motherjones--2020-10-21--The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close

If this were a normal year , volunteers for Al Gross would have begun knocking on Alaskans ’ doors over the summer , searching for voters open to his independent campaign challenging an incumbent Republican senator .
Come fall , the campaign would work to turn get those voters to the polls .
But the pandemic has forced major changes to the traditional campaign playbook , and in the virus ’ s wake , Gross ’ campaign adopted an increasingly popular method of reaching voters known as relational organizing .
The campaign credits its innovative strategy with helping Gross close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radar race against Republican Dan Sullivan into an unexpected battleground in the fight for control of the Senate .
Gross faces a steep hill .
Since 1992 , only three challengers have unseated a senator at the same time that the state voted for a president of the incumbent ’ s party .
But Gross , running as an independent aligned with the Democrats , is trying to do just that : defeat Sullivan in a state that President Donald Trump is widely expected to win .
The key to Gross ’ strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whereas traditional campaigning is centered around volunteers contacting strangers through door knocks , phone banking , and texting , relational organizing leverages volunteers ’ existing relationships to conduct outreach to friends and family .
Gross ’ campaign isn ’ t the only long shot campaign that ’ s harnessed relational organizing to put itself in a position to win .
But it is proving to be among the election cycle ’ s most adept practitioners of the technique .
When the coronavirus upended most campaigns ’ outreach strategies , Blake Reinken was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Pete Buttigieg ’ s campaign in southeast Iowa .
That presidential campaign was an early adopter of relational organizing , and in Iowa , Reinken saw firsthand the power of using conversations between friends and family members to grow support , especially in smaller communities .
The strategy helped Buttigieg win the most delegates at the Iowa caucuses , with particular success in the state ’ s small and rural towns .
In June , Reinken moved to Alaska to work as the Gross campaign ’ s field director , ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the last frontier .
Once there , Reinken , who doesn ’ t give very relaxed vibes over the phone , implemented a relational strategy with , in his words , “ an incredible level of intentionality.
” “ When I started our field program here , I wanted to take what what I saw that worked from that program [ in Iowa ] and mix it with the tools that we see typically in canvassing and traditional phone banking , ” Reinken explained .
While the campaign isn ’ t leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up those classic forms of outreach , the team is particularly enthusiastic about how it has applied the structure of a traditional canvassing operation to friends and family conversations .
Instead of volunteers calling random voters anywhere in the state , they call members of their own communities from lists provided by the campaign .
Reinken ’ s team also gives volunteers a single specific ask to make of their friends every week , whether it be to volunteer their time or request an absentee ballot , because he ’ s found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time .
Alaska is a prime state to put personal networks in action .
Its population of around 730,000 is roughly the same size as the District of Columbia ’ s .
But with a geographic mass 9,700 times greater , the result is swathes of wilderness speckled with small , far-flung communities where everyone knows everyone .
A game of six degrees of separation usually ends as soon as it begins .
( For example , when I called Jake Metcalfe , the head of the state ’ s largest public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ campaign , he mentioned he ’ d once been the substitute teacher of Michelle Sparck , the deputy campaign manager . )
“ I was also really intrigued by the opportunity to use relational organizing in a place that ’ s really been ripe for a friends and family strategy , ” Reinken says , explaining why he was excited to apply the technique in Alaska .
Traditionally , he explains , a campaign in a rural state would slowly scale up its volunteer capacity by finding new people interested in helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gross ’ s team spent the summer focused on volunteer recruitment relationally , by engaging the small number of existing campaign volunteers and having them grow the volunteer base by bringing their friends on board , then training them online .
By August , the campaign was ready to unleash them to talk to their own communities , wherever they lived .
“ They are all over the state , ” says Metcalfe , the executive director of the local AFSCME chapter that , as part of the AFL-CIO in Alaska , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf .
Metcalfe boasts that the volunteers have given the campaign a physical presence “ out in western Alaska .
They ’ re out on the Aleutian chain , which is really the far west.
” He added that there are others working on Gross ’ s behalf in the southeast panhandle and in Utqiaġvik , the state ’ s northernmost city—a community of about 4,500 people above the Arctic Circle .
“ They seem to have quite a presence in a lot of the smaller rural communities , so that is impressive.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , relational organizing has the potential to mobilize people already there .
And in such tight-knit communities , the word of a local can go a long way .
Metcalfe also expressed admiration for the campaign ’ s Native Alaskan outreach program , run by Sparck , who he remembered from the Bethel classroom he stepped into as a sub years ago .
Metcalfe , whose union has dispatched masked members to knock doors in the state ’ s three largest cities , is impressed with the campaign ’ s organizing model .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Alaska all my life and sees the five degrees of separation that we all have here , ” he says that a relational program can “ reach out to an incredible number of people.
” The tight race in Alaska has become a national story over the last month .
Polls show the race is surprisingly close given that Alaska is a solidly red state , and both parties have poured in money .
A new Democratic-aligned super PAC just invested $ 4 million in television ads for Gross , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million from the super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
The amounts are enormous sums of money in a state with small media markets and the total population of a moderately sized city .
Though history and most polling suggests Sullivan is favored to hold his seat , Gross ’ campaign has kept things close enough that he has had little trouble attracting the money to put up a real fight .
Between July and September , he raised $ 8.7 million , as Sullivan took in just $ 1.7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Julia Doubleday also sees the promise of relational organizing in rural areas .
For her purposes , in Texas ’ 25th congressional district , she ’ s hoping that a friends and family approach will help Democrat Julie Oliver oust incumbent Republican Rep. Roger Williams .
“ It ’ s really effective actually in smaller communities , ” says Doubleday .
“ People tend to know their neighbors , they tend to know more about their neighbors.
” As Oliver ’ s campaign manager , Doubleday has the task of flipping a House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a piece of blue Austin with a large , jagged slice of rural red Texas .
But as the state ’ s demographics rapidly shift and suburban voters flee the Republican Party , Oliver has a shot , if a tough one , in November .
Like Alaska , Texas is prime for relational strategies .
The state has large rural regions where Democrats need to find lonely liberals .
Texas also provides opportunity because it contains so many eligible voters who sit out every election .
As the Houston Chronicle reported in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a red state .
It ’ s a non-voting state.
” Campaigns there are used to working with the voter file , a list of registered voters who can be contacted and turned out .
But there ’ s no list of unregistered nonvoters—and Democrats have learned that the best way to reach them is through the people they know .
Two years ago , a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston .
His campaign turned to relational organizing , finding thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t plugged into politics .
Kulkarni lost by just 5 points , but his relational strategy caught fire , both nationally and in Texas .
His organizing director , Emily Isaac , took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni ’ s race to Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director .
She also spread the word to her own friends—and it caught on .
One of those friends was Doubleday , who says she learned about relational from Isaac after Kulkarni ’ s 2018 run .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she says .
In the beginning , Oliver ’ s campaign couldn ’ t afford TV ads , so they instead invested in organizing .
They chose a relational app called Reach to help track supporters ’ conversations .
Recently , they teamed up with Democrat Wendy Davis , another user of the app who is running in a separate congressional seat also containing a slice of Austin , to host a joint relational phone bank using the same app .
A state House candidate whose district overlaps with the 25th also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate to identify voters who live in both districts .
Some 150 miles east , Kulkarni is running again , and this time the polls show he may win in a district that has been reliably Republican for decades .
“ They they are definitely the reigning champs of relational , ” Doubleday says of Kulkarni ’ s team .
“ They have the most relational IDs [ identified supporters ] of anyone that I know.
” In 2018 , veteran Massachusetts campaign strategist John Walsh hoped Deval Patrick , the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for president .
So he started a PAC and set out to win support for such a bid from local candidates across the country by helping them out .
One race where they gave money was Kulkarni ’ s , where Walsh saw an organizing strategy that reminded him of Patrick ’ s first campaign , which , initially short on cash , was powered by word of mouth .
While Patrick ’ s White House bid fizzled , by 2019 , Walsh was running Democratic Sen. Ed Markey ’ s reelection race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long phone call with Isaac about that campaign ’ s strategy—Walsh built Markey ’ s organizing operation to be “ relational first.
” In August , the senator handily defeated his primary challenger , Rep. Joe Kennedy .
Recently , Markey ’ s team has begun helping other candidates run effective relational programs , including Oliver and Davis , becoming a link in a chain that has brought the tactics honed in Southeast Texas to the Lone Star State ’ s capital .
It ’ s unclear if a relational organizing approach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Alaska and Texas across the finish line .
But if they do win , the campaigns believe their friends and family approach will have made the difference , demonstrating the potential of a tactic that organizers say can empower and activate networks of overlooked voters .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
If this were a normal year, volunteers for Al Gross would have begun knocking on Alaskans’ doors over the summer, searching for voters open to his independent campaign challenging an incumbent Republican senator. Come fall, the campaign would work to turn get those voters to the polls.
Gross’ campaign credits relational organizing with helping turn Alaska into a Senate battleground.
But the pandemic has forced major changes to the traditional campaign playbook, and in the virus’s wake, Gross’ campaign adopted an increasingly popular method of reaching voters known as relational organizing. The campaign credits its innovative strategy with helping Gross close the gap, turning his once off-the radar race against Republican Dan Sullivan into an unexpected battleground in the fight for control of the Senate.
