DOCSLIB.ORG

Equal Justice Should Apply to All, Including the President's Friends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Equal Justice Should Apply to All, Including the President's Friends Business Crimes Bulletin ® January 2021 Equal Justice Should Apply to All, Including the President’s Friends By Harry Sandick and This has led to understandable on Feb. 10, 2020, the government Jacob Tuttle Newman criticism: Why should DOJ treat initially proposed that Stone President Trump or his advisors receive a sentence within the In the past year, we have seen differently than other defendants Sentencing Guidelines range appli- the Department of Justice (DOJ), are treated? Equal justice under cable to his offense, which was 87 under the direction of now-former law is the highest value of our to 108 months’ imprisonment. This Attorney General William Barr, legal system, and no one should is consistent with the position that present arguments in several cases receive preferential treatment the government ordinarily takes at that implicate the conduct of either because they are friends with the sentencing, where it typically President Donald Trump or his President. This is why bar associa- advises the court that a within-the- close advisors. In this article, we tions and former prosecutors have range sentence is reasonable consider certain positions taken spoken out against these steps. under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Shortly by DOJ in cases involving Roger Rather than insist that the after the government filed its brief Stone, Michael Flynn and the sub- President’s associates be treated seeking a Guidelines sentence, poenas duces tecum issued by the more harshly, we offer this modest President Trump tweeted on Feb. New York District Attorney’s proposal: Remedy the unequal 11, 2020, that the sentencing rec- Office in connection with its treatment by affording to all crimi- ommendation was “horrible,” “very investigation into the Trump nal defendants the same consider- unfair,” and a “miscarriage of jus- Organization. In each instance, ation accorded to Stone, Flynn and tice.” Later that day, on February DOJ has taken positions that the Trump Organization. Defense 11, the government filed a diverge from the positions usually lawyers should cite to DOJ’s posi- “Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum” in taken by DOJ prosecutors in tions in these three cases and ask which it took the exact opposite ordinary criminal prosecutions. courts to give ordinary defendants position: that a within-the-range the same treatment. sentence “would not be appropri- Harry Sandick, a member of the Busi- ‘UNITED STATES V. ROGER STONE’ ate or serve the interests of justice ness Crimes Bulletin’s Board of Editors, Roger Stone, a longtime in this case.” United States v. Stone, is a partner in the Litigation Department Republican operative and a friend No. 19-cr-00018, Dkt. No. 286 of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, a member of the firm’s White Collar De- and advisor of President Trump, (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2020). fense and Investigations team, and a for- was convicted of crimes relating The arguments presented by the mer Deputy Chief Appellate Attorney in to the obstruction of the Mueller government were familiar ones to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the South- investigation into Russian interfer- defense counsel in federal sen- ern District of New York. Jacob Tuttle Newman is an associate in the firm’s liti- ence with the 2016 presidential tencing. The government contend- gation department. election. Before Stone’s sentencing, ed that, in two different ways, the LJN’s Business Crimes January 2021 Guidelines overstated Stone’s cul- what they did in the Stone case: even if untrue; the FBI already pability. The government also identifying reasons for why a knew the truth about Flynn’s calls argued that a within-the-range Guidelines sentence is too long. with the Russian officials and there sentence would be longer than Instead of only providing the was no ongoing investigation at sentences imposed in other tailored, nuanced sentencing the time of his interview. The gov- obstruction of justice cases, violat- analysis for friends of President ernment’s motion to dismiss has ing §3553(a)(6)’s direction to avoid Trump, such case-specific analysis not yet been decided, as the dis- “unwarranted sentencing dispari- by the government should be the trict court has appointed retired ties.” Finally, the government norm, and the government should judge John Gleeson as amicus cur- pointed to other factors individual advocate for below-the-range iae to assist in its determination to Stone as justifying a below-the- sentences in a broader array of about whether to grant the motion. range sentence, such as his age cases than it currently does. And As Judge Gleeson pointed out in (he was 68 years old), health, and district courts should challenge one of his filings, prosecutors rou- lack of a criminal record. In the prosecutors to treat ordinary tinely reject arguments similar to end, the district court varied down- defendants just as well as Stone the ones that it made in its motion ward to a sentence of 40 months’ was treated. If ordinary defendants to dismiss the Flynn case. Id. at imprisonment. were given this type of treatment, Dkt. No. 223 (June 10, 2020). The These same arguments should be sentencing in federal court would government’s legal position also considered in every federal sen- be fairer than it is today. seems to be contradicted by exist- tencing. The Guidelines are too ‘UNITED STATES V. MICHAEL FLYNN’ ing law. See, e.g., United States v. harsh and often overstate true cul- Michael Flynn was one of Moore, 612 F.3d 698. 