ supporting her last year.}: On March 18, One Nation announced another $970,000:{ in television, radio, and digital ads praising Ernst as a champion for lower drug prices. Ernst said she supported, but did not sponsor, the Wyden-Grassley bill that Pfizer and the Chamber lobbied against, but voted against a 2017 }:bill:{ that would have allowed the U.S. to import cheaper drugs from Canada. }:

Ernst in 2018 co-sponsored a Republican-led bill as part of a party effort to assuage fears among its base after its successful repeal of parts of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans said the bill would protect people with preexisting conditions, but it would still have allowed insurers to discriminate against patients for other reasons, or sell policies that don’t cover other medical problems, HuffPost reported.

Critics say it’s unsettling, if not unsurprising, that a McConnell-aligned dark-money group would add a former pharmaceutical lobbyist to its board while running ads celebrating Republican senators for pushing lower drug prices, a cause McConnell himself has stymied in Congress.

“One Nation’s mission is to make sure that Republicans hold their majority in the Senate. They are going to craft their message around that,” said Robert Maguire, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “It does not mean that One Nation has staked out that policy. They think that voters in Maine want to hear that.”

---

aN 320

no lnx

How Democrats are trying to save the right to vote in a pandemic — and fight GOP suppression tactics

Written by Stephen Young / Religion Dispatches March 25, 2020

:{:{}:

The Democrat-led House’s massive pandemic bill seeks to counter years of Republican voter suppression tactics that have shadowed swing states, a contrast to a more circumspect proposal from Senate Democrats who are seeking to expand voting by mail without specifying additional reforms.

:{:{}:

Pages 856 to 918 of the House bill produced under Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not just expand early and absentee voting as part of creating emergency voting rules in a natural disaster or pandemic. It would replace many suppressive rules, procedures and technicalities that have emerged in recent years in red-run states with specific steps to encourage participation and make the process easier.

:{:{}:

The House reforms include requiring all states to offer early in-person voting at accessible locations, beginning 15 days before an election. The bill removes paperwork requirements—such as affidavits, witness signatures and additional ID—when applying for absentee ballots. The reforms include being able to apply online in any state for an absentee ballot, requiring all states to offer online voter registration, and requiring all states to offer in-person Election Day voter registration.

The House bill also seeks to pull back the curtain around red-state technicalities that have been used to reject absentee ballot applications and ballot envelopes. It requires states to establish standards to verify signatures on envelopes. Absentee ballots would be tracked so voters could follow their progress. Voters would be notified, including by email, if problems arise and given time to resolve them.

:{:{}:

The House bill’s proponents include national voting rights advocates who have been litigating red-state policies for years, such as the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, and seek national election laws and fairer voting procedures.

But the authors of a Senate proposal to expand absentee voting in 2020, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-OR, and Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, seem to recognize the constitutional decree that states will run elections means that Democrats would lose Republican support if the pandemic bill imposed additional specific election reforms.

“It’s either going to be vote-by-mail or nothing if we have to deal with a worst-case scenario,” Wyden said in a March 23 conference call with reporters.

While this difference has yet to be bridged, state election officials are scrambling to bolster voting by mail, starting with 2020’s remaining primaries. Consider this March 24 tweet from Craig Gilbert, Washington bureau chief for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, about Wisconsin’s upcoming presidential primary:

“coronavirus effects: absentee ballot requests now up to 554,116 for WI April 7 election & prez primary. we were at 135,000 8 days ago. never happened before. can WI’s system handle it? can mail partly or mostly ‘replace’ election day voting in this case?”

...

---

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/08/us-mexico-border-journalists-harassment/

press supp wyden

...

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency responsible for U.S. ports of entry, has denied responsibility for the immigration attorneys’ denied entry into Mexico. The Intercept sent CBP a series of questions on Monday regarding the targeting of journalists, lawyers, and immigration advocates. The agency did not provide responses on the record. The Mexican government did not respond to a request for comment.

