Tapped: The Prospect Group Blog

On Minimum Wage, Put Hillary Down for $12 (Nationally)

At a campaign event in Iowa on Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton officially established a clear difference between her and the two remaining Democratic presidential contenders. She declared her support for raising the federal minimum wage to $12. “That would be setting it at a level that would be equivalent to the point in our history where the minimum wage was at its highest,” (which was 1968) Clinton said.

Her rivals, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, both support the labor movement’s call for a $15 federal minimum, which has already taken hold in a number of big American cities.

Clinton’s support for a more modest minimum wage hike is not surprising. She has long said that she thinks a national $15 standard isn’t flexible enough to work in rural areas and cities with lower costs of living. She backs a higher wage in more high-cost locales.

Her plan fits into—and helps define—the Democratic mainstream. As I’ve previously reported, a $12 federal minimum wage has emerged as the Congressional Democrats’ plan. In early summer, Senator Patty Murray and Representative Robert Scott introduced legislation for a $12 minimum, which garnered support from such prominent Democrats as Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi. (Pelosi, however, has since come out in support of a $15 minimum).

While most labor unions publicly call for a $15 minimum wage, it has not been a deciding factor in the endorsement decisions of the major unions that have already thrown their support to Clinton. The most notable union that has so far withheld an endorsement is SEIU, which has invested huge sums in its nationwide Fight for 15 efforts. The union says that it’s still conducting its endorsement process and hasn’t been clear on what policy factors will be considered.

Clinton’s minimum wage policy decision may be indicative of her looking ahead to the general election. According to a recent survey, there’s broad support for raising the minimum wage to $12.50 by 2020. It polls well across party lines, too: 92 percent of Democrats support it while 73 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans back it as well. And in Tacoma, Washington, on Tuesday, voters approved a ballot measure to increase the minimum wage to $12, while rejecting a competing measure to up the minimum to $15 for employees of bigger businesses.

Though a $15 minimum enjoys 63 percent of national support, the move is riskier politically. Economists are divided over how high a minimum wage the economy can handle. There’s rather strong evidence that the economy can handle incremental increases to something close to $12. A statement released by a group of 200 economists, however, discounted the risks of raising the standard to $15.

While Clinton’s campaign has been tacking to the left on a number of issues in response to the surging popularity of Sanders’s progressive policies, it seems that her team is confident that staking out her support for $12 is not going to hurt her in the primaries. 

Labor and Climate Groups Blast TPP as Full Text is Released

The United States Trade Representative released the full text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership today, one month after negotiators finalized the massive 12-nation pact in Atlanta. The release kicks off a 90-day window before President Obama can sign the deal and turn it over to Congress for approval.

In a statement released today on Medium, Obama said the deal “puts American workers first,” and claims it represents “the strongest labor standards in history” and “the strongest environmental standards in history.” Supporters like Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, have pointed to provisions like the bilateral labor rights agreement between the U.S. and Vietnam as proof that TPP puts workers first. The agreement would purportedly ensure basic workplace standards and organizing rights among Vietnamese workers.

But experts and activists on the left have had a somewhat different first impression. Within hours of the text’s release, leading environmental, labor, and civil liberties groups blasted the deal for its lackluster provisions on workers rights, climate change, and human rights.

“We now have concrete evidence that the Trans-Pacific Partnership threatens our families, our communities, and our environment,” said Sierra Club President Michael Brune in a statement released today. In its initial review of the pact, the Sierra Club pointed to the pact’s failure to outlaw illegal trade in plants and animals, illegal fishing, or commercial whaling, all of which remain critical conservation issues for TPP signatories Peru, Vietnam, Japan, and Singapore. At the same time, the TPP gives corporations the power to roll back existing environmental regulations through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, the group added. The statement from Sierra also noted that, amazingly, the final text does not once mention climate change.

Jason Kowalski, policy director at 350.org, went further. “The TPP is an act of climate denial,” he said today in a statement. “While institutions across the planet are divesting from fossil fuels, the TPP would double down on the industry’s destructive business model.” Like Sierra, 350.org also expressed alarm at what an expanded ISDS system could do to local environmental regulations. “In short, these rules undermine countries’ ability to do what scientists say is the single most important thing we can do to combat the climate crisis: keep fossil fuels in the ground,” Kowalski said.