Gross faces a steep hill. Since 1992, only three challengers have unseated a senator at the same time that the state voted for a president of the incumbent’s party. But Gross, running as an independent aligned with the Democrats, is trying to do just that: defeat Sullivan in a state that President Donald Trump is widely expected to win.
The key to Gross’ strategy is his campaign’s organizing prowess. Whereas traditional campaigning is centered around volunteers contacting strangers through door knocks, phone banking, and texting, relational organizing leverages volunteers’ existing relationships to conduct outreach to friends and family. Gross’ campaign isn’t the only long shot campaign that’s harnessed relational organizing to put itself in a position to win. But it is proving to be among the election cycle’s most adept practitioners of the technique.
An Alaska game of six degrees of separation usually ends as soon as it begins.
When the coronavirus upended most campaigns’ outreach strategies, Blake Reinken was just coming off nine months of organizing for Pete Buttigieg’s campaign in southeast Iowa. That presidential campaign was an early adopter of relational organizing, and in Iowa, Reinken saw firsthand the power of using conversations between friends and family members to grow support, especially in smaller communities. The strategy helped Buttigieg win the most delegates at the Iowa caucuses, with particular success in the state’s small and rural towns. In June, Reinken moved to Alaska to work as the Gross campaign’s field director, ready to take lessons he learned on the plains to the last frontier. Once there, Reinken, who doesn’t give very relaxed vibes over the phone, implemented a relational strategy with, in his words, “an incredible level of intentionality.”
“When I started our field program here, I wanted to take what what I saw that worked from that program [in Iowa] and mix it with the tools that we see typically in canvassing and traditional phone banking,” Reinken explained. While the campaign isn’t leaving anything to chance, and has kept up those classic forms of outreach, the team is particularly enthusiastic about how it has applied the structure of a traditional canvassing operation to friends and family conversations. Instead of volunteers calling random voters anywhere in the state, they call members of their own communities from lists provided by the campaign. Reinken’s team also gives volunteers a single specific ask to make of their friends every week, whether it be to volunteer their time or request an absentee ballot, because he’s found that follow-through improves with just one request at a time.
Alaska is a prime state to put personal networks in action. Its population of around 730,000 is roughly the same size as the District of Columbia’s. But with a geographic mass 9,700 times greater, the result is swathes of wilderness speckled with small, far-flung communities where everyone knows everyone. A game of six degrees of separation usually ends as soon as it begins. (For example, when I called Jake Metcalfe, the head of the state’s largest public employee union, to ask about Gross’ campaign, he mentioned he’d once been the substitute teacher of Michelle Sparck, the deputy campaign manager.)
“I was also really intrigued by the opportunity to use relational organizing in a place that’s really been ripe for a friends and family strategy,” Reinken says, explaining why he was excited to apply the technique in Alaska. Traditionally, he explains, a campaign in a rural state would slowly scale up its volunteer capacity by finding new people interested in helping by knocking door to door. Instead, Gross’s team spent the summer focused on volunteer recruitment relationally, by engaging the small number of existing campaign volunteers and having them grow the volunteer base by bringing their friends on board, then training them online. By August, the campaign was ready to unleash them to talk to their own communities, wherever they lived.
“They seem to have quite a presence in a lot of the smaller rural communities, so that is impressive.”
“They are all over the state,” says Metcalfe, the executive director of the local AFSCME chapter that, as part of the AFL-CIO in Alaska, endorsed Gross and is canvassing on his behalf. Metcalfe boasts that the volunteers have given the campaign a physical presence “out in western Alaska. They’re out on the Aleutian chain, which is really the far west.” He added that there are others working on Gross’s behalf in the southeast panhandle and in Utqiaġvik, the state’s northernmost city—a community of about 4,500 people above the Arctic Circle. “They seem to have quite a presence in a lot of the smaller rural communities, so that is impressive.” With some communities inaccessible by car, relational organizing has the potential to mobilize people already there. And in such tight-knit communities, the word of a local can go a long way. Metcalfe also expressed admiration for the campaign’s Native Alaskan outreach program, run by Sparck, who he remembered from the Bethel classroom he stepped into as a sub years ago.
Metcalfe, whose union has dispatched masked members to knock doors in the state’s three largest cities, is impressed with the campaign’s organizing model. “As somebody that’s lived in Alaska all my life and sees the five degrees of separation that we all have here,” he says that a relational program can “reach out to an incredible number of people.”
The tight race in Alaska has become a national story over the last month. Polls show the race is surprisingly close given that Alaska is a solidly red state, and both parties have poured in money. A new Democratic-aligned super PAC just invested $4 million in television ads for Gross, which has been countered by more than $3 million from the super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The amounts are enormous sums of money in a state with small media markets and the total population of a moderately sized city. Though history and most polling suggests Sullivan is favored to hold his seat, Gross’ campaign has kept things close enough that he has had little trouble attracting the money to put up a real fight. Between July and September, he raised $8.7 million, as Sullivan took in just $1.7 million.
Thousands of miles away, Julia Doubleday also sees the promise of relational organizing in rural areas. For her purposes, in Texas’ 25th congressional district, she’s hoping that a friends and family approach will help Democrat Julie Oliver oust incumbent Republican Rep. Roger Williams. “It’s really effective actually in smaller communities,” says Doubleday. “People tend to know their neighbors, they tend to know more about their neighbors.” As Oliver’s campaign manager, Doubleday has the task of flipping a House seat gerrymandered to protect Republicans by combining a piece of blue Austin with a large, jagged slice of rural red Texas. But as the state’s demographics rapidly shift and suburban voters flee the Republican Party, Oliver has a shot, if a tough one, in November.
Like Alaska, Texas is prime for relational strategies. The state has large rural regions where Democrats need to find lonely liberals. Texas also provides opportunity because it contains so many eligible voters who sit out every election. As the Houston Chronicle reported in 2018, “Texas isn’t a red state. It’s a non-voting state.” Campaigns there are used to working with the voter file, a list of registered voters who can be contacted and turned out. But there’s no list of unregistered nonvoters—and Democrats have learned that the best way to reach them is through the people they know.
“It’s really effective actually in smaller communities. People tend to know their neighbors.”
Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. She also spread the word to her own friends—and it caught on. One of those friends was Doubleday, who says she learned about relational from Isaac after Kulkarni’s 2018 run. “That was definitely an inspiration to us,” she says.
In the beginning, Oliver’s campaign couldn’t afford TV ads, so they instead invested in organizing. They chose a relational app called Reach to help track supporters’ conversations. Recently, they teamed up with Democrat Wendy Davis, another user of the app who is running in a separate congressional seat also containing a slice of Austin, to host a joint relational phone bank using the same app. A state House candidate whose district overlaps with the 25th also joined Reach, allowing supporters of each candidate to identify voters who live in both districts.
Some 150 miles east, Kulkarni is running again, and this time the polls show he may win in a district that has been reliably Republican for decades. “They they are definitely the reigning champs of relational,” Doubleday says of Kulkarni’s team. “They have the most relational IDs [identified supporters] of anyone that I know.”
In 2018, veteran Massachusetts campaign strategist John Walsh hoped Deval Patrick, the state’s former Democratic governor, would run for president. So he started a PAC and set out to win support for such a bid from local candidates across the country by helping them out. One race where they gave money was Kulkarni’s, where Walsh saw an organizing strategy that reminded him of Patrick’s first campaign, which, initially short on cash, was powered by word of mouth. While Patrick’s White House bid fizzled, by 2019, Walsh was running Democratic Sen. Ed Markey’s reelection race. Inspired by Kulkarni’s approach—and a long phone call with Isaac about that campaign’s strategy—Walsh built Markey’s organizing operation to be “relational first.” In August, the senator handily defeated his primary challenger, Rep. Joe Kennedy. Recently, Markey’s team has begun helping other candidates run effective relational programs, including Oliver and Davis, becoming a link in a chain that has brought the tactics honed in Southeast Texas to the Lone Star State’s capital.
It’s unclear if a relational organizing approach can bring Democrats running in red areas like Alaska and Texas across the finish line. But if they do win, the campaigns believe their friends and family approach will have made the difference, demonstrating the potential of a tactic that organizers say can empower and activate networks of overlooked voters.


motherjones--2020-10-21--“He Was Throwing Off Cash”: How an International Fugitive Tried to Influence Trump’s Swamp

In 2017 , Jho Low was hiring .
Low—a businessman suspected of acting as a key architect in the embezzlement of around $ 4.5 billion dollars from a Malaysian state fund known as 1MDB—was looking for well-connected Americans who could make his legal problems go away .
The US Justice Department had launched an investigation into the looting of the fund , a massive crime allegedly perpetrated at the direction of the country ’ s former prime minister , Najib Razak .
Federal prosecutors had also moved to seize assets Low had stashed around the world , including a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate , and art .
What happened with Low says a lot about Washington , and Donald Trump ’ s Washington in particular .
Some of the country ’ s most prominent Republicans , along with a throng of other top lawyers and PR specialists , lined up to offer Low help .
