Our resident constitutional expert Bruce Fein joins to make the case for impeaching the Supreme Court AND the President, and what we—as citizens—can do to make it happen.
Ok. Sounds accurate. Good solution. Now, what would be your analysis of the failure of the Democrats to stop the Genocide of the Palestinians and to accept such high levels of obvious corruption? This is a serious question.
China is not 'forcing' Uyghurs to make solar panels. That is complete nonsense based on Right-Wing initiated propaganda. While Uyghurs are discriminated against by the majority Han Chinese population, claims of Chinese mass incarceration and enslavement of Uyghurs are simply false, made up by right wing religious conservatives working in tandem with US National Security State manipulators. (See link below.) Wallach needs to stop making assumptions based on US State Department propaganda and do actual homework on the situation in China. Start here:
US State Department accusation of China Uyghur ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue Adrian Zenz
When Bruce Fein was asked what can people do about "it" he said the usual stuff about contacting your representatives and demanding action to protect the constitution regardless of being Republican or Democrat which would force the politicans to choose between Trump and their own political future.
Then he hit the nail on the head when he said that people should make it clear that if the representatives do not meet the demand we will not vote for them in 2026.
That is the key to how citizens hold the politicians accountable.
The big money interests hold the politicians accountable by financing (or not financing) the politicians campaigns.
So the question is, Ralph, why can't we use the same principle that Bruce Fein suggests we use to force the politicians to choose between Trump and their own political future by demanding that politicians do not take big money to finance their campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 by saying we will not vote for them if they take big money forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or being a small donor candidate?
Just 10% of the 150 million voters investing 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates in 2026 would total 1.5 billion dollars and could be just the tip of the iceberg.
Voting for big money Democrats or Republicans in 2026 if they treat the symptom of Trump with impeachment will do nothing to change the dynamics of our political process being controlled by the big money interests that led to Trump.
Let's instead treat the cause in 2026 by demanding that politicians run small donor campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes putting Ralph's previous statement that politicians want our votes more than big money to a test.
Don, I’ve come around to your point of view that people have to pledge to vote against anyone taking corporate money. It would take concerted grassroots efforts in virtually every state, however.
My idea would be to circulate a petition to as many voters in the state as possible whereby voters would pledge not to vote for any candidates who take corporate money either directly or indirectly through PACs. The petitions would then be sent to the candidates and their parties for responses and publicized in the newspapers and elsewhere in the hope of getting more voters on board. In my state of Montana, at least, 10 to 20,000 votes will swing just about any election-state or federal. So you don’t need many pledges from voters to make it work.
In addition, Montana actually has a statute prohibiting candidates for elected offices from taking corporate money, but it is recognized only in the breach. I’ve pointed this out to other Montana citizens and lawyers, advocating for the above described petition.
Thus far, my idea has received less than a lukewarm response. Just about everyone agrees something needs to be done, but it is almost as if people want to wring their hands about it rather than actually do something.
I don’t understand that psychology, but that’s what it seems like.
I’m gonna give it a try anyhow when we get closer to the midterms. Montana has a small population, as you know, and something like this can be made to go viral, but it takes a little guts and a lot of work.
(Essentially, I think Mr. Mamdani has proven you have a chance to get elected by swearing off big donors and Pacs. I would think this should encourage candidates to do the same and provides support for grassroots efforts. ).
Send me a letter on my substack page if you want to chat. Same goes to anyone else who agrees with Mr. Harris‘s proposal and has a little Don Quixote in them.
The problem with petitions is there is no continuation. This is why I set up a website (www.onedemand.org) that will continue the effort as it took decades to get to where we are and it will take more than one election cycle to change it.
Maybe you could consider setting up a One Demand Montana. If successful it could inspire participation in other states in future elections.
Just saying corporate money or PACs leaves too much wiggle room for candidates.
A 2800 dollar total contribution by an individual still dwarfs a contribution by a small donor (less than 200 dollars total ). As I pointed out candidates can raise enough with only contributions from small donors.
The declaration on the website also includes what citizens can do when there are no small donor candidates on their primary or general election ballots- they cast a write in vote to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections.
If your 10-20 thousand Montana voters cast these write in votes and it had an effect on the 2026 election it could increase the participation in future elections and might get some news coverage.
It would also help if Ralph would start the non-profit media conglomerate I have suggested that would be funded by selling shares for 100 dollars each with no one person owning more than ten shares and can only be sold for 100 dollars as the purpose of owning the shares is for ordinary citizens to control the media conglomerate and not to make money on the value of the shares. This would create media that would actually report on these kind of efforts that the corporate controlled media ignores and or marginalizes.
Thanks Don. Thanks for the ideas. My methods are from an analog age and need updating.
Hope we can keep in touch and collaborate.
I tried to google your website, but no hit. I don’t know if that’s at my end or yours, but if its at yours, it needs fixing. I’ll keep trying all I get for one demand is a software company going by that name.
I agree, but It doesn't help much, i don't think ,for some pols to swear off big $$$ unless they all do - and at this point, considering that it has been 15 years since the CU decision which Congress is using as an excuse for not enacting campaign finance reform ("sorry, the SC says we can't") it seems to me that holding their feet to the fire on this issue would consist of refusing to vote for any who do not support a Const Amend that would allow them to do so, and then, of course, doing it - one that says Corps are not People and Money is not Speech - and there is, and has been, such an Amendment presented in the House - this year HJR 54, that does just that ... no companion in the Sen. I know of ...
So maybe we could at least tell our Congresscritters we will not vote for any who don't sign on to and VOTE FOR it - that is pretty good litmus test, it seems to me ...
As I point out in my reply to Erik this will not happen in one election cycle.
