thenation--2020-09-29--Trump Threatens America: Reelect Me, or Else

I could start this column with the 800-pound gorilla in the room , the mother of all Signals : the bombshell New York Times investigation pretty much nailing Trump as a tax fraud , a grifter , and a man who has turned the US government into a vehicle for personal enrichment .
But to do that one justice , you really need to read the full story for yourself .
( And try to filter out the Noise , the non-denial denials in which Trump and his allies don ’ t contradict the numbers in the Times ’ story—nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refute the charges—but simply say the paper is purveying “ fake news.
” ) Instead , let ’ s talk about Trump ’ s strategy to suppress the vote , as polls show that he is likely to handily lose an election already in process .
What Trump is saying with his refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power is , “ Either you reelect me or acquiesce in my holding on to power by other means—or I will trigger civil conflict.
” And what he is saying when he tells supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure things are going OK is that he wants his foot soldiers to intimidate people into not voting .
And what he is really saying when he says that no matter what the voters decide , he hopes to compel a “ continuation ” of his presidency is that there ’ s no point in going out to vote , because he ’ s going to attempt to treat Americans like serfs rather than citizens .
He has already said he wants a new Supreme Court justice in place soon , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when—not if—he challenges election results and vote counts ; and he has said that he wants , and ought to have , a 9-0 court ruling in his favor for such an election dispute .
Fascism Is the Core of Trump ’ s Message Let ’ s parse this : A president of the United States is saying repeatedly that the election will be rigged against him ; that any result other than one proclaiming his victory is fraudulent by definition ; that he knows in advance that too many votes are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots aren ’ t counted he ’ d be the winner ; that he will order his team to make many legal filings disputing the results ; and that the court ought to give its legal imprimatur to whatever legal arguments his team comes up with .
That ’ s the stuff of banana republics .
We now know , from Barton Gellman ’ s reporting in The Atlantic , that Trump ’ s strategy involves a concerted effort to get courts around the country to not count ballots that arrive after Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before Election Day and even if the reason they don ’ t arrive is Postal Service slowdowns .
That strategy , according to Gellman , involves a deliberate effort to run down the clock so votes can ’ t be counted in time for states to certify them .
And that if states do certify results that aren ’ t in Trump ’ s favor , Trump ’ s team will argue that the vote counts were flawed and will call on state legislators to handpick electors to the Electoral College who favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own words that he will push his case all the way up to his handpicked Supreme Court majority .
The strategy at this point is escalation-at-all-costs .
Witness what happened in Pennsylvania last week , when a poorly trained contract worker hired by the elections board in Luzerne County didn ’ t realize presidential voting had already begun ( it had , but only for military personnel serving overseas rather than for the general public ) , opened nine ballots , apparently assumed they were votes from the now-long-finished primary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stupid , illegal act and , quite rightly , was referred to the local DA , Republican Stefanie Salavantis , who also , quite rightly , referred it to the regional US Attorney ’ s office .
From there , however , things took on a life of their own .
Despite the fact that there was no indication that it was a coordinated attack on the integrity of the election ( Keith Gould , a Republican who sits on the Luzerne County elections board , told me he was convinced that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the employee ’ s third day .
I think it ’ s ineptitude ” ) and that the elections board issued a statement to this effect within hours of the problem ’ s having been identified , Team Trump began wailing that this was part of a massive , coordinated , national conspiracy to deprive him of reelection .
On morning news shows—even before the Justice Department published an unprecedentedly political press release on the case , explicitly identifying which candidate the tossed votes had been cast for—Trump and his press team were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a sort of Reichstag fire moment to redouble their attacks on the political process and urging further constrictions of access to the vote .
Trump only had this inside information because Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department had personally briefed the president on an ongoing investigation in a way that allowed Trump to fuel a conspiracy narrative .
We also know that after the GOP-controlled Florida legislature shredded that state ’ s recent reenfranchisement—approved by a huge majority of voters in a 2018 referendum—of ex-felons , and after Trump-nominated judges upheld this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attorney general , encouraged by GOP politicians , is asking the FBI to “ investigate ” Michael Bloomberg ’ s efforts to pay the fines and other court fees of ex-felons to help them become eligible to vote .
We know that North Carolina GOP officials just resigned as a way to scupper a brokered agreement , which they themselves had agreed to just days earlier before receiving pushback from GOP higher-ups , that would have allowed for the counting of ballots that arrive late .
We know that in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state Supreme Court ’ s decision to invalidate “ naked ballots ” could result in thousands of mail-in ballots being trashed .
We know that in Nevada and elsewhere , GOP attorneys are suing to block expanded mail-in voting options .
In other words , the GOP , using multiple levers of power simultaneously , is accelerating efforts to limit the franchise and tailor it so that manufactured pro-Trump “ majorities ” are created out of minority support-pools .
In fact , Trump and his supporters see the very idea of an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game .
If that game results in support for the person currently in power , so be it—but if it doesn ’ t , the plan is to use any means necessary to keep in power an administration that has lost all pretense at popular legitimacy .
Is Dutch Bad Boy Thierry Baudet the New Face of the European Alt-Right ?
The GOP is situating itself increasingly as an authoritarian , antidemocratic party—how apropos , given that Trump ’ s handpicked ambassador to the Netherlands hosted a fundraiser for a right-wing extremist party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month .
So here ’ s a question for Republican senators who claim they are upholders of democracy and decency , and who pride themselves on their constitutionalist mindset—to Mitt Romney , for example , who says Trump ’ s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses is an abomination , but who also says he supports moving ahead with a Supreme Court confirmation that can ’ t be voted on until a few days before the election ; or to Ben Sasse , who claims to scrupulously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes the New York Times revelations about Trump ’ s tax-avoidance proclivities all the more inconvenient : If you genuinely believe in American constitutional norms and the spirit of democracy , why not demonstrate your trust in the people ?
If the American people do indeed believe in the same values you do , and support the same sorts of judicial nominees you do , you will see this soon enough ; and then , after November 3 , you can move forward with the confirmation process .
But if it turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same head space as you are—if voters are discomfited by the stampede to seat a justice nominated by a president who has never been supported by a majority of the population , and who now appears to be up to his neck in unethical and possibly criminal tax avoidance—then surely you owe it to them to respect that difference and hold off on the rush to confirmation .
Look in the mirror and ask yourself where your values , and your commitment to country , are at this perilous moment .
For if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more than simply a cloak for a raw power grab , you must slow down this process and not place someone on the Supreme Court during an ongoing election in which a desperate president , facing potential criminal liability , attempts to get the courts to keep him in office and protect him from indictment .
This really isn ’ t a hard argument to follow .
Shredding democracy for short-term judicial leverage and putting all your trust in a con man is a losing bet ; ultimately , that Faustian bargain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy more broadly .
And then everyone loses .

I could start this column with the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the mother of all Signals: the bombshell New York Times investigation pretty much nailing Trump as a tax fraud, a grifter, and a man who has turned the US government into a vehicle for personal enrichment. But to do that one justice, you really need to read the full story for yourself. (And try to filter out the Noise, the non-denial denials in which Trump and his allies don’t contradict the numbers in the Times’ story—nor produce a single Trump tax document to refute the charges—but simply say the paper is purveying “fake news.”)
Instead, let’s talk about Trump’s strategy to suppress the vote, as polls show that he is likely to handily lose an election already in process.
What Trump is saying with his refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power is, “Either you reelect me or acquiesce in my holding on to power by other means—or I will trigger civil conflict.” And what he is saying when he tells supporters to check on polling stations to make sure things are going OK is that he wants his foot soldiers to intimidate people into not voting. And what he is really saying when he says that no matter what the voters decide, he hopes to compel a “continuation” of his presidency is that there’s no point in going out to vote, because he’s going to attempt to treat Americans like serfs rather than citizens.