“ He was throwing off cash , ” one person familiar with Low ’ s efforts to hire powerful allies said .
“ People flocked to him.
” Some prominent figures accepted Low ’ s money through elaborate workarounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid with funds that the federal government was attempting to seize .
They touted access to top administration officials , including Trump himself .
But Low did not get what he was hoping for .
The Justice Department did not drop its investigation .
Low was indicted in 2018 for conspiring to launder money stolen form 1MDB .
Last year , he gave up assets worth up to $ 900 million to settle the forfeiture cases against him , even as he remains a fugitive subject to criminal prosecution .
In Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy—appears to have been something of a mark .
Other than his particularly deep pockets , Low ’ s experience was not abnormal .
Trump ’ s election cut off traditional DC influence agents , opening a door for insiders touting real or exaggerated access to a president who flaunted his disregard for ethical norms .
In the early days of Trump ’ s presidency , many foreign clients forked over big upfront fees to lobbyists who touted their connections but delivered limited results .
On Tuesday , Elliott Broidy , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Republican National Committee , pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act through his supposed efforts to assist Low on the 1MDB case .
Broidy admitted that he accepted $ 9 million to lobby the Trump administration to end its 1MDB probe .
Broidy paid a finder ’ s fee to Nicki Lum Davis , a GOP fundraiser who helped connect Broidy to Low .
In August , Davis pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting FARA violations .
Davis is represented by Abbe Lowell , a prominent defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ivanka Trump .
As Davis ’ attorney , Lowell in 2017 was involved in discussions about Low ’ s legal and lobbying efforts , according to people familiar with the matter .
Lowell declined to comment .
Low ’ s payments went through a Hong Kong entity controlled by Low to a company created by Pras Michel , a musician and former member of the Fugees , who had helped connect Low to Broidy and took a cut .
The funds then went to a limited liability company run by Broidy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Broidy ’ s account , prosecutors say .
Broidy also secured an agreement to receive a $ 75 million “ success fee ” from Low if the Justice Department dropped its 1MDB investigation within 180 days .
The Justice Department eventually seized more than $ 73 million that Michel allegedly helped Low fraudulently funnel into American bank accounts to pay influential political figures to lobby the US government on 1MDB .
According to a court filing outlining charges against Broidy , his work for Low including an effort to set up a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during which the Malaysian Prime Minister could “ raise the resolution of the 1MDB matter with ” Trump .
But while Najib did eventually meet with Trump in the White House , the golf outing never occurred .
The charging document notes that Broidy and colleagues “ were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the 1MDB matters dropped.
” Low is a short and pudgy graduate of the University of Pennsylvania ’ s Wharton School , whose alleged role in helping Najib launder stolen 1MDB funds allowed him to live the life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department , Low used stolen 1MDB funds to buy pricey art ; gamble massive amounts in casinos ; and make status-enhancing investments , including in a production company that helped finance the Oscar-nominated The Wolf of Wall Street .
He cultivated relationships with celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio , who starred in that film ; Paris Hilton ; and model Miranda Kerr , who Low reportedly dated .
By mid-2017 , due to the forfeiture proceedings , DiCaprio was in the process of turning over to the DOJ art by Pablo Picasso and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kerr surrendered $ 8 million in jewelry she ’ d received from the financier .
Low , however , remained flush with funds and eager to pay top dollar for help accessing the Trump administration and getting the Justice Department to drop its efforts .
Low hired a several of well-connected lawyers to help him with his legal troubles .
Former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie , a Trump confidant , represented Low in the asset forfeiture cases .
Marc Kasowitz , who at the time was also Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has worked as an ethics adviser to Trump , have also acknowledged working for Low .
Ed Rogers , a prominent GOP lobbyist , did work for Low , according to the Wall Street Journal .
The Journal reported last year that the Justice Department was looking into whether Low laundered tens of millions of dollars through associates to pay legal advisers without the money being subject to forfeiture .
The paper noted that there “ is no indication that any of the people who ultimately received payments were aware the funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly siphoned off from 1MDB.
” Christie , Burchfield , and Kasowitz have denied impropriety in the how they were paid and have said their work was limited to legal advice .
Rogers did not respond to a request from Mother Jones for comment .
Low claimed to have even higher-level help .
In 2017 , he told people assisting him with his legal issues that he had paid Rudy Giuliani—the Trump ally and former New York City mayor—around $ 10 million dollars for help on the 1MDB case , two people familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was bragging about hiring Rudy , ” said one person who heard Low ’ s claims .
Mother Jones was unable to corroborate Low ’ s assertion that he had hired Giuliani , and Giuliani categorically denies it .
“ Never met him , ” Giuliani wrote in a text message last week .
“ [ Low ] never paid me .
In any way directly or indirectly.
” Giuliani reiterated that denial on Mark Levin ’ s radio show on Sunday , saying he had been asked about Low by multiple reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I never talked to him , ” Giuliani said .
“ I didn ’ t get $ 10 million dollars from him.
” Giuliani ’ s lawyer , Robert Costello , said in an email that “ Giuliani did no work for Malaysia or [ 1MDB ] or Low.
” Last December , Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Giuliani , according to two unnamed attorneys , had “ talked with Justice Department lawyers ” about Low .
The report said that Giuliani initially told the Post he did not recall such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added : “ If they talked to me I told them he tried to retain us and my partners [ at Greenberg Traurig ] turned him dow [ n ] .
” In a text message to Mother Jones , Giuliani denied any DOJ meeting had occurred .
“ I didn ’ t meet with anyone about him , ” he said .
“ It ’ s just not true.
” Since 2017 , much of Low ’ s legal and public relations work has been handled through Kobre & Kim , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specializes in “ complex cross-border disputes and investigations.
” The firm registered with the Justice Department in October 2018 as an agent for Low .
In its filing , Kobre & Kim did not include a contract with Low , a step required under FARA .
The firm also offered an unusual explanation for how it receives compensation for its work for Low .
“ The registrant has not received funds from the foreign principal , ” the firm said .
“ The registrant has received funds on behalf of the foreign principal.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving $ 1.6 million from Sheikh Sabah Jaber al-Mubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah , the son of a former Kuwaiti prime minister .
Sabah controls a bank where Low reportedly parked funds .
Kobre & Kim has also received $ 1.1 million for its work for Low from Phengphian Laogumnerd , a Thai businessman with ties to Low .
In its FARA filing , the firm described its work for Low as consisting in part of “ public relations relating to the Malaysian rule of law and Malaysian government.
” The funds from Sabah and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bills and payments the firm made to other law and public relations firms hired to help Low .
Marathon Strategies , a PR firm founded by Democratic campaign operative Phil Singer , receives $ 55,000 per month .
Reevemark , a Manhattan-based firm , reported receiving $ 125,00 per month .
Other firms on the account include Schillings , a British law firm ; Levick Strategic Communications , a New York crisis management firm ; and an Australian public relations firm .
Kobre & Kim , which says on its website that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special advocates for their clients in sensitive situations involving conflicts of interest , ” is not widely known , but it does have high-level connections .
Steve Kobre , a cofounder of the firm , met on July 16 , 2019 , with Attorney General William Barr , according to logs of Barr ’ s visitors the DOJ released under a Freedom of Information Act request by American Oversight , a nonprofit watchdog group .
The meeting came a few days before the Justice Department seized bank accounts associated with Low .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firm , Kobre said he and Barr “ did not discuss ” Low or “ any cases or matters at all.
” Kobre said he and Barr , both graduates of George Washington Law School , met because “ we are in the same alumni network.
” The spokesperson did not answer other questions about Kobre & Kim ’ s work for Low .
Barr in 2019 received a waiver from the White House allowing him to oversee the Justice Department ’ s 1MDB investigations , despite his pledge to recuse himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm , Kirkland & Ellis , which represents Goldman Sachs .
In July , Goldman agreed to pay $ 3.9 billion to Malaysia to settle charges over its conduct in the 1MDB matter .
On Tuesday , Goldman reportedly agreed to pay the US government $ 2.8 billion , and admit wrongdoing , to settle US charges related to its 1MDB work .
Two former Goldman bankers also face criminal charges in the United States .
All of Low ’ s legal firepower could not stop his 2018 indictment by federal prosecutors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those charges remain pending , even after Low agreed last year to settle the Justice Department ’ s civil forfeiture case , surrendering assets including “ high-end real estate in Beverly Hills , New York and London ; a luxury boutique hotel in Beverly Hills ; and tens of millions of dollars in business investments , ” according to the department .
The settlement , however , allowed $ 15 million of the seized funds to be set aside to pay Kobre & Kim , Christie , and another law firm , Lowenstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Low remains a fugitive .
According to Malaysian officials , he is living in China , though the Chinese government denies that .
What did Low get for his money ?
On October 6 , 2017 , Broidy met personally with Trump , and he later claimed that he had lobbied the president on 1MDB .
But in a recent court filing laying out charges against Broidy , prosecutors said Broidy “ did not raise the 1MDB matters during the meeting , but represented to Davis that he had , understanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Low .