Experts like Human Rights Watch’s John Sifton have also cast doubt on provisions like the labor rights agreement with Vietnam. “It is not enforceable in practice,” he told The New York Times today. Sifton pointed out that, unlike corporations, workers in Vietnam will have no rights to bring complaints against countries or companies to the newly-empowered investor-state dispute bodies. He also alluded to the U.S. Trade Representative’s poor record on workers’ rights in previous trade pacts.

The view from the American labor movement has been no rosier. The Communications Workers of America, one of the first major unions to respond publicly to the deal, expressed concern today about what the ISDS process could mean for labor and environmental laws in the U.S. The CWA also noted that while hundreds of official trade advisers—mostly representing business—had a direct hand in the TPP’s six-year negotiation, the public is given just a 90-day review.

On Twitter, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters noted that the TPP includes no penalties for human trafficking, while also pointing out that Vietnam has a full five years to implement its much-touted labor policies, and that enforcement will likely be minimal.

This sentiment was echoed by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who also lamented the “expansive new legal rights and powers” corporations may soon use to challenge existing workplace, environmental, and financial protections. Trumka also noted that as the TPP was being negotiated, “our policy recommendations and those of our trade reform allies in the environmental, consumer, public health, global development, and business sectors were largely ignored.”

As The Washington Post has reported, the TPP’s negotiation process has long been heavily lopsided toward major corporations and away from labor, environmental, and citizen’s groups. Out of 566 official trade advisers, 480 have represented corporations and trade groups while less than 30 have represented organized labor. Over the past six years, the AFL-CIO alone has requested more than 100 specific changes in the TPP’s wording, but has little to show for it. As the AFL-CIO put it in a 2014 statement, “because the U.S. government treats trade deals differently than all other policies—it is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.”

All that being said, TPP is far from a done deal. With the pact headed to Congress it will face an uphill battle from populist wings in both parties. At the same time, the TPP has also faced strong criticism from leading White House contenders Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump, who may help shape the conversation as Congress prepares to vote.  

The Keystone Effect

Just hours after the White House indicated it would make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline by the end of Obama’s second term, TransCanada made a sharp left on its years-long effort to quickly secure approval. Perhaps sensing that the Obama administration was poised to kill the project (turns out, they were probably right), yesterday TransCanada sent a letter to the State Department asking that it suspend its review of Keystone and instead wait until the next administration takes office in 2017. The move has been widely interpreted as a punt, intended to stave off a decision in case a friendlier president takes office—like, say, a Republican.

Keystone opponents, from 350.org to the Sierra Club to Bold Nebraska, were quick to declare a hard-won victory in the fight to stop a project that James Hansen famously warned would mean “game over for the climate.” But, as activists like Bill McKibben have long been stressing, this decision is not just about Keystone. It’s about a dramatic change in the public perception of fossil-fuel projects and their impact on the planet.

At an event held by America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) this past May, ANGA President Marty Durbin outlined a new and growing problem facing his industry: grassroots opposition. “Call it the Keystone-ization of every pipeline project that’s out there,” he said. “These are things that pipeline developers have had to deal with for a long time. But we’ve seen a change in the debate.”

The difference, added Dominion Energy President Diane Leopold, has been the rise of “high intensity opposition” to pipeline projects. “It is becoming louder, better funded, and more sophisticated,” she said.

At the time of the event, ANGA and its supporters were under a lot of pressure. Dominion Energy’s Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), a $5 billion project crossing three states and 550 miles, had inspired a uniquely diverse opposition of climate activists, conservative landowners, and prominent Republican officials. As Politico reports, the anti-ACP campaign includes heavyweights like former Bush 41 staffer Tom Harvey, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and financial services lobbyist Phil Anderson, along with climate groups like 350.org and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Such a diverse alliance has a direct parallel in anti-Keystone activism, particularly in how Bold Nebraska has built a broad-based campaign of conservative landowners opposed to eminent domain and climate activists opposed to dirty tar sands. And that opposition has only grown. With the ACP far from finalized, local opposition has pushed Dominion to sue dozens of landowners who wanted no part in the project, while also adjusting its route a number of times due to environmental concerns.  

