“They are funded by very wealthy donors who are interested in perpetuating the culture war for their own benefit,” Emails show how a right-wing group steers GOP leaders on major policy issues By Daniel Medina and Bob Ortega, CNN 12 minute read Published 1:55 AM EDT, Sun March 17, 2024 When Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft jumped into the state’s gubernatorial race last year, the Republican vowed to tackle a slew of culture war issues, promising to fight the “woke politics” of “left-wing” banks and touting how he used his position to enact a regulation targeting those financial firms. Ashcroft also said candidates shouldn’t focus on issues that let the one percent “force their beliefs on 99 percent of the population.” While Ashcroft positioned himself as a champion for working class voters, emails obtained by CNN and the progressive watchdog group Documented show that he was steered toward adopting his “anti-woke” investment regulation by a little-known, right-wing think tank with deep ties to conservative billionaires. The communications show that officials with the Foundation for Government Accountability suggested regulatory language to Ashcroft and even wrote an op-ed article that Ashcroft published in a national conservative magazine under his own name. The emails not only reveal FGA’s influence over Ashcroft, they offer a snapshot of the group’s growing influence across the country, particularly in red states. And that influence can carry a high cost for workers and taxpayers. The “anti-woke” investment measures have cost states hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investment fees and can lead to smaller returns for public employee retirement plans. One study estimated a 2021 Texas law would cost taxpayers up to $500 million in higher interest rates just on bonds sold in the first eight months after the law passed. Another study calculated that the law cost local governments $270 million a year in added fees, resulting in an annual $668 million in lost economic activity and thousands of full-time jobs. Along with attacking “woke” investing, FGA has worked with legislators and elected officials to push for laws to deregulate child labor, stop Medicaid expansion and slash food stamps, among other initiatives. Since the 2020 presidential election, the group also has played a key role in the push to advance voting restrictions and other legislation pitched as promoting election integrity in Republican states – claiming more than 70 such policy wins across the country in 2022 alone. In Wyoming, a GOP state senator forwarded an FGA draft bill to Secretary of State Chuck Gray that would prohibit sending out unsolicited absentee ballot request forms. “This is great!” Gray enthusiastically replied. It sailed through the legislature before the state’s Republican governor scuttled the measure, angering Gray. “The Governor just vetoed the absentee ballot request form bill. Very troubling,” he wrote to an FGA contact in an email. The group’s communications with Ashcroft and Gray, neither of whom responded to questions from CNN, give a rare glimpse into how billionaire megadonors use think tanks like FGA to advance their causes out of public view. Federal tax laws allow such donors to channel millions of dollars anonymously, through nonprofit foundations, to activist organizations that lobby for and work behind the scenes to enact legislation that reflects partisan political goals. FGA enjoys tax-exempt status as a charitable organization. It received more than $44 million from six conservative foundations tied to billionaire donors from 2013 through 2022, the most recent year for which tax records are available. Those foundations also have financed much of the push to tighten voting laws and spread election disinformation across the country since the 2020 election. But even though FGA’s tax-exempt status requires it not to engage in “substantial” lobbying, the group has closely coordinated with a variety of state officials and legislators to advance their causes. Its push in Missouri shows how that approach works. ‘Give this a 30-second glance over’ Last spring, before Missouri legislators considered bills to curb “woke” investing, FGA officials were already in frequent contact on the issue with at least two of the state’s top officials – including Ashcroft. Emails show the group strategized with the secretary of state’s office for weeks leading up to Ashcroft proposing his own such rule last January. FGA later cited Missouri’s rule as a model in a draft memo titled, “What Secretaries of State Can Do to Challenge the Threat of ESG.” ESG refers to a financial strategy that considers the environmental, social and governance effects of an investment, rather than solely the potential profit. Dubbed “woke investing” by its critics on the right, it has become a wedge issue