Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose Citizens United In-Kind Contributions
Clarence Thomas is falling into a deep, deep ethical hole, deeper even than the one he dropped into when he failed to disclose his wife's income for 20 years. As more facts come to light, it's obvious he failed to disclose quite a bit, including the $100,000 Citizens United spent on his behalf in 1991 to support his nomination. That would be an in-kind contribution which should have been disclosed as such.
A Time Magazine article from 1991 has the details:
Washington-area television viewers were startled last week to see three familiar senatorial faces pop up on their screens above the words WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGE? The follow-up question -- "How many of these liberal Democrats could themselves pass ethical scrutiny?" -- was hardly necessary, since the faces were those of Edward Kennedy, Joseph Biden and Alan Cranston, all scarred veterans of highly publicized scandals, from Chappaquiddick to plagiarized speeches to the Keating Five.
The ad, produced by two independent right-wing groups, was intended to bolster Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas' confirmation chances by pointing the finger at three liberal Democrats who seemed likely to oppose him. Not coincidentally, the ad was produced by the same people who launched the 1988 Willie Horton spot that branded Michael Dukakis soft on crime but left George Bush open to charges of racism. Anxious not to be associated with such negative campaigning this time around, Bush quickly labeled the attacks on the Senators "counterproductive." Thomas pronounced them "vicious." His chief Senate supporter, Missouri Republican John Danforth, called them "sleazy" and "scurrilous."
Although Bush and chief of staff John Sununu demanded that the ads be pulled, their right-wing sponsors -- L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Conservative Victory Committee, and Floyd Brown, chairman of Citizens United -- refused. Calling the campaign a "pre-emptive strike" to counter anticipated anti-Thomas commercials, as well as retaliation for the 1987 spots that helped defeat Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, they vowed to keep running the messages for at least two weeks "until the left agrees to discontinue all its efforts against Judge Thomas." Thus far, that has been a mostly fitful effort at best, but Brown and Bozell appeared to see the flag of revolution rising above it. "Unfortunately," the two men declared in a written statement, "the Administration has no desire to confront the radical left."
So Citizens United pays to produce and air an ad with the stated intention of bullying "the left" into silence over his nomination, and Clarence Thomas fails to disclose that before hearing last year's Citizens United case that corrupted our election process?
Ironically, the case ProtectOurElections is relying on is Caperton v Massey, ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2009. Predictably, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito dissented.
Applying Caperton to Citizens United, it is clear that Justice Thomas, after having been supported by an effective advertising campaign that reaped millions in free media time, labored under an actual conflict of interest that denied the FEC due process. Justice Thomas owed his spot on the Court to Citizens United Foundation. That fact undermined his ability to put aside his bias in favor of Citizens United.
Justice Thomas was required to disclose his relationship with Citizens United and sua
sponte recuse himself from the case. Instead, he hid that relationship and cast the
deciding vote in favor of Citizens United. This corrupted the administration of justice
and violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4—Misconduct, which states in
pertinent part:
“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or
induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice; ….”
Seems like Justice Thomas has a really distorted idea of what justice is. Can we impeach him yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwA3AJPWphQ
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Li'l Ginni was workin' the Heritage Foundation back in 1999 and 2000. To quote the Wikipedia page on her,
"By 2000, she was working for the Heritage Foundation; and conflict-of-interest was again raised because she was collecting résumés for potential Presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration when the Supreme Court was deciding Bush v. Gore."
And if that ain't a g-d conflict of interest I don't know what is. Would she have ever worked again, at any winger foundation, if he'd voted for the Constitution, and against the Bush coronation? She'd have had to divorce the porno-lover to regain standing in the vast reich wing.
"Clarence Thomas Fails to Disclose Citizens United In-Kind Contributions"
Can this be used to overturn Citizens United?
Can this be used to overturn Citizens United?
You're joking right Roninkai ? Not as long as the Republicans have substantial numbers and control Congress. As far as a legal matter and referring the matter to a high court , who ? The US Supreme court ? The neocon Reich wing / Republican party have sabotaged the Supreme court , they have turned it into a farce and there is nothing that Obama , the Dems or we can do about it . Meanwhile the American people , at least half of them , still support the traitors and saboteurs , the Republican fascist party , and probably 29 out of 30 of all voting age Americans in this country don't have a friggin clue as to what CU is , what it means or what has been done to the Supreme court , that it's been turned into a tool for the Reich wing , has been corrupted and rendered a complete farce ... by the Reich wing .
Insanity , it is what it is , there is no understanding it .
Thanks for the sad dose of reality.