Low figured out by the fall of 2017 that some of his advisers weren ’ t doing much for him , according to George Higginbotham , a former Justice Department official who has admitted to helping Pras Michel move Low ’ s money into the US to pay Broidy .
During a November 2018 hearing connected to his own guilty plea on bank fraud charges , Higginbotham told a federal district court that he had traveled to China with Michel to meet with Low , who was “ reluctant to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ was unhappy with the money that had been sent to the US because nothing had—no action had taken place on the resolution of the DOJ matter regarding 1MDB .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In 2017, Jho Low was hiring. Low—a businessman suspected of acting as a key architect in the embezzlement of around $4.5 billion from a Malaysian state fund known as 1MDB—was looking for well-connected Americans who could make his legal problems go away. The US Justice Department had launched an investigation into the looting of the fund, a massive crime allegedly perpetrated at the direction of the country’s former prime minister, Najib Razak. Federal prosecutors had also moved to seize assets Low had stashed around the world, including a $120 million “super-yacht,” high-end real estate, and art.
What happened with Low says a lot about Washington, and Donald Trump’s Washington in particular. Some of the country’s most prominent Republicans, along with a throng of other top lawyers and PR specialists, lined up to offer Low help. “He was throwing off cash,” one person familiar with Low’s efforts to hire powerful allies said. “People flocked to him.”
“People flocked to him.”
Some prominent figures accepted Low’s money through elaborate workarounds to avoid the problem of potentially being paid with funds that the federal government was attempting to seize. They touted access to top administration officials, including Trump himself. But Low did not get what he was hoping for. The Justice Department did not drop its investigation. Low was indicted in 2018 for conspiring to launder money stolen from 1MDB. Last year, he gave up assets worth up to $900 million to settle the forfeiture cases against him, even as he remains a fugitive subject to criminal prosecution. In Washington, Low—an alleged mastermind in an international financial conspiracy—appears to have been something of a mark.
Other than his particularly deep pockets, Low’s experience was not abnormal. Trump’s election cut off traditional DC influence agents, opening a door for insiders brandishing real or exaggerated access to a president who flaunted his disregard for ethical norms. In the early days of Trump’s presidency, many foreign clients forked over big upfront fees to lobbyists who touted their connections but delivered limited results.
On Tuesday, Elliott Broidy, a former top Trump fundraiser and deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act through his supposed efforts to assist Low on the 1MDB case. Broidy admitted that he accepted $9 million to lobby the Trump administration to end its 1MDB probe. Broidy paid a finder’s fee to Nicki Lum Davis, a GOP fundraiser who helped connect Broidy to Low. In August, Davis pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting FARA violations. Davis is represented by Abbe Lowell, a prominent defense lawyer whose clients include Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. As Davis’ attorney, Lowell in 2017 was involved in discussions about Low’s legal and lobbying efforts, according to people familiar with the matter. Lowell declined to comment.
Low’s payments went through a Hong Kong entity controlled by Low to a company created by Pras Michel, a musician and former member of the Fugees, who had helped connect Low to Broidy and took a cut. The funds then went to a limited liability company run by Broidy’s wife, a lawyer, and then into Broidy’s account, prosecutors say. Broidy also secured an agreement to receive a $75 million “success fee” from Low if the Justice Department dropped its 1MDB investigation within 180 days. The Justice Department eventually seized more than $73 million that Michel allegedly helped Low fraudulently funnel into American bank accounts to pay influential political figures to lobby the US government on 1MDB.
According to a court filing outlining charges against Broidy, his work for Low including an effort to set up a golf date between Najib and Trump, during which the Malaysian Prime Minister could “raise the resolution of the 1MDB matter with” Trump. But while Najib did eventually meet with Trump in the White House, the golf outing never occurred. The charging document notes that Broidy and colleagues “were unsuccessful in their efforts to have the 1MDB matters dropped.”
Low is a short and pudgy graduate of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, whose alleged role in helping Najib launder stolen 1MDB funds allowed him to live the life of an international playboy. According to the Justice Department, Low used stolen 1MDB funds to buy pricey art; gamble massive amounts in casinos; and make status-enhancing investments, including in a production company that helped finance the Oscar-nominated The Wolf of Wall Street. He cultivated relationships with celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio, who starred in that film; Paris Hilton; and model Miranda Kerr, who Low reportedly dated. By mid-2017, due to the forfeiture proceedings, DiCaprio was in the process of turning over to the DOJ art by Pablo Picasso and Jean-Michel Basquiat that Low had given him. Kerr surrendered $8 million in jewelry she’d received from the financier. Low, however, remained flush with funds and eager to pay top dollar for help accessing the Trump administration and getting the Justice Department to drop its efforts.
Low hired several of well-connected lawyers to help him with his legal troubles. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Trump confidant, represented Low in the asset forfeiture cases. Marc Kasowitz, who at the time was also Trump’s personal attorney, and Bobby Burchfield, who has worked as an ethics adviser to Trump, have also acknowledged working for Low. Ed Rogers, a prominent GOP lobbyist, did work for Low, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Journal reported last year that the Justice Department was looking into whether Low laundered tens of millions of dollars through associates to pay legal advisers without the money being subject to forfeiture. The paper noted that there “is no indication that any of the people who ultimately received payments were aware the funds could have originated from money Mr. Low allegedly siphoned off from 1MDB.” Christie, Burchfield, and Kasowitz have denied impropriety in the how they were paid and have said their work was limited to legal advice. Rogers did not respond to a request from Mother Jones for comment.
Low claimed to have even higher-level help. In 2017, he told people assisting him with his legal issues that he had paid Rudy Giuliani—the Trump ally and former New York City mayor—around $10 million dollars for help on the 1MDB case, two people familiar with the matter said. “He was bragging about hiring Rudy,” said one person who heard Low’s claims. Mother Jones was unable to corroborate Low’s assertion that he had hired Giuliani, and Giuliani categorically denies it.
“Never met him,” Giuliani wrote in a text message last week. “[Low] never paid me. In any way directly or indirectly.” Giuliani reiterated that denial on Mark Levin’s radio show on Sunday, saying he had been asked about Low by multiple reporters. “I never met him. I never talked to him,” Giuliani said. “I didn’t get $10 million dollars from him.” Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello, said in an email that “Giuliani did no work for Malaysia or [1MDB] or Low.”
Last December, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that Giuliani, according to two unnamed attorneys, had “talked with Justice Department lawyers” about Low. The report said that Giuliani initially told the Post he did not recall such a conversation and a few minutes later added: “If they talked to me I told them he tried to retain us and my partners [at Greenberg Traurig] turned him dow[n].” In a text message to Mother Jones, Giuliani denied any DOJ meeting had occurred. “I didn’t meet with anyone about him,” he said. “It’s just not true.”
Since 2017, much of Low’s legal and public relations work has been handled through Kobre & Kim, a New York-based law firm that says it specializes in “complex cross-border disputes and investigations.” The firm registered with the Justice Department in October 2018 as an agent for Low. In its filing, Kobre & Kim did not include a contract with Low, a step required under FARA. The firm also offered an unusual explanation for how it receives compensation for its work for Low. “The registrant has not received funds from the foreign principal,” the firm said. “The registrant has received funds on behalf of the foreign principal.”
Kobre & Kim has since reported receiving $1.6 million from Sheikh Sabah Jaber al-Mubarak al-Hamad al-Sabah, the son of a former Kuwaiti prime minister. Sabah controls a bank where Low reportedly parked funds. Kobre & Kim has also received $1.1 million for its work for Low from Phengphian Laogumnerd, a Thai businessman with ties to Low. In its FARA filing, the firm described its work for Low as consisting in part of “public relations relating to the Malaysian rule of law and Malaysian government.”
The funds from Sabah and Lagogumnerd helped cover Kobre & Kim’s bills and payments the firm made to other law and public relations firms hired to help Low. Marathon Strategies, a PR firm founded by Democratic campaign operative Phil Singer, receives $55,000 per month. Reevemark, a Manhattan-based firm, reported receiving $125,00 per month. Other firms on the account include Schillings, a British law firm; Levick Strategic Communications, a New York crisis management firm; and an Australian public relations firm.
Kobre & Kim, which says on its website that other “lawyers regularly appoint us as special advocates for their clients in sensitive situations involving conflicts of interest,” is not widely known, but it does have high-level connections. Steve Kobre, a cofounder of the firm, met on July 16, 2019, with Attorney General William Barr, according to logs of Barr’s visitors the DOJ released under a Freedom of Information Act request by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group. The meeting came a few days before the Justice Department seized bank accounts associated with Low. In a statement sent by a spokesperson for the firm, Kobre said he and Barr “did not discuss” Low or “any cases or matters at all.” Kobre said he and Barr, both graduates of George Washington Law School, met because “we are in the same alumni network.” The spokesperson did not answer other questions about Kobre & Kim’s work for Low.
Barr in 2019 received a waiver from the White House allowing him to oversee the Justice Department’s 1MDB investigations, despite his pledge to recuse himself from matters related to his former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, which represents Goldman Sachs. In July, Goldman agreed to pay $3.9 billion to Malaysia to settle charges over its conduct in the 1MDB matter. On Tuesday, Goldman reportedly agreed to pay the US government $2.8 billion, and admit wrongdoing, to settle US charges related to its 1MDB work. Two former Goldman bankers also face criminal charges in the United States.
