theintercept--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett’s Take on Voting Rights Act Exposes Her Entire Legal Philosophy as a Lie

theme has emerged from Amy Coney Barrett ’ s testimony during her confirmation hearing for the U.S. Supreme Court this week : She is , she has repeatedly said , a “ textualist ” who believes that the plain meaning of a statute reigns supreme , that the job of writing those laws belongs strictly to Congress , and not to the courts .
She ’ s lying — and the lie was exposed nakedly in her assessment of the Supreme Court ’ s 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act .
On Wednesday , Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , asked Barrett about that case , Shelby v. Holder .
In particular , she asked Barrett if she agreed with her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s conclusion that the act was a “ perpetuation of racial entitlement.
” Barrett declined to answer , instead repeatedly framing the case as one in which the Supreme Court decided whether the law ’ s key provision , which required states with a history of discrimination to clear their voting law changes with the Department of Justice , was “ outdated and needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The court , in a 5-4 decision , freed the states of that federal oversight . )
Feinstein did not press Barrett on the wild discrepancy between her claim that the court could decide to “ update ” a statute because a number of decades had passed and her belief in the firmness of originalism and textualism , legal philosophies she says define her approach .
Describing herself as an “ originalist , ” Barrett said this week , “ In English , that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text , and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it .
So that meaning doesn ’ t change over time , and it ’ s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.
” She said the same of textualism .
“ Similarly to what I just said about originalism , for textualism , the judge approaches the text as it was written , with the meaning it had at the time and doesn ’ t infuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she said on Tuesday .
Her response to Feinstein , then , is precisely the type of thing that the legal movement Barrett comes out of crusades against .
It ’ s not up to judges , originalists and textualists say , to put a finger in the wind and rewrite laws .
That ’ s the job of lawmakers .
That discrepancy alone makes a stark contradiction between her stated approach and her actual approach to the law .
But it ’ s worse than that .
To make the Voting Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ update , Barrett suggested that Congress hadn ’ t dealt with it since the 1960s .
That was a lie .
In 2006 , a Republican Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act after a yearslong series of negotiations between the parties .
Named the Fannie Lou Hamer , Rosa Parks , and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 , it ultimately passed the House 390-33 and cleared the Senate 98-0 .
It was then signed into law by President George W. Bush , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions .
That ’ s how laws ought to be made , according to Barrett , who was nominated by President Donald Trump to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017 .
But to acknowledge all of that legislative activity undertaken by democratically elected lawmakers would undermine her claim that the law hadn ’ t been “ updated from the 1960s.
” Barrett has been praised from all corners for her command of the law and the facts during her appearance before the Judiciary Committee .
She was well into her legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the high-profile reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act unfolded .
There is no possibility that she is unaware of it , though Feinstein , who was involved in writing the reauthorization , didn ’ t mention it .
movement began working through the courts to undermine the Voting Rights Act immediately after it was reauthorized , with Chief Justice John Roberts as a ready ally .
In a school desegregation case heard in late 2006 and decided in 2007 , Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
” It was the same reasoning he would later use as author of the lead opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act .
In a 2009 case that came just short of striking down the key provision of that law , Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No .
1 v. Holder , Roberts noted , “ Things have changed in the South ” — again foreshadowing the approach he ’ d later take .
Then came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states from federal oversight when it came to their election laws , with Roberts again arguing that racism had sufficiently faded as to make the law — reauthorized just seven years earlier — out of date .
Within hours of the ruling , Texas pushed through new voter suppression laws , quickly followed by other Southern states , where assaults on the right to vote are routine and ongoing .
Barrett ’ s related tactic to make the ruling appear noncontroversial was to cloak the decision as one that turned on a small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the question of how the coverage formula is calculated.
” She declined to state her personal opinion on the question , noting that it was likely to come back before the court again , though she made clear she felt it was a legitimate question to ask .