Proposed projects in the Northeast and upper Midwest have met similarly stiff opposition from climate groups and landowners. In Minnesota, Enbridge’s $2.6 billion Sandpiper Pipeline, slated to snake across the state’s northern region, has run into hard resistance from landowners, environmental activists, and tribal groups, particularly the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. Opponents have cited a lack of formal hearings in the pipeline’s development as well as Enbridge’s decidedly poor record of oil spills in the region. The pipeline remains about a year behind schedule.

As Elana Schor reports for Politico, “Keystone has changed the politics of pipelines nationwide, offering a template that activists from New England to Minnesota and Wisconsin are using to grind projects to a halt.”

And of course companies like Dominion and Enbridge are far from the only targets. In fact, the same week Durbin warned about “Keystone-ization” the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government body in charge of issuing permits for new pipeline projects, was forced to reschedule its annual meeting in Washington after warnings from law enforcement about impending protests.

To be sure, the battle over Keystone isn’t over. As activists acknowledge, even if Obama rejects the pipeline, TransCanada can resubmit its application under a new administration. But it does seem like the ground underneath projects like this has begun to shift.

Judge Issues Restraining Order After an L.A. Charter Network Interfered with Teachers Union Drive

Drama has escalated for teachers organizing at the Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, the largest charter network in Los Angeles. Since the teachers, organizing with United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), first went public with their union drive in March, they allege the administration has erected illegal barriers to organizing, including intimidating their employees. (Alliance denies these accusations, though some of their leaked internal communications certainly suggest they are opposed to the effort. For example, one memo instructed management to keep their statements focused on “the potentially negative effects of UTLA and any union on fulfilling the school’s mission.”)

Union leaders have filed four unfair labor practice complaints against Alliance, claiming that that administrators have sought to spy on teachers who are organizing, and block UTLA organizers from coming on campus, among other things. Teachers also took issue with Alliance using “funds that could be used for student education to hire high-priced PR consultants, to create an anti-union website.” Towards the end of the 2014-2015 school year, the California Charter Schools Association started to pay Alliance alumni to call parents at home, in order to help galvanize them against the union effort. Part of the script that alumni were asked to read said, “We are asking parents to sign a petition in support of the Alliance as it is today…without UTLA. Will you please sign our petition?”

“Paying alumni to read a script designed to get parents to sign a petition against their own students’ teachers infuriates me,” said Michael Letton, an Alliance teacher, in an UTLA statement.

Alliance’s spokesperson, Catherine Suitor insists that everything the charter network has done in response to the union effort “is to the letter of the law” and says they would not seek to create a coercive or hostile environment.

Two weeks ago, California’s state labor board announced that it would be issuing an injunction, calling for Alliance administrators to quit interfering with the organizing efforts. Then on Friday, in a surprising move, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a restraining order against the Alliance administrators. The order says that Alliance cannot coerce or ask teachers about their positions on unionization, must allow organizers to come onto school grounds, cannot block emails from the union, and must stay 100 feet away from UTLA organizers.

This restraining order will remain in place until November 17, when the judge considers the state labor board’s injunction request. Union organizers will now be allowed to enter into school buildings after school hours.

In March, 70 teachers first announced their intent to join a union, and by June, 146 teachers had signed on in support. Shaun Richman, AFT’s deputy director of organizing, says the current number stands at 124 teachers, after losing some supporters over the summer who no longer work at Alliance. Forming a union will require 50 percent-plus-one of the charter’s roughly 600 teachers to sign on in support.

Earlier this fall, news leaked that the Broad Foundation seeks to enroll at least 50 percent of L.A. public school students in charter schools over the next eight years. Currently, about 16 percent of students in the district attend charters. Such an expansion would undoubtedly threaten the jobs of many unionized teachers in the district.

