Author Archives: Sheila

How Today’s Media Fails Us

As I have frequently noted, at the very root of America’s–and the world’s–current dysfunctions are the failures of today’s information environment.

How we behave–as friends, as parents, as voters, as humans–ultimately depends upon our understanding of the world we inhabit. And that understanding, that view of what constitutes reality, is a product of the information we access and trust. In the United States–the society with which I am most familiar–the human family confronts two massive informational challenges: bias (both intentional and not) and fragmentation.

Unfortunately, there is little we can do about the Internet’s fragmentation of media sources, which allows citizens to occupy distinctly different realities. When the voting public accesses “alternative facts,” the incoherence of public opinion is understandable.

The failures of traditional media sources are especially troubling, both because they add to the incoherence and because they are the result of mistaken notions of journalism’s most important function–which is to provide an accurate description of the subject matter, irrespective of who or what that accuracy benefits.

Jennifer Rubin is one of the pundits who has been clear-eyed about the persistence of a journalistic worldview that prevents otherwise reputable news sources from avoiding a distorted equivalency.

After missing the significance of the MAGA movement in 2016, innumerable mainstream outlets spent thousands of hours, gallons of ink and billions of pixels trying to understand “the Trump voter.” How had democracy failed them? What did the rest of us miss about these Americans? The journey to Rust Belt diners became a cliché amid the newfound fascination with aggrieved White working-class Americans. But the theory that such voters were economic casualties of globalization turned out to be false. Surveys and analyses generally found that racial resentment and cultural panic, not economic distress, fueled their affinity for a would-be strongman.

Unfortunately, patronizing excuses (e.g., “they feel disrespected”) for their cultlike attachment to a figure increasingly divorced from reality largely took the place of exacting reporting on the right-wing cult that swallowed a large part of the Republican Party. In an effort to maintain false equivalence and normalize Trump, many media outlets seemed to ignore that the much of the GOP left the universe of democratic (small-d) politics and was no longer a traditional democratic (again, small-d) party with an agenda, a governing philosophy, a set of beliefs. The result: Trump was normalized and a false equivalence between the parties was created.

There was a reason Fox News chose “fair and balanced” as its (highly misleading) slogan: most Americans–including too many students of journalism–have been acculturated to believe that “balance” is fairness, that exhibiting similar respect for all sides of an argument is an essential element of reporting. This has led–as one wag put it–to a reportorial stenography that faithfully reports person A’s assertion that it’s raining and person B’s that it isn’t, when what the reporter ought to be doing is looking out the window to see who’s right.

As Rubin noted,

Even as Trump shows his authoritarian colors and his rants become angrier, more unhinged and more incoherent, his followers still meekly accept inane assertions (e.g., convicted Jan. 6, 2021, rioters are “hostages,” magnets dissolve in water, wind turbines drive whales insane). More of the media should be covering this phenomenon as it would any right-wing authoritarian movement in a foreign country.

The proliferation of propaganda sites facilitating confirmation bias is troubling enough, but as Rubin writes, the problem with disinformation is compounded when mainstream outlets spend “far too little attention on why and how MAGA members cling to demonstrably false beliefs, excuse what should be inexcusable conduct and ignore Trump’s obvious and growing mental illness and decline.

Outlets should routinely consult psychologists and historians to ask the vital questions: How do people abandon rationality? What drives their fury and anxiety? How does an authoritarian figure maintain his hold on followers? How do ideas of racial purity play into it? Media outlets fail news consumers when they do not explain the authoritarian playbook that Trump employs. Americans need media outlets to spell out what is happening….

The race between an ordinary democratic candidate and an unhinged fascist is not a normal American election. At stake is whether a democracy can protect itself from a malicious candidate with narcissistic tendencies or a rational electorate can beat back a dangerous, lawless cult of personality. Unfortunately, too many media outlets have not caught on or, worse, simply feign ignorance to avoid coming down on the side of democracy, rationality and truth.

Humans can only form opinions and base behaviors on the information they rely upon. When that information is unreliable– or simply wrong– “do the right thing” becomes meaningless.

Comments

Non-Profit Doesn’t Necessarily Mean “Do-Gooder”

I was intrigued to come across an essay by John Dilulio, Jr. in a publication I had previously not encountered: American Purpose. 

I have been familiar with Dilulio–a political scientist currently at the University of Pennsylvania–since his work on George W. Bush’s “Faith-Based Initiative.” (Thanks to a generous Ford Foundation grant, I helmed a three-year, three state study of that initiative.) In the 1990’s,  Dilulio was best known in criminal justice circles for his hostile analysis of young criminals and his condemnation of violent juveniles as ”superpredators,” a position from which he later–and properly–retreated.