701 (D.C. Cir. pability or work an unfairness in a President Trump’s top campaign 2010) (a statement is material if it given case. This is part of why, advisors and his initial national is “capable of affecting” the “gen- according to the U.S. Sentencing security advisor in January 2017. eral function” that a federal agen- Commission’s 2019 annual However, in November 2017, he cy was performing when the state- report, federal district judges in was charged in a criminal informa- ment was made to it). 2019 only imposed within-the- tion with making false statements What is more, DOJ often takes range sentences in 51.4% of the to the Federal Bureau of unduly aggressive positions in its cases before them for sentencing. Investigation (FBI) about conver- obstruction of justice prosecutions. In spite of this, DOJ rarely recom- sations he had with Russian gov- It has done so despite being told mends a sentence outside of the ernment officials. See, United over and over again by the Supreme Guidelines range in the typical States v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-00232, Court that it is improperly charg- case, except where the defendant is Dkt. No. 1 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2017). ing individuals and institutions a cooperating witness. Indeed, in Flynn pleaded guilty, became a with obstruction of justice. See, May 2017, Attorney General cooperating witness, and was Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Sessions confirmed that DOJ scheduled to be sentenced when Ct. 1101, 1108 (2018) (reversing policy counsels that “[i]n most he changed counsel and sought to conviction for violation of the tax cases, recommending a sentence withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at omnibus clause where broad inter- within the advisory guideline range Dkt. No. 151 (Jan. 14, 2020). While pretation “risk[s] the lack of fair will be appropriate” and prosecutors this motion was pending, DOJ warning and related kinds of are required to obtain supervisory filed a motion to dismiss the unfairness”); Yates v. United States, permission, with documented charges against Flynn. Id. at Dkt. 574 U.S. 528, 536 (2015) (rejecting reasoning, before suggesting a No. 198 (May 7, 2020). the government’s “unrestrained sentence outside of that range. The stated reason for the motion reading” of obstruction statute); These policies discourage and to dismiss is that Flynn’s false Arthur Andersen v. United States, prevent prosecutors from doing statements were not “material,” 544 U.S. 696, 703 (2006) (reversing LJN’s Business Crimes January 2021 conviction for obstruction and presenting novel arguments that propounds and enforces broad urging “restraint” in assessing the are at odds with those defense subpoenas in its many reach of obstruction statutes out attorneys are accustomed to hear- investigations. of concern that “fair warning” ing from DOJ lawyers when dis- CONCLUSION must be given to those who might cussing a subpoena. For example, In short, when viewed in the violate the law). Nothing suggests DOJ complained to the Supreme abstract, DOJ’s arguments in these that the Flynn prosecution ran Court that there were “serious afoul of any of these specific questions about the subpoena’s three cases about sentencing con- principles, but the Department of purpose” and stated that DANY siderations, prosecutorial over- Justice should be more mindful of “has not tailored [its] subpoena to reach, and overbroad subpoenas the risk of unfairness that a criminal investigation.” Trump v. are compelling. While President sometimes accompanies a free- Vance, No. 19-635, Brief for the Trump and his associates may not standing charge of obstruction of United States as Amicus Curiae be the appropriate beneficiaries of justice. When a district court Supporting Petitioner (Feb. 3, DOJ’s newfound skepticism of considers a novel argument about 2020). DOJ also criticizes DANY prosecutorial power, we should whether particular conduct should for not showing why it needs the not be so quick to urge a reversal be subject to an obstruction pros- records now as opposed to at on punitive grounds. Rather, crimi- ecution, it should remember DOJ’s some point in the future, or nal proceedings would be fairer if arguments about materiality in the explaining whether it could obtain the same consideration and open- Flynn case and hold DOJ to its evidence from other sources.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ) ) V
    Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) Crim. Action No. 19-0018 (ABJ) ) ROGER J. STONE, JR., ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUMOPINION INTRODUCTION On November 15, 2019, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in the case of United States v. Roger J. Stone. It found the defendant guilty of seven crimes: one count of obstructing a Congressional investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505; five separate counts of making a false statement to the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and tampering with a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Once the verdict had been returned,the jurors were officially released from the prohibition against discussing the case that had beenin effect during the trial. A week later, one of the jurors published a column in the Washington Post describing his experience. Likejurors everywhere,none of us asked for thisresponsibilitybut each of usacceptedit willingly. We served the propositionthat everyoneisentitled to a fair trial and that everyoneis innocentuntilprovenguilty. * * * The evidence in this case was substantialand almost entirely uncontested. We listened carefully to the testimony of a series of witnesses and carefullyexaminedevery element of every charge and its defense,and we unanimouslyagreedthat each had been provedbeyonda reasonabledoubt. * * * 1 Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 362 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 81 I am proud of our democratic institutions; their value was reaffirmed for me because of the process we went through and the respect we accorded it.
    [Show full text]
  • Contempt of Courts? President Trump's
    CONTEMPT OF COURTS? PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TRANSFORMATION OF THE JUDICIARY Brendan Williams* Faced with a letter from the American Bar Association (ABA) assessing him as “arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice,” Lawrence VanDyke, nominated by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, cried during an October 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.1 Republican senators dutifully attacked the ABA as liberally-biased.2 In a Wall Street Journal column, a defender of VanDyke assailed what he called a “smear campaign” and wrote that “[t]he ABA’s aggressive politicization is especially frustrating for someone like me, an active member of the ABA[.]”3 VanDyke was confirmed anyway.4 Contrary to Republican protestations, the ABA has deemed 97% of President Trump’s nominees to be “well qualified” or “qualified.”5 Indeed, in the most polarizing judicial nomination of the Trump Administration, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh’s defenders pointed to the ABA having rated him “well qualified” despite the association having once, in 2006, dropped his rating to “qualified” due to concerns about his temperament.6 *Attorney Brendan Williams is the author of over 30 law review articles, predominantly on civil rights and health care issues. A former Washington Supreme Court judicial clerk, Brendan is a New Hampshire long-term care advocate. This article is dedicated to his father Wayne Williams, admitted to the Washington bar in 1970. 1Hannah Knowles, Trump Judicial Nominee Cries over Scathing Letter from the American Bar Association, WASH. POST (Oct. 30, 2015). 2Id.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fascist Theory Behind Mark Penn
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 35, Number 16, April 18, 2008 perfected the manipulation of mass psychology, or “group dy- told Clinton that he must become a “fiscal conservative,” and namics,” in affiliation with the British Royal Family’s Tavis- move against the “entitlements” such as Social Security, or he tock Institute. Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, among others, would not be re-elected. drew upon the Bernays and le Bon work for much of the fas- On April 4, 2008, Penn apologized for “an error in judg- cist theory of crowd control. ment,” after being publicly exposed for working, as CEO of It was David Ogilvy’s WPP, through its subsidiary Hill & WPP’s Burson-Marsteller, on contract with the Colombian Knowlton, that in 1991 ran the “Iraqis kill Kuwaiti babies” government to promote George Bush’s Colombia-U.S.A. free campaign of deceit, to soften opposition to the invasion of Iraq trade treaty. Hillary Clinton was then in the closing weeks of that Thatcher had urged on President George H.W. Bush. the crucial Pennsylvania primary race, in which her stand In 2003, it was WPP, through its subsidiary BKSH—Rog- against free trade had become the central issue. er Stone’s old firm—that managed the Iraqi National Con- Two days later, on April 6, 2008, the London Daily Mail gress/Ahmed Chalabi campaign of lies behind British Prime disclosed that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown “is secret- Minister Tony Blair’s push for a new Iraq war. ly planning to headhunt the world’s most expensive polling ex- By this time, Mark Penn was chief executive of WPP’s pert in an attempt to revive his political fortunes.” The Daily worldwide subsidiary Burson-Marsteller, of which the old Mail commented that “Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-05-20 Roger Stone Interim