He has already said he wants a new Supreme Court justice in place soon, as a guarantee that the court will back him when—not if—he challenges election results and vote counts; and he has said that he wants, and ought to have, a 9-0 court ruling in his favor for such an election dispute. More Signal:Noise Fascism Is the Core of Trump’s Message Sasha Abramsky In Trump’s America, It’s Cruelty as Policy Sasha Abramsky
Let’s parse this: A president of the United States is saying repeatedly that the election will be rigged against him; that any result other than one proclaiming his victory is fraudulent by definition; that he knows in advance that too many votes are being cast against him and that if those ballots aren’t counted he’d be the winner; that he will order his team to make many legal filings disputing the results; and that the court ought to give its legal imprimatur to whatever legal arguments his team comes up with. That’s the stuff of banana republics.
We now know, from Barton Gellman’s reporting in The Atlantic, that Trump’s strategy involves a concerted effort to get courts around the country to not count ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they are postmarked before Election Day and even if the reason they don’t arrive is Postal Service slowdowns. That strategy, according to Gellman, involves a deliberate effort to run down the clock so votes can’t be counted in time for states to certify them. And that if states do certify results that aren’t in Trump’s favor, Trump’s team will argue that the vote counts were flawed and will call on state legislators to handpick electors to the Electoral College who favor Trump. And we know from Trump’s own words that he will push his case all the way up to his handpicked Supreme Court majority. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
The strategy at this point is escalation-at-all-costs. Current Issue View our current issue
Witness what happened in Pennsylvania last week, when a poorly trained contract worker hired by the elections board in Luzerne County didn’t realize presidential voting had already begun (it had, but only for military personnel serving overseas rather than for the general public), opened nine ballots, apparently assumed they were votes from the now-long-finished primary, and tossed them. It was a stupid, illegal act and, quite rightly, was referred to the local DA, Republican Stefanie Salavantis, who also, quite rightly, referred it to the regional US Attorney’s office.
From there, however, things took on a life of their own. Despite the fact that there was no indication that it was a coordinated attack on the integrity of the election (Keith Gould, a Republican who sits on the Luzerne County elections board, told me he was convinced that “it was a mistake. It was the employee’s third day. I think it’s ineptitude”) and that the elections board issued a statement to this effect within hours of the problem’s having been identified, Team Trump began wailing that this was part of a massive, coordinated, national conspiracy to deprive him of reelection.
On morning news shows—even before the Justice Department published an unprecedentedly political press release on the case, explicitly identifying which candidate the tossed votes had been cast for—Trump and his press team were already hyping the incident, using it as a sort of Reichstag fire moment to redouble their attacks on the political process and urging further constrictions of access to the vote. Trump only had this inside information because Bill Barr’s Justice Department had personally briefed the president on an ongoing investigation in a way that allowed Trump to fuel a conspiracy narrative.
We also know that after the GOP-controlled Florida legislature shredded that state’s recent reenfranchisement—approved by a huge majority of voters in a 2018 referendum—of ex-felons, and after Trump-nominated judges upheld this at the appellate level, the state’s attorney general, encouraged by GOP politicians, is asking the FBI to “investigate” Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to pay the fines and other court fees of ex-felons to help them become eligible to vote. We know that North Carolina GOP officials just resigned as a way to scupper a brokered agreement, which they themselves had agreed to just days earlier before receiving pushback from GOP higher-ups, that would have allowed for the counting of ballots that arrive late. We know that in Pennsylvania, election officials are warning that the state Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate “naked ballots” could result in thousands of mail-in ballots being trashed. We know that in Nevada and elsewhere, GOP attorneys are suing to block expanded mail-in voting options.
In other words, the GOP, using multiple levers of power simultaneously, is accelerating efforts to limit the franchise and tailor it so that manufactured pro-Trump “majorities” are created out of minority support-pools. In fact, Trump and his supporters see the very idea of an election as nothing more than a raw power game. If that game results in support for the person currently in power, so be it—but if it doesn’t, the plan is to use any means necessary to keep in power an administration that has lost all pretense at popular legitimacy. Related Article Is Dutch Bad Boy Thierry Baudet the New Face of the European Alt-Right? Sebastiaan Faber
The GOP is situating itself increasingly as an authoritarian, antidemocratic party—how apropos, given that Trump’s handpicked ambassador to the Netherlands hosted a fundraiser for a right-wing extremist party in the US Embassy in Holland earlier this month.
So here’s a question for Republican senators who claim they are upholders of democracy and decency, and who pride themselves on their constitutionalist mindset—to Mitt Romney, for example, who says Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses is an abomination, but who also says he supports moving ahead with a Supreme Court confirmation that can’t be voted on until a few days before the election; or to Ben Sasse, who claims to scrupulously adhere to constitutional values, which presumably makes the New York Times revelations about Trump’s tax-avoidance proclivities all the more inconvenient: If you genuinely believe in American constitutional norms and the spirit of democracy, why not demonstrate your trust in the people?
If the American people do indeed believe in the same values you do, and support the same sorts of judicial nominees you do, you will see this soon enough; and then, after November 3, you can move forward with the confirmation process. But if it turns out the public isn’t in the same head space as you are—if voters are discomfited by the stampede to seat a justice nominated by a president who has never been supported by a majority of the population, and who now appears to be up to his neck in unethical and possibly criminal tax avoidance—then surely you owe it to them to respect that difference and hold off on the rush to confirmation.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself where your values, and your commitment to country, are at this perilous moment. For if your expression of fealty to constitutional norms is more than simply a cloak for a raw power grab, you must slow down this process and not place someone on the Supreme Court during an ongoing election in which a desperate president, facing potential criminal liability, attempts to get the courts to keep him in office and protect him from indictment.
This really isn’t a hard argument to follow. Shredding democracy for short-term judicial leverage and putting all your trust in a con man is a losing bet; ultimately, that Faustian bargain corrodes respect for the judiciary and for democracy more broadly. And then everyone loses.


thenation--2020-10-05--The Supreme Court’s War on Equality

The Supreme Court’s War on Equality

In Supreme Inequality , Adam Cohen argues that for half a century , America ’ s highest court has waged “ an unrelenting war ” on the poor while championing the rich .
The Supreme Court , he laments , has consigned to legal helplessness those reduced to government welfare subsidies , even in the face of unjustified deprivations .
Its “ campaign finance decisions have expanded the rights of wealthy individuals and corporations to use their money to gain influence over government.
” Rulings “ on partisan gerrymandering , voter ID , the Voting Rights Act , and voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with little money to use the one thing they have at their disposal to win influence over government : their votes.
” 1 Supreme Ineqaulity : The Supreme Court ’ s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America Cohen , a former New York Times editorial board member , proceeds to argue that “ the Court ’ s decisions involving the rights of workers…have had a devastating impact on the economic standing of low- and middle-income Americans , ” denying damage awards when workers are treated unfairly and leaving them bereft of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with union membership .
The court ’ s jurisprudence , he charges , is “ a major reason that the poorest workers have not seen an increase in the minimum wage in a decade…have little recourse when their wages are stolen , ” and suffer avoidably “ high rates of death and injury on the job.
” Moreover , while the Supreme Court shows too little solicitude for those charged with street crime , it displays excessive sympathy for white-collar malefactors , bending over backward to shield them from criminal liability and civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams ( 1970 ) as the case in which , after a brief period of progressive rulings during the 1960s , the Supreme Court began to turn against workers , people of color , and the poor .
At issue in Dandridge was whether a state violated the 14th Amendment ’ s equal protection clause by capping welfare payments at $ 250 per month , regardless of a family ’ s size or need .