All of Low’s legal firepower could not stop his 2018 indictment by federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York. Those charges remain pending, even after Low agreed last year to settle the Justice Department’s civil forfeiture case, surrendering assets including “high-end real estate in Beverly Hills, New York and London; a luxury boutique hotel in Beverly Hills; and tens of millions of dollars in business investments,” according to the department. The settlement, however, allowed $15 million of the seized funds to be set aside to pay Kobre & Kim, Christie, and another law firm, Lowenstein Sandler, that did work for Low. Low remains a fugitive. According to Malaysian officials, he is living in China, though the Chinese government denies that.
What did Low get for his money? On October 6, 2017, Broidy met personally with Trump, and he later claimed that he had lobbied the president on 1MDB. But in a recent court filing laying out charges against Broidy, prosecutors said Broidy “did not raise the 1MDB matters during the meeting, but represented to Davis that he had, understanding that Davis would communicate that information” to Low.
Low figured out by the fall of 2017 that some of his advisers weren’t doing much for him, according to George Higginbotham, a former Justice Department official who has admitted to helping Pras Michel move Low’s money into the US to pay Broidy. During a November 2018 hearing connected to his own guilty plea on bank fraud charges, Higginbotham told a federal district court that he had traveled to China with Michel to meet with Low, who was “reluctant to send any more money.” Low, Higginbotham said, “was unhappy with the money that had been sent to the US because nothing had—no action had taken place on the resolution of the DOJ matter regarding 1MDB.”


motherjones--2020-10-22--ICE Just Announced It Will Start to Deport People More Quickly—and Without Ever Seeing a Judge

Immigration and Customs Enforcement just announced its agents can begin fast-track deportations of certain immigrants who can ’ t prove they ’ ve been in the United States for a certain amount of time—all without having to take their cases in front of an immigration judge .
The policy change announced Wednesday would give ICE agents a new tool to quickly deport people from all over the United States .
Previously , expedited deportations have been limited to people who were apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had only been in the country for up to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the final word on deciding if a person they come into contact with , anywhere in the country , is undocumented and has been present in the United States for less than two years .
If the ICE agent doesn ’ t see “ satisfactory ” proof of that , the person would be put into a fast-tracked deportation proceeding , skipping immigration court .
ICE framed the change as a necessary move against “ dangerous criminals.
” “ Our ability to implement this important statutory tool will further enable us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our nation ’ s congressionally mandated immigration laws , ” said Tony Pham , senior official performing the duties of ICE director .
While the policy targets undocumented immigrants , it could end up affecting people with visas or temporary status in the United States who can ’ t show enough documentation to the ICE agent , or even US citizens .
BuzzFeed News reported on plans to implement this policy last year , though it was blocked by a federal judge after it was first announced .
Then , in June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the District of Columbia Circuit gave ICE the green light to begin implementing this policy .
In the lead up to Election Day , the Department of Homeland Security has been ramping up enforcement efforts , as with Wednesday ’ s policy change and planned raids on sanctuary cities , and pushing misleading and racist stories of “ bad immigrants.
” Last month , for instance , ICE posted “ wanted ” billboards in Pennsylvania showing the faces of undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by local police , released , but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs suggested , of the city ’ s sanctuary policies .
Pennsylvania , of course , is a key swing state ; it ’ s almost certainly not a coincidence .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement just announced its agents can begin fast-track deportations of certain immigrants who can’t prove they’ve been in the United States for a certain amount of time—all without having to take their cases in front of an immigration judge.
The policy change announced Wednesday would give ICE agents a new tool to quickly deport people from all over the United States. Previously, expedited deportations have been limited to people who were apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had only been in the country for up to two weeks. Now, ICE agents will have the final word on deciding if a person they come into contact with, anywhere in the country, is undocumented and has been present in the United States for less than two years. If the ICE agent doesn’t see “satisfactory” proof of that, the person would be put into a fast-tracked deportation proceeding, skipping immigration court.
ICE framed the change as a necessary move against “dangerous criminals.” “Our ability to implement this important statutory tool will further enable us to protect our communities and preserve the integrity of our nation’s congressionally mandated immigration laws,” said Tony Pham, senior official performing the duties of ICE director.
While the policy targets undocumented immigrants, it could end up affecting people with visas or temporary status in the United States who can’t show enough documentation to the ICE agent, or even US citizens.
Immigration advocates immediately sounded the alarm Wednesday night:
"Expedited removal" i.e. snatch-&-deport is starting, and I just… really can't emphasize enough how scary this is. There are literally millions of people in the US who are in dramatically greater danger of tragic, irreparable harm from state violence than they were a week ago. https://t.co/TJXPX64DfY — N th n – #FreeThemAll (@n_th_n_) October 21, 2020
BuzzFeed News reported on plans to implement this policy last year, though it was blocked by a federal judge after it was first announced. Then, in June, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave ICE the green light to begin implementing the policy.
In the lead up to Election Day, the Department of Homeland Security has been ramping up enforcement efforts, as with Wednesday’s policy change and planned raids on sanctuary cities, and pushing misleading and racist stories of “bad immigrants.” Last month, for instance, ICE posted “wanted” billboards in Pennsylvania showing the faces of undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by local police, released, but not turned over to ICE—a result, the signs suggested, of local sanctuary policies. Pennsylvania, of course, is a key swing state; it’s almost certainly not a coincidence.


motherjones--2020-10-21--A State Department Memo Suggests It’s About to Accuse Prominent Human Rights Groups of “Anti-Semitis

A State Department Memo Suggests It’s About to Accuse Prominent Human Rights Groups of “Anti-Semitism”

The State Department is finalizing a report that would declare advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch to be “ anti-Semitic , ” a designation that could have far-reaching implications on their international reputations and ability to interact with the US government .
The move , first reported by Politico , is coming out of the office of Elan Carr , the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism .
A report from his office reportedly criticizes these groups , which include Amnesty International and Oxfam , for their perceived involvement in the Boycott , Divestment , and Sanctions movement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel to end its West Bank settlements and change its policies toward Palestinians .
“ Certain non-governmental organizations ( NGOs ) regularly participate in and promote the Global BDS Campaign or engage in other activities that meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ) Working Definition of anti-Semitism , ” reads a memo produced by Carr ’ s office , which Mother Jones obtained , that urges Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to permit the release of its report .
“ Through their participation in the Global BDS Campaign , these organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic relations with Israel and U.S. foreign policy interests.
” A State Department official familiar with the planning said that the report focuses on an effort by several NGOs to encourage the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to release a database of businesses “ engaged in listed activities related to Israel ’ s settlement enterprise , ” as required by a 2016 UN resolution .
All three organizations cited by Politico as targets of the State Department effort—Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch , and Oxfam—were signatories to an August 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delaying the release of the list .
None of those groups are overt supporters of the BDS movement .
“ Yet again , the administration is spreading misinformation and working to undermine those who are working to protect human rights , ” Bob Goodfellow , interim executive director of Amnesty International USA , said in an emailed statement .
Leaders of other human rights advocacy groups made similar criticisms .
“ To accuse some of the world ’ s preeminent human rights organizations of being anti-Semitic is absurd and wrong , ” Rob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Human Rights First , said in a text message .
“ These organizations fight discrimination in all its forms , sometimes at great personal risk .
This action is a direct affront to many courageous men and women.
” For Human Rights Watch , which regularly briefs State Department officials on its reports , the proposed designation came as “ a total surprise , ” Andrea Prasow , the group ’ s Washington director , told me .
Prasow said she briefed State Department officials on one of her organization ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In its 2018 report on human rights issues in Israel , the State Department even quoted Human Rights Watch in three separate places .
“ Clearly , we were credible enough for that !
” Prasow said .
It ’ s still not clear what practical impacts a designation of “ anti-Semitism ” would have on these organizations .
“ Can we still host them at events ?
Can they be cited in the reports ?
” asked a State Department official I spoke with .
In January , Human Rights Watch executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a meeting of the Commission on Unalienable Rights , a group formed by Pompeo that has argued for a narrow view of human rights that privileges religious freedom .
If Roth is now seen by the State Department as the leader of an anti-Semitic organization , why would he have been invited to give his perspective ?
( A State Department spokesperson declined to respond to that question or others raised about the proposed designation . )
The proposal will no doubt face outside legal challenges and stoke existing tensions inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft of the report received pushback from department lawyers who “ point [ ed ] out how much litigation this would provoke , ” the State official told me .
Carr nonetheless pushed to get it in front of Pompeo .
“ I just found out that [ Pompeo ] wants this package submitted to him by 1600 [ 4 p.m. ] today , ” Carr wrote in an email to his State Department colleagues on Tuesday .
It ’ s not clear if Pompeo has spoken with Carr about the proposal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come “ as soon as this week.
” “ What is clear is that a public pronouncement criticizing human rights NGOs for doing their job would be a gift to autocratic governments around the world , ” said Berschinski of Human Rights First .