Feinstein didn ’ t press her or let viewers know what that arcane legal language meant , but in short , the law had required states with a robust history of voter suppression to clear any changes to voting rights laws with the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the changes would have a disparate impact on voters of color .
Barrett noted that the court left in place the rest of the law .
“ It is my understanding , ” she said , “ that everything else about the Voting Rights Act remains intact , including its prohibitions on discrimination in elections.
” As someone in Barrett ’ s position ought to well know , a law on the books isn ’ t worth much if there is no way to enforce it .
The constitutional amendment giving Black men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War remained on the books all through Jim Crow , as did the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1877 , which guaranteed broad equal protections and barred segregation .
Without any ability after Reconstruction to federally enforce the law , however , it was meaningless , and by the end of the 1800s , as a result of voter suppression laws like literacy tests and poll taxes , the Black vote was approaching zero in the South .
James Moone argues in the new book “ Republic of Wrath ” that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was partly thanks to Republicans ’ own self-interested bigotry in how they wrote the amendment .
Some Republicans had pushed to make voting a firm constitutional right , unbridgeable by state authorities .
But other Republicans still wanted to be able to suppress the votes of Irish and Chinese immigrants , who tended to favor Democrats , so the compromise language purposely left loopholes that both parties would later exploit .
Hostility to Irish immigrants faded in the 20th century , and as Republicans abandoned the Northeast for the South and the sunbelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressing those votes .
In the South , though , voter suppression of the Black vote remained near universal , even as Black voters used the franchise in the North and West coasts to influence the Democratic Party .
And so the Voting Rights Act of 1965 singled out areas of the country for enforcement where the Black vote was being disproportionately suppressed .
That provision was updated in 2006 and wiped out by the Supreme Court in 2013 , all in the name of deference to Congress .
The Supreme Court recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set of cases that could gut what ’ s left of the Voting Rights Act .
As Barrett noted , pieces of the Voting Rights Act still remain intact .
But not if Amy Coney Barrett gets to rewrite it .

A single, dominant theme has emerged from Amy Coney Barrett’s testimony during her confirmation hearing for the U.S. Supreme Court this week: She is, she has repeatedly said, a “textualist” who believes that the plain meaning of a statute reigns supreme, that the job of writing those laws belongs strictly to Congress, and not to the courts. She’s lying — and the lie was exposed nakedly in her assessment of the Supreme Court’s 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
On Wednesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top-ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked Barrett about that case, Shelby v. Holder. In particular, she asked Barrett if she agreed with her mentor Justice Antonin Scalia’s conclusion that the act was a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Barrett declined to answer, instead repeatedly framing the case as one in which the Supreme Court decided whether the law’s key provision, which required states with a history of discrimination to clear their voting law changes with the Department of Justice, was “outdated and needed to be updated from the 1960s.” (The court, in a 5-4 decision, freed the states of that federal oversight.)
Feinstein did not press Barrett on the wild discrepancy between her claim that the court could decide to “update” a statute because a number of decades had passed and her belief in the firmness of originalism and textualism, legal philosophies she says define her approach.
Describing herself as an “originalist,” Barrett said this week, “In English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law and that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time, and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.”
She said the same of textualism. “Similarly to what I just said about originalism, for textualism, the judge approaches the text as it was written, with the meaning it had at the time and doesn’t infuse her own meaning into it,” she said on Tuesday.
Her response to Feinstein, then, is precisely the type of thing that the legal movement Barrett comes out of crusades against. It’s not up to judges, originalists and textualists say, to put a finger in the wind and rewrite laws. That’s the job of lawmakers.
That discrepancy alone makes a stark contradiction between her stated approach and her actual approach to the law. But it’s worse than that. To make the Voting Rights Act look in need of a judicial update, Barrett suggested that Congress hadn’t dealt with it since the 1960s. That was a lie. In 2006, a Republican Congress passed a reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act after a yearslong series of negotiations between the parties. Named the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, it ultimately passed the House 390-33 and cleared the Senate 98-0. It was then signed into law by President George W. Bush, who pledged his commitment to enforce its updated provisions. That’s how laws ought to be made, according to Barrett, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.
