⚖️
@SenWhitehouse is holding a very important hearing at 3pm EST today.
As Chair of the Subcommittee on the Courts, he will tell us how wealthy interests are influencing our courts through anonymous funding vehicles.
Yesterday, the WSJ Ed. Board wrote a hit piece on him.
/1
@SenWhitehouse is holding a very important hearing at 3pm EST today.
As Chair of the Subcommittee on the Courts, he will tell us how wealthy interests are influencing our courts through anonymous funding vehicles.
Yesterday, the WSJ Ed. Board wrote a hit piece on him.
/1
https://twitter.com/senwhitehouse/status/1369408199665868813
For background on this issue, if you have not already watched the presentation that Whitehouse gave during Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, now would be a good time to catch up.
This is a must-watch primer on Dark Money in our judicial system.
This is a must-watch primer on Dark Money in our judicial system.
https://twitter.com/clearing_fog/status/1316089774575288320
Yesterday, the WSJ editorial board wrote a nasty column, trying to pre-frame this discussion in terms that are friendly to the interests that Whitehouse is calling out.
They use emotional language and try to claim that he is “threatening” the courts.
wsj.com/articles/sheld…
They use emotional language and try to claim that he is “threatening” the courts.
wsj.com/articles/sheld…
Only at the very end of the column do they finally reveal the underlying motive behind the hit piece.
This is *all* about the AFPF v Becerra case that SCOTUS has recently taken up.
And it drives at the heart of whether we have the right to know who is influencing our courts.
This is *all* about the AFPF v Becerra case that SCOTUS has recently taken up.
And it drives at the heart of whether we have the right to know who is influencing our courts.
Short version: one of Charles Koch’s foundations, AFPF, is suing the former CA Attorney General, who forced these groups to regularly disclose their donors.
They now want SCOTUS to rule that our ability to see their funding sources is a violation of *their rights.*
They now want SCOTUS to rule that our ability to see their funding sources is a violation of *their rights.*
https://twitter.com/clearing_fog/status/1351225535347752960
Surely SCOTUS wouldn’t rule that the right to secretly influence our courts, and democracy itself, trumps our right to know who is financing it, right?
Well, that is the point of this hearing today.
In party line votes, SCOTUS always rules in their favor.
That’s a problem.
Well, that is the point of this hearing today.
In party line votes, SCOTUS always rules in their favor.
That’s a problem.
https://twitter.com/clearing_fog/status/1315352225720410112
So, if you can, please tune in, or watch a recording of the hearing later.
And please share it with others.
This is one of the last, largest challenges we face in ensuring that we have a representative democracy.
The public needs to be aware of this and get behind it.
And please share it with others.
This is one of the last, largest challenges we face in ensuring that we have a representative democracy.
The public needs to be aware of this and get behind it.
Live link to the hearing - happening now:
https://twitter.com/judiciarydems/status/1369739949176684555
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
