Follow The Money Behind Anti-Abortion Laws

As the Supreme Court considers the future of abortion rights, anti-abortion lawmakers are getting corporate campaign dollars, writes Brennan Center Fellow Ciara Torres-Spelliscy.

Ciara Torres Spelliscy

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/follow-money-behind-anti-abortion-laws

Your favorite brands may well be funding lawmakers who wish to limit women’s reproductive rights. This issue has gained urgency as the Supreme Court considers abortion rights in a case called June Medical Services. Shortly before closing for COVID-19, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case challenging a Louisiana law that seeks to limit access to abortion in the state. Lawmakers in other predominantly red states have proposed similar measures that would restrict access to or eliminate abortion, such as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider (TRAP) laws and “heartbeat laws.” And many of these lawmakers receive campaign donations from name-brand corporations.

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, is eerily similar to one out of Texas that reviewed two aspects of a TRAP law, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. In that 2016 decision, the Supreme Court found that a rule requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges in hospitals was unconstitutional and created an undue burden on a woman’s right to access abortion care. Meanwhile, the Louisiana law under review in June Medical Services (known as Act 620) similarly involves a requirement for abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.

If the Supreme Court respects its own precedents, it should strike down the Louisiana law. However, pro-choice advocates are nervous that the Court will not only overrule Whole Woman’s Health, but that if it rules broadly enough, it will strike down parts of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established abortion rights under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Louisiana’s Act 620 is just one of many anti-abortion statutes that has been enacted in the last few years. In December 2019, Axios identified eight different states, including Louisiana, that enacted abortion restrictions that year. Most of these are so-called “heartbeat laws” that limit abortion to very early in pregnancy — so early, critics point out, that many women would not even know they were pregnant. (The Guttmacher Institute has published a comprehensive list of abortion restrictions.)

Where do these restrictive laws come from? They are introduced in state legislatures and, if passed, are signed into law by governors. But who is putting up the money to elect these state lawmakers?

The answer is complicated. Campaign finance rules for candidates in federal elections are different than those for state elections. Corporations are banned from contributing to federal candidates under the 1907 Tillman Act.

Meanwhile, each of the 50 states has its own campaign finance laws, and in roughly half of the states, corporations are allowed to donate to state candidates.

For example, the Louisiana law at issue in June Medical Services  was introduced by 51 state representatives and five state senators, including State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D) and State Sen. Almond Gaston “A.G.” Crowe (R), who were the bill’s lead sponsors. According to the National Institute on Money in Politics, many of Jackson’s top political donors are corporations, including publicly-traded companies. Crowe, the main Senate sponsor, had overlapping corporate donors with Jackson, including AT&T, Entergy, Exxon Mobil. In other words, these donors are using corporate funds to support anti-abortion lawmakers — many of whom are signatories to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law being challenged at the Supreme Court in June Medical Services.

During my research for this piece, Ultraviolet, an advocacy group that focuses on ending sexism, shared data about election spending in Louisiana in 2019 that it gathered with the help of Sustainable Investments Institute (Si2), a nonprofit focused on corporate governance issues. By their count, publicly traded companies contributed more than $400,000 to anti-choice candidates — both Democrats and Republicans — in Louisiana during the 2019 election. Louisiana elects its state government in off years. (The next election is in 2023.)

Other corporations that contributed to anti-abortion candidates in Louisiana in 2019 include retailers Amazon.com and Walmart; communications and technology companies CBS, CenturyLink, Comcast, Disney, Facebook, Honeywell, Microsoft, Sprint, and Verizon Communications; food companies Archer Daniels Midland and Coca-Cola; healthcare and insurance companies AFLAC, Amgen, Anthem, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Centene, CIGNA, DaVita, Eli Lilly, HealthCare Partners, Johnson & Johnson, HCA Healthcare, Humana, Pfizer, UnitedHealth Group, and WellCare Health Plans; energy companies American Electric Power, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, and Phillips 66; transportation companies Deere, General Motors, and Southwest Airlines; banks Capital One Financial and Citigroup; and a casino company, Las Vegas Sands.  

Some may argue that these companies did not know about these candidates’ stances on abortion. But that seems less likely with the 2019 election cycle in Louisiana, during which Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed a heartbeat bill into law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy on May 30, 2019. The heartbeat bill passed in the House with a 79­–23 vote and the Senate with a 31–5 vote in May as well, thus putting donors on notice about where he and many state legislators stood on the issue of reproductive freedoms by the November 2019 election. (Fortunately, a federal judge has put this six-week restriction on hold.)

This whole story from Louisiana is a microcosm of how corporate money can impact elections, and by extension the fate of constitutional rights and individual liberties. Did AT&T or any of these other corporate political donors want women’s reproductive rights curtailed? Hopefully not. But when giving money to politicians, corporations are in for a penny, in for pound.

