Tag Archives: Jim Banks

What They’re Really Attacking

Most readers of this blog are familiar with the famous Martin Niemoller quote, uttered as the Nazis solidified control of the German government:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak outBecause I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

The reason that statement remains so powerful is because it focuses on an essential truth: a government that can pick and choose among its citizens, a government that can empower some while disenfranchising or mistreating others, is a government incompatible with–and threatening to– basic human liberties.

As a former president of the ACLU put it, “Poison gas is a great weapon until the wind shifts.”

And that gets me to my frequent warnings about the real danger posed by the MAGA worldview–a worldview shared by autocrats like Trump and theocrats like Alito. As I have repeatedly noted, the Dobbs decision didn’t just target women’s rights–it undermined the constitutional principle that prevents government from invading everyone’s individual liberties and dictating all personal behaviors.

It isn’t just Dobbs. 

Axios recently reported that Indiana is one of a number of Red states that is refusing to follow a federal regulation meant to protect the civil liberties of LGBTQ+ youngsters.

The U.S. Department of Education expanded protections for LGBTQ+ students under Title IX last month — but Indiana has told its schools to ignore the guidance.

Why it matters: Indiana is one of many states that passed legislation in recent years targeting the LGBTQ+ community, particularly children.

  • A 2023 law requires schools to alert parents if their child requests a change to their name or pronoun, which teachers fear could force them to out transgender students, and earlier legislation blocked transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports.

Driving the news: Indiana’s Department of Education advised schools “not to change their existing policies” in a memo last month, as first reported by WFYI.

  • “IDOE is currently working with legal counsel to review these new regulations, which among other things expands the definition of “sex” in Title IX,” the department said. “At initial review, these draft regulations will undoubtedly have major implications for Indiana schools and students and will likely be subject to legal challenges.”

The fine print: The federal guidance adds protections against “discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.”

  • The deadline for schools to adopt the rules to remain compliant for federal funding is Aug. 1.

There will undoubtedly be a lot of criticism focused on the fact that this rebellious noncompliance threatens critically-needed federal funding for public education. But it threatens far more than that. It is yet one more assault on the rule of law. It reinforces the Rightwing conviction that disagreement with a law constitutes an entitlement to violate it.

People who don’t believe women should have the right to control their own bodies, who view LGBTQ+ folks as “sinners” or worse, who remain convinced that Whites are superior to other races–in short, people who find it appropriate for government to “come for” some category of “Other”–fail to understand that a government empowered to award or deny privileged status is a government inconsistent with individual liberty and the rule of law.

At the end of the day, that is what is at risk in the upcoming elections. If would-be theocrats like Mike Braun and (especially) Jim Banks prevail (and worse, if their fellow Christian Nationalists should return Trump to power), we will see these persistent attacks on disfavored minorities used to further erode everyone’s individual liberties.

If we look honestly at American history, it becomes obvious that “states’ rights” always meant allowing state governments to privilege some citizens at the expense of others. When Braun says he wants to return the question of inter-racial marriage to the states, when Banks proposes federal legislation to ban abortions with no exceptions, they are just saying the quiet part out loud.

If people like Braun and Banks and Trump are elected, the wind will shift in a profoundly unpleasant direction. And unless you’re a White Christian guy, the government will eventually be empowered to come for you.

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

A Civics Lesson, Or Why I Love Jamie Raskin

Watching today’s House of Representatives too often reminds me of farce: Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ilk are so lacking in gravitas, so proudly ignorant, so strident as they parade their various prejudices and display their utter unfitness for elective office, the show they put on tends to overpower recognition of their more serious and/or able colleagues.

One of my favorites in that latter group is Jamin Raskin. I’ve followed Congressman Raskin since before he was first elected, actually–many years ago, my husband and I were in Washington, D.C., catching up with former Mayor Bill Hudnut and his wife Beverly. Bev was then in law school, and introduced me to her Constitutional Law professor, who–among other things– shared my obsession with civic literacy, and had produced a book for use by high school government teachers. That professor was Jamin Raskin.

During his tenure in Congress, Raskin has frequently called upon his academic background to explain America to his dimmer colleagues. One of my favorite examples was when he told an excessively pious lawmaker, “When you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” (He recently repeated this to Mike Johnson, the current Speaker, who has frequently opined that “the bible comes first, before the Constitution.”)

