Tag Archives: ethics

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Ethics

If there is one thing Trump actually understands, it’s the utility of the “firehose” championed by Steve Bannon–the tactic of spraying the country with so much excrement each day that the body politic misses behaviors that would, in ordinary times, be scandalous.

Permit me an example.

While we have been distracted by “little things” like an illegal war on Iran, Pam Bondi’s transparent efforts to keep the lid on Trump’s multiple and damning appearances in the Epstein files, and the re-emergence of measles thanks to RNK, Jr.’s war on medical science, the goofball who is currently in charge of the Pentagon has been in a standoff with Anthropic, a tech company opposed to unregulated and unethical use of its AI product, Claude.

As the Atlantic has reported, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an ultimatum to Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei. He ordered the company to strip the ethical guardrails from its AI models “or face the full weight of the state.” Hegseth accompanied that order with a threat that, unless Anthropic allowed the Pentagon “all lawful uses” of its Claude models, he would designate Anthropic “a supply-chain risk,” effectively blacklisting the company  from doing business with “any entity that touches the Department of Defense.”

To his eternal credit, Amodei refused, explaining that while he believed “deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries,” there is a narrow set of cases in which AI can “undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.” He concluded that the Pentagon’s “threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

As the linked article argues, the company’s stance represents a principled objection to the use of its AI for mass surveillance.

It is not opposed to autonomous weapons per se and has already carved out exemptions for missile defense and cyber operations. The company’s hesitation regarding autonomy is technical: Large language models are simply not yet reliable enough to operate without a human in the loop. Pushing them too far, too quickly, invites a mistake that could prove disastrous. Anthropic is asking for an exclusion on autonomous weapons not out of an ideological refusal to fight, but to allow for the research and development necessary to make such systems safe.

People in the Trump administration, however, are impervious to both logic and ethics. Not long after the Atlantic published its article about the dispute, the Washington Post reported that Anthropic had been cut off from all government contracts. The Post reported that the action “shook the tech industry” and hardened the political and cultural battle lines across Silicon Valley over military use of artificial intelligence.

As the article noted, Trump has now put all of Silicon Valley on notice: if tech companies want to do business with the  Pentagon they should be prepared to accede to any and all administration policies and hand over control of how their technology is used.

Less ethical rivals of Anthropic (including–surprise!– Elon Musk) have rushed in to pledge that their own companies would not question Pentagon policies, styling themselves as “loyal patriots.”

It isn’t surprising that Trump’s transactional administration would favor companies willing to trade their ethical concerns for lucrative contracts.  Last fall, the administration characterized Anthropic’s ethical concerns as attempts to manipulate the government with “fear mongering” about AI technology. Media outlets reported that the White House was “displeased” when Anthropic raised ethical objections to the ways in which the administration wanted to use its technology–especially its intent to use the company’s product for surveillance. 

The Atlantic article called this ethical quandary over domestic surveillance an “unbridgeable divide.”

Under an administration that invoked the Insurrection Act, or that sought to map domestic dissent, the Pentagon’s demand for “all lawful uses” of Anthropic’s models could become a skeleton key. Amodei articulated this danger in a recent interview with Ross Douthat, noting that, although it isn’t illegal to record conversations in public spaces, the sheer scale of AI changes the nature of the act. As Amodei put it, AI could transcribe speech and correlate it in a way that would not only identify one member of the opposition but “make a map of all 100 million. And so, are you going to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by the technology finding technical ways around it?”

The answer to that question is obvious. The fascist regime that currently controls America’s federal government–and the Silicon Valley “bros” who are rushing to ignore those pesky ethical concerns–will be happy to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment.

Comments

The End Of Ethics?

Americans were recently treated to the official results of the U.S. House’s ethics investigation of Matt Gaetz. The concluding paragraph of the 37 page report says it all:

The Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress.

This was the person Trump initially chose to head up the Department of Justice. (I’ve lost a lot of respect for Merrick Garland due to his timidity and what has evidently been an overly zealous desire to avoid politicizing DOJ, but the contrast between a compulsively ethical Attorney General and a thoroughgoing degenerate is representative of the difference between today’s Democratic Party and the cult of Trump–aka the GOP.)

Because it isn’t just Gaetz. Trump has chosen nominees who mirror many of his own numerous legal and ethical failings–a clown show composed not only of ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists, but sexual predators, racists and businessmen with falsified resumes and glaring conflicts of interest. Long gone are the days when political figures were held to a high moral standard–when those aspiring to leadership positions took care to project an ethical and probative public persona, even if their private behaviors were somewhat less exemplary.

To be fair, the Trumpian mafia being assembled to run the Executive branch has its counterpart in the current, rogue Supreme Court;  Rolling Stone, among others, has reported on recent, added discoveries of highly unethical behaviors by the Court’s “usual suspects.”

A new 20-month Senate investigation into ethical conflicts and legal violations at the Supreme Court has uncovered and underscored a raft of dubious behavior by justices both living — and dead.