The essay in American Purpose addressed a very different issue: the nonprofit status of American organizations, a status that entitles such organizations to various types of tax avoidance. The “nonprofit sector,” he tells us, consists of organizations

that enjoy one or more of four types of tax exemptions, subsidies, or supports: tax-free property owned by the organizations; tax-deductible donations to the organizations; taxpayer-funded grants, contracts, or fees to the organizations; and taxpayer-funded payments to individuals for purchasing goods or services from the organizations.

Intriguing indeed. But, you ask, why do we need any such “nonprofit sector?” What criteria should be used to determine which existing or new organizations receive some, all, or none of those four tax privileges? Who is supposed to benefit from their existence, and by what measures? And, last but not least, how might we mitigate the moral hazard when some of these organizations inevitably use their tax privileges for private gains or to evade public accountability, or behave in ways that are both deceptive and self-dealing?

The essay began with the good news: something like 92 percent of all nonprofits are small, community-based, and serve local needs. Fewer than 3 percent lobby for government grants or contracts.

At the top of the nonprofit pyramid, however, are less publicly beneficial organizations–and those are especially prevalent in health care.

At its very top, the tax-privileged sector is dominated by the ten nonprofit health systems that in 2021 each collected $14.5 billion or more in annual revenues, and by a dozen nonprofit universities that are among the most well-endowed universities in America. Is enough being done to ensure that these tax-privileged titans’ board members, CEOs, presidents, and other leaders are using their respective tax privileges in the public interest while refraining from individual or institutional self-dealing?

Dilulio cites a 2023 article in which Rice University economists Derek Jenkins and Vivian Ho wrote that, “Nonprofit hospitals, which currently comprise approximately 58 percent of U.S. hospitals, have been repeatedly criticized by scholars and policymakers for failing to live up to a poorly articulated standard of ‘charity care’ and benevolence,” and for failing to justify their tens of billions of dollars a year in federal, state, and local tax breaks.  He also cited a 2022 report by the Economic Research Institute, which found that, while nonprofit hospital CEOs are paid, on average, $600,000 a year, the ten highest-paid nonprofit health systems executives made $7 million a year or more;  the CEO of Kaiser Permanente was paid nearly $18 million in 2018.

Back when I was a practicing lawyer, I saw how this worked. If a corporation being formed could credibly point to some charitable purpose, and could successfully argue for nonprofit status, monetary gains that would otherwise constitute–and be taxed as– profit could be diverted/mischaracterized as “overhead costs.” These “nonprofits” could divert what would otherwise be profit into generous salaries and lots of perks for management. (Does a health organization executive really need a luxury car supplied by the nonprofit entity? What about that corporate jet?)

The essay has much more information, and offers suggestions for legislative interventions. If you are interested in the various ways in which nonprofit status can be–and has been– gamed, it’s well worth the time to click through and read in its entirety.

My own first reaction was that this situation–the culture of “game-playing” that has allowed greed to infect and distort significant elements of a system originally intended to serve the public good–has become widespread. It isn’t limited to health care and a handful of elite universities.

Assuming we emerge from the November election with American democracy still largely intact, we need to address a multitude of structural distortions, and not just those affecting the electoral system. The misuse of nonprofit status is one of them.

Comments

As The Legal World Turns….

The news that a symbol supporting the January 6th insurrection had hung outside Justice Alito’s home was stunning. It was so outside everything lawyers have been taught about proper judicial behavior and ethics that anyone who has ever studied the law, or the role of the courts, was incredulous. If there was any doubt about its significance, or the dishonesty of Alito’s attempt to blame his wife, a subsequent report–with photos–shows that Christian Nationalist “Appeal to Heaven” flag, used by January 6th insurrectionists, flew for two months at Alito’s beach house.

As Robert Hubbell writes, “Alito is signaling his partisan allegiance and Christian nationalism. As I wrote yesterday, we should take him at his word. If we do not, he will continue to vote for outcomes and write opinions that are antithetical to the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.”

It doesn’t really require legal training to understand how profoundly Alito violated norms of appropriate judicial behavior. If a local judge flew a flag supporting one side of a case over which he was currently presiding, ordinary citizens–not to mention the local bar association–would immediately demand removal of both the case and the judge.

I may feel this incredible impropriety more strongly because I approached the teaching of my policy classes through a constitutional lens. I taught my students that the Constitution and Bill of Rights constrain policy choices–that legal precedents determine the boundaries of legitimate government action. I’ve previously explained that Alito’s Dobbs decision threatened far more than reproductive rights–that it undermines a longstanding legal doctrine that draws a line between permissible and forbidden government interventions.

I’m no longer teaching, and I really don’t know how I would handle the reality that “settled” constitutional interpretations are being routinely ignored by Justices on America’s highest court, so I sympathized with the law school professors interviewed on that issue by The New York Times. As one said,

One of the primary challenges when one is teaching constitutional law is to impress upon the students that it is not simply politics by other means,” he said. “And the degree of difficulty of that proposition has never been higher.”

