Democratic dark money kingmaker pumps millions into ‘nonpartisan’ Supreme Court watchdogs

Supreme Court⁢ Watchdogs Funded by Dark Money Network

A group of⁣ nonpartisan ⁤Supreme Court watchdogs, demanding greater financial transparency from conservative justices, received millions of dollars in funding from the largest Democratic-allied dark‍ money network in the United States, according‍ to tax forms. ‌These funds,⁣ made public through new financial disclosures, highlight the reliance of these watchdog ​groups on⁣ influential left-wing grantmakers,‍ such as Arabella Advisors, to support ⁤their campaign against Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The Arabella Advisors consulting firm manages a ⁣network of nonprofit organizations ​that⁢ spent over $1 billion last year ‌to support liberal causes. Washington D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb is currently investigating Arabella Advisors and its offshoots for alleged financial mismanagement. The ‍consultancy also oversees several‌ funds, including Hopewell Fund,‌ North Fund, and Windward Fund, which sponsor lesser-known groups exempt from​ filing tax forms with the IRS.

Conservative Judicial Crisis ​Network Accuses Arabella Advisors of Bias

Carrie Severino,‍ president⁣ of the conservative Judicial ‌Crisis Network, criticized Arabella Advisors,⁢ stating ⁣that they specialize in creating front groups that appear locally-run or ⁢nonpartisan to advance their ⁢extreme agenda. Severino ⁢believes that Arabella Advisors is behind the campaign to discredit conservative justices.

The Judicial Crisis Network, also known as Concord Fund, is affiliated with Federalist Society co-chair Leonard Leo, who, along with GOP businessman Harlan​ Crow, may face congressional subpoenas regarding ⁣their connections⁤ to Thomas and⁤ Alito. ​Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats decided against pursuing the matter after ​Republicans suggested issuing a subpoena to Arabella ‌Advisors.

Furthermore, Schwalb has initiated an investigation into tax-exempt ​organizations linked to Leo following a complaint by⁢ Campaign for‌ Accountability, a⁣ self-proclaimed nonpartisan watchdog. ​The ⁣complaint ‍alleged that several nonprofit groups, including Concord Fund, paid excessive‌ compensation⁤ to Leo.

Nonpartisan‍ Watchdogs Funded by Open Society Foundations

Campaign for Accountability, a former project of Hopewell Fund, received a $450,000 ‌donation in 2022 ‍from New Venture Fund. This adds to the $2.3 million that New Venture Fund has wired to CFA between ⁢2016 and 2021. CFA has​ also received significant ⁣funding from Open Society Foundations, a liberal grantmaking network ​backed ⁤by Democratic megadonor ​George Soros.

In September, CFA⁤ joined⁢ over 40 ⁣”Supreme‍ Court watchdog ‍and accountability organizations” in sending⁤ a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts,⁢ demanding that Thomas ⁣and Alito recuse‌ themselves from ‌cases allegedly tied to conservative hedge fund manager Paul ⁢Singer and the right-libertarian ⁤Koch Network.

Accountable.US, another self-proclaimed nonpartisan watchdog, received over ⁤$2 million in 2022⁢ from New⁣ Venture Fund for civil rights, social action,​ and advocacy. Between 2019 ⁢and 2021,⁢ Accountable.US‍ received a staggering $8 million from ⁣New Venture Fund. The organization has​ called for‌ Clarence Thomas’s resignation, citing ‍ProPublica’s reporting on his failure to⁣ disclose travel with Crow.

Conservatives ‍Accuse Watchdogs ‍of Partisanship

Republicans have pushed back against allegations of⁤ impropriety, noting that there were no laws at the time requiring disclosure of‍ the travel. Critics ⁢argue that these watchdog groups, ⁣claiming to be nonpartisan, ⁣are actually partisan propagandists serving the​ interests of their left-wing billionaire donors. Mark Paoletta, former general counsel for the Office of Management and‍ Budget under President ⁤Donald Trump, criticized these groups ⁢for ‌manufacturing phony ethics scandals to undermine trust in the Supreme Court.