While the Broad Foundation’s charter expansion plan would require about 5,000 teachers, their documents make no mention of recruiting from teachers already working for L.A. Unified. It does discuss recruiting from Teach for America and other alternative teacher training programs. “While TFA is important, we predict they can provide just 15 percent of our total need,” the report stated. “In order to significantly narrow the teacher recruitment and training gap, we will need other providers like the Relay Graduate School of Education or TNTP (formerly known as The New Teacher Project to come to Los Angeles.” The report estimates that training for new teachers for their charter expansion plan will cost about $43 million over the eight-year period.

According to The Los Angeles Times, the number of teachers in the district has shrunk to about 25,6000 over the last six years, down from about 32,300. The district says that half that decrease is due to the growth of charter schools.

Oh Yeah, Tomorrow Is Election Day: A Preview of Ballot Measures in Four States

While coverage of the 2016 presidential election (which is still 12 months away) ramps up, it’s easy to forget that tomorrow is still Election Day. The national political stakes may not be high, but there are a number of ballot measures that could have resounding impacts on state and city-level politics.

Here’s a quick preview of some of the initiatives that voters across the country will be considering:

Maine

Campaign-finance rules could be drastically changed if Maine voters approve Question 1 on the ballot. Backed by a grassroots coalition of good-government advocates, the measure would bolster the state’s public campaign-funding system to better compete with increases in outside spending, increase penalties for those who violate campaign-finance laws, and work to shine a light on dark money. Here’s a good explainer on the measure from the Bangor Daily News.

Voters in Portland, the state’s biggest city, will also consider a measure that would increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Portland’s city council recently voted to raise the city’s minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Critics have vehemently argued that the city’s economy cannot handle an increase to $15, while supporters say it’s necessary for workers to earn a living wage.

Washington

Seattle residents will consider tomorrow whether to institute an innovative public campaign-finance system that would give voters $100 in vouchers, to distribute to candidates as they see fit. This would be a big victory for campaign-finance reformers who see vouchers as a promising way to get big-money influence out of politics.

On the other side of the state, in Spokane, a bold new Worker Bill of Rights would unilaterally improve conditions for the city’s workers. As In These Times has reported, the ballot measure would increase the minimum wage, guarantee equal pay for equal work, protect against wrongful termination, and prioritize worker rights over corporate rights.

Statewide, Washingtonians will decide on a controversial tax measure that critics say amounts to nothing more than “legislative blackmail.” Long-time anti-tax crusader Tim Eyman is backing the initiative, which would cut the state’s sales tax by 1 percent if the legislature doesn’t reinstate a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds majority to pass any tax hike.

Ohio

Ohioans will vote on two major ballot measures tomorrow—one that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana and another that would make the state’s redistricting process bipartisan.

Many marijuana-legalization advocates are skeptical of the ballot initiative, given that deep-pocketed investors who stand to gain a monopoly over commercial growing rights are bankrolling the measure. Another measure on the Ohio ballot aims to nullify the legalization initiative, if it passes.

Also on the ballot is a measure that would work to reduce political gerrymandering in the state’s redistricting process. The current system uses a five-member partisan board that critics say has created district borders that reduce the power and representation of minorities across the state. The measure would reform the system by creating a seven-member board appointed in a more bipartisan manner.

Mississippi

As a state that is perennially on the bottom of national education rankings, voters in Mississippi will decide on a measure that advocates say is an attempt to improve education standards by changing the way the state funds public schools. The measure would force the legislature to adhere to a 1997 state law that was meant to increase public-school funding allotments. However, the law’s funding formula has only been met twice. If this measure is passed, lawmakers would be required to fully fund public schools, or relinquish their power to a county judge.

From campaign finance and tax reform to public-education funding and minimum wages, these are all likely to be central to the 2016 presidential election. And tomorrow, we’ll get a peak at how some possible policy solutions fare with voters. 

Eliza Newlin Carney to Join The American Prospect

Eliza Newlin Carney joins The American Prospect as a senior editor on November 9. Carney joins the Prospect from a post as a senior writer and columnist for CQ Roll Call, where she covers lobbying, influence and political money.