    DuCharme, Se·th (ODAG) From: DuCharme, Seth (ODAG) Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10: 17 PM To: Hovakimian, Patrick (ODAG) Cc: Rosen, Jeffrey A. (ODAG) Subject: Re: Stone sentencing I am tracking. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2020, at 9:03 PM, Hovakimian, Patrick {ODAG) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Papers a re due from the United States on Friday, according to Metcalf. > > Patrick Hovakimian > (b) (6) 0106 Document ID: 0.7.4262.5159 Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) From: Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMO} Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 1:59 PM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Re: I'm back in my office Meeting with my trial team. Will let you know when done. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:56 PM, Metcalf, David (ODAG} <[email protected]> wrote: I just stopped by. Where are you? Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:43 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron (USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: (b) (6) Sent from my iPhone On Feb 10, 2020, at 1:37 PM, Zelinsky, Aaron {USAMD) (b)(6) per EOUSA wrote: Dave, (b)(6) Best, Aaron 0117 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7445 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone's Sentencing Memo Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Eva ngelista, Alessio {USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Date: February 11, 2020 at 10:20:49 AM EST To: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John 0. (USADC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA Cc: "Metcalf, David (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Subject: Stone's Sentencing Memo 0124 Document ID: 0.7.4262.7444 Metcalf, David (USADC) From : Metcalf, David (USADC) Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 10:28 AM To: Metcalf, David {OOAG) Subject: Fwd: Stone sentencing memo Attachments: stone sentencing memo 2-10-20.docx; ATT0OOOl.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Cooney, Joseph (USADC)" (b )(6) per EOUSA Date: February 10, 2020 at 4:25:40 PM EST To: "Metcalf, David (USAOC)" , "Evangelista, Alessio {USAOC)" (b)(6) per EOUSA , "Crabb, John D.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:19-CR-00018-ABJ UNITED STATES of AMERICA, V. ROGER
    Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 141 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case No.: 1:19-CR-00018-ABJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ROGER J. STONE, JR., Defendant. ______________________________/ RESPONSE TO MINUTE ORDER ALLOWING RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR A HEARING (DKT. 136) Justice Breyer, concurring in part and dissenting in part in Iancu v. Brunetti, -- S.Ct. ---, 2019 WL 2570622 (June 24, 2019), wrote: “I would appeal more often and more directly to the values the First Amendment seeks to protect. As I have previously written, I would ask whether the regulation at issue ‘works speech-related harm that is out of proportion to its justifications.’ United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 730 (2012).” See, Opinion of Breyer, J., at *8. In Alvarez, Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the decision relating to the Stolen Valor Act concluded that “the statute as presently drafted works disproportionate constitutional harm.” Alvarez, 567, U.S. at 739 (Breyer, J. concurring). The government’s June 20, 2019 Motion For An Order To Show Cause And For A Hearing (Dkt. 136), is a disproportionate response to Roger Stone’s exercise of his First Amendment rights within the confines of this Court’s Order. The government, presenting several Instagram posts, writes: These posts are not the first statements that appear to have run afoul of the Court’s order. The government is bringing this matter to the Court’s attention now because Stone’s most recent posts 1 Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 141 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 11 represent a direct attempt to appeal to major media outlets to publish information that is not relevant to, but may prejudice, this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Doj's Arguments in Trump Litigation Should Benefit Other Defendants
    NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL SPECIAL REPORT White-Collar Crime WWW. NYLJ.COM VOLUME 264—NO. 102 MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2020 DOJ’s Arguments in Trump Litigation Should Benefit Other Defendants BY HARRY SANDICK AND JACOB TUttLE NEWMAN n the past year, we have seen the Department of Justice (DOJ), under I the direction of Attorney General William Barr, present arguments in sev- eral cases that implicate the conduct of either President Donald Trump or his close advisors. In this article, we consider certain positions taken by DOJ in cases involving Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and the subpoenas duces tecum issued by the New York District Attor- ney’s Office in connection with its inves- tigation into the Trump Organization. In each instance, DOJ has taken positions that diverge from the positions usually taken by DOJ prosecutors in ordinary they are friends with the president. This ‘United States v. Roger Stone’ criminal prosecutions. is why bar associations and former This has led to understandable criti- prosecutors have spoken out against Roger Stone, a longtime Republican cism: Why should DOJ treat President these steps. Rather than insist that operative and a friend and advisor of Trump or his advisors differently than the president’s associates be treated President Trump, was convicted of other defendants are treated? Equal jus- more harshly, we offer this modest pro- crimes relating to the obstruction of tice under law is the highest value of posal: Remedy the unequal treatment the Mueller investigation into Russian our legal system, and no one should by affording to all criminal defendants interference with the 2016 presidential receive preferential treatment because the same consideration accorded to election.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chronology Is Drawn from a Variety of Sources Including
    Chronology and Background to the Horowitz Report The chronology is drawn from a variety of sources including, principally, The Russia investigation and Donald Trump: a timeline from on-the-record sources (updated), John Kruzel, (Politifact, July 16, 2018). Spring 2014: A company, the Internet Research Agency, linked to the Kremlin and specializing in influence operations devises a strategy to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election by sowing distrust in both individual candidates and the American political structure. June 16, 2015: Donald Trump announces his candidacy for president. July 2015: Computer hackers supported by the Russian government penetrate the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer network. Summer and Fall of 2015: Thousands of social media accounts created by Russian surrogates initiate a propaganda and disinformation campaign reflecting a decided preference for the Trump candidacy. March 19, 2016: Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, falls victim to an email phishing scam. March 2016: George Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign as an adviser. While traveling in mid-March, Papadopoulos meets a London-based professor, Josef Mifsud, who Papadopoulos understands to have “substantial connections to Russian government officials.” March 21, 2016: Trump identifies Papadopoulos and Carter Page as members of his foreign policy team, in an interview with the Washington Post. March 29, 2016: Trump appointed Paul Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention for the Trump campaign. March 31, 2016: Following a meeting with Josef Mifsud in Italy, Papadopoulos tells Trump, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page and other campaign members that he can use his Russian connections to arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long New Right and the World It Made Daniel Schlozman Johns
    The Long New Right and the World It Made Daniel Schlozman Johns Hopkins University [email protected] Sam Rosenfeld Colgate University [email protected] Version of January 2019. Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association meetings. Boston, Massachusetts, August 31, 2018. We thank Dimitrios Halikias, Katy Li, and Noah Nardone for research assistance. Richard Richards, chairman of the Republican National Committee, sat, alone, at a table near the podium. It was a testy breakfast at the Capitol Hill Club on May 19, 1981. Avoiding Richards were a who’s who from the independent groups of the emergent New Right: Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, Paul Weyrich of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the direct-mail impresario Richard Viguerie, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and STOP ERA, Reed Larson of the National Right to Work Committee, Ed McAteer of Religious Roundtable, Tom Ellis of Jesse Helms’s Congressional Club, and the billionaire oilman and John Birch Society member Bunker Hunt. Richards, a conservative but tradition-minded political operative from Utah, had complained about the independent groups making mischieF where they were not wanted and usurping the traditional roles of the political party. They were, he told the New Rightists, like “loose cannonballs on the deck of a ship.” Nonsense, responded John Lofton, editor of the Viguerie-owned Conservative Digest. If he attacked those fighting hardest for Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts, it was Richards himself who was the loose cannonball.1 The episode itself soon blew over; no formal party leader would follow in Richards’s footsteps in taking independent groups to task.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump, Twitter, and the Russians: the Growing Obsolescence of Federal Campaign Finance Law