Common Cause,⁤ a grassroots organization dedicated to​ upholding American democracy, ​has also criticized Thomas and Alito for their ties to conservative activists. The organization has received ⁢millions of dollars from Open Society Foundations and has been allied with progressives. Other⁤ watchdog groups, such as ⁢Project on Government Oversight, ⁢have also received funding from New Venture Fund and have called⁢ for investigations into Thomas’s failure to disclose gifts.

Despite the ⁣controversy⁤ surrounding these watchdog groups, they continue to ⁢receive funding from various sources, including dark money networks and liberal​ grantmakers.

⁢Why are some organizations calling for the Supreme ⁤Court to adopt a code of conduct?

⁣ Er‍ 60 organizations in ​calling for the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct. ⁤The group claimed that the Court’s current rules are insufficient⁣ in⁢ addressing potential conflicts of interest and ​the appearance of bias among the justices.‌

The issue of dark money in⁤ the judicial system has been ⁣a subject of concern ‍for many on the right. Critics argue that the⁤ lack of transparency surrounding the funding of watchdog groups undermines the ⁢integrity of their mission. It raises questions about their⁢ motives‌ and whether ⁢they are‌ truly impartial‌ in their assessments of the Supreme Court justices.

Supporters of the watchdog ⁣groups, however, ‌contend that their work is crucial in holding the judiciary accountable. They argue that public scrutiny of justices’ financial ties and potential⁣ conflicts of interest ​is necessary to maintain public trust in the ‌Supreme​ Court.‌

The‌ Importance of Financial Transparency

At the heart of this debate is the issue of ​financial ‌transparency. In an era where the influence of money in​ politics is ​a significant concern, it is vital to ensure that⁤ our‍ judicial system‌ remains ⁢impartial and free from⁤ undue influence.‌

Financial disclosures provide a window into the financial interests and affiliations of public figures, allowing the public and watchdog groups to assess potential biases and‍ conflicts‍ of interest. If ‌these ⁢disclosures are incomplete or lacking, it becomes challenging to ascertain⁢ whether a Supreme Court justice’s decision-making is influenced ​by‍ external factors.

Therefore, it ‌is essential for ‍all watchdog groups,⁤ regardless of their political leanings, to be transparent about ‍their sources of funding. This transparency ‍helps maintain their credibility and ‍allows the public to make‍ informed judgments about the legitimacy of their‌ findings and recommendations.‌

Moreover, ‌transparency in funding allows for ‌a more comprehensive ⁣understanding of the broader landscape of political influence.‍ It enables us ‍to identify patterns and⁢ potential biases within the​ system.‌

Addressing the Issue

To ⁤address concerns‍ about ​the influence of dark money on Supreme Court watchdog groups, there should be bipartisan support for ⁣greater financial transparency. Both conservative and liberal groups should disclose their⁤ sources of funding, enabling ‍the public to evaluate ⁣potential biases and conflicts⁤ of interest.

Additionally, it is crucial for ⁢the ​judiciary itself to adopt rigorous ethics guidelines that‌ address‍ conflicts of interest ⁣and the appearance of bias. This will ‌help ‍ensure that the ⁣decisions made by Supreme Court justices are based solely on the merits of the cases ⁢before​ them.

Last but not least, ⁣regulatory⁤ bodies,​ such ‌as the Internal Revenue Service, should scrutinize​ the activities of nonprofit organizations ⁢and ensure compliance with tax regulations. This will prevent the misuse of tax-exempt entities for political purposes.

In conclusion, the reliance of Supreme ⁢Court watchdog groups on dark money networks⁤ raises questions ‍about their impartiality ⁢and‍ motives. ⁣To maintain public‍ trust in the judiciary,⁢ it is crucial for all‍ such groups to be transparent about their ⁣funding sources. Moreover, both conservative and liberal organizations should work together to address ⁤the issue ⁢of dark‌ money in the judiciary and promote financial transparency. Only ⁤by ⁤doing so can ​we⁤ ensure that⁣ the decisions made by our highest court are truly based on‍ the merits of the cases before them and not influenced​ by undisclosed⁢ external factors.