If the Supreme Court limits women’s right to abortion in the June Medical Services case, it’s worth remembering that these laws don’t spring out of nowhere. Lawmakers with election coffers full of corporate money wrote these laws to limit women’s reproductive choices.

The views expressed are the author’s own and not necessarily those of the Brennan Center.

Corporate Media and it's Problems

https://www.pressenza.com/2022/04/how-corporate-media-has-put-the-american-public-in-a-state-of-ukraine-russia-psychosis/ 

There is a growing psychosis sweeping the U.S. around the Russian bombardment of Ukraine, and it is being triggered by the legacy news media. The steady stream of biased, often erroneous or incomplete information spewing from the establishment press is leading people to quickly choose sides in a complicated international conflict, waving flags in support of “their side,” fawning over global leaders, and even holding peaceful car parades in efforts to do what they think they can to prevent World War III. In the process, the context and details of the conflict, as well as its historic roots, are being pushed aside in favor of a kind of binary knee-jerk activism that is far too common in American political culture. Speaking out against Russian attacks on Ukraine and in support of the people there should not be difficult to understand or do. However, demanding that the U.S. take aggressive action, such as swiftly implementing a no-fly zone, displays a waning level of sophistication regarding international relations.

By Nolan Higdon

This is psychosis. According to WebMD, “[p]sychosis is a condition that affects the way your brain processes information. It causes you to lose touch with reality. You might see, hear, or believe things that aren’t real.… It can be triggered by… extreme stress or trauma.” Much of Americans’ recent stress about Russia-Ukraine germinated from legacy news media reporting. War coverage is good for news media profits. When it appeals to nationalism and villainizes international players, it excites and engagesaudiences. As a result, the jingoistic legacy news media often parrot the military-industrial complex, nudging voters into a national psychosis over foreign affairs. As the Intercept documented in mid-March 2022, rather than investigating pathways to peace or procedures for de-escalating the events in Ukraine, legacy news media reporters bombarded the White House with questions aimed at goading the nation into war.

The fear-laden reporting that led to American psychosis over Russia began six years prior, when the public was slowly and methodically conditioned by false and baseless legacy news media stories that claimed Russia had hacked a Vermont power plant; put a bounty on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan; shifted election outcomes around the world; and had compromised then-President Donald Trump with the infamous “pee tape.” This propaganda primed liberal audiences to blame Russia for everything they hated about Donald Trump’s presidency, and brilliantly distracted from the corporate news media and polling industry’s cataclysmic failureof predicting Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 Electoral College.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal and inexcusable invasion of Ukraine has provided a lucrative opportunity for the legacy news media to reignite and amplify more anti-Russian blather. None of this is to say that Russia or Putin should be defended in the press. Rather, American citizens, like any citizens in a supposed democracy, need context to understand global affairs, and the press is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of providing that context.

However, when it comes to reporting, the legacy news media privileges profit over veracity. Indeed, much of the legacy media’s revenue and many of its guests originate from the defense industry, which benefits financially when Americans are supportive of war. For example, in March of 2022, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson critiqued Russia on NBC’s Meet the Press, but the host, Chuck Todd, neglected to mention that Johnson sits on the board of global security and aerospace company Lockheed Martin. This is a clear conflict of interest that audiences should be made aware of when they consider Johnson’s analysis.

The privileging of pro-war messages comes at the expense of useful reporting. As a result, American audiences remain largely uninformed about key issues regarding international affairs. A 2019 survey conducted by Gallup that was commissioned by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the National Geographic Society (NGS) found that “[l]ess than half of the respondents were able to identify Afghanistan as the country” that provided safe haven to Al Qaeda before the September 11, 2001, attacks; and “[j]ust over half could identify Iraq on a map.” News media clearly plays a role in such ignorance, as the same survey found that “those who say they use books, magazines, or radio to keep on top of these issues and those who get their information from a wide range of sources scored better than their peers.” The corporate news media outlets provide almost no historical context for the events taking place in Ukraine, such as the peace process laid out in the 2014 and 2015 Minsk agreements, the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, or the U.S. reneging on its promise—which was supported by Great Britain and France—to not expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into Eastern Europe that eventually influenced Putin’s recent foreign policy decisions.

Instead, news media outlets rely on inaccurate historical narratives such as claiming that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Union, when in fact he blames the shift to communism for the decline of Russia. Furthermore, the legacy news media have set up a binary narrative of good versus evil—Russia versus Ukraine—which provides no nuance to this complex situation. It is possible to oppose the leadership and behavior of both Russia and Ukraine: The former is an opponent of civil rights and democracy with imperialist ambitions, and the latter is ruled by a government that came to power not through democratic means, but by a U.S.-backed coup that worked in tandem with known neo-Nazis, who are still part of the military there. This brand of reporting does not position people to understand the impact that policy proposals will have on their material conditions, let alone foreign affairs.