Responding to The Intercept’s findings, Alex Ellerbeck, North America program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, and lead author of a recent report on CBP searches involving journalists, said that while “CPJ has documented dozens of cases of journalists asked about their work in secondary screening or asked to hand over their devices … the sheer number of cases back to back in a single point of entry and the incredibly blatant attempts to get journalists to act as informants for the government stand out as an escalation.”

“The government can’t use the border to prevent journalists from gathering information, especially on issues it would rather they not report on,” Hugh Handeyside, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, told The Intercept. “If CBP is interfering with or retaliating against journalists, that raises serious constitutional questions and bears further investigation.”

At least one U.S. lawmaker is already investigating.

Sen. Ron Wyden’s office confirmed to The Intercept the opening of an investigation into CBP’s newly revealed border crackdown, including specifically the barring of an American journalist’s re-entry into Mexico to continue her work.

“These are extremely disturbing reports,” Wyden said in a statement to The Intercept. “It would be an outrageous abuse of power for the Trump Administration and CBP to target people for searches based on their political beliefs or because they are journalists. CBP needs to explain exactly what happened in these cases, and whether this was an aberration, or a coordinated effort to punish political opponents.”

---

https://boingboing.net/2017/12/28/corrections-corporation-of-ame.html

see guard uk link

The new GOP tax plan slashes the taxes on real estate investment trusts (REITS) by a quarter, dropping the rate from 39.6% down to 29.6% -- a move that will put tens of millions of dollars in the pockets of investors in America's notorious private prisons.

Companies like Corecivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America/CCA) and Geo Group are structured as REITS, a tax-dodge that has already made the companies millions -- Corecivic was able to lower its effective tax rate from 36% to 3% by restructuring as a REIT, and now that rate is going down by 25%.

The Trump administration reversed the Obama ban on the use of private prison contractors, and has also stepped up the use of private prisons to detain migrants awaiting immigration hearings.

Oregon Democratic senator Ron Wyden, a ranking member on the finance committee, has called the use of the reit structure by prisons “unfair” and “unjust”. In 2016, after being pressed by Enlace, he introduced legislation to end such practices. The bill was reintroduced this year but it has yet to make it out of committee and is not likely to do so any time soon.

A CoreCivic representative told the Guardian that, in their view, “there are far more pressing matters for Congress to pursue” than the reit tax classifications. The Geo Group added they are “treated exactly the same as other real estate investment trusts without any special tax treatments or loopholes.” The point that activists make, though, is that treating prisons as real estate is a loophole.

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/no-tax-breaks-for-private 2013?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden

Ronald Lee Wyden (/ˈwaɪdən/; born May 3, 1949) is an American politician serving as the senior United States Senator for Oregon since 1996. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served in the United States House of Representatives from 1981 until 1996. He is the current dean of Oregon's congressional delegation.

[hide]

Early life, education, and early career[edit]

Wyden was born Ronald Lee Wyden in Wichita, Kansas, the son of Edith (née Rosenow) and Peter H. Wyden (originally Weidenreich, 1923–1998),^[1] both of whom were Jewish and had fled Nazi Germany.^[2] Wyden grew up in Palo Alto, California, where he played basketball for Palo Alto High School.^[3] He attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, on a basketball scholarship,^[4] and later transferred to Stanford University where he received his Bachelor of Arts in 1971. He received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Oregon School of Law in 1974.^[5]

While teaching gerontology at several Oregon universities, Wyden founded the Oregon chapter of the Gray Panthers, which he led from 1974 to 1980. Wyden also served as the director of the Oregon Legal Services Center for Elderly, a nonprofit law service.

U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

Wyden in 1981

Wyden ran for the United States House of Representatives in 1980. During the Democratic primary, Wyden, who was just 31 years old at the time, upset incumbent Representative Bob Duncan in Oregon's 3rd congressional district, which includes most of Portland.^[6] Later that fall, Wyden easily defeated his Republican opponent, Darrell Conger, with 71 percent of the vote. The 3rd has long been the most Democratic district in Oregon, and Wyden was reelected seven times from this district, never dropping below 70 percent of the vote.