Reversing the judgments of lower courts , the Supreme Court concluded that “ the intractable economic , social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public welfare assistance programs are not the business of [ the federal judiciary ] .
” 3 With subsequent rulings , the court ’ s aversion to judicial redistributionist interventions only deepened .
In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez ( 1973 ) , the court determined that there is no violation of federal constitutional law when children in poor districts , which are limited by constricted tax revenues , receive less funding for public schooling than those in more affluent ones .
The plaintiffs in the case attended schools in San @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding than those in a wealthier district that , while nearby , was “ a world away ” in terms of opportunity , Cohen notes .
This case , “ more than any since Brown v. Board of Education , had the potential to transform the nation ’ s education system and create a more equal America.
” Although a lower court sided with the plaintiffs , the Supreme Court reversed the ruling .
At least where wealth is involved , Justice Lewis Powell declared , “ the Equal Protection Clause does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” 4 In cases on racial inequality , the court also put the brakes on judicial intervention .
In Milliken v. Bradley ( 1974 ) , the question centered on whether predominantly white suburbs could be enlisted to remedy racial discrimination in the predominantly Black public schools of Detroit by integrating students through busing .
Lower courts thought such a remedy ought to be permissible ; after all , the state as a whole was responsible for the unconstitutional infractions of its subdivisions , cities and suburbs alike .
Four justices agreed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled against the plaintiff , holding that because of the importance of local decision-making in public education , federal courts lacked the authority to order “ innocent ” white suburbs to contribute to desegregation in metropolitan areas.5 In Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) , the court ruled on “ a case that was as important to equality in elections , ” Cohen tells us , “ as [ Rodriguez and Milliken ] were to equality in education.
” Striking down provisions that limited the amount of money individuals can spend supporting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the campaign finance laws enacted to address problems brought to light by the Watergate scandals .
In the course of doing so , it formulated two key propositions .
One was that spending money in support of candidates is tantamount to speaking out on their behalf , thus equating money with speech .
The other was that when it comes to speech , imposing constraints on behalf of equal opportunity is impermissible : “ The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign to the First Amendment.
” 6 In subsequent decisions , the court further limited the government ’ s authority to regulate the influence of wealth in elections .
Most significantly , in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ( 2010 ) , it ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law overstepped constitutional bounds by prohibiting corporations and unions from expending funds from their treasuries on electioneering speech .
Objecting to the court ’ s bestowal of First Amendment rights on corporations , Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent that firms have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no feelings , no thoughts , no desires.
” Corporate personhood is a useful legal fiction in certain contexts , he added , but corporations “ are not themselves members of ‘ We the People ’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
” For the five-justice majority , however , what mattered was not the source of the “ speech ” ( i.e.
, money ) but its content .
“ Political speech , ” Justice Anthony Kennedy intoned , “ is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
” 7 Elsewhere in election law , the Supreme Court repeatedly facilitated impediments to voting .
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ( 2008 ) , the court upheld an Indiana voter identification law in the absence of any showing that it was needed to thwart substantial voter fraud and even though it predictably and disproportionately burdened Black prospective voters and other groups that Republican lawmakers viewed as likely Democratic supporters .
In Shelby County v. Holder ( 2013 ) , the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights Act that had effectively monitored and restrained jurisdictions with long records of racial disenfranchisement , while in Husted v.A .
Philip Randolph Institute ( 2018 ) , the court permitted Ohio to purge from its voter rolls people who had not voted in a number of elections and had been unresponsive to notices from boards of elections—an action undertaken with the obvious hope of getting rid of as many minority and other Democratic-leaning voters as possible.8 Cohen ’ s catalog also includes cases in which the court displayed antipathy toward organized labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-discrimination lawsuits , and solicitude for corporations facing the wrath of justifiably outraged juries .
In Janus v. American Federation of State , County , and Municipal Employees ( 2018 ) , the court held that it was unconstitutional for a state to require workers to pay a fee to unions to defray the costs associated with collective bargaining .
The main justification for requiring the payment of such fees was to prevent free riding by workers who benefited from the union ’ s bargaining even if they were not members .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito , the court held that forcing workers to pay such fees amounted to coercion , violating their First Amendment rights by compelling them to subsidize speech with which they disagreed and would not otherwise support.9 In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. ( 2007 ) , the court added to its litany of anti-labor rulings , overturning a jury award of damages to a woman who had sued her employer for gender discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 ) , the court added to its run of pro-business rulings by reducing a jury award of punitive damages for the catastrophic oil spill that followed the grounding of a supertanker on an Alaskan reef .
The tanker ’ s captain , absent from the bridge when the grounding occurred , was found to have a high level of alcohol in his blood hours later .
At trial , it was revealed that Exxon allowed him to command a supertanker even though the company knew of his record of alcohol abuse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of $ 2.5 billion , remitting a jury ’ s assessment of $ 5 billion .
The Supreme Court , however , decided that even this amount was impermissibly excessive : It limited the punitive damages to a bit over $ 500 million.10 Cohen notes that while the court protected corporations from what it saw as excessive penalization for grossly negligent conduct , it declined to protect people from excessive punishment .
In Lockyer v. Andrade ( 2003 ) , for example , the court upheld the application of California ’ s three-strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man with prior convictions to a prison term of 50 years to life after he was caught stealing about $ 150 worth of videotapes from two stores .
The four dissenting justices in the case remarked that if this sentence was not impermissibly disproportionate , “ the principle has no meaning.
” Yet the majority , in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor , concluded that it was allowable or , in the court ’ s peculiar phrasing , “ not objectively unreasonable.
” 11 There Is Only One Way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court Supreme Inequality offers a damning indictment .
With disciplined fury , Cohen patiently collates and dissects cases whose connective tissues are often overlooked , bringing to light a subject that should receive more attention than it does : the Supreme Court ’ s inequality jurisprudence .
Many Americans repose more faith in the judiciary than in the other branches of the federal government .
According to Gallup , 81 percent of those polled in 2020 expressed at least some confidence in the Supreme Court , as opposed to 62 percent in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some mistakenly believe that the judiciary is the one branch of government in which the rules apply evenly to all , whether rich or poor .
Part of the excitement that surrounds the legal misfortunes of the high and mighty—for instance , the celebrity parents caught up in the recent college admissions scandal—is a sublimated yearning for a forum in which class privileges do not matter .
Citizens and judges alike recite the mantra that no one , no matter how wealthy or powerful or prestigious , is above the law .
Cohen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that myth : Wealth or its absence do indeed make a difference in outcomes , even before the putatively majestic bar of justice.12 Cohen writes in a lively , accessible fashion .
He is attentive to the oft-neglected people behind the lawsuits named after them , he is careful to explain and humanize difficult legal abstractions , and he shows with sobering particularity the ramifications of the Supreme Court ’ s decisions .
Anxious , it seems , to leaven his withering narrative with something more positive , he offers an overly cheery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earl Warren between 1953 ( when the former California governor was nominated as chief justice by President Dwight Eisenhower ) and 1969 ( when Warren unhappily retired at the beginning of Richard Nixon ’ s presidency ) .13 For Cohen , Warren ’ s arrival “ launched a progressive legal revolution ” with a “ mission ” of “ uplifting the poor and the weak , and of building a more equal and inclusive society.
” “ The Warren Court , ” he declares , “ systematically looked for ways in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a historical outlier , ” he adds mournfully , one that lasted only briefly before the court was overrun with Nixon appointees who steered it to a resumption of “ its traditional role in national life : protector of the rich and powerful.
” 14 The reality of this interregnum was far more ambiguous .
The Warren court ’ s most consequential , controversial , and esteemed decision was its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education , in which it invalidated racial segregation in public primary and secondary schooling .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s role in racial desegregation .