But it would take steel balls to do it, which Obama hasn't got. The Constitution allows the President to determine the NUMBER of seats on the SCOTUS. Obama could turn around tomorrow and say "We need 13 people on the SCOTUS" and proceed to nominate 4 moderates/progressives and send them through the confirmation process. That would keep the Rethuglican goons busy for the next couple of years.
These conservative judges are tainted.
Seriously nasty and down right cruel republicans working with corrupt and heavily biased SCOTUS to bring down American freedom and the middle class. What could go wrong with that?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
There would seem to be enough to open impeachment investigations in the House. To my mind at least.
But, given the Lunatic Party's control over the House, its virtual control of the Senate, and that the media will brand any demand for impeachment as a liberal power grab and silly stunt, we'd need a relentless, powerful movement.
Any billionaires got the money to fund it? It'd be fun to organize if the money were there to bus people into Washignton to demand it. :)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
as soon as they are done legislating their jobs bill.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
throw the bum out... he is a crook, and should be trated as such.
That's bums with an "S"
"high-tech lynching" he dreamed up that got him the white guilt vote way back when. What a piece of work. He and Scalia and a couple of others really bring down the tone of the court.
me-oww!
What a corrupt pile of shit Thomas is.
As in acoustician or pigmentation?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Everyday, little by little things get MORE AND MORE outrageous, and the American people are building up an immunity to corruption and bull shit. The few who are even remotely paying any bit of attention.
We're fucked because 'murkins don't care as long as they've got theirs - which most of them still do.
I always wondered how in the hell things got to point they did in 1920s Chicago, but now i know. What could anyone do to stop it? There was simply no way to make it stop. 8()
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
not sure if people are just tired of getting angry & then left feeling helpless...or if it really is more important to them who in Hollywood broke up/got pregnant/has cellulite. I'm sure a combination of all, plus more.
Very sad...and very scary.
I've been wholeheartedly disappointed since Obama did absolutely nothing to hold Bushie & co. responsible for their reign of corruption.
With him at the helm, just trying to further his political career & kissing the butts of the Repubs in order to do so....along with a populace either stupid & angry, or angry & without recourse...I'm afraid that this will result in nothing more than 'just another day'...move along.
I’m going to disagree – you’re just seeing it more. I think the impact of corruption is just as strong as it has ever been. This kind of crap has been going on forever. Last Century, we were at the mercy of newspapers, and later TV to expose this type of corruption. Newspapers are all but gone. TV is bought and paid for. The internet allows us greater exposure than these pillars ever afforded us, however.
Corruption is being exposed more than ever. That’s an important first step. Next, people must give a damn. Then they/we must force correction. Young adults are growing up today inundated with information. If they are capable of filtering it, and they care, they will make a difference. Education is the key.
You're right -- thank you for posting this -- I find it encouraging.
. . . let alone prosecuted, then it's doubtful anything would happen to Thomas for this relative traffic ticket.
We must look forward, not back. And the rule of law is dead.
Was that the Change we Hoped for?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yep. Nothing's going to happen to Thomas. We're all just venting. Impotently.
And I so hate that look forward philosophy!
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
:(
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It's all about breaking the law and proof thereof. This could be a crime that is not too big to prosecute - for a change...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I'm not sure about that. It's not like we couldn't prosecute Tim McVeigh, or John Wayne Gacy. It seems like it's more the status of the criminal than the severity of the crime.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Ya, i see what you mean, but crimes that involve money are more often followed up regardless of the status of the perpetrator, especially if it involves taxes. If this one slips through the cracks it will be conspicuous confirmation that law and order do not apply to the ruling class any more, and do not apply to all equally.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
selectively enforced? OMG! My heart--it's breaking. I am weak with surprise. This is such shocking news to me. Oh, my beautiful America--shot in the ass by injustice. What will I do?
It's hard to determine if we, Obama, and the Democrats would be any better off, if they were embroiled in setting up impeachment hearings and torture trials at this moment in time. Although it's hard to imagine the republicans acting any worse than they are now.
I'm still hoping their time is gonna come though.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
I would be shocked if he wasn't bought and paid for.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
thomas on the supreme court including attacks on anita hill wouldn't have amounted to much without right wing talk radio and all that under the radar groundwork propaganda and swiftboating of thomas critics. he was probably the first right wing talk radio supreme, the first limbaugh supreme.
Is the only option here. So of course, nothing will happen. In ancient Rome, the honorable thing to do when your vile deeds were undone was fall on your sword, but of course, the conjunction of "honor" and Clarence Thomas is as profound an oxymoron as was ever coined.
And, of course, the decision is tainted, since the whore delivered the goods he was hired to do. It took him 20 years, but here we are. Don't look to congress to fix it, they all work out of the same brothel. Perhaps a little unified public outrage might fix that, but this isn't Egypt, nothing to see here, move along.
. . . they all work out of the same brothel."
Nicely put.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
much less recuse himself of the case. They needed his vote for the 5-4 final count that everyone knew was coming the instant Citizens United vs FEC first appeared on the roster.
The reason Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life is so they would not be subject to the fluctuations of majority rule of the other two branches of Government. As the weakest of the three branches, they are supposed to interpret the Constitution in a strictly non-partisan manner. They don’t run for re-election so that they won’t rule on cases where electoral bias could come into play.
Whether this works in practice, or not, is debatable. Whether they are subject to the whims of the majority isn’t the issue here.
Clarence Thomas is being bribed. He has been illegally hiding his bribes from required disclosures.
He, and his wife, has been receiving a life-time flow of money directly. This not only appears improper, it is illegal. He is being paid to rule on issues which benefit those who pay him.
Impeach the SOB.
And also Ginni, the money and influence pedaling whore that he married.
Why do you think the Supreme Court is the weakest of the three branches of government? It is the only branch with lifetime appointments and without a formal system of oversight. Sounds like the breeding ground for power and influence to me.
Nikki at Common Cause | www.CommonBlog.com | @CommonCause
He is a national disgrace.
...is exactly what Republicans scream about when they are frothing about activist judges. Unfortunately, for them, their political bend seems to be home to more activist judges than those commie bastards on the other side of the spectrum. Oh well.
karoli,
As the Republicans control the House, unless the President is found to be getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from someone who is not his wife (hell, even if it is his wife), there will not be any impeachment hearings.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
How can he disclose anything ... when he hasnt 'spoken' in 5 years ?
No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
'Supreme' court ... ? what a complete laughingstock ...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
to voted that "seperate but equal" is ok and bring Jim Crow back.
Take him down now.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Roll back everything he's ever ruled on.
Shouldn't this be grounds to over-turn the Citizens United decision to treat corporations as people?
But when the foxes are guarding the hen house, it's not the foxes who are in trouble. There is a saying about SCOTUS: It is not the court of last resort because it is always right, it is always right because it is the court of last resort.
Correcting this is a monumental task. At the least, if we cause enough trouble over Thomas, they will sacrifice him to cover their own corrupt asses. That will allow BHO to nominate someone who may have some integrity and is not totally corporate owned. Thus the majority on the court could swing back towards honesty. I offer this as a possible solution to the immediate problem, only. Baby steps.
a question !
if a supreme court justice thinks they are
immune to being ethical, should a person/persons
who violate this justice's civil rights also have immunity
for a lack of ethical judgement? i believe this is what
used to called vigilante justice/mentality in the old west.
that deserves a loud and persistent whine till this jerk is run out court.
Thomas has served his prime function; casting one of the deciding votes in Bush v. Gore. Which gave that smug little bastard the authority to appoint two more evil pricks to SCOTUS - Alito and Roberts.
In a democracy a coup d'état is not accomplished by some sudden act of storming the palace, but just like this - in slow motion, with the killing thrust into the very heart of the system, the judiciary. Meanwhile the populace who theoretically could rise up and stop the coup can't be bothered, anaesthetized as they are by the distraction of the entertainment industry and the utter banality of the corporate-owned media.
That quote, by the way, is KKKarl Rove's favorite. We haven't even seen the rapid and audacious bit yet. :-(
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are the Four Horseman of the Death of American Integrity. They would be laughable if their "decisions" didn't threaten so many and so much. They all need to be impeached, immediately.
Impeach Thomas now, Plain and simple
The un-holly five have sold this country to the VERY RITCH, can we at least start to impeach befor we have no country at all.
Roberts...screws up (I believe purposely) the President's swearing in
Alito...mouths his distaste for President's criticism of the Citizen's United vote and does not attend the President's next address
Scalia & Thomas...CROOKS AND LIARS, need I say more. WTF have any of them done for us lately?
There must be a way to remove these "defenders" of the constitution. If the people of Egypt can change their government, surley we can too!
Aren't quid-pro-quo arrangements like this more accurately called 'bribes'?
And the Citizens United decision overturned? Like NOW?
Why is this man still on the bench? Our SC is bought and paid for. You can see the price tag hanging out of his ass.
NOBODY 2012
It's a very, very sad and frightening day in our history when you can't trust some Supreme Court Justices anymore to stick to the law and not be lobbied by lavish partys and bribed by money to vote a certain way.
That guy is dirtier than a used dishrag. Or maybe an old, smelly hanky....well, you get the point. No wonder he never speaks, he has nothing to say. The only thing that interrests this guy is feathering his own nest.
Why you in the USA do not start fighting for a justice system. How can you let this shit happen without marching in Washington? Geezuzz, you are disgraceful as a nation.
"Applying Caperton to Citizens United, it is clear that Justice Thomas, after having been
supported by an effective advertising campaign that reaped millions in free media time,
labored under an actual conflict of interest that denied the FEC due process. Justice
Thomas owed his spot on the Court to Citizens United Foundation.
Justice Thomas was required to disclose his relationship with Citizens United and sua
sponte recuse himself from the case. Instead, he hid that relationship and cast the
deciding vote in favor of Citizens United."
What was Thomas required to disclose? To whom? What required this disclosure?
Justice Thomas "owed his spot on the court to Citizens United"? Christ, this is a piece of revisionist history that would make Glenn Beck jealous.
Justice Thomas "hid" that relationship"? Hid what? How? The ads were produced, paid for and aired on television in the nation's capital almost twenty years ago. The fact was covered at the time, based on your link to TIME. And the relationship? What was it? Did not the person to whom Thomas indeed "owed his spot on the court", the President, ask that the ads be removed? Didn't Thomas call them "sleazy"? Are we now going to demand disclosure and recusal by each Justice in every case where a group is involved which may have supported or opposed his or her confirmation with or without the approval of that Justice?
The "irony" to me is that Protect our Elections did not have the snap to point out this "conflict," if you can call it that, in real time, when Citizen's United was pending before the court. What a bunch of idiots. I do note they are attempting to raise money using this bullpucky. To the degree they succeed they will, of course, demonstrate there are others even more idiotic.
This post is not up to your standards.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
$1000,000.00 in 1991 for his campaign.
AND, it is not up to the public to keep track of such things. It is up to HIM. Google "appearance of impropriety." Add this to "conflict of interest" and tax felonies, and if he had ANY integrity, he would step down and save whatever face he has left. And he should take his influence pedaling drunken whore of a wife with him.
.
. . . concerning the application of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.4, which provides that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another . . . (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; or (d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice. . . .”
(a) is a conclusion. (c) might apply, although "dishonesty, fraud, deceit" and arguably "misrepresentation" all require intent, which Thomas would be sure to deny, i.e., any omissions were inadvertent. The application of (d) fails for the same reason, especially given that four other so-called justices voted with Thomas. Stated another way, it's not like there was an 8-1 vote with Thomas the lone holdout, thereby demonstrating that his vote was swayed by financial considerations.
Frankly, there's no teeth to the argument as proposed. You might get more tranction applying the argument that judges are supposed to recuse themselves where there exists even the appearance of impropriety, but the Supreme Court regularly thumbs its nose at this requirement. I mean, who is going to check the members? The ABA?
As Common Cause President Bob Edgar said on the Rachel Maddow Show last night, there is an arrogance on the part of some SCOTUS justices that seems to imply they feel immune from ethical standards. But no one is above the law, even those who make and interpret the law.
Right now, we need a massive movement calling for the DOJ to acknowledge and investigate this situation. Please add your name to the list of Americans who want to hold the Supreme Court justices accountable: http://bit.ly/fc8z4Ecl216
Nikki at Common Cause | www.CommonBlog.com | @CommonCause
Imprick the peach.
With apologies to Nixon haters everywhere.
Has it ever been done before? Is there a rulebook somewhere? Thomas AND Scalia need to be nailed, somehow.
Sadly, the Supremes are "the law of the land." The buck stops there. The danger is that they so disgrace themselves that the people no longer trust them or, for that matter, pay much attention to their opinions. And hey, that is what their pronouncements are properly called: "opinions." (Opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one.) In this case, the right wingnut Roamin Catholic majority (anti-abortion to please the Pop) have already committed the unpardonable sin of putting George W. in the White House; ruled that faceless corporations are "persons" (when first year law students known corps are purely legal, as adverse to factual entities); and given every indication that, unless the right of center Irish Catholic swing vote betrays the Repubs, the new health care law be junked. It is getting harder and harder to respect rules of law that are stupid. Try bans on marriage for same sex couples; criminalization of marijuana, and theocratic encroachments upon a woman's right to choose and...well, it is a recipe for disaster. The Supremes are supposed to be the glue that holds the fabric of society together. Seems to me they are doing all they can to rend it apart.
"Respect for the rights of others is peace." --Benito Juarez
Comments are closed on this entry