But to acknowledge all of that legislative activity undertaken by democratically elected lawmakers would undermine her claim that the law hadn’t been “updated from the 1960s.” Barrett has been praised from all corners for her command of the law and the facts during her appearance before the Judiciary Committee. She was well into her legal career, already teaching at Notre Dame, when the high-profile reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act unfolded. There is no possibility that she is unaware of it, though Feinstein, who was involved in writing the reauthorization, didn’t mention it.
Ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., leaves the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett in Hart Senate Office Building on Monday, October 12, 2020. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Getty Images
The right-wing legal movement began working through the courts to undermine the Voting Rights Act immediately after it was reauthorized, with Chief Justice John Roberts as a ready ally. In a school desegregation case heard in late 2006 and decided in 2007, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, Roberts observed, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” It was the same reasoning he would later use as author of the lead opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act. In a 2009 case that came just short of striking down the key provision of that law, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, Roberts noted, “Things have changed in the South” — again foreshadowing the approach he’d later take. Then came Shelby, the 2013 ruling that freed states from federal oversight when it came to their election laws, with Roberts again arguing that racism had sufficiently faded as to make the law — reauthorized just seven years earlier — out of date. Within hours of the ruling, Texas pushed through new voter suppression laws, quickly followed by other Southern states, where assaults on the right to vote are routine and ongoing.
Barrett’s related tactic to make the ruling appear noncontroversial was to cloak the decision as one that turned on a small, technical question, what she called “the question of how the coverage formula is calculated.” She declined to state her personal opinion on the question, noting that it was likely to come back before the court again, though she made clear she felt it was a legitimate question to ask.
Feinstein didn’t press her or let viewers know what that arcane legal language meant, but in short, the law had required states with a robust history of voter suppression to clear any changes to voting rights laws with the Department of Justice, which would determine whether the changes would have a disparate impact on voters of color. Barrett noted that the court left in place the rest of the law. “It is my understanding,” she said, “that everything else about the Voting Rights Act remains intact, including its prohibitions on discrimination in elections.”
As someone in Barrett’s position ought to well know, a law on the books isn’t worth much if there is no way to enforce it. The constitutional amendment giving Black men the right to vote after the Civil War remained on the books all through Jim Crow, as did the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1877, which guaranteed broad equal protections and barred segregation. Without any ability after Reconstruction to federally enforce the law, however, it was meaningless, and by the end of the 1800s, as a result of voter suppression laws like literacy tests and poll taxes, the Black vote was approaching zero in the South. James Moone argues in the new book “Republic of Wrath” that the ability of Democrats to suppress Black votes was partly thanks to Republicans’ own self-interested bigotry in how they wrote the amendment. Some Republicans had pushed to make voting a firm constitutional right, unbridgeable by state authorities. But other Republicans still wanted to be able to suppress the votes of Irish and Chinese immigrants, who tended to favor Democrats, so the compromise language purposely left loopholes that both parties would later exploit.
Hostility to Irish immigrants faded in the 20th century, and as Republicans abandoned the Northeast for the South and the sunbelt, the party was less interested in suppressing those votes. In the South, though, voter suppression of the Black vote remained near universal, even as Black voters used the franchise in the North and West coasts to influence the Democratic Party. And so the Voting Rights Act of 1965 singled out areas of the country for enforcement where the Black vote was being disproportionately suppressed. That provision was updated in 2006 and wiped out by the Supreme Court in 2013, all in the name of deference to Congress.
The Supreme Court recently announced that it would hear a new set of cases that could gut what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. As Barrett noted, pieces of the Voting Rights Act still remain intact. But not if Amy Coney Barrett gets to rewrite it.


