The free beacon

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Enigmatic $1M Prize

⁤ ​

‘With ⁣all ⁢of the⁣ Left’s​ wailing about ​transparency, ‌this ​is the ​antithesis’

​ ​
Associate Justice ⁢Ruth⁣ Bader⁤ Ginsburg ⁣/ Getty Images

When the⁤ late Supreme Court ‍Justice ⁣Ruth Bader Ginsburg‍ accepted ​a $1 million prize from a ⁤liberal ⁢billionaire’s⁣ foundation, ​she​ pledged ⁢to ​pass the ⁢money to a‌ list of​ designated‍ charities. Four years ‍later,​ it is​ unclear⁢ where Ginsburg sent that ‍money—an⁤ ambiguity⁣ that experts ⁣say ⁤raises ⁣conflict ‍of ‌interest ‌concerns.

⁢ ‌

The⁢ Berggruen ‌Institute, a private foundation founded by‍ billionaire investor ⁢Nicolas ⁤Berggruen, ⁣awarded ​Ginsburg ⁢its⁤ annual $1 ‌million​ Philosophy​ & Culture award during​ a ‍swanky⁢ star-studded⁢ event⁢ in⁢ December ⁤2019. ‌At ‍the ⁢time, ethics experts⁤ raised ‍red flags‌ over ⁤Ginsburg’s acceptance of ⁢the prize, noting that‍ the ​bounty ⁣far⁤ exceeded ⁢the⁣ $2,000‌ limit‌ placed‍ on‍ honoraria​ by⁢ Judicial Conference​ regulations. But‍ Ginsburg⁤ temporarily‌ assuaged ‌those ​concerns​ when she⁤ pledged to donate the​ prize money ‌to ‍more‌ than 60⁣ charities ⁣that reflected ‌her ⁢personal​ causes, ​including the American Bar Foundation, the ‍American ‍Cancer​ Society,⁣ and ​the ‌Metropolitan Opera.

⁤‍

What Ginsburg⁣ failed ​to ⁣mention⁢ was ‌that she⁤ also directed ‌the‌ Berggruen ​Institute‍ to ⁢conceal the full list of her designated⁣ charities from‌ the public,⁢ a spokeswoman for the ⁣institute told the ⁣Washington Free ​Beacon. The Berggruen Institute ⁢even‌ engaged‌ in some creative ‍accounting ⁢in its ‌Form 990 tax return to ensure‍ the​ recipients remain⁣ shrouded‌ in secrecy.

“That list, per her ⁢wishes, is not⁢ for‌ publication,” ‌Berggruen Institute spokeswoman‌ Rachel⁢ Bauch⁤ told the ‍Free ‍Beacon.

⁤‍

Experts say ⁢the ⁣lack‍ of⁣ transparency⁤ surrounding ⁣Ginsburg’s⁤ $1⁢ million prize raises the⁤ possibility ⁤that​ some of the ⁤recipients ​could ⁢have had ⁤business ⁣before⁣ the Court prior​ to Ginsburg’s death. One​ of the few ⁢known recipients, the⁣ American ​Bar Foundation, ⁤is ​affiliated ⁢with ⁢the American Bar ⁢Association,⁤ which⁤ filed several ‌amicus briefs before ‌the‌ Supreme ⁤Court​ in⁤ 2020 before⁢ Ginsburg’s ⁢death. There‌ is ⁤no‍ evidence ⁤that Ginsburg‍ recused‌ herself⁤ from ‌those cases.

The Berggruen Institute’s ​refusal to ⁢disclose ⁣which groups ⁢profited from ⁤Ginsburg’s $1 million ⁤prize⁣ comes as ​mainstream media outlets‌ such‍ as ⁢ProPublica have worked to instill a ‍crisis ​of confidence in⁤ the⁢ Supreme‌ Court​ over‌ alleged ethical transgressions from conservative ​justices Clarence ​Thomas​ and‍ Samuel ⁤Alito. Democrats such​ as⁤ Sen. ‌Sheldon⁢ Whitehouse ⁢(D., ⁣R.I.)⁣ and Sen. Dick‌ Durbin (D., ‍Ill.) have seized ​on ‍the ⁣reports ⁣to push a ‌Supreme Court ⁣ethics law⁣ that ⁤Republicans say ​would overstep‍ congressional ⁣authority. ‌The Senate ⁢Judiciary Committee ⁢will vote on ⁤the bill Thursday.

But experts‍ told the‌ Free Beacon that the left’s ‍lack‍ of‍ interest in ‍potential ⁤ethical lapses from​ Ginsburg ​betrays ⁤the partisan motivation ⁤behind their attacks.

“Ginsburg‌ required ​that ⁢her list of entities ⁢she⁢ showered ‍with‍ funds ​be⁣ confidential and ‍we‍ don’t‌ know how many⁢ of them ​appeared⁣ before ​the Court⁢ when‍ Justice Ginsburg⁣ was serving,” said‌ former‌ Office of Management‍ and Budget general counsel ‌Mark ​Paoletta,‌ a ‌longtime friend ‌of Justice ‌Clarence Thomas. ‍”With all of the Left’s wailing about transparency, ‍this is ⁤the ⁤antithesis—but crickets from ​the⁢ Left. ​They ‌don’t​ care⁣ about ethics. They‍ just want ⁤to‍ attack ​the ⁣Court‌ because‍ it​ is‌ no ‍longer acting​ like ⁣a⁣ super‌ legislature to enact unpopular⁣ progressive policies like affirmative action.”

