Post AVDTRMCORH93FUhBWi by RobertMaguire@journa.host
 (DIR) More posts by RobertMaguire@journa.host
 (DIR) Post #AVDTRLTj7LPr0xnVuC by RobertMaguire@journa.host
       2023-05-01T16:12:32Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Thomas's defenders have tried to minimize Harlan Crow's direct business before the Court, but in some ways that's the wrong question. During his tenure, Thomas has pushed to give more political power to the powerful, with less accountability.https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/clarence-thomass-decisions-have-been-benefiting-wealthy-donors-like-harlan-crow-for-decades/
       
 (DIR) Post #AVDTRMCORH93FUhBWi by RobertMaguire@journa.host
       2023-05-01T16:12:33Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       For at least two decades, in multiple decisions, Thomas has railed against the long-established limits on political contributions, calling them an unconstitutional limit on free speech. In his view, wealthy donors should be able to give as much as they want.
       
 (DIR) Post #AVDTRQZaB04SoZZlE8 by RobertMaguire@journa.host
       2023-05-01T16:12:34Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       And on the subject of disclosure, we often forget that Thomas was the *only* justice not to support the part of the Citizens United decision that reaffirmed the importance of disclosure in the American campaign finance system.
       
 (DIR) Post #AVDTRSYwmKkczBIHVw by RobertMaguire@journa.host
       2023-05-01T16:12:35Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       In Thomas’s perfect world, it seems American politics would be free of limits or disclosure. Wealthy donors, corporations and special interests could give as much as they want, with no public disclosure.
       
 (DIR) Post #AVDTRUNg1CvMco2JE0 by RobertMaguire@journa.host
       2023-05-01T16:12:36Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       This also applies to judicial recusals. In 2009’s Caperton v. Massey, he was in the minority and voted against forcing a judge who had gotten $3 million in campaign support from a single contributor to recuse when that donor was a party in a case before him.