Before joining CQ Roll Call in 2011, Carney worked at National Journal, where she also wrote a column and focused on money and influence. She is best known for coining the term "super PAC," and brings broad editorial experience in magazines, breaking news, blogging and commentary to the post.

“I am thrilled to be joining the Prospect and its talented staff,” said Carney. “This is a key moment for the progressive movement, and the Prospect is uniquely positioned to inform it.”

Politicians Are Still Using Black Lives Matter as a Scare Tactic

In his appearance this past Sunday on Face the Nation, Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie resurrected one of his favorite talking points when he argued that Barack Obama’s recent comments “justifying” Black Lives Matter were “encouraging lawlessness in this country.”

The New Jersey governor was referring to a statement Obama made at the end of last week’s White House forum on criminal justice reform, when as The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery reported, he said that the movement to end racial bias in policing has raised “a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

Over the past year, a growing chorus of conservative pundits and politicians has railed against Black Lives Matter, often framing the movement as an anti-police crusade aimed at inciting violence. These condemnations usually appear after the deaths of police officers or outbursts of highly charged language at protests, but the evidence that the perpetrators possess any substantial connection to Black Lives Matter has ranged from slight to nonexistent. As Vox’s German Lopez pointed out last month, it’s unlikely that BLM would get very far if it actually advocated for anti-police violence since “targeting individual officers does nothing to achieve the movement's broader goals, and in fact may detract from them.”

That bit of logic hasn’t stopped Christie (or Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz, or the now dropped-out Scott Walker, for that matter) from mischaracterizing Black Lives Matter on the 2016 campaign trail. But given that candidates in the still-bloated GOP field are looking for a way to distinguish themselves, the move makes political sense, even if the numbers aren’t there to support it.

Placing Black Lives Matter activists in direct opposition to police officers without any factual support has become unsettlingly common. In a speech on Friday, FBI director James Comey expressed his belief that “a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year” has negatively impacted police officers’ ability to do their jobs. It was a statement that appeared to lend credibility to the controversial (and highly speculative) “Ferguson effect,” which argues that video-recording technology and heightened scrutiny of police officers by the public has simultaneously disempowered police officers and emboldened criminals. And while a new study from the Justice Department finds that “the proportion of fatal attacks on officers attributable to ambushes [is] increasing,” the study ends its data collection at 2013—before the Ferguson protests and the emergence of Black Lives Matter.

Comey’s remarks (which he repeated on Monday) have been heavily scrutinized, and The New York Times reported that the White House quickly distanced itself from Comey. Over at The Atlantic, David Graham exposed the fundamental flaw in arguments like Comey’s: “If the Ferguson effect is real, and the current system can only provide security by means of questionable policing in communities of color, then American policing is much more troubled than its defenders have been willing to admit.” In a separate Atlantic article, Ta-Nehisi Coates added, “A theory of government which tells citizens to invest agents of the state with the power to mete out lethal violence, but discourages them from holding those officers accountable is not democracy.”

That’s one point Comey and the 2016 GOP contenders would be wise to remember. But it’s highly unlikely that the message will stick. 

The Crazier Ben Carson's Statements Are, the Higher His Poll Numbers Go

Yesterday on Meet the Press, GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson told host Chuck Todd that women who have abortions are like slave owners. As delusional as that comparison is, it’s unlikely that it’ll derail his candidacy—in fact, it’ll probably just push him even further into the lead. With every bizarre, racist, or sexist Donald Trump comment, pollsters were predicting his demise, but Trump continued to do well in polls. And it looks Ben Carson is about to follow that trajectory.

The neurosurgeon turned right-wing fringe candidate is polling at 28 percent in Iowa, where the first round of votes will be cast—a healthy nine points above Trump. If this were 20 years ago, Carson’s penchant for comparing anything and everything to slavery or Nazi Germany would disqualify him from running for president of a tin-foil-hat club, let alone president of the United States. But this is no regular election.