The way to get them all starts with citizens making the demand and enforcing the demand with votes in 2026, getting more citizens and some candidates to participate in 2028 and reaching a point in 2030 or 2032 when there are enough citizens participating (40 percent or so) that a candidate cannot get elected if they take big money.
This would be much faster than the decades it will take to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified and implemented.
And unless we first replace the big money candidates with small donor candidates the big money candidates will not pass any reform or amendments as the problem with big money legislators is that they only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests that have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.
I also oppose any amendment that says money is not speech.
There is no specific right in the Constitution to make political contributions. If money is not speech then I no longer have the right to make political contributions.
Amendments should provide rights not take them away.
It's true - it takes a while to pass an Amendment - all the more reason to continue to push ... IMO it's a good thing women pressed for the 19th Amendment, though some may disagree .. all this Amendment does is enable Congress to put limits on campaign finance, not forbid your ability to engage in it, any more then putting speed limits on highways takes away your right to drive on them - why don't you read it.
And in any case, this is not a substitute for your idea but a companion to it
Also, when you ask them to take a pledge not to take big money - what is the definition of "big money" - the devil is always in the details ...
To keep things brief, I am flummoxed as to why the raising of revenue is even being discussed in reference to tariffs. Not only was it discussed in the segment with Lori Wallach, but it led off the segment. The US federal government is a currency-issuing entity. Tax/tariff receipts are not of relevance in any direct sense, certainly not in the context implied in the discussed here.
I tend to agree - I do wish Ralph and crew would discuss MMT with someone like Stephanie Kelton -
The issue, it seems to me is not how much we need, because we can print that - but on what it should be spent ... Perhaps it is still considered too "revolutionary" to suggest that taxes/tariffs aren't needed for raising "revenue" but for redistribution to even out the incredible and growing inequality in this country, which, in the end may well be the source of our undoing ...
Ralph, all, it is totally unacceptable that you continue to allow Bruce Fein to spout complete nonsense. Worse still, you eat up that nonsense yourselves like candy based on egregious confirmation bias in yourselves. Example: The claim that Trump's Supreme Court somehow struck down Birth Right Citizenship is complete buIIshit.
The Supreme Court struck down universal immediate precedent from regional courts over the question of Birth Right Citizenship (a perfectly legal and constitutional decision) and while doing so even hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional. The Court striking down of regional decisions setting immediate precedent for all jurisdictions in the country is 100% legal and constitutional.
Bruce Fein is simply making up hyperbolic bogeyman fairy stories and falsely implying Presidential and Court vulnerability to impeachment which doesn't exist in reality. These fairytales are driven by such obviously false wishful thinking, and are so patently clownish, that they undermine our ability to hold Trump and the Court accountable when they really *do* act badly and unconstitutionally, which has indeed happened a lot (most prominently in the arming and funding of Israel).
It is your way-over-the-top accusations against Bruce Fein that put you in a very bad place. Fein is correct when he asserts the duty / obligation of the president to take "great care" that the laws passed by Congress are "faithfully executed." Trump asserted that Article Two gives him the powers to do whatever he wants.
"The Court has operated a 'shadow docket' picking cases on request from Trump where he is seeking to violate (invalidate) the decisions of lower courts." And you attack Mr. Fein over this?
Ralph Nader Radio Hour: Mr. Fein is a guest I look forward to. I appreciate his documenting of the impeachable offences committed by Trump. America needs MORE like Mr. Fein.
I didn't make 'accusations' toward Bruce Fein, I showed how what he is saying is false. What I am attacking Fein over is his mixing of over-the-top horseshit and exaggerations with *some* facts to paint an inaccurate picture of what Trump is doing, exaggerating its danger and illegality, and then using that manufactured fairystory to put forward the false premises that:
1) Trump is somehow an unprecedented totalitarian threat to a 'democracy' which the US never had in the first place and which was turned into a fascist oligarchy by Reagan and Clinton *decades* ago (and Trump is merely a more out there clown showman of the reality we have already lived under for 30 years)
2) Trump is seeking to be in office 'for life' when in reality he is going to be in office for only three more years and then leaving and everyone who has a basic IQ of 75 knows this is what is going to happen
3) ridiculously exaggerate the possibility that Trump and Supreme Court members can be readily impeached when that is not *remotely* going to happen
Presidents and the Supreme Court have been carrying out impeachable acts since the *founding* of the US centuries ago and the idea that the powers that be are somehow going to go after Trump or the Court is flat out laughable. They are doing exactly what the oligarchs who run this country *want* them to do.
"...hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional."
Hinted at - but did not rule on it, preferring instead to gut the power of lower District courts to put nationwide stays on a denial of citizen ship that clearly affects the whole country while it wends its way through a process of appeals until it finally gets to the SC - when, on the next "docket", in '26? The idea that specific "class action suits" are needed (in each District?) when clearly the "class" affected is every kid born in the US to a "non-citizen" parent, is rather ludicrous - and begs the question, why did they make such a ruling when they could have decided the question there and then ....
They are caught in a bit of a dilemma - to rule that "the plain language", of which the Conserv. Majority is so fond, makes it clear that all kids born in this country are, ipso facto, citizens, would be to cross Trump - which would really piss him off. And then he would have a choice, to back down, appear "weak", and open himself to his already pissed off MAGA base, or to "defy" the SC - adding another clear basis for impeachment - the SC has "rescued" him once again, and, once again, at our expense.
How far will he go, and how far will the SC let him go, in terms of mangling the Constitution, and how many people will suffer in the process .... In the absence of impeachment we have another 3 1/2 years to find out - will there be anything left worth saving ...