“ In that regard a declaration along the lines of what ’ s been reported would be a travesty .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The State Department is finalizing a report that would declare advocacy groups like Human Rights Watch to be “anti-Semitic,” a designation that could have far-reaching implications on their international reputations and ability to interact with the US government.
The move, first reported by Politico, is coming out of the office of Elan Carr, the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. A report from his office reportedly criticizes these groups, which include Amnesty International and Oxfam, for their perceived involvement in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, a campaign to put economic pressure on Israel to end its West Bank settlements and change its policies toward Palestinians. “Certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) regularly participate in and promote the Global BDS Campaign or engage in other activities that meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of anti-Semitism,” reads a memo produced by Carr’s office, which Mother Jones obtained, that urges Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to permit the release of its report. “Through their participation in the Global BDS Campaign, these organizations have advocated in favor of harming U.S. economic relations with Israel and U.S. foreign policy interests.”
A State Department official familiar with the planning said that the report focuses on an effort by several NGOs to encourage the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to release a database of businesses “engaged in listed activities related to Israel’s settlement enterprise,” as required by a 2016 UN resolution. All three organizations cited by Politico as targets of the State Department effort—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam—were signatories to an August 2019 letter urging the high commissioner to stop delaying the release of the list. None of those groups are overt supporters of the BDS movement.
“Yet again, the administration is spreading misinformation and working to undermine those who are working to protect human rights,” Bob Goodfellow, interim executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in an emailed statement. Leaders of other human rights advocacy groups made similar criticisms. “To accuse some of the world’s preeminent human rights organizations of being anti-Semitic is absurd and wrong,” Rob Berschinski, senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First, said in a text message. “These organizations fight discrimination in all its forms, sometimes at great personal risk. This action is a direct affront to many courageous men and women.”
For Human Rights Watch, which regularly briefs State Department officials on its reports, the proposed designation came as “a total surprise,” Andrea Prasow, the group’s Washington director, told me. Prasow said she briefed State Department officials on one of her organization’s findings as recently as last week. In its 2018 report on human rights issues in Israel, the State Department even quoted Human Rights Watch in three separate places. “Clearly, we were credible enough for that!” Prasow said.
It’s still not clear what practical impacts a designation of “anti-Semitism” would have on these organizations. “Can we still host them at events? Can they be cited in the reports?” asked a State Department official I spoke with. In January, Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth provided testimony as part of a meeting of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, a group formed by Pompeo that has argued for a narrow view of human rights that privileges religious freedom. If Roth is now seen by the State Department as the leader of an anti-Semitic organization, why would he have been invited to give his perspective? (A State Department spokesperson declined to respond to that question or others raised about the proposed designation.)
The proposal will no doubt face outside legal challenges and stoke existing tensions inside the State Department. Already, an internal draft of the report received pushback from department lawyers who “point[ed] out how much litigation this would provoke,” the State official told me. Carr nonetheless pushed to get it in front of Pompeo. “I just found out that [Pompeo] wants this package submitted to him by 1600 [4 p.m.] today,” Carr wrote in an email to his State Department colleagues on Tuesday. It’s not clear if Pompeo has spoken with Carr about the proposal, but Politico reported that the declaration could come “as soon as this week.”
“What is clear is that a public pronouncement criticizing human rights NGOs for doing their job would be a gift to autocratic governments around the world,” said Berschinski of Human Rights First. “In that regard a declaration along the lines of what’s been reported would be a travesty.”


motherjones--2020-10-21--On Twitch, AOC and Ilhan Omar Tapped Into the Future of Left Politics

Every day on Twitter , the account “ Facebook ’ s Top 10 ” tweets out a list of pages that posted the top 10 performing links of the day .
And every day is almost always dominated by conservative pages , with posts from Dan Bongino , Ben Shapiro , Fox News and others often holding multiple spots in the top 10 .
There ’ s not a popular account that does the same thing for YouTube , but the list of most popular American political YouTubers also heavily skews right , with figures like Ben Shapiro , Steven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each have over 1 million subscribers .
( Crowder has over 4 million . )
For all the consternation among conservatives about being censored on social media platforms , that all suggests that their ideology is doing great online .
Even on Twitter , which seen as more of a hub for the left , Donald Trump , his children , and the extended constellation of posters who support them enjoy large followings .
The Amazon-owned video game streaming platform , Twitch , is maybe the only major online platform where conservatives haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same ideological stronghold .
A 4chan , Gamergate brand of internet , troll conservatism is inextricable from gaming , but some of the largest political streamers on Twitch are liberals or leftists like the former Young Turks host Hasan Piker , who has almost 600,000 subscribers , BadBunny , who has over 150,000 subscribers , and Destiny ( who occasionally veers to the right ) with over 550,000 subscribers .
In this regard , it made perfect sense for Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar to stream themselves playing Among Us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team to figure out who is sabotaging the crew of their spaceship , on Twitch to 400,000 viewers alongside Piker , Pokimane , and other popular streamers on Tuesday night .
Their game play , and exhortations to the audience to vote , were being watched by mostly younger and largely sympathetic minds that have been primed by Destiny , Piker , and others .
I spoke with Piker when I profiled Destiny ( whose real name is Steve Bonnell ) last year , who explained how he ’ d ended up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other platforms where conservatives had established strongholds : Piker added that he was concerned that this could eventually flip .
“ Another reason why I don ’ t really ever like to do media…do interviews on my Twitch stuff , ” Piker told me “ is because like I ’ m genuinely fearful [ that they ’ ll try to come to Twitch ] .
” The communities that streamers build-up based on constant audience interaction and response are uniquely intimate and involved in ways that passively watching a YouTube channel or reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I peered over Piker and Bonnell ’ s shoulders while they streamed , I could see their followers reacting in real-time , organically acting in unison to unleash coordinated emoji responses .
Piker and Bonnell would respond directly to their communities , in kind .
When Piker and Bonnell talked about their community , they described it as having its own personality , and when I talked to their followers on their chats , they knew intimate details about their favorite streamers ’ major life events , pet peeves and day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep relationship makes fans more willing to mobilize in favor of whatever you ask them to , whether that ’ s to watch a politician stream or to text bank for a candidate .
Those fans are likely even more willing to mobilize after streamers like Piker and others have spent months and even years championing leftist politics .
People are always predicting the next technology that will reshape politics .
Most don ’ t live up to the hype .
Ahead of 2016 , the explanding live streamed video led some to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
But even as major platform made their own live stream apps , including Twitter ’ s Periscope and Facebook ’ s Instagram Live , live streaming seemingly had little to no impact on the election .
The same went for Snapchat .
Live streams from the 2020 Democratic primary sometimes just produced weird fodder that didn ’ t seem to necessarily benefit candidates .
But as Politico ‘ s Zach Montellaro pointed out , Ocasio Cortez ’ s impromptu Twitch stream was probably this election cycle ’ s “ single largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not remake politics , but as long as it remains a place where progressive politicians can command audiences of that size , expect to see more Democrats there .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Every day on Twitter, the account “Facebook’s Top 10” tweets out a list of pages that posted the top 10 performing links of the day. And every day is almost always dominated by conservative pages, with posts from Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others often holding multiple spots in the top 10. There’s not a popular account that does the same thing for YouTube, but the list of most popular American political YouTubers also heavily skews right, with figures like Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, and Tim Pool, who each have over 1 million subscribers. (Crowder has over 4 million.)
It made perfect sense for the representatives to stream to an audience of sympathetic minds.
For all the consternation among conservatives about being censored on social media platforms, that all suggests that their ideology is doing great online. Even on Twitter, which seen as more of a hub for the left, Donald Trump, his children, and the extended constellation of posters who support them enjoy large followings. The Amazon-owned video game streaming platform, Twitch, is maybe the only major online platform where conservatives haven’t been able to build the same ideological stronghold.
A 4chan, Gamergate brand of internet, troll conservatism is inextricable from gaming, but some of the largest political streamers on Twitch are liberals or leftists like the former Young Turks host Hasan Piker, who has almost 600,000 subscribers, BadBunny, who has over 150,000 subscribers, and Destiny (who occasionally veers to the right) with over 550,000 subscribers.
In this regard, it made perfect sense for Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar to stream themselves playing Among Us, a multiplayer game where players work as a team to figure out who is sabotaging the crew of their spaceship, on Twitch to 400,000 viewers alongside Piker, Pokimane, and other popular streamers on Tuesday night. Their game play, and exhortations to the audience to vote, were being watched by mostly younger and largely sympathetic minds that have been primed by Destiny, Piker, and others.
I spoke with Piker when I profiled Destiny (whose real name is Steve Bonnell) last year, who explained how he’d ended up on Twitch after feeling boxed out of other platforms where conservatives had established strongholds:
I think the right-wing foothold on YouTube is very significant. They already have money interest backing these channels they already have like legitimate media entities backing up these like Stephen Crowders of the world. So it’s, it’s a really uneven field. So I was like, ‘I can’t even compete with this.’ I’m just going to start somewhere else. So I went to Twitch.”
Piker added that he was concerned that this could eventually flip. “Another reason why I don’t really ever like to do media…do interviews on my Twitch stuff,” Piker told me “is because like I’m genuinely fearful [that they’ll try to come to Twitch].”
