About Mike Crawford

Posts by Mike Crawford:

Mueller, Barr & Trump

More than two years into a turbulent Trump presidency, it sometimes has seemed like the only constant has been the slow hum of Special Counsel Robert Mueller III’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. So far, for more than a year and a half, the probe has endured sustained attacks from the president and his allies in Congress and conservative media. For months the Special Counsel’s office has operated as if it could be shut down at any time. At last, reports indicate that Mueller’s investigation may be coming to a close as the Justice Department has begun preparing for a completed Mueller report as some time in the coming weeks.

It seems that a report will be coming soon, but how much of that report will be seen by Congress, let alone made public, hinges almost entirely on the discretion of the newly confirmed attorney general William Barr. Barr has repeatedly stated that he will not deviate from standard department practices regarding disclosure of conduct that does not lead to the filing of criminal charges. This decision carries shades of the kinds of partisan politics the Justice Department is supposed to refrain from, as the Washington Post reports that many in President Trump’s inner circle believe the report may contain information that is politically damaging but falls short of criminal conduct.

This means that not even Congress will get to know the extent to which the president’s involvement in the affairs being investigated unless the Special Counsel recommends that formal criminal charges be filed. Coupled with the Justice Department’s long-standing policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, this suggests that what Barr may relay from the report to Congress and therefore the public may contain no mention of President Trump’s role in the report’s findings at all. This is unacceptable. The American people deserve to know the facts of the Special Counsel’s report whichever way they may swing.

This begs the question, what comes next? There are a number of possible avenues, as this will not likely be the end of the Trump-Russia saga. There are several key points to keep in mind:

  • This could be the end of the Special Counsel’s “Russian collusion” investigation, but there are no signs it will be the end of the multitude of other investigations into Trump businesses, the Trump campaign, and the Trump administration. For instance, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff recently re-opened an investigation into the Trump family’s financial ties abroad, and the Southern District of New York continues to look into financial matters as well.
  • Relatedly, Mueller may have passed evidence of certain wrongdoing outside of the scope of his mandate to state-level prosecutors or other departments at the FBI. The Mueller probe’s investigation is mandated, strictly, to investigate Russia’s role in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign played a role in it, and to investigate whether the president may have obstructed justice. If he uncovered evidence of potential criminal activity that fell outside of those bounds, Mueller may have felt that other investigators were better- or more appropriately-positioned to pursue those leads. There is no guarantee that the possible end of the Mueller probe implies the end of all criminal investigation into Trump businesses, the Trump campaign, and the Trump administration.
  • The New York Times Speculates that Mueller’s report may serve as a roadmap of sorts for Democratic house committees and future investigators
  • A lack of indictments does not rule out the possibility (or probability) of ethical or legal violations outside of the special counsel’s purview. The president is currently being investigated in several other mediums

The recently introduced bipartisan Special Counsel Transparency Act (S.236) would mandate that the Special Counsel’s report be released in its entirety (with redactions made for national security purposes). Unfortunately, the bill is unlikely to see a vote in Congress before the Mueller report is completed. We must not let William Barr and the Justice Department bury the findings of the probe. The dangers of allowing a presidential appointee to decide what details are and are not relevant in an investigation into the man who appointed him cannot be overstated. It should be up to Congress and the public to draw whatever conclusions that they may from the facts of the report alone.

chamber2

A Facade of Bipartisanship

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently announced that it would be changing the criteria by which it grades and endorses congressional candidates to include efforts at bipartisanship. The Chamber’s change of heart ostensibly comes from its belief that legislative gridlock has gotten out of hands and is hurting American business. This comes on heels of the longest government shutdown in history, which the Chamber was vehemently opposed to. The reality, however, is that the Chamber’s feints toward bipartisanship are merely a strategy by which it plans to continue conducting business as usual.

Under the Chamber’s new system of endorsement, candidates will be graded on their “bipartisan engagement score” in addition to the old criteria such as their voting records and support for Chamber-endorsed bills. The Chamber claims that the change is designed to incentivize bipartisanship as a means of eliminating what it refers to as “crisis governing”.