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Birth Right Citizenship because as the court correctly pointed out, the question before them was the extrapolation of a regional court case into a nationwide injunction. The Court said that such extrapolation is not Constitutional (arguably true) and then literally outlined for the petitioners how they could pursue their cases on Birthright Citizenship more effectively in the future.
And your contention about class action lawsuits is incorrect. There can, and may well be, a national class action on this Birthright Citizenship question. It is patently obvious that Trump's action to undermine Birthright Citizenship is blatantly unconstitutional, there is no way that Trump would win such a case, and the Court all but admitted this in its ruling.
And the reasoning behind the issuance of the injunction in the first place? That Trump's declaration - that children born here of non-citizens were not citizens was un-constitutuional - that even you admit is true - and that there is no way Trump could win. So why was it necessary for the Court to essentially create or dictate a way for plaintiffs to pursue their case "more effectively" ...
It wasn't, and i think you know that - the SC was unnecessarily kicking the can down the road - creating a lot of fear and confusion for a lot of people - cui bono - certainly not the Const.
You need to learn a lot more about how courts work, especially the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court takes up a case it very strictly limits itself to making decisions only about the merits and parameters of the case before them, and they DO NOT stray beyond those parameters. This means that the Supreme Court COULD NOT RULE on the constitutionality of Trump's action because that IS NOT what was before the Court, The Court was very strictly limited to ruling only on whether or not the injunction should apply nationally to all jurisdictions in the US. Therefore the Court told the petitioners, that 1) they could only rule on the injunction and that it was not a national precedent, and 2) that if the petitioners wanted a nationally applicable ruling they had to pursue it in a different way. (A type of advice the Court often gives in its judgements.)
Bruce Fein knows all of this perfectly well, which is what makes it so galling that he is quite clearly purposely misleading you and others, likely in a shameless grift to make money for himself by becoming a go-to media commentator who can be counted on to stir up hyperbolic hysteria on Trump, and thereby give media outlets higher ratings.
What they "ruled on" was that a District Ct could not issue a national injunction on this issue,- so tell me, is this the first time that a District Ct has made a ruling that was a "national injunction" , and if not, why hasn't the SC nixed this idea before - and wasn't this DC injunction simply to stay Trump's declaration on birthright citizenship pending further decisions up the chain of Appeal in order to prevent real immanent harm to individuals - and is this decision re the inability of a District Ct to impose national injunctions to be applied to all future District Ct cases ....
I think you know as well as i that the SC can rule, or avoid ruling, on whatever aspect of a case it wants to - and will find ways to justify that decision ....
That this is Trump's Court was made quite clear when the Ct decided that a Pres could not be criminally prosecuted for actions undertaken as part of his "official duties" of office - which apparently he is able to define himself ... So the SC is the last word on saying "what the law is" and the Pres is the last word on saying "what his official duties are"
Sorry, Eric, I'll take Fein's interpretation and analysis over yours any day
The ruling has broader implications than that. What the Court ruled is that District court injunctions cannot be applied nationally unless such a national application is necessary to make whole the actual plaintiffs in the case. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have a very long history of ruling that suits are only valid if the outcome directly personally impacts the plaintiff(s) (this is known as the requirement of 'Standing') and that rulings must only apply as needed to resolve the grievance of the plaintiff(s). You and I might disagree with this approach, but it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
What the Court did has precedent, and its previous allowance of national application of injunctions has always been when there is a clear need for the national application to make the plaintiffs whole (for example in immigration cases). You can look up this history, I encourage you to do so.
And no, your contention that the Supreme Court just does whatever the hell it wants is not backed by the facts. Even when the Court clearly makes egregiously out there and purely political bad rulings, it invariably has to twist the text of those rulings into a very convoluted pretzel to do so (for example in Bush v Gore 2000).
But that is not what happened in this case. In the Birthright Citizenship case the Court made a perfectly reasonable ruling that is not convoluted at all, and makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a judicially conservative approach to law.
And it's a good precedent. Imagine if a district court ruled that all abortion was illegal for all people in the United States around the case of just one plaintiff father in Paducah, Kentucky against a single abortion clinic.
Do you want the Supreme Court to have the power to uphold the national application of a district court decision like that?
Hell no.
Bruce Fein is a deeply experienced attorney on Constitutional and Federal law, and he KNOWS all of this.
And that means he is purposely lying to you and everyone else who listens to his sky-is-falling buIIshit that is going to sell a lot of books and sell out a lot of paid speaking venues for him.
I think it would be embarrassing to serve on the trump supreme court these days. Just think you put on that robe and walk out and sit down behind that historic desk and realize your leader will be calling soon to give you your instructions for the day. Even your friendly Washington lobbiest and once law school pals are not giving you advice or phone calls on subjects that need immediate attention regarding projects they are working on.
It's a lonely business being a supreme court justice these days,,, even if your goal is to help the down trodden, black, white, Hispanic, Latino, and perhaps a few immigrants or Jews that have been or are all about to be tossed on to the wood pile of injustice
In the old days you could find one of those fresh young smart, phi bata kapa Ive Leaguers just out of law school as clerks to tackle and handle various projects. But the smart ones know they don't want their futures to be compromised by a judgeship that caved into the wims of a moronic dictator. Or do they?
Will the dooly selected and elected members of our supreme court of the United States of America get their act together?
History will tell us soon who among them looked into the mirror and saw the laws of truth and justice. And I hope that will make all difference.
Analysts who spoke to ABC News credited the tariffs for delivering higher-than-expected tax revenue and helping to elicit some commitments from companies bent on investing in new production in the U.S. Is ABC News afraid of President Trump or do they mean it. I don't know.
It's a great idea that would never happen until everyone who profits from their being there is gone. I'm sure that won't be in my lifetime. Possibly it would in theirs??