Pushed by the NAACP and other civil rights activists , the Justice Department under President Harry Truman and Eisenhower called for the elimination of racial segregation before Warren ’ s arrival on the court .
And the armed forces ended segregation prior to the landmark ruling.15 Cohen ’ s account , which remains the dominant narrative in many constitutional law courses in the country ’ s leading law schools , also obscures how the Brown ruling assuaged segregationist sentiment by assuring white supremacists that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all deliberate speed.
” The court , moreover , refused to invalidate racial segregation in matrimony for 13 years after Brown .
I mention this not to denigrate the Warren court ; it did indeed take steps toward racial equality that warrant acknowledgment .
But it was not the egalitarian Valhalla that Cohen depicts.16 Supreme Inequality is also ensnared by the difficulty of distinguishing law from politics .
Robert Dahl once observed that “ as a political institution , the Court is highly unusual , not least because Americans are not quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a political institution and not quite capable of denying it.
” Like many journalists covering the court , however , Cohen sharply distinguishes it from the “ political ” branches of government .
He complains that the court over which Chief Justice John Roberts presides “ seems more like a political body than a legal one.
” But the Supreme Court has always been political and is inescapably so , given , among other things , the way it is constituted.17 When Cohen lambastes Citizens United , he begins by complaining that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost lawless , in its rush to overturn well-established law.
” But would he object had the cases targeted for overruling been deplorables like Dred Scott v. Sandford ( 1857 ) , Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896 ) , or Korematsu v. United States ( 1944 ) ?
The law is ever enmeshed in politics and in the service of one powerful interest or another.18 We should become more realistic in our estimation of the Supreme Court , recognizing that the justices are politicians in robes , though they pursue their agendas somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Congress .
Teasing out the similarities and differences is a task that no one has thus far accomplished satisfactorily .
But the political character of the Supreme Court is clear , notwithstanding its own and others ’ strenuous efforts at obfuscation .
Roberts chastised Donald Trump for referring to a judge by the president who nominated him .
“ We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges , ” the chief justice declared .
“ What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But Trump , awful as he is , gets the better of this dispute .
There were Nixon judges ; they bequeathed us Rodriguez and Milliken .
Similarly , there are Trump judges .
What they will bequeath us , only the future can tell , though their provenance hardly inspires confidence.19 In Supreme Inequality , Cohen argues persuasively that the Republicans have managed the politics of the judiciary much more effectively than the Democrats .
Throughout the book he returns to an obvious but important point : Supreme Court decisions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the court , which is determined in turn by the presidents who nominate them , the senators who ratify them , and the citizens who vote for both .
This largely explains the trajectory of the Supreme Court since the 1960s .
In 1967 , liberal justices held a slim majority ; then disaster struck .
Earl Warren announced his retirement while Lyndon Johnson was still president , intending to ensure that a liberal would succeed him on the bench .
But Johnson miscalculated : When he nominated Justice Abe Fortas to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving it to the next president to nominate a new chief justice—and that president was Richard Nixon.20 Whose Side Is Clarence Thomas On ?
Over the next three years , Nixon got the chance to appoint four justices , creating a conservative majority that has held sway ever since .
Not only have Republicans dominated the court through their appointive power , with their justices outnumbering the Democrats ’ 14 to four among those seated between 1968 and 2020 , but they have also dominated through their willingness to be more ideologically forthright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have straightforwardly declared , when nominating justices , that they mean to appoint conservatives .
Democratic presidents , by contrast , have blurred the ideological complexion of their choices , as if there were something disreputable about being liberal.21 To forge a better future , this will have to change .
Democrats need to be more candid about their reasons for opposing Supreme Court nominees .
They should not be at all reticent about voting to reject nominees on ideological grounds .
Just because someone is smart and knowledgeable , hard-working and honorable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be elevated to the court .
Any nominee who is likely to advance politically unacceptable policies ought to be opposed .
That Antonin Scalia was confirmed with no dissenting votes ( 98-0 ) despite a record that gave ample cause for alarm reflects poorly on the senators who voted for him , especially the liberals among them ( including Joe Biden , John Kerry , and Ted Kennedy ) .22 Democrats also need to be much more intently focused on pushing the judiciary in a more progressive direction .
That will require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and encouragement of prospective nominees .
Liberals should have rolling lists of favorite candidates prepared , as conservatives already do , as well as a keen collective desire to refashion the judiciary so that it can contribute to the making of a more just America .
Above all , they need to recognize and acknowledge that the Supreme Court is inescapably political .
The key is to ensure that a judicial politics of equitable fairness prevails.23

This article appears in the October 19/26, 2020 issue.
In Supreme Inequality, Adam Cohen argues that for half a century, America’s highest court has waged “an unrelenting war” on the poor while championing the rich. The Supreme Court, he laments, has consigned to legal helplessness those reduced to government welfare subsidies, even in the face of unjustified deprivations. Its “campaign finance decisions have expanded the rights of wealthy individuals and corporations to use their money to gain influence over government.” Rulings “on partisan gerrymandering, voter ID, the Voting Rights Act, and voter roll purges have diminished the ability of those with little money to use the one thing they have at their disposal to win influence over government: their votes.”1 Books in Review Supreme Ineqaulity: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America By Adam Cohen Buy this book
Cohen, a former New York Times editorial board member, proceeds to argue that “the Court’s decisions involving the rights of workers…have had a devastating impact on the economic standing of low- and middle-income Americans,” denying damage awards when workers are treated unfairly and leaving them bereft of the wage and benefit premiums that come with union membership. The court’s jurisprudence, he charges, is “a major reason that the poorest workers have not seen an increase in the minimum wage in a decade…have little recourse when their wages are stolen,” and suffer avoidably “high rates of death and injury on the job.” Moreover, while the Supreme Court shows too little solicitude for those charged with street crime, it displays excessive sympathy for white-collar malefactors, bending over backward to shield them from criminal liability and civil punitive damages.2
Cohen points to Dandridge v. Williams (1970) as the case in which, after a brief period of progressive rulings during the 1960s, the Supreme Court began to turn against workers, people of color, and the poor. At issue in Dandridge was whether a state violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by capping welfare payments at $250 per month, regardless of a family’s size or need. Reversing the judgments of lower courts, the Supreme Court concluded that “the intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of [the federal judiciary].”3
With subsequent rulings, the court’s aversion to judicial redistributionist interventions only deepened. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the court determined that there is no violation of federal constitutional law when children in poor districts, which are limited by constricted tax revenues, receive less funding for public schooling than those in more affluent ones. The plaintiffs in the case attended schools in San Antonio that had about 40 percent less funding than those in a wealthier district that, while nearby, was “a world away” in terms of opportunity, Cohen notes. This case, “more than any since Brown v. Board of Education, had the potential to transform the nation’s education system and create a more equal America.” Although a lower court sided with the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. At least where wealth is involved, Justice Lewis Powell declared, “the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”4 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
In cases on racial inequality, the court also put the brakes on judicial intervention. In Milliken v. Bradley (1974), the question centered on whether predominantly white suburbs could be enlisted to remedy racial discrimination in the predominantly Black public schools of Detroit by integrating students through busing. Lower courts thought such a remedy ought to be permissible; after all, the state as a whole was responsible for the unconstitutional infractions of its subdivisions, cities and suburbs alike. Four justices agreed. But the same five who decided Rodriguez ruled against the plaintiff, holding that because of the importance of local decision-making in public education, federal courts lacked the authority to order “innocent” white suburbs to contribute to desegregation in metropolitan areas.5