Streamers have spent months and even years championing leftist politics.
The communities that streamers build-up based on constant audience interaction and response are uniquely intimate and involved in ways that passively watching a YouTube channel or reading Facebook posts can’t compete with. When I peered over Piker and Bonnell’s shoulders while they streamed, I could see their followers reacting in real-time, organically acting in unison to unleash coordinated emoji responses. Piker and Bonnell would respond directly to their communities, in kind. When Piker and Bonnell talked about their community, they described it as having its own personality, and when I talked to their followers on their chats, they knew intimate details about their favorite streamers’ major life events, pet peeves and day to day tendencies. That kind of deep relationship makes fans more willing to mobilize in favor of whatever you ask them to, whether that’s to watch a politician stream or to text bank for a candidate. Those fans are likely even more willing to mobilize after streamers like Piker and others have spent months and even years championing leftist politics.
People are always predicting the next technology that will reshape politics. Most don’t live up to the hype. Ahead of 2016, the explanding live streamed video led some to christened it the Meerkat and the Snapchat election. But even as major platform made their own live stream apps, including Twitter’s Periscope and Facebook’s Instagram Live, live streaming seemingly had little to no impact on the election. The same went for Snapchat. Live streams from the 2020 Democratic primary sometimes just produced weird fodder that didn’t seem to necessarily benefit candidates.
But as Politico‘s Zach Montellaro pointed out, Ocasio Cortez’s impromptu Twitch stream was probably this election cycle’s “single largest event to reach young voters.” Twitch may not remake politics, but as long as it remains a place where progressive politicians can command audiences of that size, expect to see more Democrats there.


motherjones--2020-10-21--How Trump Got Away With Hiding His Chinese Business

The latest revelation from the New York Times coverage of President Donald Trump ’ s tax returns is that he has a bank account in China—one that has never before been mentioned .
How did that happen ?
While the Times has gotten a hold of Trump ’ s tax information , he has long refused to provide it to the public , despite decades of presidential tradition and precedent .
When asked for his tax returns , Trump often tries to obfuscate by pointing to his personal financial disclosure , a form required to be submitted by presidential candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to brag about how long his form is .
And it is long , and does include a lot of information—but not enough .
The exposure of Trump ’ s Chinese account again underscores why the public needs to see presidential candidates ’ tax returns .
Without them , the disclosures provide some information on what they own and owe , but the details of how they got those assets and liabilities are hidden .
According to ethics experts , the law requires Trump to disclose all of his assets , debts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he doesn ’ t have to disclose the details of his business operations .
So , while Trump has reported having bank accounts , he didn ’ t have to say that one of the hundreds of LLCs he owns personally—Trump International Hotel Management—has a Chinese bank account .
“ Filers do not have to disclose business-related debts or business-related assets .
Strange as that may sound , and counterintuitive as that is , that is the guidance from the Office of Government Ethics , ” says Kathleen Clark , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louis .
So , Trump has to disclose he owns a business , but not whether the business has bank accounts or loans .
Trump surrogates , like his son Eric Trump , have attempted to play down the revelation of the Chinese account , saying that the president “ once looked at deals , long before politics , ” but the Times piece makes it clear that he made a concerted effort to make money in China as recently as the early days of his 2016 campaign when he was negotiating with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , the deal fell apart when the partner was snarled in a corruption investigation ) .
The Times cites that one of Trump ’ s LLCs , THC China Development LLC , claimed $ 84,000 in deductions in 2012 , and paid fees and taxes more recently—transactions showing that Trump ’ s financial interest in China was not “ long before politics.
” While THC China Development LLC has been listed on Trump ’ s personal financial disclosure forms , showing whether or not it was active can only be done with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tax returns .
In that way , the Times story raises more questions than it answers .
On his personal financial disclosure , Trump has numerous LLCs apparently designated for overseas projects that never happened—but , like with THC China Development LLC , is there more to their stories ?
For example , according to the personal financial disclosures , in August 2015 , several months into the Trump presidential campaign , he created a series of companies that , based on the name , indicate he was exploring a possibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arabia , the gateway to Islam ’ s most holy sites , Mecca and Medina .
The sites are a massive tourist draw , and tourism in Jeddah is an enormous industry—and one that would be difficult to break into without at least the assent , if not the involvement , of senior members of the Saudi royal family .
Like the Chinese LLC , the Saudi LLCs don ’ t appear to have ever generated income , but the personal financial disclosure forms are silent about how far Trump progressed in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or who those partners were .
Trump ’ s tax returns would help fill in those gaps .
The Times revelation about the Chinese bank accounts worries ethics experts like Clark and Kedric Payne , general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center , an ethics watchdog group .
“ There ’ s always concern with whether or not this is a complete disclosure of all his financial interests , so there is definite concern that this is not the final picture , ” Payne says .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ is that a president should divest of all his interests because otherwise you have these inherent and incessant conflicts .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The latest revelation from the New York Times coverage of President Donald Trump’s tax returns is that he has a bank account in China—one that has never before been mentioned. How did that happen?
Trump’s Chinese account underscores why the public needs his tax returns.
While the Times has gotten a hold of Trump’s tax information, he has long refused to provide it to the public, despite decades of presidential tradition and precedent. When asked for his tax returns, Trump often tries to obfuscate by pointing to his personal financial disclosure, a form required to be submitted by presidential candidates and federal office holders. Trump likes to brag about how long his form is. And it is long, and does include a lot of information—but not enough.
The exposure of Trump’s Chinese account again underscores why the public needs to see presidential candidates’ tax returns. Without them, the disclosures provide some information on what they own and owe, but the details of how they got those assets and liabilities are hidden.
According to ethics experts, the law requires Trump to disclose all of his assets, debts, and income in his personal financial disclosures. But he doesn’t have to disclose the details of his business operations. So, while Trump has reported having bank accounts, he didn’t have to say that one of the hundreds of LLCs he owns personally—Trump International Hotel Management—has a Chinese bank account.
“Filers do not have to disclose business-related debts or business-related assets. Strange as that may sound, and counterintuitive as that is, that is the guidance from the Office of Government Ethics,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. So, Trump has to disclose he owns a business, but not whether the business has bank accounts or loans.
Trump surrogates, like his son Eric Trump, have attempted to play down the revelation of the Chinese account, saying that the president “once looked at deals, long before politics,” but the Times piece makes it clear that he made a concerted effort to make money in China as recently as the early days of his 2016 campaign when he was negotiating with a potential partner (according to the Times, the deal fell apart when the partner was snarled in a corruption investigation). The Times cites that one of Trump’s LLCs, THC China Development LLC, claimed $84,000 in deductions in 2012, and paid fees and taxes more recently—transactions showing that Trump’s financial interest in China was not “long before politics.” While THC China Development LLC has been listed on Trump’s personal financial disclosure forms, showing whether or not it was active can only be done with the details provided by the president’s tax returns.
In that way, the Times story raises more questions than it answers. On his personal financial disclosure, Trump has numerous LLCs apparently designated for overseas projects that never happened—but, like with THC China Development LLC, is there more to their stories?
“This is not the final picture.”
For example, according to the personal financial disclosures, in August 2015, several months into the Trump presidential campaign, he created a series of companies that, based on the name, indicate he was exploring a possibility of opening a hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the gateway to Islam’s most holy sites, Mecca and Medina. The sites are a massive tourist draw, and tourism in Jeddah is an enormous industry—and one that would be difficult to break into without at least the assent, if not the involvement, of senior members of the Saudi royal family. Like the Chinese LLC, the Saudi LLCs don’t appear to have ever generated income, but the personal financial disclosure forms are silent about how far Trump progressed in his talks with possible Saudi business partners, or who those partners were. Trump’s tax returns would help fill in those gaps.
The Times revelation about the Chinese bank accounts worries ethics experts like Clark and Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, an ethics watchdog group.
“There’s always concern with whether or not this is a complete disclosure of all his financial interests, so there is definite concern that this is not the final picture,” Payne says.
“The larger point,” he says, “is that a president should divest of all his interests because otherwise you have these inherent and incessant conflicts.”


motherjones--2020-10-21--Barrett’s Confirmation Could Erode Americans’ Financial Protections for a Generation

Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Supreme Court could upend precedent on key social issues , from abortion access to LGBTQ rights and access to health care .
But the elevation of the 48-year-old judge and creation of a long-term conservative majority would also have enormous implications for the financial well-being of many Americans—and for the ability of the federal government to fight effectively on behalf of consumers .
Barrett would solidify the most conservative Supreme Court bench since at least 1950 , at a particularly volatile moment for the economy and the household finances of many Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , slow arc of recovery from the COVID crisis , the next Supreme Court term already has a number of cases on its docket that will pit the interests of corporations against those of consumers .
“ An ideologically aligned conservative 6–3 majority is going to have the opportunity to turn back the clock , not just a decade , but maybe as much as a century on some of the most fundamental economic and financial rights that Americans have , ” says Dennis Kelleher , the co-founder and president of Better Markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett has served on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for just three years , so her record on questions of financial regulation is not extensive .
But her rulings show a pattern of siding with corporations at the expense of consumers or workers .