Rump being the Corporate Socialist that he is for the top 2%, loves tariffs for one simple reason, they replace income taxation with consumer taxation as a federal funding source. The bottom 98% comprise 98% of the purchases of foreign products and the top 2% pay less taxes. It's how it was before the Income Tax Act and The Gilded Age magnates loved tariffs.
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. When faced with a clearly unfaithful Rep in Congress, there's no way Mr. Madison would have advised the People of that district to "wait for mid-terms."
The Ninth Amendment >> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(The People have every right and duty to petition the governor of their state to declare the seat in question "vacated." It lacks a member true to their oath. It's as if the People of that district are saying to the traitor: "You are Dead to us."
Trump wants to take on powers that he just doesn't have -- including to violate laws with impunity. This is ironic. We the People should be taking on a power that is most naturally ours -- and tacitly confirmed in our Ninth Amendment. It is there. WE have to articulate and assert it.
I am indebted to Mr. Bruce Fein for pointing to the words of a president in 1885 that I have very much taken to heart. A proposal that I will present here is taken from them. [emphasis is mine]
"But he who takes the oath today to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States only assumes the solemn obligation which EVERY patriotic citizen--on the farm, in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade, and everywhere--should SHARE with him.
"The Constitution which prescribes his oath, my countrymen, is YOURS; the Government you have chosen him to administer for a time is YOURS; the suffrage which executes the will of freemen is YOURS; the laws and the entire scheme of our civil rule, from the town meeting to the State capitals and the national capital, is YOURS.
"Your every voter, as surely as your Chief Magistrate, under the same high sanction, though in a different sphere, exercises a public trust.
"Nor is this all. EVERY citizen OWES to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants and a fair and reasonable estimate of their fidelity and usefulness. Thus is the People's will impressed upon the whole framework of our civil polity--municipal, State, and Federal; and this is the price of our liberty and the inspiration of our faith in the Republic." -- Grover Cleveland
Alright, Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. If Trump is impeached, you both are aware of the presidential line of succession in the United States. The Vice President, JD Vance, is first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Do you think these two are less dangerous than Trump? They both identify as Christian Nationalists.
3 Threats Christian Nationalism Poses to the United States
If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.
You may have missed Mr. Fein addressing this in the interview: "Well, why is that any improvement? Well, the improvement is because it comes on the heel of a precedent. I can guarantee you, J.D. Vance, that we know how he lusts for power. You know, two years before he became a nice presidential running mate with Trump, he called Trump Adolf Hitler.
So he doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake. And because the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well.
So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the articles I shared in my previous comment.
Yes, it might be true that JD Vance “doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake.” But, “the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well. So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
What? First of all, Trump is just a pawn. He’s not one of the crafters of Project 2025, some of whom are members of Congress. Do you think removing Trump will have a “deterrent effect” on JD Vance? No, it won’t. If Trump is removed, it won’t just be for cognitive impairment. It will be because he is losing his MAGA base due to the Epstein files.
I said at the end of my previous comment that: “If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.” JD Vance is going to continue to “do what Mr. Trump’s going to do,” and that’s because he and the crafters of Project 2025 want to transform America into a Christofascist theocratic government.
Christofascism: The Dangerous Convergence of Faith and Authoritarianism:
Exploring the Fusion of Religious Fundamentalism and Fascist Ideology in Modern Governance and Its Threat to Democratic Values
This has been decades in the making. They told us about their plans in "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," also known as Project 2025.
Here’s a quote from the article: JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
“JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists hoped for in a vice presidential candidate. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a major architect of Project 2025, seems to be thrilled with Vance’s elevation. Roberts said that people at his organization were “privately rooting” for Trump to choose Vance as his running mate. They, along with every other Christian nationalist outfit throughout the country, got their wish — they have another pawn with public relations skills through which they can advance their vision of a Christian nation.”
First, I would urge people to believe it's vastly preferable to have Mr. Trump removed by the Will of the People. The "forces" behind impeachment that could remove Trump could just as easily remove Vance.
Second, I would strongly urge people to consider that only four seats in the People's House mark the difference in power. 219 of those seats are held by Representatives completely unfaithful to their oaths of office. This can only be tolerated in a society accepting of lawlessness and dishonor.
I happened to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove last night, with Peter Sellars and others, and the comparison of Strangelove and Musk is close, remarkably close. His uncontroled Nazi salute especially and the AI Grok tantrum into fascism. Interesting, no?
Trump , his administration and the Supreme Court all need to be impeached !! They are all acting unconstitutional!! They are traitors
Ok. Sounds accurate. Good solution. Now, what would be your analysis of the failure of the Democrats to stop the Genocide of the Palestinians and to accept such high levels of obvious corruption? This is a serious question.
China is not 'forcing' Uyghurs to make solar panels. That is complete nonsense based on Right-Wing initiated propaganda. While Uyghurs are discriminated against by the majority Han Chinese population, claims of Chinese mass incarceration and enslavement of Uyghurs are simply false, made up by right wing religious conservatives working in tandem with US National Security State manipulators. (See link below.) Wallach needs to stop making assumptions based on US State Department propaganda and do actual homework on the situation in China. Start here:
US State Department accusation of China Uyghur ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue Adrian Zenz
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/18/us-media-reports-chinese-genocide-relied-on-fraudulent-far-right-researcher/
Interesting thank you
Good show!
When Bruce Fein was asked what can people do about "it" he said the usual stuff about contacting your representatives and demanding action to protect the constitution regardless of being Republican or Democrat which would force the politicans to choose between Trump and their own political future.
Then he hit the nail on the head when he said that people should make it clear that if the representatives do not meet the demand we will not vote for them in 2026.
That is the key to how citizens hold the politicians accountable.
