Sunday, November 30, 2025
A Proposal That Could Stop Political Prosecutions
Donald Trump claimed that he was the victim of political prosecutions. Now he is directing political prosecutions of his own. Regardless of who is doing it, political prosecutions are very destructive to both our democracy and our system of justice.
Two law professors, Ian Ayres (Yale Law School) and Saikrishna Prakash (University of Virginia Law School), think they have a solution. They have a proposal for Congress that, if passed, could end the destructive practice of political prosecutions. Here is what they write in The Washington Post:
We are caught in a vicious cycle. The in-group is using the law against the out-group, which will surely feel empowered to respond in kind once the tables turn again. Americans widely believe that prosecutions are increasingly being weaponized, even if they disagree about who started it. To stop the spiral and restore confidence, we propose a novel prosecutorial check. . . .
In deciding whether to prosecute politicians, the Justice Department must navigate two vital imperatives: Politicians should not be immune from prosecution, and the decision to prosecute should not be influenced by partisan politics.
The Justice Department used to have substantial internal safeguards against politically motivated prosecution. But the Trump administration has gutted these. In May, department leaders suspended a decades-old requirement that prosecutors seek approval from its Public Integrity Section before charging members of Congress. Simultaneously, that section was reduced from more than 30 attorneys to just two. The president has brazenly discarded the long-standing norm against White House influence on prosecutorial decision-making.
As politicization has ramped up, the judicial checks on partisan prosecutions have remained static. Targets of political prosecutions can challenge their indictments. But courts rarely dismiss indictments on grounds of selective or vindictive prosecution.
We propose that Congress give federal judges another option. When a prosecution appears politically motivated, a judge should have the discretion to impanel a “prosecutor jury” to assess the propriety of the indictment.
The prosecutor jury would be composed of 20 randomly selected former U.S. attorneys, evenly divided between those nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents. A prosecution could proceed only if at least two-thirds of this panel — 14 out of 20 — concluded that the indictment was appropriate. This supermajority would ensure that at least a substantial minority of prosecutors nominated by a defendant’s own party supported the prosecution.
Former U.S. attorneys are uniquely qualified to guard against weaponized prosecutions. Unlike ordinary grand jurors, they have extensive experience making charging decisions, understand prosecutorial strategy and can distinguish legally sound theories from problematic ones.
This framework would help ensure that politicians are not above the law, since they would remain subject to prosecution. But politicians and, more important, the nation would be better protected from partisan prosecutions. Should a prosecutor jury approve an indictment, Americans would know that a bipartisan supermajority of professionals endorsed it.
To test our framework, we surveyed former U.S. attorneys regarding the Trump indictments. The responses revealed significant nuances across cases and political lines. The Florida classified-documents prosecution of Trump received substantial majority support from both Democratic-and Republican-nominated attorneys. Interestingly, some prosecutors nominated by Democrats expressed reservations about the case.
Responses to the case charging Trump in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election tell a different story. Once we balanced for respondents’ political ties, the indictment lacked support from even a simple majority — well short of our two-thirds requirement. These results demonstrate that former U.S. attorneys can rise above party lines to apply professional judgment developed through their considerable experience.
These heartening results signal the utility of a prosecutor jury. If a case persuades 14 of 20 prosecutors, that is sound evidence that it has merit.
Critics may object that our proposal undermines rule of law by making prosecution more difficult. This criticism misunderstands what the rule of law requires. The Bill of Rights mandates numerous protections that make conviction more difficult, from unanimous jury verdicts to rules about gathering evidence. Moreover, the Constitution grants special protections for certain officials. Members of Congress possess a privilege against certain arrests and a speech-and-debate privilege. Presidents and judges have official immunity. These safeguards are not exceptions to the rule of law — they are part of its responsible exercise. . . .
We, too, are members of opposing parties, and we both fear that the weaponization of prosecutions gravely threatens the rule of law. No one can be blind to the reality that both parties may engage in prosecutorial malfeasance. Any solution must therefore command bipartisan credibility. Prosecutor juries are the bulwark we need.
Cause Of Affordability Crisis: Inflation And WAGE SUPPRESSION
There is an affordability crisis in the United States. Far too many people find themselves unable to afford to live a decent life. The media has focused on inflation as a cause. But while inflation has definitely a cause, it is only part of it. Perhaps the bigger part is worker wage suppression.