Nonprofit‍ groups ⁣are typically ​required⁤ to disclose the names of groups they provided grants​ to ⁤in ⁣their⁣ public‍ Form 990 tax​ returns. The Berggruen Institute​ evaded this disclosure by ​reporting⁣ Ginsburg’s ​prize⁢ on‍ its 2019 Form 990‍ financial​ disclosure ​as⁤ an expense.

Former ​IRS‌ tax ⁢law specialist ‍Patrick‌ Sternal⁣ described the institute’s accounting maneuver as ‍a⁤ “workaround to the disclosure ​of the⁤ ultimate ​recipients⁣ of the funds.”

“There⁤ is some legal gray ‌area here,‍ but ​the ⁢foundation⁢ should probably ​have ​treated⁤ the prize ⁤as ⁣a grant, not‍ a ‍line-item other ‌expense,” Sternal ‍told ⁤the ⁤Free ⁤Beacon. “It’s strange ⁣that [Ginsburg]⁤ didn’t want ‌to‌ make‌ the ​recipients’ names ​public.”

⁣ ⁤

Paul⁤ Kamenar, an attorney⁣ with the ‌National Legal and Policy Center watchdog‍ group,⁣ also ⁤said the Berggruen⁢ Institute⁣ should have disclosed the identity of​ the charities designated by Ginsburg in its⁣ financial disclosure.

Nicolas Berggruen,‍ the⁣ institute’s⁤ founder, told the New​ York⁢ Times in‍ 2022 ​he had⁤ a‌ “very‌ left-wing”‍ upbringing.‌ But ⁢the billionaire investor⁤ claimed ⁤he ‌wasn’t⁣ involved in awarding Ginsburg the philosophy ⁣prize in‍ 2019.⁢ That⁤ decision was ‍left⁢ to the⁤ Berggruen⁢ Prize ⁢Jury, ​which in 2019 included former ⁣University of Pennsylvania⁣ president ‌Amy ​Gutmann. ‍The year prior,‍ Gutmann helped ⁣Hunter Biden’s‌ academically subpar⁣ daughter secure​ a ticket ​to⁤ the‌ prestigious university⁤ at the‍ behest⁤ of ⁤President ⁤Joe‍ Biden, ‌the‌ Free Beacon reported. ⁤Gutmann became Biden’s‌ ambassador‍ to ‍Germany in ⁤January 2022.

Ginsburg’s ‍acceptance‍ of⁤ the Berggruen Institute prize‍ is hardly the only‍ ethical‌ lapse from the late justice, ⁢according to ⁢the liberal⁤ group Fix⁤ the ‌Court. In ​2018, ⁣Ginsburg embarked ‌on ‌a private‌ tour⁤ of‌ Israel​ paid for by billionaire ⁤Morris Khan‍ just one year after the‍ Supreme Court⁢ issued a ruling in favor ‌of ⁤his company⁤ Amdocs. Ginsburg ‍did⁤ not recuse​ herself ⁣from ⁢that ⁣case.

⁣ ⁣

Ginsburg⁣ also‌ attacked former ‌President ⁤Donald Trump during a CNN ⁢interview in ​the lead ⁢up ⁤to‌ his​ 2016 ⁤victory, saying she couldn’t ⁢”imagine‍ what⁢ the ‍country would be with Donald Trump as ​our ⁣president.”⁤ She later apologized ⁣for ‍her⁤ remarks, ⁣but‌ did⁤ not recuse​ herself from any‍ case that the former ‌president ‍was a ​party⁢ to.

⁤ ⁣

Other⁢ liberal ‌justices have ‌come​ under fire in ⁣recent weeks.

​ ⁢

​ ⁤ ⁢

Supreme⁣ Court justice ⁤Sonya Sotomayor earned $3.7‌ million in book ‌sales⁢ since‌ joining the Court in 2009, thanks ⁢in ‌no small ‍part ⁤to ​using⁢ her taxpayer-funded ⁣staff to push ⁤colleges and other‌ institutions⁣ to ⁣buy ⁣her ‌books‍ when she‍ speaks at ‍events,⁢ the ‌Associated​ Press reported.

“The ⁤utter ⁢lack of⁤ curiosity⁢ from Senators Whitehouse and Durbin ‌about liberal justices’⁤ behavior‌ only​ underscores their real‌ motive,” ‌Judicial Crisis ​Network president Carrie ⁢Severino told the ‌Free Beacon.⁣ “Their sham charges against conservative‌ justices‍ aren’t about ethics but⁢ are instituting⁤ a new ⁢McCarthyism‌ attacking⁢ their political ⁣enemies.”


Read More From Original Article Here: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Mysterious $1 Million Prize

" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker