It looks like Justice Clarence Thomas has a bit of a memory problem, and when combined with Ginni Thomas' lobbying efforts, a picture emerges of a deep ethical problem corrupting the highest court in the country.

The video above outlines Virginia "Ginni" Thomas' relationship to Liberty Central and Liberty Consulting. They suggest that Liberty Consulting is a front for Liberty Central, but I'm not sure about that, since the two organizations still keep separate websites, and one is for-profit while the other isn't.

What is clear, however, is that there is direct intent to cloak both operations behind a veil of secrecy while one of our Supreme Court justices takes up questions that deal directly with the very same issue. That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is a little stickier. While we knew that Justice Thomas did not disclose his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central for the past six years, as was required, it seems that non-disclosure stretches back farther than that.

For twenty years, Clarence Thomas has not disclosed his wife's income, nor the source of that income. Twenty years.

Roger Schuler, at Daily Kos thinks Thomas' failure to disclose could be a felony.

News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.

But the punishment becomes much more severe under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which also appears to apply in the Thomas case. It is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison, and a former official with the U.S. House of Representatives currently is under indictment for actions that almost mirror those in the Thomas case. Reports POE:

While 5 USC app section 104 makes this conduct a misdemeanor punishable for up to a year in prison, 18 USC section 1001 is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison. In fact, Fraser Verrusio, former Policy Director for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is awaiting trial under section 1001 for not reporting income on his "United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003."

You can read more about the charges against Fraser Verrusio at the link below. It appears that he was given no opportunity to amend his filings:

Indictment in U.S. v. Fraser C. Verrusio (PDF)

Verrusio once worked for U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), and the case has received extensive coverage in the Alaska press. The prosecution reportedly grew out of the Jack Abramoff affair.

His post goes on to discuss the fact that a similar case was heard by the Supreme Court in 1985, six years before Thomas was seated on the court. The court held that failure to disclose required information was a felony, not a misdemeanor.

Up to now, Justice Thomas has simply shrugged off his failure to disclose his wife's income and sources as a mere oversight, despite the fact that he "forgot" for 20 years. But what if it were intentional? ProtectOurElections.org has a theory that he didn't disclose her income or source because he might have been challenged for recusal due to conflict of interest. In fact, from 1993-1998, Virginia Thomas worked for Dick Armey.

Source: Amendments to original disclosures, filed on Saturday, January 21, 2011 (PDF)

If we were to crowdsource an investigation and look at every case Justice Thomas heard from 1993 to 1998, I believe we would find a number of cases then, and possibly later than that where a conflict might emerge. Or, as PreserveOurElections.org suggests:

Kevin Zeese, attorney and spokesperson for ProtectOurElections.org, believes that Justice Thomas may have intentionally withheld the information in order to keep litigants from moving to disqualify him in cases where his wife's employment could cause a conflict of interest or where she could benefit from a decision. "Justice Thomas cast a critical vote in the Citizens United case allowing conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central to raise millions of dollars in secret funds to support and elect conservative politicians," he said. "Had Justice Thomas disclosed that his wife worked for the Heritage Foundation, litigants may have had good cause to disqualify him from hearing that case. In fact, we are left to wonder if Justice Thomas knew that his wife was planning on leaving the Heritage Foundation to launch Liberty Central once Citizens United was decided. Clearly, she has benefitted personally from that decision."

Now my response to his specific assertion about the Heritage Foundation is that it was known and a challenge could have been made, disclosures or no disclosures. Her associations with Hillsdale college and the Heritage Foundation were known before the Citizens United case came to trial, I believe. But what wasn't known was her association with Dick Armey, who is the founding member of Americans for Prosperity, a close cousin of Citizens United. THAT's the connection everyone should be looking at.

Yeah, I especially enjoyed the part in Citizens United's "Hillary: The Movie" where Obama says Clinton had no diplomatic experience. Thank God he won and she doesn't have anything to do with the State Department, huh?

Anyway, how amazing that not only do corporations get to pour unlimited amounts of money into the political system, they don't even have to disclose it, thanks to this new FEC ruling. Here's hoping some of those famous "Hollywood liberals" start putting some product together to counterbalance the expected flood of similar right-wing tropes:

WASHINGTON — A little-noticed Federal Election Commission ruling that expands the definition of “media" to include a partisan film production group is the latest in a series of actions eroding legislative limits on the influence of money in politics.

“We’re really returning, seemingly inexorably, toward an entirely deregulated system," said Thomas Mann, who studies campaign finance at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “It was a rather breathtaking decision."

The commission voted June 10 to designate the filmmaker Citizens United a “press entity," equating its often highly partisan work — including films attacking Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama — with the work of nightly newscasts.