in modern culture wars. Conservative activist groups have gotten lawmakers and officials in 17 states to pass investment laws to protect fossil fuel companies and gun manufacturers who might be hurt by ESG considerations. FGA has characterized the fight to stop ESG in existential terms, calling it a “far-left” plot to advance a climate and social justice agenda outside the ballot box. Ashcroft’s rule in Missouri required financial advisers and institutions to obtain written consent from clients to purchase or sell investments based on social or non-financial objectives, such as combating or considering the impact of climate change. Ashcroft said the rule was intended to serve as a template for the state legislature, where Republicans held large majorities in both chambers. But at the legislature, business interests like the Missouri Chamber of Commerce pushed back hard, and lawmakers failed to pass any anti-ESG bills. Meanwhile, Ashcroft’s collaboration with FGA carried on. The group even drafted and sent an op-ed to his staff. It criticized President Joe Biden’s veto of a GOP bill in Congress that would have prevented pension fund managers from considering factors like climate change in investment decisions, emails to Ashcroft’s office show. That op-ed was submitted nearly verbatim to the National Review, a leading conservative magazine. “Here’s the full edited version National Review sent to me, if Jay wants to give this a 30-second glance over,” an FGA official wrote to an Ashcroft staffer. The piece was published under Ashcroft’s byline the next day. He then promoted the article as part of his efforts to fight what he called “woke politics.” A week later, he announced his candidacy for governor and has made fighting “woke politics” a major theme of his campaign. Ashcroft said his rule is intended to protect investors, and that ESG policies can threaten people’s retirement money. However, nonpartisan studies have concluded that anti-ESG policies adopted in Texas drove up the cost to taxpayers of bond issuances by up to $500 million in less than a year. In Kansas, Indiana and elsewhere, anti-ESG bills were gutted after studies suggested they could cost state pension plans billions of dollars by restricting investment options. Paying more for bonds can force governments to seek revenue elsewhere – such as raising taxes or cutting public services, said Daniel Garrett, a University of Pennsylvania finance professor who co-authored a Brookings Institution study that looked at Texas. Similarly, lower returns for state pension funds can pose risks for workers and retirees. “If the returns fall, that money comes from somewhere,” said Garrett. “It’s not just magic.” Heritage fellow says ESG worse than communism In late 2022, Missouri’s then-treasurer, Scott Fitzpatrick, pulled $500 million in state pension funds from BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. He accused BlackRock of forcing Exxon to cut oil and gas production by helping elect “climate radicals” onto its board. Florida pulled $2 billion from BlackRock two months after Missouri. “Kneecapping domestic energy production is a disaster waiting to happen,” Fitzpatrick, who is now the state auditor, told CNN in an interview. “Any policy that essentially seeks to drive up the cost of energy is going to affect the people of Missouri and it’s going to hit the poor people hardest.” But there’s little, if any, evidence of such kneecapping. The three “radicals” BlackRock voted to put on Exxon’s board consisted of two former oil company executives and a former US assistant Secretary of Energy. And while Exxon did cut production in 2021, it did so for the same reason as other oil companies worldwide – because of huge drops in consumer demand during the Covid-19 pandemic. Fitzpatrick told CNN that he, too, met with FGA officials to discuss the issue – and engaged with FGA allies such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heritage Foundation. Both groups have produced model anti-ESG bills and held events to persuade lawmakers to take up the “anti-woke” corporate fight. Fitzpatrick said he heard from Heritage fellow Andy Puzder, the former Carls Jr. CEO, “who speaks very well about the issue and whose message I agree with.” Puzder has promoted fighting these investment policies in various venues, including at a December 2022 legislative exchange council meeting in Washington. He told lawmakers that “ESG investing is socialism in sheep’s clothing,” according to a recording first reported by the Boston public-radio station WBUR. “The challenge of your generation is ESG investing, and it’s more insidious than communism or the Nazis.” Wisconsin state Rep. Kristina Shelton, a Democrat, remembers that meeting well, because none of the lawmakers seemed to know what ESG was or what Puzder was talking about. “You could see all the attendees