In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the court ruled on “a case that was as important to equality in elections,” Cohen tells us, “as [Rodriguez and Milliken] were to equality in education.” Striking down provisions that limited the amount of money individuals can spend supporting a candidate, the court invalidated major portions of the campaign finance laws enacted to address problems brought to light by the Watergate scandals. In the course of doing so, it formulated two key propositions. One was that spending money in support of candidates is tantamount to speaking out on their behalf, thus equating money with speech. The other was that when it comes to speech, imposing constraints on behalf of equal opportunity is impermissible: “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.”6
In subsequent decisions, the court further limited the government’s authority to regulate the influence of wealth in elections. Most significantly, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), it ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law overstepped constitutional bounds by prohibiting corporations and unions from expending funds from their treasuries on electioneering speech. Objecting to the court’s bestowal of First Amendment rights on corporations, Justice John Paul Stevens noted in dissent that firms have “no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” Corporate personhood is a useful legal fiction in certain contexts, he added, but corporations “are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” For the five-justice majority, however, what mattered was not the source of the “speech” (i.e., money) but its content. “Political speech,” Justice Anthony Kennedy intoned, “is indispensable to decision-making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.”7 Current Issue View our current issue
Elsewhere in election law, the Supreme Court repeatedly facilitated impediments to voting. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the court upheld an Indiana voter identification law in the absence of any showing that it was needed to thwart substantial voter fraud and even though it predictably and disproportionately burdened Black prospective voters and other groups that Republican lawmakers viewed as likely Democratic supporters. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that had effectively monitored and restrained jurisdictions with long records of racial disenfranchisement, while in Husted v.A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018), the court permitted Ohio to purge from its voter rolls people who had not voted in a number of elections and had been unresponsive to notices from boards of elections—an action undertaken with the obvious hope of getting rid of as many minority and other Democratic-leaning voters as possible.8
Cohen’s catalog also includes cases in which the court displayed antipathy toward organized labor, indifference toward workers seeking recourse through anti-discrimination lawsuits, and solicitude for corporations facing the wrath of justifiably outraged juries. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2018), the court held that it was unconstitutional for a state to require workers to pay a fee to unions to defray the costs associated with collective bargaining. The main justification for requiring the payment of such fees was to prevent free riding by workers who benefited from the union’s bargaining even if they were not members. But in Janus, according to the 5-4 majority in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court held that forcing workers to pay such fees amounted to coercion, violating their First Amendment rights by compelling them to subsidize speech with which they disagreed and would not otherwise support.9
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007), the court added to its litany of anti-labor rulings, overturning a jury award of damages to a woman who had sued her employer for gender discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008), the court added to its run of pro-business rulings by reducing a jury award of punitive damages for the catastrophic oil spill that followed the grounding of a supertanker on an Alaskan reef. The tanker’s captain, absent from the bridge when the grounding occurred, was found to have a high level of alcohol in his blood hours later. At trial, it was revealed that Exxon allowed him to command a supertanker even though the company knew of his record of alcohol abuse. A court of appeals assessed punitive damages of $2.5 billion, remitting a jury’s assessment of $5 billion. The Supreme Court, however, decided that even this amount was impermissibly excessive: It limited the punitive damages to a bit over $500 million.10
Cohen notes that while the court protected corporations from what it saw as excessive penalization for grossly negligent conduct, it declined to protect people from excessive punishment. In Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), for example, the court upheld the application of California’s three-strikes law in a decision that condemned a man with prior convictions to a prison term of 50 years to life after he was caught stealing about $150 worth of videotapes from two stores. The four dissenting justices in the case remarked that if this sentence was not impermissibly disproportionate, “the principle has no meaning.” Yet the majority, in an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, concluded that it was allowable or, in the court’s peculiar phrasing, “not objectively unreasonable.”11 Related Article There Is Only One Way Out of This Crisis: Expand the Court Elie Mystal
Supreme Inequality offers a damning indictment. With disciplined fury, Cohen patiently collates and dissects cases whose connective tissues are often overlooked, bringing to light a subject that should receive more attention than it does: the Supreme Court’s inequality jurisprudence. Many Americans repose more faith in the judiciary than in the other branches of the federal government. According to Gallup, 81 percent of those polled in 2020 expressed at least some confidence in the Supreme Court, as opposed to 62 percent in the presidency and 55 percent in Congress. Some mistakenly believe that the judiciary is the one branch of government in which the rules apply evenly to all, whether rich or poor. Part of the excitement that surrounds the legal misfortunes of the high and mighty—for instance, the celebrity parents caught up in the recent college admissions scandal—is a sublimated yearning for a forum in which class privileges do not matter. Citizens and judges alike recite the mantra that no one, no matter how wealthy or powerful or prestigious, is above the law. Cohen’s analysis puts the lie to that myth: Wealth or its absence do indeed make a difference in outcomes, even before the putatively majestic bar of justice.12
Cohen writes in a lively, accessible fashion. He is attentive to the oft-neglected people behind the lawsuits named after them, he is careful to explain and humanize difficult legal abstractions, and he shows with sobering particularity the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decisions. Anxious, it seems, to leaven his withering narrative with something more positive, he offers an overly cheery depiction of the court presided over by Earl Warren between 1953 (when the former California governor was nominated as chief justice by President Dwight Eisenhower) and 1969 (when Warren unhappily retired at the beginning of Richard Nixon’s presidency).13
For Cohen, Warren’s arrival “launched a progressive legal revolution” with a “mission” of “uplifting the poor and the weak, and of building a more equal and inclusive society.” “The Warren Court,” he declares, “systematically looked for ways in which the poor were unfairly disadvantaged.” It was “a historical outlier,” he adds mournfully, one that lasted only briefly before the court was overrun with Nixon appointees who steered it to a resumption of “its traditional role in national life: protector of the rich and powerful.”14
The reality of this interregnum was far more ambiguous. The Warren court’s most consequential, controversial, and esteemed decision was its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, in which it invalidated racial segregation in public primary and secondary schooling. But the celebration of Brown has distorted the court’s role in racial desegregation. Pushed by the NAACP and other civil rights activists, the Justice Department under President Harry Truman and Eisenhower called for the elimination of racial segregation before Warren’s arrival on the court. And the armed forces ended segregation prior to the landmark ruling.15
Cohen’s account, which remains the dominant narrative in many constitutional law courses in the country’s leading law schools, also obscures how the Brown ruling assuaged segregationist sentiment by assuring white supremacists that they would be allowed to desegregate “with all deliberate speed.” The court, moreover, refused to invalidate racial segregation in matrimony for 13 years after Brown. I mention this not to denigrate the Warren court; it did indeed take steps toward racial equality that warrant acknowledgment. But it was not the egalitarian Valhalla that Cohen depicts.16
Supreme Inequality is also ensnared by the difficulty of distinguishing law from politics. Robert Dahl once observed that “as a political institution, the Court is highly unusual, not least because Americans are not quite willing to accept the fact that it is a political institution and not quite capable of denying it.” Like many journalists covering the court, however, Cohen sharply distinguishes it from the “political” branches of government. He complains that the court over which Chief Justice John Roberts presides “seems more like a political body than a legal one.” But the Supreme Court has always been political and is inescapably so, given, among other things, the way it is constituted.17
When Cohen lambastes Citizens United, he begins by complaining that the court’s majority was “almost lawless, in its rush to overturn well-established law.” But would he object had the cases targeted for overruling been deplorables like Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), or Korematsu v. United States (1944)? The law is ever enmeshed in politics and in the service of one powerful interest or another.18