While the Chamber may be calling for bipartisanship, it has not led by example. Over the last ten years the Chamber has all but eliminated its support for Democratic candidates while maintaining its support for Republicans at a fairly consistent rate. In 2016 the Chamber endorsed just five Democrats compared to 191 Republicans in 2018. All in all the Chamber spent close to 30$ million on federal elections in 2016. Not one dollar of that was spent on supporting Democratic candidates. Nevertheless, the Chamber wants you to believe that the recent era of legislative gridlock has caused it to reassess its rank partisanship and begin to partner more with Democratic lawmakers.

So what is the reason for all of this? In addition to the Chamber’s acknowledgment of the role of hyper partisanship in gridlock, this movement away from such blatant public partisanship is also due in part to the fact that certain core tenets of the modern Republican party have fallen out of step with the Chamber’s interests. The Chamber of Commerce and many more populist Republicans hold sharply divergent views on immigration, international trade, and government programs intended to help industry.  The Chamber has also recently noted the global decline of democracy and widespread attacks on the free press.

Is this a step in the right direction? Top Democrats are not so sure:

“That’s a good instinct, but color me skeptical… It seems that still the highest priority is to help the rich and powerful no matter how divisive it is.”

-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

Even with increasing efforts of bipartisanship, the Chamber’s agenda remains clear: deregulate no matter the cost, letting corporations off the hook for any damage they cause to workers, families, consumers and the environment in the pursuit of profit. For instance, the Chamber has been adamantly opposed to any sort of legislation that would protect the environment. In the last several years the Chamber has lost 13 of it largest member companies because of its denialist stance on man-made climate change. Though Chamber president Thomas Donohue did announce that the chamber would support an increase in the fuel tax, which would be its first increase in 25 years, the organization has remained steadfast in its denial of climate change. The Chamber is similarly bullheaded when it comes to issues of labor protections, consumer safeguards and workplace equality measures like pay equity and family leave.

While the Chamber’s new stance on bipartisanship leaves room for optimism, it remains by no means an ally to progressives. Its methods may have changed, but its intentions have not. The Chamber’s interest still lie with America’s wealthy elite, and it remains one of the nation’s largest advocates of unfettered corporate control.

DxN5Am8XgAIfE6L

H.R.1. Marks a New Era in Congress

, ,

Newly in the majority, U.S. House Democrats have made their stance abundantly clear — fighting corruption and protecting democracy is priority number one. Their inaugural bill is far-reaching, tackling reforms aimed at our elections, the campaign finance system, as well as ethics and lobbying all in the same piece of legislation. H.R. 1, dubbed the “For the People Act,” is the most sweeping and comprehensive anti-corruption bill of the last 50 years. It is a legislative antidote to many of the problems associated with the disastrous U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United decision and increased attempts at voter suppression

Passing this bill in the House is an important and necessary first step to set the stage for its implementation in the future and for building the public demand for anti-corruption legislation as a whole. It is truly remarkable to see so many transformative policies in one bill, and to see the overwhelming support for that bill inside and outside of DC.

The bill would:

  • Restructure campaign finance by creating small-donor funding for our elections, instituting a public financing system where federal funds will match small donations at a rate of 6 to 1, and ending secret political contributions—“dark money”– by forcing disclosure of all major election-related funders such as 501(c)(4) organizations. It would also require tech companies to disclose large campaign advertisement purchases and block ad buys by foreign entities.
  • Expand and protect voting rights by enacting automatic voter registration, making Election Day a federal holiday, and ending certain felons’ voting disenfranchisement upon release. Provisions of H.R.1 would also bring an end to congressional district gerrymandering by instituting nonpartisan state-level redistricting commissions for House elections.
  • Restore ethics and transparency in government by requiring presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns, prohibiting House members from serving on corporate boards, creating a code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court, and expanding foreign and domestic lobbyist registration and reporting laws.

Strengthening our democracy and fighting corruption have long been priorities of Public Citizen and for that reason we are proud to endorse the “For the People Act.” But we need YOUR help to pass this bill!  H.R. 1 currently has the endorsement of 225 House members and the number is growing every day In order to win these democracy reforms in the long run, we need to make sure your U.S. Representative is on the list. Please call your member of Congress and ask her or him to support H.R. 1 now!

building-buildings-closed-273280

Exposing the Tax Scam, One Year In: Job Loss

One year into the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”, the bill’s name remains only half accurate. Certainly taxes have been cut for the wealthiest and corporate executives have lined their pockets, however wages have remained stagnant. Shareholders have made a killing since the tax cuts, while economic gains for working class Americans have been marginal at best. (In fact, corporations are spending 128 times as much on stock buy backs as they are on worker bonuses and raises.) As for the latter part of the bill’s title, the New York Times reports that that the nation’s largest companies have actually cut more jobs than they have created since the bill’s inception.