theintercept--2020-10-15--As Paul Singer Donated Millions to Republican Governors Association, Public Funds Flowed Into His He

As Paul Singer Donated Millions to Republican Governors Association, Public Funds Flowed Into His Hedge Funds

Singer , however , is not a typical partisan billionaire looking to lower tax rates and beat back the creep of socialism : Singer ’ s business model depends in part on lucrative fees accrued from public funds — funds that are often controlled by trustees appointed by Republican governors .
In March , Paul Singer , one of the nation ’ s richest hedge fund managers , cut a $ 500,000 check to the Republican Governors Association .
It was part of a gubernatorial spending spree that stretched back to 2013 and saw some $ 7 million flow from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors .
Singer ’ s flagship hedge fund , Elliott Management , has been badly underperforming the market over the past decade , leading some institutional investors to look elsewhere to park their money .
That ’ s how the free market is supposed to work — and , so that it doesn ’ t become distorted by kickbacks or bribery , the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces what ’ s known as a “ pay-to-play rule , ” which forbids investment managers from contributing to politicians who have a say in doling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment managers .
The SEC also bars indirect contributions , to prevent clever funneling through opaque entities .
Singer ’ s donation was made just four days after the RGA had made its largest direct contribution of the 2020 cycle : $ 150,000 to a committee to defend Alaska Gov .
Mike Dunleavy against a recall campaign .
When combined with the RGA ’ s affiliated Super PAC , the second-largest contribution made by the committees jointly was in June : $ 100,000 to Indiana Gov .
Eric Holcomb ’ s reelection campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the RGA is the near-exclusive donor .
Dunleavy is facing a recall petition due to his advocacy for dramatic cuts to state government .
Elliott Management told The Intercept that these contributions were made to the RGA ’ s operating account and that they were assured the money would not be funneled to support individual governors .
“ The problem with this generally is that money is fungible , so when you free that money up for administrative expenses , the committee has more money for political contributions , ” said Larry Noble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Elections Commission .
In the fall of 2019 , Singer picked up new commitments totaling $ 138 million for his firms .
The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation committed $ 58 million to Elliott Management , while the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System and the Indiana Public Retirement System committed $ 30 million and $ 50 million , respectively , to the Aeolus insurance investing platform , where he is a majority shareholder .
Documents show that the Aeolus fund has had a negative 6.7 percent return for the past three years , compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S & P 500 stock market index .
The Intercept could not determine Elliott ’ s exact performance , but it has performed about 5 to 5.5 percent annually for the past eight years , according to documents from the state of New Jersey , compared to 10.24 percent for the S & P 500 over the same time period .
A search of available records indicates that all of the public pension funds that have made new or expanded investments in Aeolus after Singer purchased a majority ownership stake in 2016 are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Florida , and Arkansas are the others ) .
Massachusetts later redeemed its investment in Aeolus .
Singer is not the only RGA donor who also collects checks from states with Republican gubernatorial oversight of state pensions , but he is the largest .
An International Business Times/MapLight review found that in the 2016 cycle , executives at firms managing state pension money have donated nearly $ 1.3 million to the RGA , on top of the more than $ 6.8 million such firms gave to the RGA in 2013 and 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Singer donated $ 3.85 million .
that Singer has likely earned a significant portion of his $ 3.6 billion net worth from the retirements of government workers , he appears to hold a deep abhorrence for the state .
Referring obliquely to politicians on the left like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , Singer said in 2019 that “ they call it socialism , but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and workers.
” Singer is the chair of the Manhattan Institute , which advocates for cuts to public pensions .
After Singer drew the ire of the Communications Workers of America union last fall by urging changes that the union argued would result in layoffs , the union revealed the subpar performance of Elliott Management and started to pressure large institutional investors like the University of California and the New Jersey State Investment Council to redeem their hundreds of millions of dollars in investments , which they began to do .