In the latest Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics poll, Iowa Republicans were asked to rate how attractive they found Carson’s candidacy, based on some of his more bizarre statements. Eighty-one percent of responders found his comparison of the Affordable Care Act to slavery “very attractive” or “mostly attractive.” Seventy-three percent liked that he raised questions about whether or not a Muslim should be president of the United States, and 77 percent were onboard when he said that if Jews had been armed, Hitler wouldn’t have been able to kill so many people.  

In this election, crazy statements are rewarded with higher poll numbers. As Paul Waldman wrote in the Prospect, the Republican Party has spent so much of the last six years or so riling up its base and making people angry with the establishment, that the doors are now wide open for outsiders. These outsiders’ campaigns against career politicians have worked so well, a man who has never held a position in government and who believes that making health care more affordable is tantamount to American slavery is the newest frontrunner.

 

 

 

 

 

After Public Pressure, Clinton Swears Off Private-Prison Lobby’s Money

This morning, Hillary Clinton’s campaign told Fusion that she would no longer accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists or private-prison companies and said that her campaign will donate any previously raised money from private-prison lobbyists to charity.

As Jorge Rivas reports, the announcement comes after growing pressure from criminal justice reformers on Clinton and other presidential candidates to denounce the controversial—and politically powerful—industry.

Clinton had previously relied on lobbyists for private-prison companies as fundraising bundlers. In July, Lee Fang reported for The Intercept that one Clinton bundler who was a registered lobbyist with Geo Group—a company that operates a number of private jails and immigrant detention centers in the country—had raised $45,000 for her campaign. Another five bundlers were lobbyists at a firm that worked for Corrections Corporation of America, which is another infamous private prison giant.

Those two private-prison companies alone given more than $10 million to candidates and spent more than $25 million on lobbying since 1989. 

The private-prison industry has already become a surprisingly significant part of the presidential election. Republicans often tout the industry as a cost-effective solution to prison overcrowding while Democrats blast them for abysmal conditions for prisoners and pay-to-play influence over criminal justice reform.

Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation recently that would ban federal private prisons.

On the other hand, Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio has long had close ties to the industry, and was the biggest Senate beneficiary of contributions from Geo. The company has already cut a $100,000 check to Rubio’s super PAC.

Billionaire Makes $150 Million Threat to Get Congress to Cut Corporate Tax Rate

Yesterday, billionaire Carl Icahn, who has made his fortune as a ruthless corporate raider, issued a clear demand to Congress: cut corporate tax rates or face a whirlwind of outside spending from his new $150 million super PAC.

“I believe the time has come to also hold Senators and Congressmen accountable for the current gridlock in Congress that prevents important legislation from being passed,” Icahn wrote. “This is why I’m currently preparing to form a Super PAC with an initial commitment of $150 million from me personally.”

As Paul Blumenthal reports for The Huffington Post, Icahn wants Congress to pass legislation that would allow corporations to bring home at a huge tax discount the $2 trillion that’s currently being stashed in tax havens. Not coincidentally, Icahn is one of the biggest investors in Apple, which most notoriously keeps nearly $200 billion in profits abroad.

The billionaire argues that new policy framework advanced by Senators Rob Portman and Chuck Schumer would discourage the controversial practice of “corporate inversions,” in which a company acquires a foreign entity and then transfers its central business operations to that entity—thus avoiding domestic corporate taxes. However, Blumenthal notes that their proposal would allow corporations to funnel money back into the country at an obscenely low one-time tax rate, and that there are several other ways—such as a proposal from Senator Dick Durbin—to avoid such corporate inversions.

In order to twist the arm of Congress members who can fast-track the legislation, Icahn has brazenly threatened to dump millions to unseat them in their next elections. Obviously, this has angered good-government advocates.

“As surely as billionaires like to own sports teams as a form of conspicuous consumption,” Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said, “we can expect them increasingly to fund personal super PACs as a form of self-aggrandizement—as well as to drive forward policies on everything from taxation to gambling to advance their own bottom lines.”

That Icahn even has the ability to dole out such a threat is a clear testament to the erosion of campaign-finance law in the wake of Citizens United. And if Icahn’s strategy works, it’ll be the starkest rebuttal of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s deciding opinion from that case, in which he boldly wrote, “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Pages