pull out their phones to Google what it was,” she said. “You could see in real time them being spoon-fed issues.” An ALEC spokesperson confirmed that a model bill aimed at preventing state pension funds from considering “environmental, social, political or other “non-pecuniary” considerations “is official ALEC model policy.” A Heritage Foundation spokesperson, in an email, said “we are extremely proud of our anti-ESG work and we are grateful to Mr. Puzder and everyone in the conservative movement who is standing firm in this fight.” You could see all the attendees pull out their phones to Google what it was … You could see in real time them being spoon-fed issues.” Kristina Shelton, Wisconsin Democratic state representative Missouri’s legislature considered more than a dozen anti-ESG bills last year, including drafts along the lines of models promoted by FGA, Heritage and ALEC. When none passed, Ashcroft was ready. His industry-wide written-consent rule took effect in June, placing Missouri squarely at the forefront of one of several burgeoning campaigns on the right where FGA has been instrumental. While FGA accomplished its policy goal in Missouri, the backlash was swift. A Wall Street trade group sued to block Ashcroft’s regulation and taxpayers are footing the bill for his defense at the tune of an estimated $1.2 million. FGA notches wins with weakened child labor laws FGA’s lobbying group, The Opportunity Solutions Project, spearheads its efforts at the state level. Together, they have at least 65 registered lobbyists who advocate and testify on behalf of FGA’s policies in 25 states, according to a 2023 tally compiled by Documented. One policy they’ve promoted with surprising success is in rolling back child labor laws. On its website, FGA dismisses protections put in place to protect teenage workers from night shifts, excessive hours or dangerous environments as undermining “parents’ rights.” FGA founder Tarren Bragdon has defended his organization’s work by saying, “we believe parents should decide what’s best for their children.” The group drafted a far-reaching bill in Arkansas, which eliminated work permits and age verification for workers younger than 16 years old, the bill’s sponsor, GOP state Rep. Rebecca Burkes, said in a Senate hearing. Burkes represents a district in northwestern Arkansas where Tyson Foods Inc. and George’s Inc., two of the country’s largest chicken processors, are headquartered. It’s also where US Department of Labor investigators, as part of a multi-state probe, found children as young as 13 working night shifts for a sanitation contractor at plants run by Tyson and George’s Inc., and other meat or poultry companies. George’s Inc. did not respond to queries from CNN. A Tyson representative declined comment. In Missouri, FGA drafted legislation to strip child workplace protections, according to an April 2023 Washington Post report, citing emails exchanged between an Opportunity Solutions Project lobbyist and a state senator’s chief of staff. FGA also worked to loosen child labor laws in Iowa, which passed a bill last spring allowing minors as young as 14 years old to work night shifts. The US Department of Labor has said Iowa’s new law violates federal law by allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to operate dangerous power-driven machines, engage in heavy manufacturing, and work in demolition. ‘Our primary audience is those policymakers’ In a podcast interview last summer, Bragdon was open about who his organization targets. “Our primary audience is those policymakers rather than activists or students or members of the general public,” said Bragdon, who started the Florida-based organization in 2011. He made those comments on The Daily Signal, a conservative news site run by The Heritage Foundation. FGA, as Bragdon described, was not fighting culture wars at the grassroots level – its work was more discreet. That low public profile has served the group well. FGA hosts Republican lawmakers at social events and at conferences, where it organizes panels around its priority issues. For instance, the opening day itinerary from FGA’s September 2022 Western Alliance conference in Park City, Utah, featured panels on election security, ESG and combating unemployment insurance fraud. It’s the type of influence peddling that has become part of a well-worn playbook for dark money organizations with deep pockets, said Sarah Bryner, research director at the nonpartisan campaign finance group OpenSecrets. “Strategically, it’s a lot easier … to engage your policy plan this way because you don’t need to try and get real people to sign on,” said Bryner. “You just need a few well-funded people. And is that problematic for democracy? Absolutely.” In an email, an FGA spokesperson did not address questions submitted by CNN but provided links to the organization’s website