Heidi Shierholz explains at MS NOW:
Affordability – or the lack of it – is dominating the public discourse. “Affordability, affordability, affordability: Democrats’ new winning formula,” proclaims Politico. “Trump tries to seize ‘affordability’ message,” reports The New York Times. Election results in New Jersey, Virginia, New York and elsewhere showed that voters are responding to candidates who speak directly to the cost of living.
Today’s affordability debate, however, focuses almost entirely on prices, as if the only way to make life affordable is to make things cheaper. But that approach misses the bigger picture. Affordability depends on both prices and wages. The roots of today’s affordability crisis actually lie not in recent price spikes, but in the long-term suppression of workers’ pay.
For more than four decades, employers have been actively suppressing the wages of working people, so that corporate managers and owners can claim an ever-larger share of the income generated by what workers produce. Government policies facilitated these efforts. Policymakers allowed labor standards such as the minimum wage to erode (and reduced enforcement of the standards we do have), blocked adequate protections for workers’ right to organize and promoted macroeconomic policy that allowed unemployment to remain too high for long periods, undermining workers’ leverage.
One way to see this shift is by comparing the growth in workers’ pay to the growth in productivity, which measures how much income is generated on average in an hour of work. If pay for typical workers had kept pace with productivity over the past 45 years, their paychecks today would be roughly 40% larger. That wage shortfall is what is really driving America’s affordability crisis – and reversing it must be central to any serious affordability agenda.
Policymakers who only look at prices and ignore paychecks are missing a huge set of affordability policy levers. Stronger labor law, which helps workers’ ability to unionize and bargain collectively, is affordability policy. A higher minimum wage is affordability policy. Macroeconomic policy that keeps unemployment low and protects workers’ bargaining power is affordability policy. A durable social safety net that keeps families from falling into poverty when they lose a job or get sick is affordability policy.
These reforms are also incredibly popular. Unions, for example, are as popular as they have been in decades – with particularly strong support among younger people. Americans overwhelmingly back higher minimum wages. There is electoral gold to be mined by policymakers who show voters that they are pursuing policies that will make life more affordable by raising wages.
That’s not to dismiss efforts on the price side of the affordability equation. Antimonopoly policies can help keep large corporations from inflating prices. Building affordable housing can help reduce housing costs. Subsidies for – or public provision of – necessities such as health care, child care and transportation can provide families a crucial buffer. Those are all essential efforts.
But if policymakers promise they will lower prices enough to ensure affordability for U.S. families, they are setting voters up for disappointment. The vast majority of prices will never come down. We live in a mostly capitalist economy where prices are set by millions of private actors. Micromanaging them isn’t possible or even desirable in most cases.
What policy can do is ensure that the labor market delivers rising incomes: through better labor standards and collective bargaining rights, through macroeconomic policy that helps ensure a full employment economy and boosts workers’ leverage and through social policies that fill the gaps the market leaves behind. . . .
As lawmakers grapple with the cost of living, they need to remind Americans – again and again – that pay is a policy choice. Making life more affordable means not just lowering prices where possible and necessary, but raising wages. True affordability comes when working people earn enough to cover the costs of living with dignity and security.
Saturday, November 29, 2025
Voters Don't Want Most Government Programs Cut
The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 21st and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,511 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.
The Trump Train Is Losing Steam And Slowing Down
For the first few months of his second term, Trump looked unstoppable. But as the problems continue to mount for his administration, that is no longer true. Here's how Heather Digby Parton puts it at Salon.com:
Like the president himself, the Trump train, which looked like high-speed rail during the first few months of his second term, is slowing down. And it’s a much more rickety machine than it first appeared.
Over the past few weeks the Republicans have lost the argument — if not the process — on the government shutdown. Despite the best efforts of Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., Congress voted almost unanimously for the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Trump failed to persuade the Senate to eliminate the filibuster and his “health care plan” has been rejected by the House’s MAGA caucus. Now, a contingent of congressional Republicans are rebelling against his proposed sell-out to Russia and his staunch ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., defied him and then announced her resignation, prompting whispers that she’s just the first of many House Republicans who are considering leaving Congress before the 2026 midterms — and possibly even prompting a shift in the majority.
Despite his extravagant campaign promises, Trump’s economy is still in the doldrums, largely because he choked off the crisp recovery that was underway when he took office with his tariff agenda. His anti-immigrant policies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and warmongering in the Caribbean are cruel; his corruption is flagrant and his obsession with renovating and decorating the White House is downright bizarre. His personal vengeance project is an embarrassment to all involved.