The new 95-page report reveals that deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — who expired in 2016 on a “free” quail hunting trip, paid for by a benefactor — was a conflicted mess, and effectively patient zero for the corruption now dogging the court. The arch conservative justice accepted “at least 258 subsidized trips” from wealthy patrons, including “several dozen hunting and fishing trips with prominent Republican donors.” Scalia accepted more such gifts “than any other justice,” the report states, and failed to properly disclose them “in violation of federal law.”

The report, issued by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also excoriates current conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for violations of federal law over undisclosed travel, including luxury fishing and yacht vacations. It targets Thomas in particular for having “accepted lavish gifts from billionaires with business before the court for almost his entire tenure as a justice,” adding that “the number, value, and extravagance of the gifts accepted by Justice Thomas have no comparison in modern American history.

Dick Durbin, chair of the Judiciary Committee, issued a statement underscoring the effect of these ethical lapses, saying that “justices are losing the trust of the American people at the hands of a gaggle of fawning billionaires.” 

Disclosure of the repeated failures of Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from cases affecting the interests of the billionaires whose largesse they’ve enjoyed comes at a time when trillionaire Elon Musk has assumed a de facto role as “co- President,” and as Trump is preparing to install a cohort of shady billionaires with massive conflicts of interest in important government positions–positions for which most of them are massively unqualified. 

As ABC News recently reported,

President-elect Donald Trump has shown no qualms about making or sticking by picks for his Cabinet no matter the baggage they carry — even some accused of sexual assault.

It’s a far cry from the days when much smaller-scale scandals, such as marijuana use or hiring an undocumented worker as a nanny, sunk candidates put forward by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, experts said.

“We’re in untested waters,” Jonathan Hanson, a political scientist and lecturer in statistics at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, told ABC News.

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise us. After all, American voters just elected a mentally-ill convicted felon who has also been found liable for sexual abuse by a  civil jury. 

Apparently, MAGA’s version of “Making America Great Again” is limited to its (very obvious) goal of “Making America White Again.”

Ethics? They don’t need no stinkin’ ethics! 

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

Is Rokita Even Worth The Pixels?

What is so depressing about living in Indiana these days is the dismal quality of our state government.

I’ve frequently posted about what the late Harrison Ullmann accurately called “The World’s Worst Legislature,” a body currently waging war on Indianapolis and higher education, among other travesties.

I actually had some residue of respect for the governor, who I thought was an “old kind” of Republican caught in the vice of MAGA world, but that respect evaporated when he sent Indiana National Guard troops to the southern border to bolster Texas’ performative pissing match with the federal government.

The embarrassment that is our current legislature is largely attributable to the gerrymandering that allows lawmakers to choose their voters, but that excuse is unavailable when we consider statewide candidates like our Attorney General, Todd Rokita, about whom I have posted more frequently that his sorry career warrants. (Put “Rokita” in the search bar, and multiple examples will come up.)

Rokita’s efforts to out-MAGA the MAGAs in his party have been so egregious and unethical that he was sanctioned by Indiana’s all-Republican Supreme Court.

As Paula Cardoza-Jones (a former member of the Disciplinary Commission) has noted,  Rokita just can’t stop lying:

In 2022, Attorney General Todd Rokita spoke repeatedly and publicly about his investigation into complaints about a doctor who provided abortion services in Indiana to a 10-year-old rape victim who was unable to obtain such services in Ohio.

As a result, Rokita was accused of violating a statute that requires complaints about a doctor “be held in strict confidence until the attorney general files notice with the [Medical Licensing Board] of the attorney general’s intent to prosecute the licensee.”  Ind. Code § 25-1-7-10(a) (“Confidentiality Statute”).

On September 18, 2023, the Disciplinary Commission (“Commission”) filed a Disciplinary Complaint in three counts (“Complaint”), Cause No. 23S-DI-00258, alleging violations of the following Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”):

(1) Rule 3.6(a)—making extrajudicial statements with a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding;

(2) Rule 4.4(a)–using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person; and

(3) Rule 8.4(d)—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice based on his violation of the Confidentiality Statute.

Members of Indiana’s highest court agreed on the probity of those allegations, only disagreeing about the severity of the sanctions to be imposed. Rokita subsequently issued misleading pronouncements about that conclusion and was again reprimanded by the Court.

You might think being continually slapped down would teach him a lesson, but–despite his focus on Indiana schools–Rokita is clearly incapable of being educated.

As the Capital Chronicle reports:

A new dashboard unveiled Tuesday by the Indiana Attorney General’s Office makes public more than two dozen allegations of “potentially inappropriate materials” in Hoosier schools, like critical race theory materials and gender identity policies.

But numerous local officials told the Indiana Capital Chronicle they weren’t made aware of the complaints and contend the allegations were not properly vetted before the portal went live.

Attorney General Todd Rokita referred to “Eyes on Education” as a transparency tool that intends to “empower parents to further engage in their children’s education” and provide “real examples of indoctrination.”

The portal accepts submissions pertaining to K-12 classrooms, colleges, universities and “other affiliated academic entities in Indiana.” But it is unclear how, or if, they are vetting the accuracy of the allegations.