( I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 to 2018 , prior to CWA ’ s campaign against Elliott , and in a different department . )

In March, Paul Singer, one of the nation’s richest hedge fund managers, cut a $500,000 check to the Republican Governors Association. It was part of a gubernatorial spending spree that stretched back to 2013 and saw some $7 million flow from Singer to the campaign arm for GOP governors.
Singer, however, is not a typical partisan billionaire looking to lower tax rates and beat back the creep of socialism: Singer’s business model depends in part on lucrative fees accrued from public funds — funds that are often controlled by trustees appointed by Republican governors.
Singer’s flagship hedge fund, Elliott Management, has been badly underperforming the market over the past decade, leading some institutional investors to look elsewhere to park their money. That’s how the free market is supposed to work — and, so that it doesn’t become distorted by kickbacks or bribery, the Securities and Exchange Commission enforces what’s known as a “pay-to-play rule,” which forbids investment managers from contributing to politicians who have a say in doling out public pension fund money to those investment managers. The SEC also bars indirect contributions, to prevent clever funneling through opaque entities.
Singer’s donation was made just four days after the RGA had made its largest direct contribution of the 2020 cycle: $150,000 to a committee to defend Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy against a recall campaign. When combined with the RGA’s affiliated Super PAC, the second-largest contribution made by the committees jointly was in June: $100,000 to Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb’s reelection campaign, through a Super PAC by which the RGA is the near-exclusive donor. Dunleavy is facing a recall petition due to his advocacy for dramatic cuts to state government.
Elliott Management told The Intercept that these contributions were made to the RGA’s operating account and that they were assured the money would not be funneled to support individual governors. “The problem with this generally is that money is fungible, so when you free that money up for administrative expenses, the committee has more money for political contributions,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission.
In the fall of 2019, Singer picked up new commitments totaling $138 million for his firms. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation committed $58 million to Elliott Management, while the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System and the Indiana Public Retirement System committed $30 million and $50 million, respectively, to the Aeolus insurance investing platform, where he is a majority shareholder.
Documents show that the Aeolus fund has had a negative 6.7 percent return for the past three years, compared to a 10.7 percent return for the S&P 500 stock market index. The Intercept could not determine Elliott’s exact performance, but it has performed about 5 to 5.5 percent annually for the past eight years, according to documents from the state of New Jersey, compared to 10.24 percent for the S&P 500 over the same time period.
A search of available records indicates that all of the public pension funds that have made new or expanded investments in Aeolus after Singer purchased a majority ownership stake in 2016 are in states with Republican governors (Massachusetts, Florida, and Arkansas are the others). Massachusetts later redeemed its investment in Aeolus.
Singer is not the only RGA donor who also collects checks from states with Republican gubernatorial oversight of state pensions, but he is the largest. An International Business Times/MapLight review found that in the 2016 cycle, executives at firms managing state pension money have donated nearly $1.3 million to the RGA, on top of the more than $6.8 million such firms gave to the RGA in 2013 and 2014. Of the $6.8 million, Singer donated $3.85 million.
Despite the fact that Singer has likely earned a significant portion of his $3.6 billion net worth from the retirements of government workers, he appears to hold a deep abhorrence for the state. Referring obliquely to politicians on the left like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Singer said in 2019 that “they call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers.” Singer is the chair of the Manhattan Institute, which advocates for cuts to public pensions.
After Singer drew the ire of the Communications Workers of America union last fall by urging changes that the union argued would result in layoffs, the union revealed the subpar performance of Elliott Management and started to pressure large institutional investors like the University of California and the New Jersey State Investment Council to redeem their hundreds of millions of dollars in investments, which they began to do. (I worked as a researcher for CWA from 2015 to 2018, prior to CWA’s campaign against Elliott, and in a different department.)