For months, the media was mesmerized by Trump’s theatricality. Democrats in Washington, obsessed as they were with their compulsive navel gazing, were paralyzed. But that seems to be over now — and it’s largely due to ordinary Americans seeing the threats posed by Trump more clearly than the party’s leadership and successfully pushing back.
The latest polling breaks down along typical lines, with Republicans mostly backing Trump and Democrats pretty much unanimously rejecting him. But instead of the similar breakdown you usually find among Independents, who generally lean 50-50, a substantial majority of them are now siding with the Democrats. A recent CBS/YouGov poll found that a whopping 76% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 24% approve.
Those numbers reflect a very serious erosion in support for Trump and Republicans, and it’s doubtless contributed to his approval rating sinking below 40%. This decline has occurred despite a massive propaganda effort by the White House to present the president’s first year as successful on every front — including this week’s ludicrous claim that he has the highest poll numbers of his career. He is actually at the weakest point in his presidency.
Americans are rejecting Trump’s policies across the board. He’s drastically underwateron the economy, immigration, inflation and trade, all supposedly his strong suits, and people are blaming him — and not former President Joe Biden — for all of it. While most Republicans love the cruel ICE raids in Democratic-led cities, large majorities of Democrats and Independents disapprove, and it’s personal to many of them. Most people, too, are well aware that Trump is using law enforcement to target his political enemies. . . .
Finally, there were the overwhelming victories of Democrats in the recent elections. In a normal political environment, off-year elections have limited value in predicting the following year’s midterms. But this year, in this abnormal time, something interesting happened. Young people and Latinos who had voted for Trump in 2024 swung back to Democrats in droves, from the big marquee races to local school boards.
Friday, November 28, 2025
New Poll Shows Trust Is Low In American Institutions
The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 21st and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,677 adults, with a 3.4 point margin of error.
Thursday, November 27, 2025
Happy Thanksgiving
I wish all my readers a very happy Thanksgiving holiday. I wish you lots of fun, food, (and for those who like it) football. And I hope you can spend the days with those you love - whether they be friends or family.
Trump's Job Approval Is Only 38% In New Economist/YouGov Poll
The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 21st and 24th of a nationwide sample of 1,677 adults (including 1,511 registered voters). The margin of error is 3.4 points for adults and 3.0 points for registered voters.
Peace Is Possible In Ukraine - But Not The Way Trump Is Trying To Do it
Donald Trump promised during the last campaign that he would have peace in Ukraine on his first day in office. Now, eleven months later, that peace still seems very far away.
Trump has tried several times to end the Russia-Ukraine war and failed. His latest attempt was a 28 point plan that he demanded Ukraine accept. Sadly, it was so bad that Putin himself couldn't a written a plan more favorable to Russia. The plan was unacceptable to Ukraine (and its European allies) and has been changed. Now it is unacceptable to Russia.
The crazy thing is that peace is possible in Ukraine, but Trump has been going about it all wrong. He has been favoring Russia and pressuring Ukraine. That's just the opposite of what needs to be done.
Trump seems to think that Ukraine is on a path to defeat while Russia is in a strong position. Neither is true. Ukraine is fighting for its life, and cannot give up or surrender. And Russia is in a weaker position than the media would have us believe.
The truth is that in the last two years Russia has only increased it control of Ukrainian territory by a scant 1% - and it has cost them 200,000 dead and wounded soldiers to do that. And while Russia keeps bombing Ukraine on a daily basis, Ukraine (with long-range drones) is hitting Russia back on a daily basis. And while Ukraine can't surrender, it remains to be seen how long Russia can continue the war with the costs it is incurring.
Instead of pressuring Ukraine, Trump should be putting some real pressure on Russia. After all, it is Russia that invaded Ukraine.
Trump has threatened severe economic sanctions on Russia and to give Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, but backed off both when Putin praised him (played him!). He needs to follow through on both of those things - and more. He needs to make it clear that the U.S. will continue to give Ukraine all the weaponry it needs, and then threaten to accept Ukraine into NATO (and the European Union).
Russia is hurting. And some real pressure on them would make all the difference. Putin might finally realize they cannot continue a war they cannot win.