highlighting its policy platform on ESG, election integrity and child labor. FGA joins groups prepping for potential Trump return FGA’s growing stature within Republican politics was evident on-stage recently at an event with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis barely a week after he dropped his 2024 presidential bid. Bragdon, the group’s founder, joined DeSantis and Florida House Speaker Paul Renner to call for four constitutional amendments, including requiring a federal balanced budget and term limits for members of Congress. “Our nation’s heartbeat is not in the halls of federal power, but it’s in the spirit of our people and the legacy of our states,” said Bragdon, standing behind a podium with a “Hold Washington Accountable” placard. FGA is part of a constellation of conservative groups that have laid out a roadmap for a more aggressive Trump White House, should he return to power next year. Project 2025, published by The Heritage Foundation, is a massive 900-page policy book that calls for removing tens of thousands of civil servants; gutting the FBI; weaponizing the Justice Department; breaking up the Department of Education; and vastly expanding detention camps for undocumented immigrants, amid myriad other moves. FGA also continues its push at the state level across the country to enact its policy priorities. Take the ongoing efforts to stop ESG. Legislatures in 24 states will consider at least 118 Republican anti-ESG bills this year, according to an analysis by Pleaides Strategy; many of those bills are based on models from FGA or its allies. Such measures, said Wisconsin’s Rep. Shelton, are disconnected from the average voter’s concerns. “They are funded by very wealthy donors who are interested in perpetuating the culture war for their own benefit,” Shelton told CNN. “They are creating the crises they want to address through legislation, not the crises that everyday people want them to address.” https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/17/politics/dark-money-fga-ashcroft-invs/index.html
They got you fighting a culture war, while they fight these wars... Supreme Court Case Designed To Legalize Bribery Snyder v. United States could make it legal for public officials to accept rewards for their corrupt actions. March 19, 2024 Katya Schwenk The Lever AP Photo/Andrew Harnik The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear an obscure case that could legalize corporations enriching public officials in exchange for lucrative government contracts and other favors. Though political corruption prosecutions and convictions are already near a historic low, conservative groups are pressuring justices to deliver a far-reaching precedent that would make it much more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute bribery charges against politicians who seek financial remuneration for official actions they take. The case, Snyder v. United States, revolves around the dealings of a mayor in a small Indiana city who was convicted of bribery in 2019. The Supreme Court could have allowed the conviction to stand, but instead agreed to hear an appeal. It is the latest in a string of corruption cases in which the high court has intervened — and in each past case, the court has overturned convictions and limited the kinds of bribery charges that can be brought against public officials in the future. Already, multiple high-profile corruption cases in other states — including the long-awaited criminal trial of a powerful Illinois politician who for years allegedly accepted money and favors from a Chicago energy utility — have been put on hold as prosecutors wait to see how the Supreme Court rules in Snyder, a sign of how far the case’s decision could reach. “[Snyder] could chip away even more of what can be considered corruption,” said Kedric Payne, the vice president and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center, a legal advocacy group. The Snyder case is particularly noteworthy, legal experts say, because it concerns a landmark federal anti-corruption law — 18 U.S. Code § 666 — which outlaws fraud or bribery within entities that receive significant federal funding, like state governments or universities. The Department of Justice has charged 3,123 people under the law since 2000, averaging about 100 people a year in recent years, federal data show. “This is a very important statute,” said Ryan Levitt, a Chicago-based attorney specializing in white-collar defense. “This is an entire theory of prosecution, and probably the largest tool in the prosecutor’s arsenal for going after bribery cases and prosecuting them.” The plaintiffs in Snyder are arguing that the Supreme Court should significantly limit its interpretation of the law, and rule that it should not bar “illegal gratuities,” or rewards given to an official as a thank-you for a