We should become more realistic in our estimation of the Supreme Court, recognizing that the justices are politicians in robes, though they pursue their agendas somewhat differently from those in the White House and Congress. Teasing out the similarities and differences is a task that no one has thus far accomplished satisfactorily. But the political character of the Supreme Court is clear, notwithstanding its own and others’ strenuous efforts at obfuscation. Roberts chastised Donald Trump for referring to a judge by the president who nominated him. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges,” the chief justice declared. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” But Trump, awful as he is, gets the better of this dispute. There were Nixon judges; they bequeathed us Rodriguez and Milliken. Similarly, there are Trump judges. What they will bequeath us, only the future can tell, though their provenance hardly inspires confidence.19
In Supreme Inequality, Cohen argues persuasively that the Republicans have managed the politics of the judiciary much more effectively than the Democrats. Throughout the book he returns to an obvious but important point: Supreme Court decisions are determined by the particular justices who sit on the court, which is determined in turn by the presidents who nominate them, the senators who ratify them, and the citizens who vote for both. This largely explains the trajectory of the Supreme Court since the 1960s. In 1967, liberal justices held a slim majority; then disaster struck. Earl Warren announced his retirement while Lyndon Johnson was still president, intending to ensure that a liberal would succeed him on the bench. But Johnson miscalculated: When he nominated Justice Abe Fortas to the position, the Senate rebelled, leaving it to the next president to nominate a new chief justice—and that president was Richard Nixon.20 Related Article Whose Side Is Clarence Thomas On? Randall Kennedy
Over the next three years, Nixon got the chance to appoint four justices, creating a conservative majority that has held sway ever since. Not only have Republicans dominated the court through their appointive power, with their justices outnumbering the Democrats’ 14 to four among those seated between 1968 and 2020, but they have also dominated through their willingness to be more ideologically forthright than their Democratic adversaries. Republican presidents have straightforwardly declared, when nominating justices, that they mean to appoint conservatives. Democratic presidents, by contrast, have blurred the ideological complexion of their choices, as if there were something disreputable about being liberal.21
To forge a better future, this will have to change. Democrats need to be more candid about their reasons for opposing Supreme Court nominees. They should not be at all reticent about voting to reject nominees on ideological grounds. Just because someone is smart and knowledgeable, hard-working and honorable does not mean that he or she should be elevated to the court. Any nominee who is likely to advance politically unacceptable policies ought to be opposed. That Antonin Scalia was confirmed with no dissenting votes (98-0) despite a record that gave ample cause for alarm reflects poorly on the senators who voted for him, especially the liberals among them (including Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy).22
Democrats also need to be much more intently focused on pushing the judiciary in a more progressive direction. That will require study, debate, and the identification and encouragement of prospective nominees. Liberals should have rolling lists of favorite candidates prepared, as conservatives already do, as well as a keen collective desire to refashion the judiciary so that it can contribute to the making of a more just America. Above all, they need to recognize and acknowledge that the Supreme Court is inescapably political. The key is to ensure that a judicial politics of equitable fairness prevails.23


thenation--2020-10-05--While the Poor Get Sick, Bill Gates Just Gets Richer

In the early days of the pandemic , President Trump made headlines when he reportedly tried to secure rights to a vaccine from German developer CureVac on behalf of the US government—a move that stirred questions about equity and justice .
Should the United States get priority access to the Covid vaccine just because we are the world ’ s wealthiest nation ?
Shouldn ’ t the most vulnerable—no matter their nationality or salary—get vaccinated first ?
“ Capitalism has its limits , ” one German lawmaker noted in a widely reported tweet .
Had Trump succeeded , the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about economic inequality—delivering a financial windfall to one of the most moneyed players in the pandemic response : the Gates Foundation .
The foundation recently reported a $ 40 million stake in CureVac—one of dozens of investments the foundation reports having in companies working on Covid vaccines , therapeutics , diagnostics or manufacturing , according to The Nation ’ s analysis of the foundation ’ s most recent tax return , web site , and various SEC filings .
The foundation has also announced that it will “ leverage a portion of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to advance its work on Covid .
These investments , amounting to more than $ 250 million , show that the world ’ s most visible charity , and one of the world ’ s most influential voices in the pandemic response , is in a position to potentially reap considerable financial gains from the Covid-19 pandemic .
Gates ’ s reported investment in CureVac , alone , may have already delivered tens of millions of dollars in shareholder value for the nonprofit Gates Foundation .
Even though Trump ’ s bid for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock skyrocketed 400 percent just two days after going public in August .
Revelations of the Gates Foundation ’ s financial stake in Covid-19 , which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances , speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation ’ s increasingly central role in the pandemic .
“ Who are they accountable to ?
They don ’ t even have a governance structure that ’ s clear , ” notes Kate Elder , senior vaccines policy adviser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I see less information coming from the Gates Foundation .
They don ’ t answer most of our questions .
They don ’ t make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we ’ re trying to learn more about their technical strategy [ on Covid ] and how they ’ re prioritizing certain things.
” And Gates ’ s priorities in developing and distributing a Covid vaccine , Elder says , are increasingly the world ’ s priorities , as multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization have ceded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Gates provides key funding .
These organizations , the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi , the Vaccine Alliance , are working with the WHO to develop “ the largest and most diverse Covid-19 vaccine portfolio in the world , ” which they hope can deliver billions of vaccine doses in the year ahead , including to many poor countries .
James Love , director of the NGO Knowledge Ecology International , says the foundation ’ s decades of work on vaccines , along with its sprawling financial ties , allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
“ He had enough money and enough presence in the area for a long enough period of time to be positioned as the first mover and the most influential mover .
So people just relied upon his people and his institutions , ” says Love , “ In a pandemic , when there is a vacuum of leadership , people that move fast and seem to know what they ’ re doing , they just acquire a lot of power .
And he did that in this case.
” Gates ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely , almost universally , praised , with The New York Times calling him a “ vocal counterweight to President Trump , ” and Madonna making a million-dollar donation to support the foundation ’ s work .
But because Gates is not an elected representative or public official , the details of his far-reaching influence—and finances—have largely eluded public scrutiny .
Bill Gates Gives to the Rich ( Including Himself ) “ You have an enormous amount of power that affects everyone around the globe , and there should be some accountability , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ People are not asking unreasonable things .
It ’ s a charity.… [ We ’ re asking ] , ‘ Can you explain what you ’ re doing , for example ?
Can you show us what these contracts look like ?
’ Particularly since they ’ re using their money to influence policies that involve our money.
” The Gates Foundation declined requests for interviews and did not respond to detailed questions sent by e-mail , including about its investments in pharmaceutical companies working on Covid .
Love and other critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the pandemic has been elevating the pharmaceutical industry—for example , pushing the University of Oxford to deliver its leading Covid-19 vaccine platform into the hands of Big Pharma .
The resulting partnership with AstraZeneca had another effect , as Bloomberg and Kaiser Health News recently reported , changing the university ’ s distribution model from an open-license platform , designed to make its vaccine freely available for any manufacturer , to an exclusive license controlled by AstraZeneca .
Gates had the leverage to push the university , Bloomberg reports , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest funders of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations , which in turn funds the University of Oxford ’ s vaccine development ( to the tune of some $ 384 million ) .
The Gates Foundation has also directly given hundreds of millions of dollars to the university through charitable grants for a variety of projects—including previous funding to the university ’ s Jenner Institute , which is developing Oxford ’ s Covid vaccine .
Oxford and AstraZeneca have made public promises about forgoing profits and providing equitable access to their vaccine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization would provide details or documentation about this plan .
Other companies have made similar humanitarian pledges even as they have pursued a traditional business model—based on exclusive licenses—that critics say is designed to generate profits , not promote equitable access .
Jörg Schaaber , executive director of the German advocacy group BUKO Pharma-Kampagne , sees the Gates Foundation as having an ideological investment in this business model , pointing to many of the foundation ’ s senior staff who come from the pharmaceutical industry , including the president of Gates ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the Gates Foundation ’ s endowment could benefit from the foundation pushing Covid vaccine development toward exclusive licenses .