From left, Greg Abbott, Doug Ducey, Asa Hutchinson, Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, and Pete Ricketts participate in the Republican Governors Association annual conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., on Nov. 28, 2018. Photo: Matt York/AP
Singer has been a prodigious donor to the RGA for years. Singer made a $500,000 donation to the RGA in 2019 and donated $2.25 million to the organization from 2017 to 2018, when the RGA was found to have violated Alaska state law by funneling $2.7 million in spending into supporting Dunleavey’s race, while obscuring its donors. Singer donated a total of $1.25 million to the RGA in 2015 and 2016, when it spent over $10 million to elect Holcomb. Singer has not donated to the Democratic Governors Association.
Holcomb and Dunleavy both hold influential positions over the pensions in their states. Holcomb appoints nearly all of the INPRS trustees while Dunleavy as of the fourth quarter of 2019 had appointed two out of the six trustees of the Alaska Permanent Fund. The trustees appoint the staff of the funds, who in turn make the investments. Holcomb, the Indiana governor, is the policy chair of the RGA, giving him a leadership role in the organization.
Holcomb was appointed as lieutenant governor in March 2016 by Vice President Mike Pence who then in turn handpicked Holcomb to replace him as the Republican nominee for governor that July. Showcasing the close political relationships between Singer and Indiana’s power elite, the Washington Post has reported that Pence has long courted Singer as a donor to fuel his ambitions, while Politico reported that Pence “showered praise” on Singer at a dinner in 2019.
In response to a detailed request for comment from The Intercept, an Elliott spokesperson said that “Mr. Singer’s contributions to the RGA have been limited to the RGA’s operating account. This restricted account cannot be used by the RGA to make political contributions to any candidate. It is therefore wrong to suggest that any of Mr. Singer’s funds were transferred to any candidate by the RGA. They were not.”
RGA Communications Director Amelia Chassé Alcivar similarly told The Intercept, “Mr. Singer’s contributions were made to the RGA’s operating account, which is used solely for administrative expenses. Therefore, the contributions in question could not be, and were not, directed to any political or election-related expenditures.” The RGA does not appear to mention any “operating account” in any public filing or statement, and neither Singer nor the RGA provided documentation of this claim.
“Both Elliott and Aeolus are proud of their investment track records, have robust compliance procedures in place, and have at all times complied with all relevant laws and regulations governing political contributions,” the Elliott spokesperson continued. Spokespeople for Dunleavy, Holcomb, and the Alaska and Indiana funds did not respond to a request for comment.
Even if the contributions were not going to the political fund, the RGA is still a clearinghouse for Republican political activity supporting governors.
The pay-to-play rule “prohibits acts done indirectly, which if done directly would violate the rule,” said William Beggs, a finance professor at the University of San Diego. “The whole situation certainly looks troubling.”
Scandals surrounding investments at public pension funds have become common in recent years. The former CEO of the country’s largest public pension fund, CalPERS, went to prison for receiving bribes from an agent of a private equity firm, as did the former comptroller of New York state, Alan Hevesi, who controlled New York’s state workers pension fund. The SEC’s pay-to-play rule grew out of these controversies.
But the SEC has never prosecuted a violation under the anti-circumvention provision. The SEC’s reticence to prosecute circumventions rule raises concerns for advocates like Eileen Appelbaum, an economist who has studied the industry and is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
“We have to get rid of 527 groups like the RGA. Managers can circumvent the rules by making contributions to shell organizations,” said Appelbaum.“The SEC and FEC should investigate whether the pay-to-play rules are being violated.”


theintercept--2020-10-15--New York WFP Organizes to Thwart Existential Threat to Its Ballot Line

In an effort to protect itself against an assault by New York Democratic Gov .
Andrew Cuomo , the New York Working Families Party is calling on New Yorkers to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the WFP ballot line this November .
In 2018 , Cuomo handily defeated his WFP-backed primary opponent , Cynthia Nixon , but the group ’ s influence has grown nonetheless .
Thirty-three WFP-backed candidates won contested state primaries in June , and another four WFP-backed congressional candidates won their primaries : Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones , in safely blue districts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive districts in Long Island and Syracuse , respectively .
