7 Takeaways From Senate Hearing on Supreme Court and Dark Money

From The Daily Signal.com (Mar. 11):

Senators and a witness at a Senate hearing Wednesday afternoon called out three left-leaning dark money groups for decrying the existence of conservative dark money groups.

The term “dark money” generally applies to a political organization that doesn’t disclose its donors.

Leaders of the liberal groups People for the American Way, the Center for Media and Democracy, and Take Back the Court told senators that corporate and dark money is corrupting the Supreme Court, but were vague about how.

None of the three liberal nonprofits discloses all donors, The Washington Free Beacon reported, a stance that makes them dark money organizations.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on federal courts, oversight, agency action, and federal rights, called the hearing.

The three witnesses invited to testify by Whitehouse sharpened their knives primarily on the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, two conservative organizations that focus on the federal courts.

……………

Here are seven key highlights of the hearing, titled “What’s Wrong with the Supreme Court: The Big-Money Assault on Our Judiciary.”

1. ‘Swear Off Dark Money?’

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked Lisa Graves, president of the Center for Media and Democracy, if she would reject dark money or disclose all of her group’s donors going forward.

“Will you commit that the Center for Media and Democracy will no longer accept these dark money donations?” Lee asked.

Graves seemed to dodge, referring to how proposed legislation by Democratic lawmakers defines dark money.

“There is a specific definition of dark money,” she said.

……………

2. ‘Special Interest-Controlled Fast Lane’

Whitehouse said the subcommittee’s focus on the Supreme Court was the first in a series of its hearings on dark money.

“Courtrooms ought to be open places where you know who is present, not a place where powerful players can come masked behind front groups, hiding both their own identity and their inner connections,” the Rhode Island Democrat said.

Amicus briefs—or “friend of the court” briefs—are filed by outside parties to help inform the Supreme Court on the law and facts in specific cases.

“The Supreme Court should not be a place that has a special interest-controlled fast lane, bringing certain special interest-chosen cases before the court at high speed without the trappings of a real case or controversy,” Whitehouse said. “The court itself should not tolerate this. But, if it won’t respond, we must.”

………………….

3. ‘Friend to the Republican Party’

Republicans have assaulted democracy and voting rights and the Supreme Court is trying to help them, said Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and board member for Take Back the Court, 

Reciting a long list of cases, Klarman said: “Today’s Supreme Court has shown itself to be no friend to democracy but always a friend to the Republican Party.”

“Dramatic demographic changes together with increased secularization and a growing social liberalism have led Republicans to conclude that their political agenda no longer commands majority support,” Klarman later added. [read more]

The other four takeaways:

1. ‘Bribe the Chief Justice?’
2. Left Dominates Dark Money
3. ‘Contorted’ Religious Freedom Argument
4. ‘Status Quo Court’