The big money interests hold the politicians accountable by financing (or not financing) the politicians campaigns.
So the question is, Ralph, why can't we use the same principle that Bruce Fein suggests we use to force the politicians to choose between Trump and their own political future by demanding that politicians do not take big money to finance their campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes in 2026 by saying we will not vote for them if they take big money forcing the politicians to choose between taking big money or being a small donor candidate?
Just 10% of the 150 million voters investing 100 dollars in contributions to small donor candidates in 2026 would total 1.5 billion dollars and could be just the tip of the iceberg.
Voting for big money Democrats or Republicans in 2026 if they treat the symptom of Trump with impeachment will do nothing to change the dynamics of our political process being controlled by the big money interests that led to Trump.
Let's instead treat the cause in 2026 by demanding that politicians run small donor campaigns and enforcing that demand with our votes putting Ralph's previous statement that politicians want our votes more than big money to a test.
Don, I’ve come around to your point of view that people have to pledge to vote against anyone taking corporate money. It would take concerted grassroots efforts in virtually every state, however.
My idea would be to circulate a petition to as many voters in the state as possible whereby voters would pledge not to vote for any candidates who take corporate money either directly or indirectly through PACs. The petitions would then be sent to the candidates and their parties for responses and publicized in the newspapers and elsewhere in the hope of getting more voters on board. In my state of Montana, at least, 10 to 20,000 votes will swing just about any election-state or federal. So you don’t need many pledges from voters to make it work.
In addition, Montana actually has a statute prohibiting candidates for elected offices from taking corporate money, but it is recognized only in the breach. I’ve pointed this out to other Montana citizens and lawyers, advocating for the above described petition.
Thus far, my idea has received less than a lukewarm response. Just about everyone agrees something needs to be done, but it is almost as if people want to wring their hands about it rather than actually do something.
I don’t understand that psychology, but that’s what it seems like.
I’m gonna give it a try anyhow when we get closer to the midterms. Montana has a small population, as you know, and something like this can be made to go viral, but it takes a little guts and a lot of work.
(Essentially, I think Mr. Mamdani has proven you have a chance to get elected by swearing off big donors and Pacs. I would think this should encourage candidates to do the same and provides support for grassroots efforts. ).
Send me a letter on my substack page if you want to chat. Same goes to anyone else who agrees with Mr. Harris‘s proposal and has a little Don Quixote in them.
Erik Thueson
The problem with petitions is there is no continuation. This is why I set up a website (www.onedemand.org) that will continue the effort as it took decades to get to where we are and it will take more than one election cycle to change it.
Maybe you could consider setting up a One Demand Montana. If successful it could inspire participation in other states in future elections.
Just saying corporate money or PACs leaves too much wiggle room for candidates.
A 2800 dollar total contribution by an individual still dwarfs a contribution by a small donor (less than 200 dollars total ). As I pointed out candidates can raise enough with only contributions from small donors.
The declaration on the website also includes what citizens can do when there are no small donor candidates on their primary or general election ballots- they cast a write in vote to register a vote against the big money candidates and to create and demonstrate demand for small donor candidates in future elections.
If your 10-20 thousand Montana voters cast these write in votes and it had an effect on the 2026 election it could increase the participation in future elections and might get some news coverage.
It would also help if Ralph would start the non-profit media conglomerate I have suggested that would be funded by selling shares for 100 dollars each with no one person owning more than ten shares and can only be sold for 100 dollars as the purpose of owning the shares is for ordinary citizens to control the media conglomerate and not to make money on the value of the shares. This would create media that would actually report on these kind of efforts that the corporate controlled media ignores and or marginalizes.
Thanks Don. Thanks for the ideas. My methods are from an analog age and need updating.
Hope we can keep in touch and collaborate.
I tried to google your website, but no hit. I don’t know if that’s at my end or yours, but if its at yours, it needs fixing. I’ll keep trying all I get for one demand is a software company going by that name.
Erik
I agree, but It doesn't help much, i don't think ,for some pols to swear off big $$$ unless they all do - and at this point, considering that it has been 15 years since the CU decision which Congress is using as an excuse for not enacting campaign finance reform ("sorry, the SC says we can't") it seems to me that holding their feet to the fire on this issue would consist of refusing to vote for any who do not support a Const Amend that would allow them to do so, and then, of course, doing it - one that says Corps are not People and Money is not Speech - and there is, and has been, such an Amendment presented in the House - this year HJR 54, that does just that ... no companion in the Sen. I know of ...
So maybe we could at least tell our Congresscritters we will not vote for any who don't sign on to and VOTE FOR it - that is pretty good litmus test, it seems to me ...
As I point out in my reply to Erik this will not happen in one election cycle.
The way to get them all starts with citizens making the demand and enforcing the demand with votes in 2026, getting more citizens and some candidates to participate in 2028 and reaching a point in 2030 or 2032 when there are enough citizens participating (40 percent or so) that a candidate cannot get elected if they take big money.
This would be much faster than the decades it will take to get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified and implemented.
And unless we first replace the big money candidates with small donor candidates the big money candidates will not pass any reform or amendments as the problem with big money legislators is that they only pass legislation that primarily benefits the big money interests that have no interest in getting the big money out of politics.
I also oppose any amendment that says money is not speech.
There is no specific right in the Constitution to make political contributions. If money is not speech then I no longer have the right to make political contributions.
Amendments should provide rights not take them away.
It's true - it takes a while to pass an Amendment - all the more reason to continue to push ... IMO it's a good thing women pressed for the 19th Amendment, though some may disagree .. all this Amendment does is enable Congress to put limits on campaign finance, not forbid your ability to engage in it, any more then putting speed limits on highways takes away your right to drive on them - why don't you read it.