“ If we change the way in which you regulate the industry , or the ways in which you want medicines or vaccines to be produced and delivered , ” says K.M .
Gopakumar , legal adviser to the Third World Network , who is based in India , “ it ’ s definitely going to affect these companies ’ business model—and also the investments of Gates Foundation .
So they are using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford .
“ Every week we ’ re talking with AstraZeneca about , okay , what ’ s going on in India , what ’ s going on in China , and so that we can get , assuming that the Phase Two data and eventually the Phase Three data is promising , that we ’ re ready to go with that , ” Gates noted in a press briefing in June—one of many interactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describe his foundation as , essentially , leading the global pandemic response .
“ Our foundation has a lot of vaccine expertise and deep relationships with the manufacturers , and so , we ’ ve taken our staff and now are looking at each of these [ potential vaccine ] constructs and the data and making sure that for the ones that are the most promising , there is a plan to have multiple factories in Asia , multiple factories in the Americas , multiple factories in Europe… .
We understand which of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production , and I ’ m hopeful that it will be at that large number , because the cooperation from the pharma companies , of saying , ‘ yes , you can use my factory to make someone else ’ s vaccine , ’ we ’ re getting a very good response to that , and that ’ s really unprecedented.
” During Gates ’ s remarks , he made no mention of his foundation ’ s investment in any pharmaceutical companies working on Covid .
Similarly , in an August interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that if he were infected with Covid , he would want to be prescribed the therapeutic drug Remdesivir—failing to mention his foundation ’ s stock position in the drug ’ s owner , Gilead , according to the charity ’ s most recent tax return , from 2018 .
( The foundation refused to provide details about its current investment portfolio . )
Journalistic norms require disclosure of conflicts of interest .
So do the prevailing rules in science , but even when Gates enters the scientific discourse—for example in the commentary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Medicine , prescribing what he thought government leaders should be doing to tackle Covid—he does not disclose the details of his financial ties .
Gates filled out the journal ’ s required conflict-of-interest form , but simply listed his conflicts as “ numerous ” —giving readers no sense of the size , scope , or type of his financial stake in the pandemic .
Lisa Bero , professor of medicine and public health at the University of Colorado , says authors have to provide details of their financial conflicts of interest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies—which is not unheard of among authors in the New England Journal of Medicine .
The journal did not respond to multiple inquiries about Gates ’ s disclosure .
Sheldon Krimsky , a professor of humanities and social sciences at Tufts University ( with whom I co-authored an academic journal article in 2017 ) , says disclosures are critical because they notify readers about potential bias .
“ The last person I would want to tell me if a vaccine was ready to go is a person who has an investment in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t mention specific vaccines in his journal article , but elsewhere he seems to be picking winners and losers .
In a longform interview on The Daily Show in April , Bill Gates seemed to say his foundation would spend billions of dollars to support manufacturing for seven of its favored vaccine constructs .
( The foundation would not confirm this spending or provide any details ) .
If Gates followed disclosure rules , we would have transparency not just around the Gates Foundation ’ s $ 47 billion endowment but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s personal fortune is held .
According to Forbes ’ s estimates , Bill Gates ’ s private wealth , estimated at around $ 115 billion , has increased by more than $ 10 billion during the pandemic .
It is unknown if the Gateses have personal investments in companies working on Covid .
In the same way that policy-makers and journalists have called on Trump to release his tax forms , in part to understand if he may be financially benefiting from his presidency , Bill Gates ’ s tax records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his leadership role in the pandemic—whose total cost to the global economy is in the trillions of dollars .
The Nation ’ s analysis of Gates ’ s finances was in part based on the foundation ’ s most recent IRS tax return—from 2018 .
As it stands , we won ’ t be able to see all of Gates ’ s current investments until late in 2021 , when the foundation releases its 2020 tax forms .
The Nation made multiple requests for up-to-date financial disclosures and tax forms from the foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got no response .
Public understanding of Gates ’ s finances is also limited by the foundation ’ s maze of inscrutable investments , like is reported $ 100 million stake in GTI 8 Institutional Investors—a private fund domiciled in the Cayman Islands , a jurisdiction renowned for its financial secrecy .
The company in charge of the fund , Global Forest Partners , said the fund ’ s specific holdings are not publicly disclosed .
While the Gates Foundation is a nonprofit organization , its endowment still generates billions of dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the foundation has given away in charitable grants .
If the pandemic does end up delivering a financial windfall to Bill Gates or his foundation , it may pale in comparison to the political boost he ’ s received as Earth ’ s de facto vaccine czar .
His widely lauded role in the pandemic already appears to have helped institutionalize and normalize his political power in other areas where the foundation works .
Earlier this year , over chorus of praise for Gates ’ s leadership on Covid , New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Gates Foundation to help him “ reimagine ” the state ’ s education policy .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In the early days of the pandemic, President Trump made headlines when he reportedly tried to secure rights to a vaccine from German developer CureVac on behalf of the US government—a move that stirred questions about equity and justice. Should the United States get priority access to the Covid vaccine just because we are the world’s wealthiest nation? Shouldn’t the most vulnerable—no matter their nationality or salary—get vaccinated first?1
“Capitalism has its limits,” one German lawmaker noted in a widely reported tweet.2
Had Trump succeeded, the deal might also have sent another stark message about economic inequality—delivering a financial windfall to one of the most moneyed players in the pandemic response: the Gates Foundation.3
The foundation recently reported a $40 million stake in CureVac—one of dozens of investments the foundation reports having in companies working on Covid vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics or manufacturing, according to The Nation’s analysis of the foundation’s most recent tax return, web site, and various SEC filings. The foundation has also announced that it will “leverage a portion of its $2.5 billion Strategic Investment Fund” to advance its work on Covid.4
These investments, amounting to more than $250 million, show that the world’s most visible charity, and one of the world’s most influential voices in the pandemic response, is in a position to potentially reap considerable financial gains from the Covid-19 pandemic.5
Recent SEC filings and the foundation’s website and most recent tax filings show more than $250 million invested in dozens of companies working on Covid vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and manufacturing. These investments put the foundation in a position to potentially financially gain from the pandemic.