U.S. Senate[edit]

Elections[edit]

In January 1996, Wyden narrowly defeated Oregon State Senate President Gordon Smith in a special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by Bob Packwood. Smith won a separate November 1996 Senate election to succeed the retiring Mark Hatfield, and Smith and Wyden served together until Smith's defeat in 2008 by Democrat Jeff Merkley. Wyden holds the Senate seat that was once held by the late Wayne Morse, a man whom Wyden worked for in the summer of 1968 when he served as Morse's driver,^[7] and whom Wyden calls his mentor.^[8]

Wyden was elected to a full term in 1998 with 61 percent of the vote, and in 2004, was re-elected to another full term, receiving 64% of the vote compared to 31% for his main opponent, Republican Al King. In 2010, he was re-elected with 57% of the vote, over his main opponent, Jim Huffman, who garnered 39%.^[9] In 2016, he was re-elected again with 56% of the vote over Republican opponent Mark Callahan, who earned 34% of the vote.

Tenure[edit]

Wyden characterizes himself as an "independent voice for Oregonians and the nation" and emphasizes his positions on health care reform, national security, consumer protection, and government transparency.^[8] On the Issues characterizes him as a "Hard-Core Liberal."^[10]

On March 6, 2013, Wyden crossed party lines to join Republican Senator Rand Paul who was engaged in a talking filibuster to block voting on the nomination of John O. Brennanas the Director of the CIA. Wyden joined in, questioning the use of drones.^[11]

Wyden in Portland, Oregon, February 25, 2017

During the filibuster, Wyden, addressing the presiding officer, said "Mr. President, what it comes down to is every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them."[12]

Politico reported that Wyden's ascent to Chair of the Senate Finance Committee would vault him into the ranks of the Chamber's most influential.^[13]

He was praised for his ability to defuse partisan tensions and encourage bipartisan cooperation.^[14]

Committee assignments[edit]

Caucus memberships[edit]

Congressional Coalition on Adoption
Congressional Fire Services Caucus
Congressional Internet Caucus
International Conservation Caucus
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus
Senate Diabetes Caucus
Senate Economic Mobility Caucus
Senate Oceans Caucus

Political positions[edit]

Defense and foreign policy[edit]

On November 10, 2005, Wyden was one of five Senate Democrats who joined 44 Republicans in voting "yes" on Amendment no. 2516, brought to the floor by Republican senator Lindsey Graham, which ruled that enemy combatants did not have the right to Habeas Corpus.

Iraq

Wyden was one of 23 Senators to vote against the authorization of military force in Iraq in 2002. In 2003, Wyden voted to bar excessive overseas deployments of members of the National Guard and Reserves. In 2006, Wyden was one of 13 Senators to vote to require the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by July 2007, and was one of 39 Senators to vote to call on the President to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq and establish a timeline for withdrawal. Wyden also voted many other times for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, against funding for the war without binding timelines, and against the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq. Wyden also opposed President Obama's plan for a "troop surge" in Afghanistan in 2009.^[15][16]

Iran

In 2007 Wyden sponsored (with Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the House), the Stop Arming Iran Act, which would have barred the Defense Department from selling surplus F-14 parts and prohibit buyers who have already acquired surplus Tomcat parts from exporting them in order to prevent Iran from acquiring the parts.^[17]

Libya

In 2011, Wyden supported the no-fly zone and military intervention in Libya in order to protect civilians, stating that "The violence of Colonel Gaddafi against his own people is a humanitarian crisis. I support the international effort to protect the civilians of Libya." However, Wyden also stressed that his support was not unlimited and that he expected that the military action would be completed quickly.^[18] Wyden, along with fellow Senator Merkley and President Obama, agreed that U.S. forces should not be on the ground in Libya.^[19]

Syria

Wyden's office has questioned the CIA-led Timber Sycamore covert operation to train and arm Syrian rebels, releasing a statement that "the US is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which US agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with."^[20]

Healthcare[edit]

Senator Ron Wyden

In 2009 Wyden sponsored the Healthy Americans Act, an act that would institute a national system of market-based private insurance. Wyden was attacked by union interests for advocating replacement of the employer tax exclusion with a tax deduction that would apply to all Americans.^[21][22]