He taught another lesson when he spoke out against the censure of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who had made remarks that echoed long-time anti-Semitic tropes. In a press release, Raskin–who is Jewish–

urged the House to respect and protect the right to political free speech granted under the First Amendment and the Speech or Debate Clause by not using the House disciplinary process to punish Members’ political speech; warned of the chilling effects that politicizing and weaponizing the House’s censure mechanism would have on the speech of all Members; and noted that, in the history of the House of Representatives, the overwhelming number of censures have been for conduct, like taking bribes, embezzling funds, assaulting other Members, engaging in mail fraud, and having sex with pages, and that the only kinds of speech that have ever been punished have been true threats of violence, fighting words on the floor towards other Members, and incitement to insurrection and secession, none of which are protected by the Constitution and none of which are implicated here.  

Raskin’s legal skills were evident when he managed Trump’s second impeachment.

And recently, when Congressman Glenn Grothman attempted to lecture Raskin on a perceived distinction between a “republic” and a “democracy,” Raskin outdid himself, providing Grothman with a history lesson.

The link is to CSpann, and I urge you to click through and watch Raskin deliver that brief but powerful lesson.

Raskin’s work ethic has been obvious, as he has continued to work during a recent bout with cancer and the unimaginable pain of losing a son to suicide. 

There are undoubtedly other Jamie Raskins in “the people’s House,” with whom I’m unfamiliar. I focus on him because I’ve met him, because he actively defends important constitutional values,  and because his wit and intellect and work ethic have all been particularly impressive, but I am confident that for every MTG, Jim Jordan, Paul Gosar and Jim Banks there are two or three serious elected Representatives trying to do a good job for their constituents at a particularly contentious time.  (The recent bipartisan booing of MTG on the House floor was a welcome indicator that those individuals are as tired of performative politics as I am.)

Perhaps–if and when Americans tire of confusing political gravitas and legislative capacity with celebrity–we will be able to replace the Christian Nationalist “God squad” and other self-important know-nothings with people who are actually familiar with the Constitution and serious about producing legislation to improve Americans’ lives, and strengthen democratic values.

Like Jamie Raskin. 

Comments

Allow Me To Translate..And Pontificate

In a recent column in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall once again returned to the subject of political polarization, and–as is his typical approach–quoted scholars on the subject. As a former member of that tribe, I will admit that the problem with quoting academics is the occasional impenetrability of the language. (It’s not a problem limited to academia–not long after becoming Executive Director of Indiana’s ACLU, I was counseled by a member of the national staff to stop sounding like an “ACLU lawyer.” Every career has its jargon…)

At any rate, allow me to quote–and then translate–one of the scholars who responded to Edsall:

Interventions to reduce affective polarization will be ineffective if they operate only at the individual, emotional level. Ignoring the role of polarizing politicians and political incentives to instrumentalize affective polarization for political gain will fail to generate change while enhancing cynicism when polite conversations among willing participants do not generate prodemocratic change.

In other words, polarization isn’t just a matter of individual hostility for those on the other “team.” Political leadership bears considerable responsibility for MAGA resistance to democratic norms. The polarization reflected in our everyday conversations is cultivated by political “culture warriors” like Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Green and her Indiana clone, Jim Banks. As a different scholar (one evidently more comfortable with normal English usage) put it:

I don’t think any bottom-up intervention is going to solve a problem that is structural. You could reduce misperceptions for a day or two, or put diverse groups together for an hour, but these people will be polarized again as soon as they are exposed once more to campaign rhetoric.

A recent study evidently found that widespread popular opposition to anti-democratic policies is insufficient to prevent their adoption. That research found that what the scholars called “backsliding behavior by elites” occurred irrespective of a lack of public approval or support; and that much of the problem is rooted in the fact that “Americans, despite their distaste for norm violations, continue to elect representatives whose policies and actions threaten democracy.”

In other words–and this will most definitely not come as a shock to any citizen who’s been paying even the slightest attention–virtually all of the current dysfunctions of governance are caused by the various doofuses we’re electing. (I cannot restrain myself from reminding you, dear readers, that it is frequently thanks to gerrymandering that we are electing these performative, anti-democratic culture warriors.)

As another scholar opined,

Whatever techniques might exist to reduce citizen animosity must be accompanied by efforts to reduce hostility among elected officials. It doesn’t matter if we can make someone more positive toward the other party if that effect is quickly undone by watching cable news, reading social media, or otherwise listening to divisive political elites.

In other words–as several of the researchers contacted by Edsall confirmed– positive effects of efforts to intervene and ameliorate polarization “are almost immediately nullified by the hostile rhetoric in contemporary politics.”

A professor of psychological science at the University of California-Irvine attributed the persistence of polarization to what he dubbed a “moralized political environment,” and that phrase resonated with me. I am hardly the only person to see today’s political disputes as evidence that contemporary political combat takes place between partisans who hold significantly different values. 