Gates’s reported investment in CureVac, alone, may have already delivered tens of millions of dollars in shareholder value for the nonprofit Gates Foundation. Even though Trump’s bid for CureVac failed, the company’s stock skyrocketed 400 percent just two days after going public in August.6
Revelations of the Gates Foundation’s financial stake in Covid-19, which Bill Gates does not appear to have publicly disclosed in dozens of recent media appearances, speak to broader criticisms about the lack of transparency in the foundation’s increasingly central role in the pandemic.7 Current Issue View our current issue
“Who are they accountable to? They don’t even have a governance structure that’s clear,” notes Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser to Doctors Without Borders. “Increasingly, I see less information coming from the Gates Foundation. They don’t answer most of our questions. They don’t make their technical staff available for discussions with us when we’re trying to learn more about their technical strategy [on Covid] and how they’re prioritizing certain things.”8 Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
And Gates’s priorities in developing and distributing a Covid vaccine, Elder says, are increasingly the world’s priorities, as multilateral institutions like the World Health Organization have ceded leadership to a group of public-private partnerships where Gates provides key funding. These organizations, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, are working with the WHO to develop “the largest and most diverse Covid-19 vaccine portfolio in the world,” which they hope can deliver billions of vaccine doses in the year ahead, including to many poor countries.9
James Love, director of the NGO Knowledge Ecology International, says the foundation’s decades of work on vaccines, along with its sprawling financial ties, allowed it to assert influence early in the pandemic.10
“He had enough money and enough presence in the area for a long enough period of time to be positioned as the first mover and the most influential mover. So people just relied upon his people and his institutions,” says Love, “In a pandemic, when there is a vacuum of leadership, people that move fast and seem to know what they’re doing, they just acquire a lot of power. And he did that in this case.”11
Gates’s leadership in the pandemic has been widely, almost universally, praised, with The New York Times calling him a “vocal counterweight to President Trump,” and Madonna making a million-dollar donation to support the foundation’s work. But because Gates is not an elected representative or public official, the details of his far-reaching influence—and finances—have largely eluded public scrutiny.12 More From Tim Schwab Will the Gates Foundation’s Board Ever Hold Bill Accountable? February 2, 2022 The Gates Foundation Avoids a Reckoning on Race and Power October 6, 2021 Meet MacKenzie Scott, Our New Good Billionaire July 9, 2021
“You have an enormous amount of power that affects everyone around the globe, and there should be some accountability, some transparency,” says Love. “People are not asking unreasonable things. It’s a charity.… [We’re asking], ‘Can you explain what you’re doing, for example? Can you show us what these contracts look like?’ Particularly since they’re using their money to influence policies that involve our money.”13
The Gates Foundation declined requests for interviews and did not respond to detailed questions sent by e-mail, including about its investments in pharmaceutical companies working on Covid.14
Love and other critics say a key role Gates has played in the pandemic has been elevating the pharmaceutical industry—for example, pushing the University of Oxford to deliver its leading Covid-19 vaccine platform into the hands of Big Pharma. The resulting partnership with AstraZeneca had another effect, as Bloomberg and Kaiser Health News recently reported, changing the university’s distribution model from an open-license platform, designed to make its vaccine freely available for any manufacturer, to an exclusive license controlled by AstraZeneca.15
Gates had the leverage to push the university, Bloomberg reports, because the foundation is one of the founders and largest funders of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which in turn funds the University of Oxford’s vaccine development (to the tune of some $384 million). The Gates Foundation has also directly given hundreds of millions of dollars to the university through charitable grants for a variety of projects—including previous funding to the university’s Jenner Institute, which is developing Oxford’s Covid vaccine.16
Oxford and AstraZeneca have made public promises about forgoing profits and providing equitable access to their vaccine, if it is successful, but neither organization would provide details or documentation about this plan. Other companies have made similar humanitarian pledges even as they have pursued a traditional business model—based on exclusive licenses—that critics say is designed to generate profits, not promote equitable access.17
Jörg Schaaber, executive director of the German advocacy group BUKO Pharma-Kampagne, sees the Gates Foundation as having an ideological investment in this business model, pointing to many of the foundation’s senior staff who come from the pharmaceutical industry, including the president of Gates’s global health program. Other critics note how the Gates Foundation’s endowment could benefit from the foundation pushing Covid vaccine development toward exclusive licenses.18
“If we change the way in which you regulate the industry, or the ways in which you want medicines or vaccines to be produced and delivered,” says K.M. Gopakumar, legal adviser to the Third World Network, who is based in India, “it’s definitely going to affect these companies’ business model—and also the investments of Gates Foundation. So they are using their money to reinforce the status quo.”19
Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.20
“Every week we’re talking with AstraZeneca about, okay, what’s going on in India, what’s going on in China, and so that we can get, assuming that the Phase Two data and eventually the Phase Three data is promising, that we’re ready to go with that,” Gates noted in a press briefing in June—one of many interactions with the media where he seems to describe his foundation as, essentially, leading the global pandemic response.21
“Our foundation has a lot of vaccine expertise and deep relationships with the manufacturers, and so, we’ve taken our staff and now are looking at each of these [potential vaccine] constructs and the data and making sure that for the ones that are the most promising, there is a plan to have multiple factories in Asia, multiple factories in the Americas, multiple factories in Europe…. We understand which of these vaccines we can scale up the production, and I’m hopeful that it will be at that large number, because the cooperation from the pharma companies, of saying, ‘yes, you can use my factory to make someone else’s vaccine,’ we’re getting a very good response to that, and that’s really unprecedented.”22
During Gates’s remarks, he made no mention of his foundation’s investment in any pharmaceutical companies working on Covid. Similarly, in an August interview with Wired, the former head of Microsoft said that if he were infected with Covid, he would want to be prescribed the therapeutic drug Remdesivir—failing to mention his foundation’s stock position in the drug’s owner, Gilead, according to the charity’s most recent tax return, from 2018. (The foundation refused to provide details about its current investment portfolio.)23
Journalistic norms require disclosure of conflicts of interest. So do the prevailing rules in science, but even when Gates enters the scientific discourse—for example in the commentary he penned in the New England Journal of Medicine, prescribing what he thought government leaders should be doing to tackle Covid—he does not disclose the details of his financial ties. Gates filled out the journal’s required conflict-of-interest form, but simply listed his conflicts as “numerous”—giving readers no sense of the size, scope, or type of his financial stake in the pandemic.24
Lisa Bero, professor of medicine and public health at the University of Colorado, says authors have to provide details of their financial conflicts of interest, even if it means listing dozens of companies—which is not unheard of among authors in the New England Journal of Medicine. The journal did not respond to multiple inquiries about Gates’s disclosure.25
Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of humanities and social sciences at Tufts University (with whom I co-authored an academic journal article in 2017), says disclosures are critical because they notify readers about potential bias.26
“The last person I would want to tell me if a vaccine was ready to go is a person who has an investment in the vaccine,” Krimsky said.27
Gates didn’t mention specific vaccines in his journal article, but elsewhere he seems to be picking winners and losers. In a longform interview on The Daily Show in April, Bill Gates seemed to say his foundation would spend billions of dollars to support manufacturing for seven of its favored vaccine constructs. (The foundation would not confirm this spending or provide any details).28
If Gates followed disclosure rules, we would have transparency not just around the Gates Foundation’s $47 billion endowment but also about where Bill and Melinda Gates’s personal fortune is held.29
According to Forbes’s estimates, Bill Gates’s private wealth, estimated at around $115 billion, has increased by more than $10 billion during the pandemic. It is unknown if the Gateses have personal investments in companies working on Covid.30
In the same way that policy-makers and journalists have called on Trump to release his tax forms, in part to understand if he may be financially benefiting from his presidency, Bill Gates’s tax records and investment portfolio bear scrutiny because of his leadership role in the pandemic—whose total cost to the global economy is in the trillions of dollars.31
The Nation’s analysis of Gates’s finances was in part based on the foundation’s most recent IRS tax return—from 2018. As it stands, we won’t be able to see all of Gates’s current investments until late in 2021, when the foundation releases its 2020 tax forms. The Nation made multiple requests for up-to-date financial disclosures and tax forms from the foundation and the Gates’s family but got no response.32
Public understanding of Gates’s finances is also limited by the foundation’s maze of inscrutable investments, like its reported $100 million stake in GTI 8 Institutional Investors—a private fund domiciled in the Cayman Islands, a jurisdiction renowned for its financial secrecy. The company in charge of the fund, Global Forest Partners, said the fund’s specific holdings are not publicly disclosed.33
While the Gates Foundation is a nonprofit organization, its endowment still generates billions of dollars in income—more money over the last five years than the foundation has given away in charitable grants.34
If the pandemic does end up delivering a financial windfall to Bill Gates or his foundation, it may pale in comparison to the political boost he’s received as Earth’s de facto vaccine czar. His widely lauded role in the pandemic already appears to have helped institutionalize and normalize his political power in other areas where the foundation works. Earlier this year, over chorus of praise for Gates’s leadership on Covid, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced he will lean on the Gates Foundation to help him “reimagine” the state’s education policy.35