Wyden supported increasing Medicare funding, enrolling more of the uninsured in federal programs (although his Healthy Americans Act would eliminate many of these programs including Medicaid and SCHIP and replace them with private insurance), importing lower priced prescriptions from Canada, and negotiating bulk drug purchases for Medicare in order to lower costs.^[23]

In 2003 Wyden joined with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.^[24] The Bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was triple its original claim.^[25] The bill has been criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates.^[26]

Not long after Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama's nominee as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services due to a scandal over his failure to pay taxes, The Oregonian reported that Senator Wyden was being touted by many healthcare experts as a likely candidate to succeed Daschle as secretary-designate.^[27] Although Wyden was ultimately passed over in favor of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, he took advantage of the interim to reintroduce his Healthy Americans Act, with additional co-sponsorship from Republican Senators led by Tennessee's Lamar Alexander and Utah's Bob Bennett as well as from fellow Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley.^[28][29]

In late 2011 and early 2012, Wyden attracted attention for working with GOP House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to develop a Medicare reform plan that would result in the semi-privatization of the system, provoking a negative response from Wyden's Democratic allies, including President Obama.^[30] The proposal would keep traditional Medicare as an option, though it would also introduce private health insurance companies into an exchange in which they would offer competing plans to be paid for with government vouchers.^[31]

Trade and business[edit]

Free trade

Wyden supports free trade; while in the House, he voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement and has subsequently supported many trade deals in the Senate being one of the very few Democrats to vote in favor of the Central America Free Trade Agreement. He has, however, voted against free trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, and Oman.

Wyden supported the re-imposition of tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber in 2017, stating "Canadian policies... distort trade and hold American lumber businesses back from fully realizing their potential."^[32]

Cuba

Wyden is a supporter of lifting the travel ban to Cuba as a more viable way to reach the Cuban people. With Senator Byron Dorgan, Wyden offered an unsuccessful amendment to end funding for TV Martí, an anti-Castrobroadcasting project of the U.S. government aimed at Cuba. Dorgan and Wyden argued that the U.S. should "pull the plug on U.S. government television broadcasts to Cuba, broadcasts even the American government acknowledges Fidel Castro routinely jams and the Cuban people can't see." calling it a "complete and total waste of taxpayers' dollars" and noting that the transmissions would cost $21.1 million in the next year, but would "reach virtually no one in Cuba." The amendment was not adopted.^[33][34]

Bankruptcy

Wyden voted against the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a Republican effort to restrict the number of class actions suits against businesses and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, a bipartisan change in bankruptcy law designed to make it more difficult to file for bankruptcy and to make those in bankruptcy pay more of their debts. However, he voted for the previous Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001 (S-420, substituted by amendment into H.R. 433)^[35] which contained many of the same provisions.

Bailouts

During the global financial crisis of 2007-2010, Wyden voted against the financial bailouts backed by the Bush administration.^[36] He did not vote on the automobile industry bailout,^[37] though he said he would have voted for cloture if he had been present. Wyden added, "While I continue to have concerns about ensuring that taxpayers are protected if this loan is to occur, I believe that if the President can unwisely provide $750 billion of taxpayer money for the investment banks who took horribly unacceptable risks and helped trigger an economic collapse, we certainly have a duty to attempt to preserve a cornerstone domestic industry and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of working people whose personal actions are in no way responsible for the current economic crisis."^[38]

Wyden was among several moderate Democratic senators who in early January 2009 criticized President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus plan, calling for a greater emphasis on "tangible infrastructure investments" and warning that an effort had to be made to differentiate it from the Bush bailouts Wyden had opposed.^[39] However, Wyden ultimately voted for the bill and voted mostly with his party on various amendments to the bill.^[40]

Science and environment[edit]

Wyden voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would change federal law to allow federal money to fund embryonic stem-cell research, ending a federal ban. Wyden urged President George W. Bush to sign it, stating that "I see no reason why embryonic stem-cell research should be treated any differently than other research" in terms of federal grant funding. Bush vetoed the act twice.^[41] In 2007, Wyden, with fellow Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, again supported the bill.^[42]