governmental action. Legally, this is distinct from a bribe, which involves a prior agreement to exchange money before an action is taken. The law, Snyder’s defense claims, should only criminalize explicit, quid-pro-quo bribery, which is far more difficult to prove to a jury. This argument is backed by the array of powerful conservative groups that have flocked to file amicus briefs in the case, including the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an organization founded by conservative lawyer James Bopp, a key architect of the monumental 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that legalized unlimited dark-money political spending as corporate free speech. “The Snyder case involves no quid pro quo,” said Bopp in an interview with The Lever. “There was no, ‘Here’s a campaign contribution. I want you to, you know, vote for me on X, Y, or Z.’” If the Supreme Court backed such a framework, Bopp claimed, it “would make every campaign contribution a bribe.” Yet if the Supreme Court sides with Bopp, legal experts say it could have ripple effects across laws that prosecutors use to bring corruption cases against politicians. “The most extreme interpretation could be that all gratuity statutes or gratuity prohibitions require quid pro quo,” Payne said. If the Supreme Court backed that interpretation, he said, it could “defeat the whole purpose of gratuity statutes,” and make prosecuting corruption cases far more difficult in some circumstances. “You would absolutely see fewer cases, and you would see more of this behavior happening,” he added. “Bad actors are aware when the floodgates are open.” David Kwok, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center who focuses on white-collar crime, agreed that the Snyder case could have “a lot of influence” on a whole range of bribery statutes, should the court opt for a broad ruling. “Depending on what the Supreme Court keys in — what particular language they key in on [Section] 666 to answer this question about gratuities — it could have ripple effects into a lot of other statutes too,” Kwok said. A Corrupt Mayor The Snyder case originated with the federal criminal prosecution of James Snyder, the former mayor of the city of Portage, Indiana. Snyder was struggling financially when he took office in 2012. That fall, when the city of Portage announced it would be purchasing new garbage trucks, he appeared to see an opportunity. Federal prosecutors say Snyder “rigged” the city’s procurement process to ensure that a friendly truck dealer won the contract for the new garbage trucks. The mayor circumvented city staff and put a close friend in charge of reviewing bids. That friend then ensured that the city’s requirements for the new garbage trucks were tailored specifically to the preferred dealer, according to the colleague’s testimony at trial. Snyder’s preferred garbage truck company was awarded two contracts, which were together worth $1.1 million. Less than three weeks after the second contract was inked, the contractor wrote a check to Snyder for $13,000. The mayor later claimed this was a “consulting” expense, although no one was able to identify any work he had done for the truck company. The company’s co-owner, meanwhile, testified during Snyder’s second trial that the mayor had showed up unannounced at his offices shortly after the contracts were awarded and demanded the money. This $13,000 check is the lynchpin of the Snyder case. Prosecutors argue this payment was a straightforward illegal gratuity: Snyder secured the contracts for the truck company, and the truck company rewarded him for it. Because this after-the-fact payment was legally considered a gratuity, rather than a bribe, prosecutors did not have to prove in court that the payment was arranged before the contracts were awarded. “In both cases, someone is paying a government official for a service,” explained Kwok. “‘I cut you a check because you’re doing something nice for me.’ The difference between an illegal bribe and a gratuity is that a bribe has to have quid pro quo. An illegal gratuity doesn’t have to have that. You don’t have to have an agreement.” But Snyder’s defense wants the Supreme Court to rule that the federal bribery statute does not bar gratuities — an interpretation that runs counter to decades of legal precedent, and which could influence the way other laws that ban corrupt gifts are read. Narrowing the law to only explicit, quid-pro-quo arrangements would make it far more difficult to bring corruption cases against politicians like Snyder or powerful individuals like the truck dealers who paid him off, legal experts say. Corrupt politicians, after all, don’t tend to sign neat contracts outlining the terms of their illicit payments. “Unless someone’s on a wire, you’re not going to get that direct evidence of quid pro quo,” said David DeVillers, a