That difficulty was addressed by the professors interviewed by the Times. As several noted, teaching constitutional law has for many years been based on an underlying premise: 

That the Supreme Court is a legitimate institution of governance, and the nine justices, whatever their political backgrounds, care about getting the law right. They are more interested in upholding fundamental democratic principles and, perhaps most important, preserving the court’s integrity, than in imposing a partisan agenda.

The premise no longer holds today. Many in the legal world still believed in the old virtues even after Bush v. Gore, the 5-to-4 ruling that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election on what appeared to many Americans to be partisan grounds. But now, the court’s hard-right supermajority, installed in recent years through a combination of hypocrisy and sheer partisan muscle, has eviscerated any consensus.

Under the pretense of practicing so-called originalism, which claims to interpret the Constitution in line with how it was understood at the nation’s founding, these justices have moved quickly to upend decades of established precedent — from political spending to gun laws to voting rights to labor unions to abortion rights to affirmative action to the separation of church and state. Whatever rationale or methodology the justices apply in a given case, the result virtually always aligns with the policy priorities of the modern Republican Party.

And that has made it impossible for many professors to teach in the familiar way. 

The mounting concerns of legal scholars are shared on both the political left and right. Michael McConnell is an extremely conservative legal scholar who has criticized the analyses of even the cases that reach his preferred conclusions. He worries that the dishonesty and hypocrisy of these justices is undermining the respect required by the rule of law.

Professor McConnell recalled a recent exchange in one of his classes. “I said something to the effect of, ‘It’s important to assume that the people you disagree with are speaking in good faith.’ And a student raises his hand, and he asks: ‘Why? Why should we assume that people on the other side are acting in good faith?’ This was not a crazy person; this was a perfectly sober-minded, rational student. And I think the question was sincere. And I think that’s kind of shocking. I do think that some of the underlying assumptions of how a civil society operates can no longer be assumed.”

As Maya Angelou told us: When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Alito’s breathtaking breaches of judicial behavior leave no doubt about who he is. He should be impeached.

Comments

Are Remedies Discriminatory?

If I started a nonprofit that provided wheelchairs only to crippled people, would I be discriminating against people who aren’t “mobility-challenged”? 

If I established a mentoring organization to assist kids who were failing math, would I be discriminating against kids who were doing well in math?

What if I started a foundation focused on–and limited to– helping Black women entrepreneurs? Would that amount to discrimination against Whites and men?

The courts are about to answer that last question.

Each of the efforts I’ve described center on helping a population that demonstrably needs a helping hand: people who cannot walk unaided, kids who struggle with math, Black businesswomen disadvantaged by years of discrimination. 

It turns out that the White Wing–aka the Right Wing–strongly objects to efforts to ameliorate that latter disadvantage, seeing such remedial efforts as discrimination against White folks. And our reactionary Supreme Court may well agree with them.

They might be courtroom adversaries, but Arian Simone swears she and the man suing her venture capital firm want the same thing: an America where race does not matter.

The difference is that Simone believes race-specific initiatives like the Fearless Fund are essential to achieving that ideal. Given that Black-owned start-ups secured less than 1 percent of the nation’s VC spending last year, she said, “I can’t stop.”

But the conservative activist driving the lawsuit, Edward Blum, says racial equity is not one-sided. That’s why he insists that the fund’s grant program for Black women is discriminatory, in one of the most-watched civil rights cases since he was on the winning side of the landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned race-conscious college admissions.

In the coming months, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Florida will decide whether to block the Atlanta-based Fearless Fund from awarding $20,000 grants to Black female-owned businesses while the case is litigated in trial court. The stakes could not be higher, as evidenced by the legal firepower lining up on both sides and the swarm of amicus briefs, illustrating the vastly different interpretations of the nature of discrimination, the role of history in shaping public policy and how civil rights should work in America.

Four years of Donald Trump’s Court appointments have distorted more than just the Supreme Court; two of the three judges on the 11th Circuit panel are Trump appointees, and according to the linked report, have appeared skeptical of the Fund’s argument that its targeted giving is “charitable giving” protected by the First Amendment.

Should Blum’s American Alliance for Equal Rights prevail, the case could have sweeping implications for any race-based initiative in the private sector, particularly grant programs, scholarships and other efforts with monetary benefits, according to observers on both sides of the issue. In less than a year, Blum’s legal nonprofit organization has reached settlements in about a half-dozen cases involving scholarships and fellowships at large law firms, as well as a Texas-based grant program for minority and women entrepreneurs. All agreed to drop racial criteria to resolve the discrimination claims.

The attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund has accused the plaintiffs of “taking the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and trying to turn it on its head, so that it becomes weaponized and undermines efforts to do exactly what the Civil Rights Act was intended to do, which was be remedial and race-conscious.”