    3. FINAL GAUGHAN (DO NOT DELETE) 2/27/2018 5:43 PM TRUMP, TWITTER, AND THE RUSSIANS: THE GROWING OBSOLESCENCE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW ANTHONY J. GAUGHAN* I. INTRODUCTION The 2016 presidential campaign defied the conventional wisdom in virtually every regard. Donald Trump’s surprise victory disproved the polls and embarrassed the pundits in the biggest election upset since the 1948 Truman-Dewey race.1 But the 2016 election was more than a political earthquake. The campaign also made it starkly apparent that federal campaign finance law has become woefully outdated in the age of the internet, social media, and non-stop fundraising. A vestige of the post- Watergate reforms of the 1970s, the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) no longer adequately regulates the campaign finance world of twenty-first century American politics. The time has come for a sweeping reform and restructuring of the law. Since FECA’s adoption in the 1970s, federal campaign finance law has been built on four pillars. The first is contribution limits on donations to candidate campaigns and political party committees. Contribution limits are designed to reduce the role of money in politics by preventing large donors from corrupting elected officials. The second is the ban on foreign contributions to American political campaigns. The prohibition is intended to prevent foreign influence on American elections and to ensure that * Professor of Law, Drake University Law School; J.D. Harvard University, 2005; Ph.D. (history) University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2002; M.A. Louisiana State University, 1996; B.A. University of Minnesota, 1993. The author would like to thank Paul Litton and the University of Missouri Law School faculty for very helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article that the author presented at Mizzou Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump's New Face of Power in America
    Trump’s New Face of Power in America (updated and revised June 2021) Bob Hanke1 York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract: This article proposes that the advent of Trumpism was an historical moment of danger that compels us to analyze the micropolitics of the present. In the first part, I describe the constellation that gave rise to Trumpism. In the second part, I recall Goffman’s concept of face-work and discuss how it remains relevant for describing Trump’s aggressive face-work. In the third part, I take Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of faciality as a point of departure for understanding micro- fascism. As an abstract machine, Trump’s faciality engendered and diffused fascisizing micropolitics around a messenger/disrupter in chief. It worked in connection with a landscape and relative to a collective assemblage of enunciation that extracted a territory of perception and affect. In the micropolitics of the present, the defining feature of Trumpism was how the corrupt abuse of power and the counterforces limiting his potency collided on an ominous, convulsive political reality TV show that threatened US democracy. Keywords: Trumpism, face-work, faciality, assemblage, micropolitics, impeachment, coronavirus pandemic We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well. – Richard Hofstadter (1964) When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents,
    [Show full text]
  • Trumpismby Alexander Reid Ross
    Trumpismby Alexander Reid Ross itsgoingdown.org The following pieces were written by Alexander Reid Ross and originally published as a semi-regular column between Novem- ber 2015 and April 2016 on It’s Going Down. “Rethinking Tactics & Strategies” features contributions from Ben Jones. Alexander Reid Ross is a moderator of the Earth First! News- wire, a contributor to Life During Wartime: Resisting Counter-In- surgency and author of the forthcoming book Against the Fascist Creep (AK Press). Visit It’s Going Down for anarchist news and analysis. itsgoingdown.org I trump the populist II the making of an american fascist III propoganda of the deal IV conservative revolution V ...or get crushed everytime VI what hath the donald wrought? Finale rethinking tactics and strategies I Trump The Populist atthew Lyons’s recent piece On Trump, Fascism, and Stale Social Science Mon the blog Three Way Fight condemns the stream of reports linking current Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to fascism. Join- ing with Chip Berlet, who published a similar piece in Fairness and Accura- cy in Reporting (FAIR), Lyons declares that Trump is a right-wing populist, not a fascist, per se. For those of a diferent opinion, Lyons reserves blunt reprove, accusing them in the title of“Stale Social Science.” Since he links to my article, “Trump the Fascist,” published in Counterpunch on the same day David Duke commended the Don, I find his article merits response. Firstly, my article’s title is a broad stroke, which perhaps may have under- mined a careful reading of the actual article, itself.
    [Show full text]