former U.S. attorney in Ohio who now works in criminal defense. “You’re going to have to almost always rely on circumstantial corroboration — meetings with people, trying to hide the nature and source of the income.” Other laws that prosecutors rely on in federal bribery cases — like the honest-services fraud law — require greater evidence of quid-pro-quo arrangements, in part thanks to older Supreme Court rulings that have already weakened anti-corruption laws. “You’ve got to do a lot of work when it comes to those statutes,” DeVillers said. “For 18 § 666, you don’t, you know. Did they get money, did they get gifts, corruptly?” It’s easier to meet that burden of proof under Section 666, he said, making it an important strategy for prosecutors. While the Supreme Court may simply reject Snyder’s argument — or perhaps issue a more narrow ruling that doesn’t have broad implications for the bribery law — what the right-wing groups backing his defense appear to want is a ruling that guts the statute and others dealing with gratuities, resulting in far-reaching implications. Legalizing Corruption, One Case At A Time The Snyder case could prove to be the most recent of decades of Supreme Court decisions that have increasingly narrowed the definition of corruption. “There’s been this pattern of raising the bar of what’s necessary to prove corruption,” said Payne of Campaign Legal Center. “If you look at the effect over the past 20 years, you will see that there appears to be more opportunities for corruption because the law is so narrow now with what’s needed to prove a violation.” In its 2010 ruling in Skilling v. U.S., the high court narrowed a significant federal fraud statute to only bar certain bribery and kickback schemes, taking a decade off the prison sentence of the CEO of Enron, a natural gas and electricity company that epically collapsed in 2001, revealing widespread fraud. The landmark Skilling decision was followed in 2016 by McDonnell v. U.S., which involved former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) promoting a dietary supplement maker’s products while accepting more than $175,000 worth of gifts and loans from a company executive. The court overturned McDonnell’s conviction, finding that his conduct was not illegal under the law and forcing prosecutors to drop charges in similar cases. Then, in 2020, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Kelly v. U.S., a criminal case stemming from New Jersey governor Chris Christie (R)’s Bridgegate scandal, in which his aides allegedly plotted to create traffic congestion on the George Washington bridge as retaliation against a political rival. According to the court, while the activities were seemingly corrupt on their face, they were not technically illegal because no bribes were involved. Finally, in May 2023, the Supreme Court opened up new loopholes in federal anti-corruption laws in Percoco v. U.S. and Ciminelli v. U.S., both relating to scandals under the administration of former New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D). In the Percoco case, a Cuomo aide accepted a $35,000 payment from a real estate developerbefore he helped exempt the company from contracting with local union workers. In Ciminelli, a contractor allegedly worked to rig the state procurement processto secure a $750 million contract for his firm. Yet both saw their convictions overturned unanimously by the court, weakening federal wire fraud laws. As the Supreme Court has limited the scope of anti-corruption laws, federal prosecutions for corruption charges have steadily fallen. The number of people prosecuted on corruption charges peaked in 1998 at around 900, according to Syracuse University researchers. Over the last five years, that number has hovered around 400. The use of the Section 666 bribery statute that was used to charge Snyder has also declined, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 145 people were charged under the statute per year from 1995 to 2010, but over the last five years, the average has dropped to nearly half of that. Free Speech Or Bribery? The corporate-backed legal groups that are pushing the Supreme Court to use Snyder to roll back Section 666 are part of the same right-wing apparatus that has fought to limit the scope of corruption laws over the years. The groups include the Washington Legal Foundation, a legal advocacy group funded by ExxonMobil and the Koch network; the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal slush fund led by a former lawyer for Donald Trump; and Bopp’s James Madison Center. In their amicus briefs in the Snyder case, the groups’ attorneys argue that including gratuities in the corruption law would “greatly expand the reach of the statute in disturbing ways” and would be “dangerous.” The briefs warn that overzealous prosecutors might abuse the statute to go after