The result, analysts say, is that the group is not required to disclose its role in sponsoring political projects or activities, or reveal the source of its funding. Thus, it becomes impossible to discern its influence in the political process.

No FEC commissioner would agree to be interviewed, according to a spokeswoman. But in defending the commission’s 4-to-1 vote, the panel’s vice chairwoman, Cynthia Bauerly, said in a statement that traditional images of the press no longer apply.

“We all used to know that ‘press entity’ meant something like ABC News," she said in prepared remarks to the commission. “Today, however, technology has changed nearly everything about media."

The FEC ruling has alarmed advocates for campaign finance rules, who say it sets a troubling precedent.

“If a self-proclaimed political advocacy group that has made some very, very slanted so-called documentaries to influence elections constitutes the press, it’s difficult to imagine what types of political advocacy groups would not qualify," said Paul Ryan, an election law specialist at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog.

DOWNLOADS: (3530)

PLAYS: (1664)

Embed

Speaking to students of the University of Alabama law school, Chief Justice John Roberts launched a blistering attack on President Obama's State of the Union criticism of the Court's Citizens United decision. Calling Obama's prime-time critique "very troubling," Roberts complained that the President's annual address to Congress "degenerated to a political pep rally." Of course, when Robert's political godfather Ronald Reagan or his sponsor George W. Bush used the State of the Union to berate, badger and batter the Supreme Court, that was just fine with the Chief Justice.

"I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts told the audience in Tuscaloosa, adding:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

But during the George W. Bush's tenure, the Justices served as a prop for his State of the Union battles with the judiciary.

Bush's Supreme politicking during his State of the Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 and 2006), President Bush denounced "activist judges" and insisted "for the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." On the very day Samuel Alito joined the Robert Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lap:

"The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench."

And throughout the presidency of Ronald Reagan, for whom John Roberts promoted the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, overturning Roe v. Wade and a dangerously ignorant policy in response to the AIDS crisis, bashing the Supreme Court was a routine occurrence.

Continue reading »

No matter how much Alito may bobble his head in disagreement with the President over the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, this is the next logical step in affirming corporate personhood.

Corporation Murray Hill, Inc. has decided to run for the Maryland's 8th congressional district seat, one currently held by DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen. Murray Hill, Inc., will be running as a Republican(s?). From their corporate website:

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

Damn straight. I think this is an excellent way to illustrate just how short-sighted and dangerous the SCOTUS decision was. Campaign manager William Klein will be updating the status of the campaign on HuffPo:

Corporations are people too--with the same rights and privileges enjoyed by humans. The Supreme Court says so! The courts have devoted endless attention to the rights of the "unborn," but finally, they are recognizing the rights of the never born.

Murray Hill, Inc.'s run for Congress is, therefore, a milestone in the struggle for civil rights.

And the Murray Hill for Congress campaign is drawing support from all over. Our YouTube video is spreading through the Internet, our Facebook page brings in new Friends and Fans every hour, and and Designated Human Eric Hensal appeared on the Thom Hartmann show as well as Russian TV. (How's that for a juxtaposition?)

And now, we're even selling mousepads. Our message?

Corporations are people too!

Thom Hartmann interviewed Murray Hill Inc.'s designated human, Eric Hensel earlier this week about their campaign..

DOWNLOADS: (5369)

PLAYS: (8989)

Embed

Here's Sam Alito's "Joe Wilson" moment during the State of the Union speech. When Obama cited the Citizens United v. FEC decision and voiced his concerns that it opened the nation up to the undue influence of special interests, watch Alito grimace and roll his eyes. He says something as well. John Aravosis, from whom we were tipped this video, reads it as "not true," although it's hard to tell from the angle.

Whatever the case, it was sweet to see all the justices sitting uncomfortably while all around them, the audience gave the President a standing ovation for criticizing them.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

And here you thought that The Manchurian Candidate was just a taut thriller with the odd casting of Angela Lansbury as Laurence Harvey's mother. Not so, says Greg Palast. It's looking very much like our political future:

I'm losing sleep over the millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under the Court's new rules, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."[..]

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"

We'll never know.

Scary thought. Richard Power evokes the great Sinclair Lewis cautionary tale of fascism disguised as "freedom", It Can't Happen Here and suggests that the satirical has become too close to the truth:

As craven as much of the leadership of the Democratic Party has become, there is a difference [between the Republican and Democratic Parties], even today, and those who deny that difference are culpable in all that has happened to us. Of course, in the weeks, months and years ahead, there will likely be no difference at all -- because of Citizens United v. [FEC]

As Larisa Alexandrovna points out, in SCOTUS ruling = Powell Memo goal = Fall of democracy..., the decision is not only an abomination in its own right, it is also the achievement of a goal set forth in the Powell Memo.

Now it is not a question of what we must do, but who we are. And the preliminary results on who we are do not bode well.