Sadly, Trump won't do that. He will be continued to be outsmarted by Putin. And he will continue to fail in his efforts for a "peace" plan. He's just not smart enough to know who America's real friends are - and who its enemies are.
Wednesday, November 26, 2025
Most Say U.S. Standing In The World Has Grown Worse Under Trump
The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 15th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,549 adults (including 1,382 registered voters). The margin of error was 3.5 points for adults and 3.2 points for registered voters.
Public Wants Supreme Court To Overturn Trump Tariffs (But Don't Think They Will)
The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 15th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,549 adults (including 1,382 registered voters). The margin of error was 3.5 points for adults and 4.2 points for registered voters.
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Majorities In Both Parties Support The Partisan Redistricting
The chart above is from the Politico / Public First Poll -- done between November 14th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 2,098 adults, with a 2 point margin of error.
Could States Bypass The Supreme Court And Get Rid Of Citizens United?
It has generally be thought that only the Supreme Court could get rid of its Citizens United decision (which allowed corporations to donate huge amounts of dollars to political campaigns). But Robert Reich tells us there might be another way. He writes:
Several of you responded to my “Sunday thought” yesterday by saying that the first step out of the mess we’re in is to get rid of the Supreme Court’s bonkers Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, which held that corporations are people — entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the rest of us.
Corporate political spending was growing before Citizens United, but the decision opened the floodgates to the unlimited super PAC spending and undisclosed dark money we suffer from today.
Between 2008 and 2024, reported “independent” expenditures by outside groups exploded by more than 28-fold — from $144 million to $4.21 billion. Unreported money also skyrocketed, with dark money groups spending millions influencing the 2024 election.
Most people I talk with assume that the only way to stop corporate and dark money in American politics is either to wait for the Supreme Court to undo Citizens United (we could wait a very long time) or amend the U.S. Constitution (this is extraordinarily difficult).
But there’s another way! I want to tell you about it because there’s a good chance it will work.
It will be on the ballot next November in Montana. Maybe you can get it on the ballot in your state, too.
Here’s the thing: Individual states — either through their legislators or their citizens wielding ballot initiatives — have the authority to limit corporate political activity and dark money spending, because they determine what powers corporations have.
In American law, corporations are creatures of state laws. For more than two centuries, the power to define their form, limits, and privilege has belonged only to the states.
In fact, corporations have no powers at all until a state government grants them some. In the 1819 Supreme Court case Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Chief Justice John Marshall established that:
“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence….The objects for which a corporation is created are universally such as the government wishes to promote. They are deemed beneficial to the country; and this benefit constitutes the consideration, and, in most cases, the sole consideration of the grant.”
States don’t have to grant corporations the power to spend in politics. In fact, they could decide not to give corporations that power.
This isn’t about corporate rights, as the Supreme Court determined in Citizens United. It’s about corporate powers.
When a state exercises its authority to define corporations as entities without the power to spend in politics, it will no longer be relevant whether corporations have a right to spend in politics — because without the power to do so, the right to do so has no meaning.
Delaware’s corporation code already declines to grant private foundations the power to spend in elections.
Importantly, a state that no longer grants its corporations the power to spend in elections also denies that power to corporations chartered in the other 49 states, if they wish to do business in that state.
All a state would need to do is enact a law with a provision something like this:
“Every corporation operating under the laws of this state has all the corporate powers it held previously, except that nothing in this statute grants or recognizes any power to engage in election activity or ballot-issue activity.”
Sound farfetched? Not at all.
In Montana, local organizers have drafted and submitted a constitutional initiative for voters to consider in 2026 — the first step in a movement built to spread nationwide. It would decline to grant to all corporations the power to spend in elections.
Called the Transparent Election Initiative, it wouldn’t overturn Citizens United — it would negate the consequences of Citizens United. (Click on the link and you’ll get the details.)
The argument is laid out in a paper that the Center for American Progress published several weeks ago. (Kudos to CAP and the paper’s author, Tom Moore, a senior fellow at CAP who previously served as counsel and chief of staff to a longtime member of the Federal Election Commission.)
Note to governors and state legislators: The Citizens United decision is enormously unpopular. Some 75 percent of Americans disapprove of it. But most of your governors and state legislators haven’t realized that you have the authority to make Citizens United irrelevant. My recommendation to you: Use that authority to rid the nation of Citizens United.
Hopefully, Montanans will lead the way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)