Sen. Whitehouse Gives Presentation On 'Dark Money' Influence On Supreme Court Nomination | MSNBC

This is a—to me—pretty big deal.

I've never seen this around
any court I've ever been…

involved with, where there's
this much dark money

and this much influence being used.

Here's how Washington Post
summed it up.

“This is a conservative activist's
behind-the-scenes campaign

to remake the nation's courts”

and it's a $250 million
dark money operation.

$250 million is a lot of money to
spend if you're not getting anything for it.

So that raises the question,

what are they getting for it?

Well… I showed this slide earlier

on the Affordable Care Act. And
on Obergefell, and on Roe vs. Wade.

That's where they lost.

But with another judge, that could change.

That's where the contest is.

That's where the Republican party
platform tells us to look

at how they want judges to rule,

to reverse Roe, to reverse
the Obamacare cases,

and to reverse Obergefell
and take away gay marriage.

That is their stated objective and plan…

why not take them at their word?

But there's another
piece of it. And that is…

not what's ahead of us,
but what's behind us.

And what's behind us is now 80 cases,
Mr Chairman, 80… cases.

Under Chief Justice Roberts

that have these characteristics:

One, they were decided
5 to 4, by a bare majority.

Two, the 5 to 4 majority was… partisan…

in the sense that not one Democrat—
Democratic appointee joined the 5.

I refer to that group
as the “Roberts Five”.

It changes a little bit, as… with
Justice Scalia's death, for instance.

But there's been a steady Roberts Five

that has delivered now
80 of these decisions…

And the last characteristic
of them is that

there is an identifiable Republican
donor interest in those cases

and in every single case,
that donor interest won.

it was an 80 to 0, 5 to 4 partisan… rout.

Ransacking.

And it's important to look at
where those cases went

because they're not
about big, public issues

like getting rid of
the Affordable Care Act,

undoing Roe vs. Wade, and
undoing… same-sex marriage.

They're about power.

And if you look at those 80
decisions, they fall into 4 categories…

over and over and over again.

One… unlimited and dark money in politics.

Citizens United is the famous one,
but it's continued since with McCutchen

and we've got one coming up now.

Always the 5 for unlimited
money in politics,

never protecting against
dark money in politics

despite the fact that they said
it was gonna be transparent.

And who wins?

When you allow unlimited
dark money in politics?

A very small group.

The ones who have unlimited money to spend

and a motive to spend it in politics.

They win, everybody else loses.

And if you were looking… at
who might be behind this,

[points at card loudly]

let's talk about the people with unlimited
money to spend and a motive to do it.

We'll see how that goes.

Next, knock the civil jury down.

Whittle it down to a nub.

The civil jury was in the
Constitution, in the Bill of Rights,

in our darn Declaration of Independence.

But it's annoying to big corporate powers.

Because you can swagger your way
as a big corporate power through Congress.

You can go and tell the President
you put money into to elect what to do.

He'll put your stooges at the EPA.

It's aaaaaall great.

Until you get to the civil jury.

Because they have an obligation,
as you know, Judge Barrett,

they have an obligation under the law

to be fair to both parties
irrespective of their size.

You can't bribe them—
you're not allowed to.

It's a crime to tamper with the jury.

It's standard practice to
tamper with Congress.

And they make decisions based on the law.

If you're used to being the boss,

and swaggering your way
around the political side

you don't wanna be
answerable before a jury.

And so one after another, these 80
5 to 4 decisions have knocked down,

whittled away, at the civil jury,

a great American institution.

Third.

First was unlimited dark money.

Second was, demean
and diminish the civil jury.

Third is, weaken regulatory agencies.

A lot of this money, I'm
convinced, is polluter money.

The coke industries is a polluter.

The fossil fuels industry is a polluter.

Who else would be putting
buckets of money into this

and wanting to hide who
they are behind Donors Trust

or other… schemes.

And what if— If you're a big polluter

what do you want?

You want weak regulatory agencies.

You want ones that you can
box up and run over to Congress.

and get your friends to fix things for you in Congress.

Over and over and over again,

these decisions are
targeted at regulatory agencies

to weaken their independence
and weaken their strength.

And if you're a big polluter

then weak regulatory agencies
is your idea of a good day.

And the last thing is in politics.

In voting.

Why on earth… the Court made the decision

—a factual decision.

Not something appellate courts
ordinarily are supposed to make,

as I understand it, Judge Barrett—

the factual decision that
nobody needed to worry about

minority voters in preclearance states

being discriminated against

or that legislators would try
to knock back their ability to vote.

These five… made that
finding in Shelby County

Against bipartisan legislation
from both houses of Congress

hugely past, on no factual record.

They just decided that that
was a problem that was over.

On no record, with no basis,

Because it got them to
the result… that we then saw.

What followed. State
after state after state

passed voter suppression laws.

One, so badly targeting African-Americans

that 2 courts that it was surgically…

surgically tailored to get
after minority voters.

And gerrymandering.

The other great… control.

Bulk gerrymandering,
when you go into a state,

like the REDMAP project
in Ohio and Pennsylvania

and you pack Democrats
so tightly into a few districts

that all the others become
Republican majority districts.

And in those states,

you send a delegation to Congress

that has a huge majority
of Republican members

like 13 to 5, as I recall

in a state where the 5, the party of the 5
actually won the popular vote.

You’ve sent a delegation to Congress

that is out of step with the
popular vote of that state, and…

court after court figured
out how to solve that

and the Supreme Court said, “Nope.”

5 to 4 again. “Nope. We’re not going
to take an interest in that question.”

In all these areas where it’s about
political power for big special interests,

and people want to fund campaigns,

and people want to get
their way through politics

without actually showing up

doing it behind Donors
Trust and other groups,

doing it through these schemes …

over and over and over again…

you see the same thing.

80 decisions, Judge Barrett.

80 decisions.

An 80 to 0 sweep.

I don’t— I don’t think you’ve tried cases

but some cases…

the issue is bias and discrimination.

And if you’re making a
bias case, as a trial lawyer

—Lindsey Graham is a
hell of a good trial lawyer—

if he wanted to make a biased case

—Dick Durbin’s a hell
of a good trial lawyer—

if they wanted to make a bias case,

and they could show and 80 to 0 pattern…

A, that’s admissible,

and B, I’d love to make
that argument to the jury.

I’d be really hard-pressed
to be the lawyer saying

“No. 80 to 0’s just a bunch of flukes.”

All 5–4, all partisan, all this way.

So… something is not right

around the court.

And dark money has a lot to do with it.

Special interests
have a lot to do with it.

Donors Trust and whoever’s
hiding behind Donors Trust

has a lot to do with it.

And the Bradley Foundation

orchestrating it’s amici over at the court

has a lot to do with it.