And in any case, this is not a substitute for your idea but a companion to it
Also, when you ask them to take a pledge not to take big money - what is the definition of "big money" - the devil is always in the details ...
To keep things brief, I am flummoxed as to why the raising of revenue is even being discussed in reference to tariffs. Not only was it discussed in the segment with Lori Wallach, but it led off the segment. The US federal government is a currency-issuing entity. Tax/tariff receipts are not of relevance in any direct sense, certainly not in the context implied in the discussed here.
I tend to agree - I do wish Ralph and crew would discuss MMT with someone like Stephanie Kelton -
The issue, it seems to me is not how much we need, because we can print that - but on what it should be spent ... Perhaps it is still considered too "revolutionary" to suggest that taxes/tariffs aren't needed for raising "revenue" but for redistribution to even out the incredible and growing inequality in this country, which, in the end may well be the source of our undoing ...
Ralph, all, it is totally unacceptable that you continue to allow Bruce Fein to spout complete nonsense. Worse still, you eat up that nonsense yourselves like candy based on egregious confirmation bias in yourselves. Example: The claim that Trump's Supreme Court somehow struck down Birth Right Citizenship is complete buIIshit.
The Supreme Court struck down universal immediate precedent from regional courts over the question of Birth Right Citizenship (a perfectly legal and constitutional decision) and while doing so even hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional. The Court striking down of regional decisions setting immediate precedent for all jurisdictions in the country is 100% legal and constitutional.
Bruce Fein is simply making up hyperbolic bogeyman fairy stories and falsely implying Presidential and Court vulnerability to impeachment which doesn't exist in reality. These fairytales are driven by such obviously false wishful thinking, and are so patently clownish, that they undermine our ability to hold Trump and the Court accountable when they really *do* act badly and unconstitutionally, which has indeed happened a lot (most prominently in the arming and funding of Israel).
It is your way-over-the-top accusations against Bruce Fein that put you in a very bad place. Fein is correct when he asserts the duty / obligation of the president to take "great care" that the laws passed by Congress are "faithfully executed." Trump asserted that Article Two gives him the powers to do whatever he wants.
"The Court has operated a 'shadow docket' picking cases on request from Trump where he is seeking to violate (invalidate) the decisions of lower courts." And you attack Mr. Fein over this?
Ralph Nader Radio Hour: Mr. Fein is a guest I look forward to. I appreciate his documenting of the impeachable offences committed by Trump. America needs MORE like Mr. Fein.
I didn't make 'accusations' toward Bruce Fein, I showed how what he is saying is false. What I am attacking Fein over is his mixing of over-the-top horseshit and exaggerations with *some* facts to paint an inaccurate picture of what Trump is doing, exaggerating its danger and illegality, and then using that manufactured fairystory to put forward the false premises that:
1) Trump is somehow an unprecedented totalitarian threat to a 'democracy' which the US never had in the first place and which was turned into a fascist oligarchy by Reagan and Clinton *decades* ago (and Trump is merely a more out there clown showman of the reality we have already lived under for 30 years)
2) Trump is seeking to be in office 'for life' when in reality he is going to be in office for only three more years and then leaving and everyone who has a basic IQ of 75 knows this is what is going to happen
3) ridiculously exaggerate the possibility that Trump and Supreme Court members can be readily impeached when that is not *remotely* going to happen
Presidents and the Supreme Court have been carrying out impeachable acts since the *founding* of the US centuries ago and the idea that the powers that be are somehow going to go after Trump or the Court is flat out laughable. They are doing exactly what the oligarchs who run this country *want* them to do.
"...hinted that ending Birth Right Citizenship is clearly unconstitutional."
Hinted at - but did not rule on it, preferring instead to gut the power of lower District courts to put nationwide stays on a denial of citizen ship that clearly affects the whole country while it wends its way through a process of appeals until it finally gets to the SC - when, on the next "docket", in '26? The idea that specific "class action suits" are needed (in each District?) when clearly the "class" affected is every kid born in the US to a "non-citizen" parent, is rather ludicrous - and begs the question, why did they make such a ruling when they could have decided the question there and then ....
They are caught in a bit of a dilemma - to rule that "the plain language", of which the Conserv. Majority is so fond, makes it clear that all kids born in this country are, ipso facto, citizens, would be to cross Trump - which would really piss him off. And then he would have a choice, to back down, appear "weak", and open himself to his already pissed off MAGA base, or to "defy" the SC - adding another clear basis for impeachment - the SC has "rescued" him once again, and, once again, at our expense.
How far will he go, and how far will the SC let him go, in terms of mangling the Constitution, and how many people will suffer in the process .... In the absence of impeachment we have another 3 1/2 years to find out - will there be anything left worth saving ...
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Birth Right Citizenship because as the court correctly pointed out, the question before them was the extrapolation of a regional court case into a nationwide injunction. The Court said that such extrapolation is not Constitutional (arguably true) and then literally outlined for the petitioners how they could pursue their cases on Birthright Citizenship more effectively in the future.
And your contention about class action lawsuits is incorrect. There can, and may well be, a national class action on this Birthright Citizenship question. It is patently obvious that Trump's action to undermine Birthright Citizenship is blatantly unconstitutional, there is no way that Trump would win such a case, and the Court all but admitted this in its ruling.
And the reasoning behind the issuance of the injunction in the first place? That Trump's declaration - that children born here of non-citizens were not citizens was un-constitutuional - that even you admit is true - and that there is no way Trump could win. So why was it necessary for the Court to essentially create or dictate a way for plaintiffs to pursue their case "more effectively" ...
It wasn't, and i think you know that - the SC was unnecessarily kicking the can down the road - creating a lot of fear and confusion for a lot of people - cui bono - certainly not the Const.