An analysis from the left-leaning watchdog Accountable.Us found that in 32 cases that came before her on the 7th Circuit where consumers accused a business of mistreatment , Barrett sided with companies 78 percent of the time .
This summer , for instance , Barrett authored a decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had accused the food delivery company of failing to pay them overtime .
The decision required them to take their claims to private arbitration , finding that the drivers didn ’ t qualify for an exemption that would have allowed them to pursue their case in the courts .
In a different case this summer , Barrett wrote another decision rejecting a claim to overtime pay , this one from a group of Wisconsin truck drivers .
In a 2019 case , Judge Barrett ruled against a woman who ’ d sued a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dispute her debt .
Barrett ’ s decision found that the woman hadn ’ t suffered enough harm from the debt collector ’ s conduct , and thus that the woman didn ’ t have standing to bring the case .
Several of Barrett ’ s colleagues on the court , including a George H.W .
Bush appointee , wrote a dissent in the case , calling Barrett ’ s decision “ troublesome ” and noting that it “ will make it much more difficult for consumers to enforce the protections against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other court-watchers also worry about what a 6-3 conservative majority on the court would mean for the ability of the federal government to regulate financial institutions on behalf of consumers .
At issue is a doctrine called “ Chevron deference , ” stemming from a 1984 Supreme Court decision that gave federal regulatory bodies broad discretion in interpreting the congressional legislation that they ’ re in charge of enforcing .
The reasoning is that these agencies hold more specialized expertise than judges do when it comes to determining what makes for thoughtful regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires that judges assess whether a particular statute is ambiguous , and if it is , to defer to the agency ’ s interpretation of the law , provided it ’ s reasonable .
Though initially beloved by conservatives who saw Chevron as a check on liberal activist judges , the precedent has over the last decade become a target of conservatives and pro-business interests .
In their view , the doctrine gives the executive branch too much power , and judges too little , in determining how agencies should regulate in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Supreme Court cases about major policies like the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration ’ s net neutrality rule .
When the Supreme Court has rejected Chevron , the consequences are significant : In 2015 , the court struck down the Obama administration ’ s limits on mercury pollution from power plants , in part by refusing to apply Chevron .
In 2018 , it rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission ’ s interpretation of a rule passed after the 2008 financial crisis , narrowing safeguards against retaliation for whistleblowers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2016 and 2017 , House Republicans introduced legislation that would have ended Chevron deference , and the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce has made a point of backing judicial nominees who are vocal in their hostility towards Chevron—including Trump ’ s first two Supreme Court appointees , Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch .
Barrett has not made her views on Chevron explicit , but she is also backed by the Chamber of Commerce .
Some scholars note that Barrett ’ s commitment to textualism—a strictly literal reading of the law—may make her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpretations of regulators .
“ If you get this 6-3 conservative majority ruling cohesively , it will have a broad impact on every single American , ” says Kelleher .
“ Each one of those agencies is going to have their ability to protect the health , wealth , safety and well-being of Americans substantially cut back.
” This result could become apparent in Barrett ’ s first Supreme Court term , which will include several cases pitting consumer rights against business interests .
Here ’ s what ’ s at stake : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the Supreme Court rejected the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the Wall Street watchdog created after the 2008 financial crisis—is structured and weakened the agency ’ s independence in the process .
A case before the court this term seeks to strike down the similar structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency , which has , since the financial crisis , been charged with overseeing major housing finance players , including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .
Mandatory arbitration : For years , businesses have sought to limit the situations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , instead forcing them into arbitration proceedings which are conducted outside public view .
This term , the Supreme Court will determine how expansive companies ’ power is to push people into arbitration in a case involving a dental supply company accused of price fixing .
The decision in the case could have broad implications for the rights of people and companies to pursue claims against businesses in the courts in the future .
Spam texting : Another case will decide whether Facebook should face robocalling fines for sending unsolicited texts to users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The court will decide whether Cargill and Nestle abetted the use of child slave labor on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast .
The decision will determine the extent to which major corporations can be held liable for human rights abuses abroad .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court could upend precedent on key social issues, from abortion access to LGBTQ rights and access to health care. But the elevation of the 48-year-old judge and creation of a long-term conservative majority would also have enormous implications for the financial well-being of many Americans—and for the ability of the federal government to fight effectively on behalf of consumers.
Barrett would solidify the most conservative Supreme Court bench since at least 1950, at a particularly volatile moment for the economy and the household finances of many Americans. As the economy begins a long, slow arc of recovery from the COVID crisis, the next Supreme Court term already has a number of cases on its docket that will pit the interests of corporations against those of consumers.
“An ideologically aligned conservative 6–3 majority is going to have the opportunity to turn back the clock, not just a decade, but maybe as much as a century on some of the most fundamental economic and financial rights that Americans have,” says Dennis Kelleher, the co-founder and president of Better Markets, a Wall Street reform nonprofit.
Barrett has served on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for just three years, so her record on questions of financial regulation is not extensive. But her rulings show a pattern of siding with corporations at the expense of consumers or workers. An analysis from the left-leaning watchdog Accountable.Us found that in 32 cases that came before her on the 7th Circuit where consumers accused a business of mistreatment, Barrett sided with companies 78 percent of the time.
This summer, for instance, Barrett authored a decision against a group of Grubhub drivers who had accused the food delivery company of failing to pay them overtime. The decision required them to take their claims to private arbitration, finding that the drivers didn’t qualify for an exemption that would have allowed them to pursue their case in the courts. In a different case this summer, Barrett wrote another decision rejecting a claim to overtime pay, this one from a group of Wisconsin truck drivers.
In a 2019 case, Judge Barrett ruled against a woman who’d sued a debt collector for withholding information about how to dispute her debt. Barrett’s decision found that the woman hadn’t suffered enough harm from the debt collector’s conduct, and thus that the woman didn’t have standing to bring the case. Several of Barrett’s colleagues on the court, including a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a dissent in the case, calling Barrett’s decision “troublesome” and noting that it “will make it much more difficult for consumers to enforce the protections against abusive debt collection practices.”
Kelleher and other court-watchers also worry about what a 6-3 conservative majority on the court would mean for the ability of the federal government to regulate financial institutions on behalf of consumers. At issue is a doctrine called “Chevron deference,” stemming from a 1984 Supreme Court decision that gave federal regulatory bodies broad discretion in interpreting the congressional legislation that they’re in charge of enforcing. The reasoning is that these agencies hold more specialized expertise than judges do when it comes to determining what makes for thoughtful regulation in their designated regulatory jurisdiction. Chevron requires that judges assess whether a particular statute is ambiguous, and if it is, to defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law, provided it’s reasonable.
Though initially beloved by conservatives who saw Chevron as a check on liberal activist judges, the precedent has over the last decade become a target of conservatives and pro-business interests. In their view, the doctrine gives the executive branch too much power, and judges too little, in determining how agencies should regulate in the public interest.
Chevron has featured prominently in Supreme Court cases about major policies like the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration’s net neutrality rule. When the Supreme Court has rejected Chevron, the consequences are significant: In 2015, the court struck down the Obama administration’s limits on mercury pollution from power plants, in part by refusing to apply Chevron. In 2018, it rejected the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interpretation of a rule passed after the 2008 financial crisis, narrowing safeguards against retaliation for whistleblowers who flag financial misconduct inside their companies.
In 2016 and 2017, House Republicans introduced legislation that would have ended Chevron deference, and the pro-business US Chamber of Commerce has made a point of backing judicial nominees who are vocal in their hostility towards Chevron—including Trump’s first two Supreme Court appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch.
Barrett has not made her views on Chevron explicit, but she is also backed by the Chamber of Commerce. Some scholars note that Barrett’s commitment to textualism—a strictly literal reading of the law—may make her less likely to give deference to the interpretations of regulators.
“If you get this 6-3 conservative majority ruling cohesively, it will have a broad impact on every single American,” says Kelleher. “Each one of those agencies is going to have their ability to protect the health, wealth, safety and well-being of Americans substantially cut back.”
This result could become apparent in Barrett’s first Supreme Court term, which will include several cases pitting consumer rights against business interests. Here’s what’s at stake:
The power of financial regulators: Last year, the Supreme Court rejected the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the Wall Street watchdog created after the 2008 financial crisis—is structured and weakened the agency’s independence in the process. A case before the court this term seeks to strike down the similar structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has, since the financial crisis, been charged with overseeing major housing finance players, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Mandatory arbitration: For years, businesses have sought to limit the situations in which customers can take them to court, instead forcing them into arbitration proceedings which are conducted outside public view. This term, the Supreme Court will determine how expansive companies’ power is to push people into arbitration in a case involving a dental supply company accused of price fixing. The decision in the case could have broad implications for the rights of people and companies to pursue claims against businesses in the courts in the future.
Spam texting: Another case will decide whether Facebook should face robocalling fines for sending unsolicited texts to users.
Liability for human rights violations abroad: The court will decide whether Cargill and Nestle abetted the use of child slave labor on cocoa farms in Ivory Coast. The decision will determine the extent to which major corporations can be held liable for human rights abuses abroad.