The push comes in response to a Cuomo-backed change that requires minority parties to obtain the higher of 2 percent of total voter turnout or 130,000 votes .
If the left-leaning WFP fails to meet that threshold in the upcoming election , its ballot line will be eliminated before 2022 , when Cuomo is up for reelection .
In that case , the party would have to collect 45,000 petition signatures to make the ballot , following a change last year that tripled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to beat Trump .
But we also need so much more than that , ” Biaggi says in a 2-minute spot rolled out online on Thursday .
The other politicians chime in : “ New York was robbed by the coronavirus .
Tens of thousands died .
Billionaires are getting richer while working people have suffered .
But it ’ s working people who are getting us through the crisis.
” In New York , candidates can appear on both the Democratic Party line on a ballot , as well as on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Bowman , Jones , state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi , Assembly Member Yuh-Line Niou , state Sen. Julia Salazar , and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams — are now taking part in the group ’ s campaign to urge voters to save the WFP by voting the WFP line next month .
The WFP , alongside other left-leaning electoral groups , has eaten into Cuomo ’ s centrist base of power in Albany and significantly pushed state politics further left over the last decade .
WFP and groups like No IDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Independent Democratic Conference in 2018 , a bipartisan scheme that gave Republicans a constructive majority in the state Senate .
That year , the same groups helped to replace former members of the IDC with progressives , including Biaggi , who swiftly moved legislation strengthening rights for tenants and voters , and other priorities that stalled for years under the Republican power-sharing agreement that diluted the Democratic majority .
“ The party is not just about running candidates and looking at the next cycle .
It ’ s about ensuring that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance , ” said Sochie Nnaemeka , director of the Working Families Party in New York .
The ad features the fruits of the WFP project , Nnaemeka said : “ electeds who stand as movement leaders .
Who are not disconnected from the protests that are happening on the streets , right ?
They ’ re pulling the protests into the polls , and that mandate into their governing agenda.
” The video is one of many efforts WFP is making to reach voters , Nnaemeka added , “ especially progressive voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , two , or three .
But we know that we need to build a united front to defeat Trump .
And we have to do it in a way that sets the progressive movement up for even greater successes .
Especially if our communities are in crisis.
” Shortly after the end of the legislative session that saw progressive gains , Cuomo formed a commission to create a new public campaign finance system ( it had been tucked into the budget that year ) .
The commission quickly moved toward a seemingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor parties to qualify for the ballot by threefold : from 50,000 to the greater of 2 percent of total voter turnout , or 130,000 votes .
The commission also recommended that parties be required to qualify every two years , instead of every four years under previous election law .
Cuomo delegated the commission with power to issue recommendations , which would become binding if the legislature didn ’ t act within a certain time frame .
Those changes went into effect January 1 .
But in March , a state Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in delegating that amount of power to the commission , putting the new ballot line threshold on hold for this cycle , preserving fusion voting , and pressing pause on new public campaign finance plans for 2022 .
It was a win for the New York left .
But last month , a federal judge in New York ’ s Southern District Court issued a ruling upholding the party qualification rule change , meaning minor parties including WFP and the Conservative Party of New York , the state ’ s third largest parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t meet the new threshold in November .
Of the state ’ s six minor parties with automatic ballot lines this cycle , the right-leaning Conservative Party is the only group that would likely survive the new threshold , and the only party that consistently gets more votes than WFP .
That ’ s fueled the perception that state Democrats assault on minor parties , which national Democrats have opposed , has a simpler purpose : to eliminate the WFP , even if it gives a leg up to a right-leaning @ @

In an effort to protect itself against an assault by New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the New York Working Families Party is calling on New Yorkers to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on the WFP ballot line this November.
The push comes in response to a Cuomo-backed change that requires minority parties to obtain the higher of 2 percent of total voter turnout or 130,000 votes. If the left-leaning WFP fails to meet that threshold in the upcoming election, its ballot line will be eliminated before 2022, when Cuomo is up for reelection. In that case, the party would have to collect 45,000 petition signatures to make the ballot, following a change last year that tripled a 15,000-signature requirement.