This is Trump's Court, not ours ...
You need to learn a lot more about how courts work, especially the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court takes up a case it very strictly limits itself to making decisions only about the merits and parameters of the case before them, and they DO NOT stray beyond those parameters. This means that the Supreme Court COULD NOT RULE on the constitutionality of Trump's action because that IS NOT what was before the Court, The Court was very strictly limited to ruling only on whether or not the injunction should apply nationally to all jurisdictions in the US. Therefore the Court told the petitioners, that 1) they could only rule on the injunction and that it was not a national precedent, and 2) that if the petitioners wanted a nationally applicable ruling they had to pursue it in a different way. (A type of advice the Court often gives in its judgements.)
Bruce Fein knows all of this perfectly well, which is what makes it so galling that he is quite clearly purposely misleading you and others, likely in a shameless grift to make money for himself by becoming a go-to media commentator who can be counted on to stir up hyperbolic hysteria on Trump, and thereby give media outlets higher ratings.
What they "ruled on" was that a District Ct could not issue a national injunction on this issue,- so tell me, is this the first time that a District Ct has made a ruling that was a "national injunction" , and if not, why hasn't the SC nixed this idea before - and wasn't this DC injunction simply to stay Trump's declaration on birthright citizenship pending further decisions up the chain of Appeal in order to prevent real immanent harm to individuals - and is this decision re the inability of a District Ct to impose national injunctions to be applied to all future District Ct cases ....
I think you know as well as i that the SC can rule, or avoid ruling, on whatever aspect of a case it wants to - and will find ways to justify that decision ....
That this is Trump's Court was made quite clear when the Ct decided that a Pres could not be criminally prosecuted for actions undertaken as part of his "official duties" of office - which apparently he is able to define himself ... So the SC is the last word on saying "what the law is" and the Pres is the last word on saying "what his official duties are"
Sorry, Eric, I'll take Fein's interpretation and analysis over yours any day
The ruling has broader implications than that. What the Court ruled is that District court injunctions cannot be applied nationally unless such a national application is necessary to make whole the actual plaintiffs in the case. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have a very long history of ruling that suits are only valid if the outcome directly personally impacts the plaintiff(s) (this is known as the requirement of 'Standing') and that rulings must only apply as needed to resolve the grievance of the plaintiff(s). You and I might disagree with this approach, but it is perfectly legal and Constitutional.
What the Court did has precedent, and its previous allowance of national application of injunctions has always been when there is a clear need for the national application to make the plaintiffs whole (for example in immigration cases). You can look up this history, I encourage you to do so.
And no, your contention that the Supreme Court just does whatever the hell it wants is not backed by the facts. Even when the Court clearly makes egregiously out there and purely political bad rulings, it invariably has to twist the text of those rulings into a very convoluted pretzel to do so (for example in Bush v Gore 2000).
But that is not what happened in this case. In the Birthright Citizenship case the Court made a perfectly reasonable ruling that is not convoluted at all, and makes perfect sense from the standpoint of a judicially conservative approach to law.
And it's a good precedent. Imagine if a district court ruled that all abortion was illegal for all people in the United States around the case of just one plaintiff father in Paducah, Kentucky against a single abortion clinic.
Do you want the Supreme Court to have the power to uphold the national application of a district court decision like that?
Hell no.
Bruce Fein is a deeply experienced attorney on Constitutional and Federal law, and he KNOWS all of this.
And that means he is purposely lying to you and everyone else who listens to his sky-is-falling buIIshit that is going to sell a lot of books and sell out a lot of paid speaking venues for him.
Bruce Fein is a grifting opportunist.
I think it would be embarrassing to serve on the trump supreme court these days. Just think you put on that robe and walk out and sit down behind that historic desk and realize your leader will be calling soon to give you your instructions for the day. Even your friendly Washington lobbiest and once law school pals are not giving you advice or phone calls on subjects that need immediate attention regarding projects they are working on.
It's a lonely business being a supreme court justice these days,,, even if your goal is to help the down trodden, black, white, Hispanic, Latino, and perhaps a few immigrants or Jews that have been or are all about to be tossed on to the wood pile of injustice
In the old days you could find one of those fresh young smart, phi bata kapa Ive Leaguers just out of law school as clerks to tackle and handle various projects. But the smart ones know they don't want their futures to be compromised by a judgeship that caved into the wims of a moronic dictator. Or do they?
Will the dooly selected and elected members of our supreme court of the United States of America get their act together?
History will tell us soon who among them looked into the mirror and saw the laws of truth and justice. And I hope that will make all difference.
Good luck America have a great day my friends.
Li I o Li Li Mo o o
Analysts who spoke to ABC News credited the tariffs for delivering higher-than-expected tax revenue and helping to elicit some commitments from companies bent on investing in new production in the U.S. Is ABC News afraid of President Trump or do they mean it. I don't know.
It's a great idea that would never happen until everyone who profits from their being there is gone. I'm sure that won't be in my lifetime. Possibly it would in theirs??
Rump being the Corporate Socialist that he is for the top 2%, loves tariffs for one simple reason, they replace income taxation with consumer taxation as a federal funding source. The bottom 98% comprise 98% of the purchases of foreign products and the top 2% pay less taxes. It's how it was before the Income Tax Act and The Gilded Age magnates loved tariffs.
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. When faced with a clearly unfaithful Rep in Congress, there's no way Mr. Madison would have advised the People of that district to "wait for mid-terms."
The Ninth Amendment >> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(The People have every right and duty to petition the governor of their state to declare the seat in question "vacated." It lacks a member true to their oath. It's as if the People of that district are saying to the traitor: "You are Dead to us."