innocuous shows of support for politicians — an argument that ignores the precipitous decline in corruption cases under that statute and others. Several of the groups supporting Snyder also claim that thequestion of illicit gratuities is, in fact, a matter of free speech, rather than of corruption. The tactic bears resemblance to the strategy Bopp and his colleagues used to win Citizens United, opening the floodgates to dark money political spending under the guise of a First Amendment case. For Bopp, outlawing special interests working hand in hand with politicians would jeopardize a core part of a healthy democracy. “How could you run a government, where the people are influencing the elections of politicians, if anything that they do for their supporters… is considered corrupt?” Bopp said in an interview with The Lever. “That would mean that politicians could only do things that benefited their opponents.” Bopp’s viewpoint is echoed in the brief submitted by the American Center for Law and Justice. “Without quid pro quo, campaign donations can easily be transformed into ‘rewards’ or illegal ‘gratuities,’” the group wrote — an idea reiterated in briefs submitted by several labor unions that also submitted amicus briefs supporting Snyder’s defense. The Laborers’ International Union of North America argued in its brief that the statute was too broad, thus “chilling commonplace — and First Amendment-protected — political activity.” But as former U.S. attorney DeVillers noted, no one ever claimed that the $13,000 that Snyder received from the garbage truck dealer was a campaign contribution, although prosecutors did note during the mayor’s trial that one of the truck company’s owners had contributed to Snyder’s campaigns in the past. “That’s a factual issue, and I think the Supreme Court will accept the fact that this was not a campaign contribution,” DeVillers said. “If this were truly a $13,000 contribution that was given to the official’s campaign and reported as a campaign contribution, yes, you can start making the argument that this falls under the rules of campaign finance,” Payne said. But the $13,000 check, he emphasized, “definitely was not.” The reason the Supreme Court is taking up the Snyder case likely is due to disagreement between different appellate courts on whether gratuities are covered under the federal bribery statute. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — a federal appellate court that is stacked with conservative judges — has already ruled, in a separate case, that the statute is limited to quid-pro-quo arrangements, breaking with most other circuit courts. This created a “circuit split.” “[The Supreme Court justices] have to take it up when there’s a circuit split like that, so I think that factor makes the situation more opaque, and difficult to discern what’s going on in their minds,” said Levitt, the white-collar defense attorney. But, he said, he guessed that they were considering a favorable ruling to Snyder. “My inclination is they’re leaning toward narrowing the reach of the statute, and that’s why they [took up the case],” he said. “But predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do is a difficult thing.” The justices will hear arguments in the case on April 15 — providing the first glimpse into how they are thinking about the Snyder case, and whether they are planning to deal yet another blow to the ability to hold corrupt politicians accountable.
So right wing groups steer their voters into culture wars, but left wing groups...do what? Try to avoid getting into culture wars? It's all a right wing problem?
The leftists start everything but, they project everything they do on those opposed to their abusive behavior. They are just too dumb, like our ET trolls that once, you start to persecute your political opponents, they will return the favor once, you fall out of power. And once, they start taking the rights of other people, no matter your country----why do you think you will be exempt from being persecuted yourself, if you displease the wrong powers that be? Canadian ET trolls laughing at President Donald Trump being persecuted on bogus charges and look what happens? Their own Canadian government led by Justin Trudeau now can jail anyone if you displease them? And they can lock you up for life if the powers that be deemed your offensive language is that bad. Now, how do you like them apples, Canadian ET trolls? Your rights to free speech has just been erased or cancelled if you wish.
Right wing and left wing are one at the oligarch level, and both are served by the culture "war"—divide and rule.
Right! I was going to agree with your original post outright, until I saw it was calling out the right for it. They're all one at the top, because keeping us focused on going after each other keeps us from lynching them. Bread and circuses baby!