Wyden is a supporter of environmental protection measures, and was among the minority of senators to vote against confirming the appointment of Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. In May 2007, Wyden also opposed the appointment of Lyle Laverty as assistant interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks (this time on ethical grounds).^[43]

Climate change[edit]

On April 6, 2011, Wyden voted against limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.^[44] On March 22, 2013, he voted against concurrent resolution creating a point of order which would make it harder for Congress to put a price on carbon.^[45][46] In November 2015, he voted in support of the Obama administration Clean Power Plan.^[47]

In May 2014, in response to the National Climate Assessment, he said that the "report adds to the ever-growing body of scientific evidence and on-the-ground proof that the effects of climate change are already being felt in every region of the United States".^[48] In June 2014, he said that "climate change is the most important environmental challenge of our time".^[49]

Civil liberties

...

---

https://boingboing.net/2017/12/28/corrections-corporation-of-ame.html

see guard uk link

Companies like Corecivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America/CCA) and Geo Group are structured as REITS, a tax-dodge that has already made the companies millions -- Corecivic was able to lower its effective tax rate from 36% to 3% by restructuring as a REIT, and now that rate is going down by 25%.

The Trump administration reversed the Obama ban on the use of private prison contractors, and has also stepped up the use of private prisons to detain migrants awaiting immigration hearings.

Oregon Democratic senator Ron Wyden, a ranking member on the finance committee, has called the use of the reit structure by prisons “unfair” and “unjust”. In 2016, after being pressed by Enlace, he introduced legislation to end such practices. The bill was reintroduced this year but it has yet to make it out of committee and is not likely to do so any time soon.

A CoreCivic representative told the Guardian that, in their view, “there are far more pressing matters for Congress to pursue” than the reit tax classifications. The Geo Group added they are “treated exactly the same as other real estate investment trusts without any special tax treatments or loopholes.” The point that activists make, though, is that treating prisons as real estate is a loophole.

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/no-tax-breaks-for-private 2013?

The Joint Committee on Taxation must end tax breaks for private prisons by revoking private prisons’ REIT Status.

In 2013, GEO and CCA received Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) status, which creates a loophole for them and their investors to make billions in profit from incarcerating people of color and immigrants TAX-FREE! In the first year of their REIT status, CCA and GEO received almost $100 million in tax breaks. That $100 million should be reinvested in our communities, not sent to corporate prison CEOs and prison industry shareholders.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/22/climate-change-bill

cantwell, origin hse

Last energy bill was in 2007, before shale energy boom

* Senators aim to balance jobs with environmental protections

* Wyden favors effort to share royalty revenues with states

* Says tax reform should put renewables, fossils on equal footing

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The United States needs to update its energy policy to reflect the boom in natural gas and oil production that has boosted manufacturing jobs, said the top Democrat on the Senate energy committee on Thursday.

Ron Wyden, who is in line to take over the panel's gavel in January, said he sees the opportunity for "transformative energy policy" to both spur jobs created by the newfound wealth of energy while also protecting air and water from pollution.

But Wyden and Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the committee, who spoke at an event held by CQ Roll Call, provided few details on the shape new energy legislation would take.

But they stressed they wanted to work together on legislation that would strike a balance between economic development and job creation, and environmental protection.

"We feel really strongly about checking the gridlock at the door, working together on, in particular modernizing our energy policy," said Wyden, who represents Oregon and has a long history of working with Republicans on thorny issues including taxation and health care.

Congress has not had a comprehensive energy bill since 2007, well before the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" technology to blast free natural gas and oil trapped in shale rock.

Those abundant supplies have put the United States in line to become the world's largest oil producer by 2017, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia, the International Energy Agency said this week.

Wyden, R Sen

Right-wing media react to Trump's slush fund for allies with unquestioning loyalty — and some vague skepticism

Contents

Early life, education, and early career[edit]

U.S. House of Representatives[edit]

U.S. Senate[edit]

Elections[edit]

Tenure[edit]

Committee assignments[edit]

Caucus memberships[edit]

Political positions[edit]

Defense and foreign policy[edit]

Healthcare[edit]

Trade and business[edit]

Science and environment[edit]

Climate change[edit]

Civil liberties