There was a similar disconnection from reality in the months prior to the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq. Otherwise rational people were endorsing severe actions such as invading and occupying a nation because it allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and that their leader was a madman, like Hitler, who needed to be stopped. The WMDs turned out to be fake news propagated by the U.S. government under Republican President George W. Bush, and endorsed by members of the Democratic Party such as then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. For their part, the corporate news media endorsed the invasion and perpetuated the fake news that legitimized it. Most politicians in the two corporate-backed political parties endorsed it as well.

The similarities do not stop there. Just as in 2003 when Americans renamed french fries to freedom fries—due to France not supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq—American citizens in 2022 are banning vodka and renaming drinks with Russian-themed names such as the Moscow mule. Just as citizens rallied around the U.S. flag in 2003, they are now parading the Ukrainian flag. Just as anti-war figures like Jesse Ventura, Phil Donahue, Bill Maher, and Chris Hedges were pulled from legacy news media in 2003, corporate news and big tech have recently worked to remove content by anti-war and anti-imperialist figures such as Oliver Stone, Abby Martin, and—once again—Chris Hedges, who this time around lost his platform with Roku, DirecTV, and YouTube, which removed access to the archives of RT America, both from cable subscription services and online.

Meanwhile, the very same people who lied to the public and got them to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq are now “informing” the public about Ukraine and Russia. This includes journalists such as Stephen Hayes of NBC, who appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on March 27, 2022, as a voice of expertise to contextualize Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Back in 2004, Hayes engendered support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Qaeda. On February 27, 2022, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and presidential speechwriter David Frum appeared in legacy news media as foreign policy experts. While serving in Bush’s administration, both utilized the legacy media as a megaphone to propagandize the American public into supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This was achieved by perpetuating the baseless claims that Iraq had WMDs and was colluding with Al Qaeda. Despite the fact that these claims were proven false after the invasion, those who perpetuated the falsehoods continue to appear as expert sources on foreign policy in corporate media. These are the same people who incorrectly predicted that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators” in Iraq.

Rather than hold these officials accountable and cite their waning credibility as grounds to replace them with more credible sources, corporate news media pundits excuse their behavior. For example, Charlie D’Agata of CBS News excused the invasion of Iraq as compared to current events in Eastern Europe because Ukraine was more “civilized” than Iraq (he later apologized). He was not alone in his delineation between worthy and unworthy victims of war across establishment media.

A democratic foreign policy requires measured responses and strategic decisions, especially when the potential for nuclear war remains very real. However, thanks to the failures of the press, the American public is poorly positioned to shape those decisions. Instead, they are bombarded with propaganda in the form of trivial talking points masquerading as journalism. If you want to stop World War III, rather than cutting out Moscow mules, remove legacy news media from your diet, and expand your news menu with broader, more independent and diverse perspectives and information. Our collective future depends upon it.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Nolan Higdon is an author and university lecturer of history and media studies. Higdon’s areas of concentration include podcasting, digital culture, news media history, and critical media literacy. Higdon is a founding member of the Critical Media Literacy Conference of the Americas. He is the author of The Anatomy of Fake News, and he recently co-authored The Podcaster’s Dilemma with Nicholas Baham III and Let’s Agree to Disagree with Mickey Huff. He is a longtime contributor to Project Censored’s annual book, Censored. His work has appeared on Truthout and CounterPunch, and he has been interviewed by the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous television news outlets.

A Nation In Collapse

 

The Beginning of the End

Stranger In A Strange Land was a 1961 science fiction book written by Robert Heinlein which told the story of a human raised by Martians who came to Earth and began struggling to understand human culture.

This morning following racist, fascist dictator Trump's almost two hour long "State of the Union" speech last night I think I feel very much a stranger in my own country.  And I fear it only gets worse from this point forward.

Almost 50 percent of Americans cant comprehend above a sixth grade level and it was these voters who helped destroy American democracy as it has been known.  Most political observers are finally saying what many Americans have known - we are now officially a totalitarian state, democracy out the window and instead of a president we have a dictator running the country.

Even if Democrats swept the mid-term elections it does not mean Trump and his cult of personality and goons would go away.  Any future action that Democrats or Independents may take to aright the ship would face the Trump appointed Supreme Court which, until they age out, will continue just what the Trumpsters have put in place.  

Unless it hits them most Americans have no idea what is really happening and most could care less - much like the Germans prior and during WWII who did not or would not face the realities of the Nazi movement.

Under most authoritarian states citizens adapt and go about "normal" lives - whether under political or religious tyrants. 

I fear what we are seeing is truly the beginning of the end of America and the creation of another copy of Russia or North Korea.