Trump wants to take on powers that he just doesn't have -- including to violate laws with impunity. This is ironic. We the People should be taking on a power that is most naturally ours -- and tacitly confirmed in our Ninth Amendment. It is there. WE have to articulate and assert it.
I am indebted to Mr. Bruce Fein for pointing to the words of a president in 1885 that I have very much taken to heart. A proposal that I will present here is taken from them. [emphasis is mine]
"But he who takes the oath today to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States only assumes the solemn obligation which EVERY patriotic citizen--on the farm, in the workshop, in the busy marts of trade, and everywhere--should SHARE with him.
"The Constitution which prescribes his oath, my countrymen, is YOURS; the Government you have chosen him to administer for a time is YOURS; the suffrage which executes the will of freemen is YOURS; the laws and the entire scheme of our civil rule, from the town meeting to the State capitals and the national capital, is YOURS.
"Your every voter, as surely as your Chief Magistrate, under the same high sanction, though in a different sphere, exercises a public trust.
"Nor is this all. EVERY citizen OWES to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants and a fair and reasonable estimate of their fidelity and usefulness. Thus is the People's will impressed upon the whole framework of our civil polity--municipal, State, and Federal; and this is the price of our liberty and the inspiration of our faith in the Republic." -- Grover Cleveland
Alright, Mr. Nader and Mr. Fein. If Trump is impeached, you both are aware of the presidential line of succession in the United States. The Vice President, JD Vance, is first in line, followed by the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Do you think these two are less dangerous than Trump? They both identify as Christian Nationalists.
3 Threats Christian Nationalism Poses to the United States
https://time.com/6214724/christian-nationalism-threats-united-states/
Vice President JD Vance
JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
https://ffrfaction.org/jd-vance-is-exactly-what-christian-nationalists-want/
The significance of Vance’s appearance at event hosted by far-right Christian nationalist
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-significance-of-vances-appearance-at-event-hosted-by-far-right-christian-nationalist
To Understand JD Vance, You Need to Meet the “TheoBros”:
These extremely online young Christian men want to end the 19th Amendment, restore public flogging, and make America white again.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/theobros-jd-vance-christian-nationalism/
Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson
Inside Mike Johnson’s Ties to a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/10/mike-johnson-rewrite-constitution-00126157
Speaker Mike Johnson calls separation of church and state ‘a misnomer’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/15/mike-johnson-separation-church-state-misnomer?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Christian Nationalism of Speaker Mike Johnson
https://time.com/6329207/speaker-mike-johnson-christian-nationalism/
If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.
You may have missed Mr. Fein addressing this in the interview: "Well, why is that any improvement? Well, the improvement is because it comes on the heel of a precedent. I can guarantee you, J.D. Vance, that we know how he lusts for power. You know, two years before he became a nice presidential running mate with Trump, he called Trump Adolf Hitler.
So he doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake. And because the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well.
So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
I'm not sure if you had a chance to read the articles I shared in my previous comment.
Yes, it might be true that JD Vance “doesn't have any principles other than lusting for power for its own sake.” But, “the precedent of removing Mr. Trump would have a deterrent effect, and the Congress would tell Mr. Vance, You do what Mr. Trump's going to do. We'll impeach and remove you as well. So he'll go ahead and he'll change his tune like he did before for political ambition. He wants the power. So the idea that the precedent would not have any deterrent effect is ridiculous and absurd."
What? First of all, Trump is just a pawn. He’s not one of the crafters of Project 2025, some of whom are members of Congress. Do you think removing Trump will have a “deterrent effect” on JD Vance? No, it won’t. If Trump is removed, it won’t just be for cognitive impairment. It will be because he is losing his MAGA base due to the Epstein files.
I said at the end of my previous comment that: “If Trump is removed from office, it may not be due to the will of the people. It might instead be because those behind Project 2025 want or need to make a change.” JD Vance is going to continue to “do what Mr. Trump’s going to do,” and that’s because he and the crafters of Project 2025 want to transform America into a Christofascist theocratic government.
Christofascism: The Dangerous Convergence of Faith and Authoritarianism:
Exploring the Fusion of Religious Fundamentalism and Fascist Ideology in Modern Governance and Its Threat to Democratic Values
https://information-warfare.com/christofascism-the-dangerous-convergence-of-faith-and-authoritarianism-2343d1915bd3
The Rise of Dark Enlightenment: How JD Vance, Curtis Yarvin, and Peter Thiel Are Reshaping Politics
https://information-warfare.com/the-rise-of-dark-enlightenment-aa03ee8f4c2d
This has been decades in the making. They told us about their plans in "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," also known as Project 2025.
Here’s a quote from the article: JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists want
“JD Vance is exactly what Christian nationalists hoped for in a vice presidential candidate. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and a major architect of Project 2025, seems to be thrilled with Vance’s elevation. Roberts said that people at his organization were “privately rooting” for Trump to choose Vance as his running mate. They, along with every other Christian nationalist outfit throughout the country, got their wish — they have another pawn with public relations skills through which they can advance their vision of a Christian nation.”
https://ffrfaction.org/jd-vance-is-exactly-what-christian-nationalists-want/
First, I would urge people to believe it's vastly preferable to have Mr. Trump removed by the Will of the People. The "forces" behind impeachment that could remove Trump could just as easily remove Vance.
Second, I would strongly urge people to consider that only four seats in the People's House mark the difference in power. 219 of those seats are held by Representatives completely unfaithful to their oaths of office. This can only be tolerated in a society accepting of lawlessness and dishonor.
I happened to watch Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove last night, with Peter Sellars and others, and the comparison of Strangelove and Musk is close, remarkably close. His uncontroled Nazi salute especially and the AI Grok tantrum into fascism. Interesting, no?