In 2018, Cuomo handily defeated his WFP-backed primary opponent, Cynthia Nixon, but the group’s influence has grown nonetheless. Thirty-three WFP-backed candidates won contested state primaries in June, and another four WFP-backed congressional candidates won their primaries: Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones, in safely blue districts, and Jackie Gordon and Dana Balter in competitive districts in Long Island and Syracuse, respectively.
In New York, candidates can appear on both the Democratic Party line on a ballot, as well as on the WFP. Several WFP-backed politicians — including Bowman, Jones, state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, Assembly Member Yuh-Line Niou, state Sen. Julia Salazar, and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams — are now taking part in the group’s campaign to urge voters to save the WFP by voting the WFP line next month.
“New Yorkers need to beat Trump. But we also need so much more than that,” Biaggi says in a 2-minute spot rolled out online on Thursday. The other politicians chime in: “New York was robbed by the coronavirus. Tens of thousands died. Billionaires are getting richer while working people have suffered. But it’s working people who are getting us through the crisis.”
The WFP, alongside other left-leaning electoral groups, has eaten into Cuomo’s centrist base of power in Albany and significantly pushed state politics further left over the last decade. WFP and groups like No IDC NY successfully pushed to disband the state’s Independent Democratic Conference in 2018, a bipartisan scheme that gave Republicans a constructive majority in the state Senate. That year, the same groups helped to replace former members of the IDC with progressives, including Biaggi, who swiftly moved legislation strengthening rights for tenants and voters, and other priorities that stalled for years under the Republican power-sharing agreement that diluted the Democratic majority.
“The party is not just about running candidates and looking at the next cycle. It’s about ensuring that the victories in our elections translate into governance,” said Sochie Nnaemeka, director of the Working Families Party in New York. The ad features the fruits of the WFP project, Nnaemeka said: “electeds who stand as movement leaders. Who are not disconnected from the protests that are happening on the streets, right? They’re pulling the protests into the polls, and that mandate into their governing agenda.” The video is one of many efforts WFP is making to reach voters, Nnaemeka added, “especially progressive voters for whom Biden is not pick one, two, or three. But we know that we need to build a united front to defeat Trump. And we have to do it in a way that sets the progressive movement up for even greater successes. Especially if our communities are in crisis.”
Read Our Complete Coverage Election 2020
Shortly after the end of the legislative session that saw progressive gains, Cuomo formed a commission to create a new public campaign finance system (it had been tucked into the budget that year). The commission quickly moved toward a seemingly unrelated goal — increasing the threshold for minor parties to qualify for the ballot by threefold: from 50,000 to the greater of 2 percent of total voter turnout, or 130,000 votes. The commission also recommended that parties be required to qualify every two years, instead of every four years under previous election law. Cuomo delegated the commission with power to issue recommendations, which would become binding if the legislature didn’t act within a certain time frame. Those changes went into effect January 1. But in March, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that legislators acted improperly in delegating that amount of power to the commission, putting the new ballot line threshold on hold for this cycle, preserving fusion voting, and pressing pause on new public campaign finance plans for 2022. It was a win for the New York left.
Then, Cuomo added the commission’s recommendations directly to the 2020 budget. Last month, a federal judge in New York’s Southern District Court issued a ruling upholding the party qualification rule change, meaning minor parties including WFP and the Conservative Party of New York, the state’s third largest parties, could lose their line if they don’t meet the new threshold in November.
Of the state’s six minor parties with automatic ballot lines this cycle, the right-leaning Conservative Party is the only group that would likely survive the new threshold, and the only party that consistently gets more votes than WFP. That’s fueled the perception that state Democrats assault on minor parties, which national Democrats have opposed, has a simpler purpose: to eliminate the WFP, even if it gives a leg up to a right-leaning group.