The problem with last year’s tax giveaway package is that it was fundamentally based on several flawed assumptions. Supporters assumed the bill would incentivize corporations to hire more workers. They haven’t. They argued the cuts would lead to increased wages. They haven’t. What these tax cuts have produced is unsustainable short term economic growth that looks good on paper, but has disproportionately benefitted the wealthy. Instead of stimulating economic growth in Middle America, the tax cuts have contributed to increased economic consolidation around urban centers.

Like past attempts at “trickle-down” supply side economic policy, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has failed because of its inability to alter corporate incentive structures and in fact exacerbated the problem since CEOs pad their paychecks through bonus schemes supercharged by stock buybacks. And, while being marketed as a cure for Main Street’s modern woes, when it has actually exacerbated problems associated with a changing global economy like outsourcing of jobs and investment.

Across the board, corporations have focused their investments on stock buybacks rather than human capital. And, because of backward incentives in the law that give a sharply discounted rate for profits made by foreign subsidiaries, a fair amount of the investment has happened overseas by companies that simultaneously decreased U.S. manufacturing. This idea is perhaps best exemplified by the recent workforce cuts made by General Motors. After GM was bailed out by taxpayers in 2008 and saw their taxes cut in 2018, they are still closing plants across the Midwest, most notably in Michigan and Ohio and moving more production to Mexico. The company has framed these cuts as proactive cost saving measures as they prepare to shift towards electric and autonomous vehicle production, yet that hasn’t stopped workers from feeling any less betrayed by the false promises they were fed.

The harmful outcomes of the bill on working families will only get worse, as millions of Americans will be pushed out of health care coverage as healthcare premiums ultimately increase in addition to substantially ballooning the federal deficit, which has led conservatives to call for cuts to important government programs like Medicare, Social Security disability benefits, education, nutrition assistance and more.

It’s time for Congress to throw this scam of a tax giveaway package on the trash heap where it belongs and go to the table in a bipartisan way to discuss which loopholes in our tax code to close and which new revenue sources to put in place so that we can truly protect hardworking families and invest in American communities.

DeLay Fails to ‘Cut and Run’

, , ,

Everybody remembers the glittering smile on Tom DeLay when he posed for his mug shot in Texas after being booked on conspiracy and money laundering charges in October of 2005. The corruption charges eventually led to DeLay’s resignation and "The Hammer" officially fell on June 9th, 2006 with his departure from the halls of Congress. In between DeLay’s mugshot and his deeply partisan farewell address (in which he said that he had "few regrets, no doubts," and assured his colleagues that he always served "honorably and honestly"), DeLay also ran for reelection and won a Texas Republican primary in March.

But after winning the primary and subsequently resigning from Congress, DeLay bought a house in Virginia and claimed to have "moved" out of Texas.  Texas Republicans then tried to place another candidate on the ballot to avoid a campaign focusing on the corruption of their candidate.  The Texas GOP claimed that since Tom DeLay "moved" to Virginia, he no longer lived in Texas and was therefore ineligible to run.  Republicans failed to mention that DeLay maintains  his house in Sugar Land, Texas, where his wife still lives.

This minor discrepancy has taken a toll on the Texas Republican party in the courts.  Yesterday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas Republican’s attempt to replace DeLay with another Republican candidate violated both state law and the U.S. Constitution.  The decision upheld a July ruling by a federal judge. 

The Texas GOP has said it will seek an expedited appeal from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a failure to replace DeLay "makes a mockery of our democratic system and denies voters a meaningful choice" (Houston Chronicle).   Republicans fail to acknowledge removing DeLay from the ballot is a removal of the candidate elected in March and would replace him with an unelected alternative.

If anyone is making a "mockery" of the democratic system, it is the latest have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too shenanigans from Mr. Tom DeLay.

-Daniel Werner