As Edsall noted,

The issues dividing the parties have changed. When the two parties fought over size of government, taxes, social welfare programs, it was possible for partisans to imagine a compromise that is more or less acceptable even if not ideal. Compromise on issues like abortion, gender roles, L.G.B.T.Q.+ rights, the role of religion is much more difficult. So losing feels like more of a threat to people’s values.

From my vantage point, we have moved from good faith arguments about the proper approach to various issues–the “how”–to arguments about “whether.” Rather than debating, say, the best way to feed poor children, we confront self-identified “pro life” politicians who simply oppose spending any tax dollars on food for poor children. Rather than debates about America’s global role and the least dangerous way to approach Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, political figures like Braun and Banks vote–as conservative George Will wrote–“to assure Vladimir Putin’s attempt to erase a European nation.” Etcetera.

We aren’t having “political” arguments. We are having deeply moral ones.

Survey research confirms that a majority of the American public is on the right side of those moral debates–but that obsolete political structures allow MAGA Republicans–a statistical minority– to ignore We the People.

Political structures empowering ideological minorities are the reason we can’t just “make nice” and “all get along.”

Comments

Early Voting In Indiana..

Yesterday, in Indiana, early voting for the primary election started. My husband and I walked over to Indianapolis’ City-County building and cast our votes–including our votes for Marc Carmichael for U.S. Senate. In case you haven’t read my previous posts about why Marc deserves support--and why Jim Banks is a MAGA nightmare–I’m pasting in a video from Marc, and his own written perspective on the race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mwsP8eMfSk

Now, from MARC:

Dear Fellow Concerned (Scared) American,

To be blunt, on Tuesday, November 5, Indiana’s new United States Senator will either be me or MAGA Trumper and bomb thrower out of the US House Chaos Caucus, Jim Banks.
We get just this one chance to beat Jim Banks or he will be an Indiana incumbent Republican senator and we will never get rid of him or the constant shame he will bring on our state and the United States, not to mention the forced march he will lead back into the Dark Ages.
Fortunately we have a good chance to win this race.  First, it is an open seat with no incumbent.  Second, Banks is not known outside his 3rd Congressional District and intensely disliked within it.  Third, thanks to Republicans inability to govern in DC and the Dobbs decision striking down Roe V Wade, this is shaping up to be a good year for Democrats, even in Indiana.
Trump’s MAGA (Make America White Again) base continues to shrink from a high of 42% to 35% and Jim Banks only appeals to that base.  His Indiana Senate seat was gerrymandered for a Republican and so was his Congressional seat.  He knows nothing about campaigning except pandering to the Trump MAGA base.  He is boxed in between Trump and the NRA.
If elected to the US Senate I pledge: to work with President Biden to restore Roe V Wade; to ban the sale of assault weapons; to battle climate change; to enact Medicare for all including our LGBTQ kids who are being denied critical medical care by narrow minded, mean spirited Republican legislators;  to confirm fair and impartial judges to counter the unqualified partisan judges foisted on us by Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party; to work for an immigration law that protects our borders and is fair and enforceable; to work on answers to our shortage of affordable housing; to help create good union jobs that help restore the middle class; to never vote for a tax cut for the rich; to address the inequity of pay for women; and many more things left undone by a do nothing Republican Party.
I (we) can do this.  In 1986 I first ran for the Indiana House from Delaware County and my opponent was the Republican Speaker of the Indiana House, J. Roberts (Bob) Dailey.  He was in a 60% Republican district, had been Speaker for 6 years, and was considered the most powerful person in the Indiana Legislature.  No one thought I could beat him, but I didn’t know any better so I made up a cheap brochure and started walking door-to-door in July.  It was hot and there were dogs, but when people found out I was running against Bob Dailey they were very glad to see me.  That reception continued as I walked through August, September, October and November, and on Election Day I won by 18%, 59-41.
With your help I can win this race too.  I can’t walk all of Indiana door to door, but I can go to every fair and festival and take my 1971 VW bus to every parade I can fit on my schedule between now and November.  I can advertise on social media to reach various groups, I can send text messages, emails, and direct mail too, but in the end I will need to be on TV and that’s expensive.
Will you help me?  We get just this one shot.  I can do it if you will support me financially, otherwise we might as well just give up and accept Jim Banks as our US Senator.  I refuse to give up.  Please look me up at marcforindiana.com and see what I stand for.  Provide a donation at www.actblue.com/donate/carmichael-for-us-senate-1.  Please help me help you not suffer the fate of Senator Jim Banks.  
Sincerely,
Marc Carmichael
Comments