Given what we know of Rokita, it is highly unlikely that these allegations are being “vetted” at all. His “explanation” makes the politics of this new “portal” abundantly clear.

“As I travel the state, I regularly hear from students, parents and teachers about destructive curricula, policies or programs in our schools,” Rokita said in a statement, adding that the portal allows Hoosier parents to “view real examples of socialist indoctrination from classrooms across the state.”

“Our kids need to focus on fundamental educational building blocks,” he continued, “NOT ideology that divides kids from their parents and normal society.”

Several districts have pointed out that portal submissions were out of date or simply inaccurate–but of course, none of those responses appear on the portal. Representative Ed Delaney notes that–among other issues– public education matters are outside the purview of the Attorney General.

This effort to score political points with the most rabid of the MAGA cultists isn’t simply a dishonest ideological stunt; it exceeds the Attorney General’s jurisdiction.

But hey, it’s Todd Rokita–the “lawyer” who has no respect for the Constitutions of either the U.S. or Indiana, or for the rule of law.

Please vote so that I won’t have to waste pixels on this sorry excuse for a public servant after November.

Comments

Reforming The Court

Recent disclosures ranging from ethical improprieties to clear corruption have lent urgency to longstanding calls to reform the Supreme Court.

Before those disclosures, most of the lawyers and scholars advocating for such reforms did so on the basis of work product–including the dwindling number of decisions the Court issues annually.

Even before the recent disclosures, legal theorists were concerned with the Court’s loss of democratic legitimacy. It isn’t just the appalling shenanigans of Mitch McConnell; Neil Gorsuch was the first Supreme Court justice in American history to be nominated by a president who had lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing less than half of the country. Brett Kavanaugh was second, and Amy Coney Barrett was third. 

 The subsequent evidence of Thomas’ and Alito’s corrupt behavior has been especially unsettling.

I used to defend lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary to my students, pointing out that security shielded jurists from political pressure. But  justices live a lot longer than they used to, and– as my lawyer son recently pointed out– the security afforded by those lifetime appointments also provides an incentive to ignore the rules. With a closely divided Congress, and in the absence of the enforceable ethical codes that bind lower-court judges, they are effectively shielded from consequences. As a practical matter, they’re above the law.  

It’s time to consider reforms.

An article by the Brennan Center, published just after the leak of Dobbs suggested several. The article began by describing the far-right Federalist Society’s decades’ long, successful effort to capture the Court.

Beginning in the 1970s, corporate interests wary of 1960s socio-political movements developed and funded comprehensive infrastructure to advance a far-right agenda, focusing on the judiciary as an instrument for social, economic, and political change. A crucial component of the plan to push back against left-leaning legal successes was the organization and mobilization of conservative lawyers and judges who could ensure that corporate America’s preferred socioeconomic and political order was upheld in the courts. It is in this ecosystem that the Federalist Society emerged and built an empire around shepherding future leaders of the conservative legal movement into judgeships. All six justices appointed by Republican presidents are current or former Federalist Society members.

Some scholars recommended reforms that would constrain the Supreme Court’s ability to invalidate certain types of legislation. Others would regularize Supreme Court appointments and require periodic judicial turnover.  Still others would expand the Court.

One of the most popular suggestions would impose term limits–terms long enough to insulate jurists from political passions–18 years is popular– but short enough to avoid the negatives of lifetime tenure.

An article in Politico argued that a proposal to impose term limits could generate bipartisan support.

The most common version of this reform contemplates justices serving nonrenewable 18-year terms, staggered so that one term ends every two years. This would mean that presidents would get to nominate new justices in the first and third years of their own administrations. Retirements and nominations would occur like clockwork. The result would be a court whose membership, at any given time, would reflect the selections of the past 4 1/2 presidential administrations.

There is a significant hurdle to overcome.

Because Article 3 of the Constitution confers life tenure upon all federal judges, term limits would likely require a constitutional amendment. Yes, constitutional amendments are hard to enact. We have not amended our Constitution since 1992, and we have done so only once in the past half-century. But there is reason — even in these politically polarized times — to believe that constitutional reform is possible.

As the essay from the Brennan Center noted, however. court reform movements have a long history at the state and federal level – and have often seemed impossible until changes in the political environment made them all but inevitable.

And as Politico reported,

What is more, almost every state in the union imposes term limits on its state supreme court justices, a mandatory retirement age, or both. Only Rhode Island has a system of life tenure akin to the federal model. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that when the National Constitution Center held an exercise in 2020 for drafting new constitutions, both the conservative and progressive teams adopted 18-year limits.

It is abundantly clear that we have reached a crisis point. The current court has issued a string of decisions that are not just wildly unpopular, but at odds with decades of precedent.  it has increased its misuse of the shadow docket, and all but declared war on the agencies of the administrative state. Worst of all, sitting Justices have engaged in activities that range from demonstrably corrupt (Thomas, Alito) to ethically questionable (Roberts, Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor).

It’s time for substantial reforms.

Comments