The lawsuit is an attack on efforts at remediation. Fearless Fund was established to address what it called “the chasm in venture capital for start-ups run by women of color.”  In 2018, the year the Fund was established, businesses headed by Black women received exactly 1 percent of the $131 billion invested that year. Conservatives argue that targeting investments in an effort to level the playing field is anti-business and–horrors!– meant to promote a “liberal agenda.” The lawsuit is part and parcel of the broader backlash against DEI efforts in higher education and the business world. Civil Rights organizations respond that the Fund’s grant program is a form of charitable giving —  much like organizations that support people of a certain heritage, such as the Sons and Daughters of Italy in America.

As one commentator has written, the case should trouble people who value the independence of American philanthropic institutions– even opponents of affirmative action and DEI. Fearless Fund grants are awarded by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation that should have the right to target its grant program as it chooses.

 Conservatives used to advocate for limits on government intrusion into private behaviors. I guess that was only so long as those private behaviors benefitted White men. 

Comments

He’ll Have The Caviar…

One of the great benefits of this blog is the education I get from readers who share information with me–and a few days ago, I got a real eye-opener from a constituent of Indiana Representative Jim Banks.

I had heard of Congressional Leadership PACs, but I was unaware of what they are and how they differ from the SuperPacs and other anti-democratic entities organized following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC–a decision that vastly increased the role of money in politics.

It turns out that all PACs aren’t the same. Some put money into the politico’s campaign; others put it in his pocket.

According to the ethics group One Issue, Congressional Leadership PACs too often function as slush funds, allowing their beneficiaries to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than they could manage on a Congressperson’s salary.

I’d not previously heard of One Issue, a relatively new organization concerned with monitoring government ethics. It is described as the

leading crosspartisan political reform group in Washington, D.C. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build a democracy that works for everyone. We educate the public and work to pass legislation on Capitol Hill to increase transparency, strengthen ethics and accountability, reduce the corrosive influence of big money in politics, and bolster U.S. elections. Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus of more than 200 former members of Congress, governors, and Cabinet officials is the largest coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for political reform.

The report that was forwarded to me focused on the (mis)use of Leadership PACs/slush funds by current members of Congress. The PACs were established in 1978 as accounts that would be separate from the authorized campaign committees that candidates use to run for Congress. The money was intended for use by politicians wanting to assist political allies and like-minded candidates– vulnerable colleagues or candidates running in competitive House and Senate races. The FEC made it clear that leadership PAC funds weren’t to be used to pay for lawmakers’ own re-election campaign expenses.

Today, leadership PACs are not just used by those in leadership roles. Indeed, 92% of members of Congress have them. And while most members of Congress primarily use their leadership PACs to make political contributions, new research from Issue One and Campaign Legal Center shows that scores of lawmakers are not, in fact, using the bulk of the money they raise in their leadership PACs to assist other candidates, their parties, or other political groups.

Today, it turns out that many lawmakers don’t spend the money in these PACs to assist political allies or causes, as intended.

This report shines a light on the shocking reality that far too many politicians appear to be amassing money from special interests in their leadership PACs and then using that cash to enjoy perks of lavish living that are beyond the reach of most Americans — such as meals at fancy restaurants, trips to elite resorts, rounds of golf at premier courses, and more. While such spending is purportedly done for the purpose of political fundraising, this explanation rings hollow when just a fraction of the money raised goes toward political contributions. Instead, such spending patterns give the impression that some politicians are simply raising money at one posh location to pay for the next fundraiser at the next fancy destination — creating an endless fundraising cycle at luxurious restaurants and resorts, much of which is paid for by special interest money, with no cost to lawmakers’ own pocketbooks.

It turns out that leadership PACs are “underwriting lavish lifestyles for politicians.”

Issue One looked at the two-year period between January 0f 2019 and December of 2020, and focused on lawmakers who had spent inordinate amounts on tickets for sports events, dinners at expensive restaurants, country-club dues and similar “fundraising overhead.” The report meticulously listed what it had found for each Senator and Representative.

In Indiana, the report showed that Congressman Jim Banks had raised $4,287,776 from special interests for his “Leadership PAC” and that a mere 14% of his expenditures had gone for the ostensible political purposes of that PAC–far less than other Indiana lawmakers. (Even Mike Braun spent 79% of his slush fund on the activities for which such PACs were created, and other Indiana lawmakers exceeded Braun’s percentage.)

Nationally, that puts Banks among the top abusers of these slush funds.

Isn’t it interesting that politicians like Jim Banks who are single-mindedly focused on culture war issues–the pious pretenders who constantly point to their “Christian” values and attempt to impose their misogynistic views of “righteousness” on the rest of us–always seem to be the ones with their hands in various cookie-jars?

Comments