Jane Mayer is a brilliant and meticulous journalist for The New Yorker. She is the nation’s leading expert on “Dark Money,” the money funneled into politics whose donors are anonymous. In this article, she details the group that was behind the effort to derail the Supreme Court nomination of the highly-qualified Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. The smear campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, because it was built on lies and distortions, and the attacks foundered in the face of Judge Jackson’s poise, demeanor, and temperament.
Formed in 2020, the group is called The American Accountability Foundation. It is registered as a tax-exempt charitable organization (like the odious ALEC), but is up-to-its-eyeballs in negative political activism. Its goal appears to be to block all Biden nominees with smear campaigns, lies, and distortions of their record and their views.
She writes:
While the hearings were taking place, the A.A.F. publicly took credit for uncovering a note in the Harvard Law Review in which, they claimed, Jackson had “argued that America’s judicial system is too hard on sexual offenders.” The group also tweeted that she had a “soft-on-sex-offender” record during her eight years as a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As the Washington Post and other outlets stated, Jackson’s sentencing history on such cases was well within the judicial mainstream, and in line with a half-dozen judges appointed by the Trump Administration. When Jackson defended herself on this point during the hearings, the A.A.F. said, on Twitter, that she was “lying.” The group’s allegation—reminiscent of the QAnon conspiracy, which claims that liberal élites are abusing and trafficking children—rippled through conservative circles. Tucker Carlson repeated the accusation on his Fox News program while a chyron declared “jackson lenient in child sex cases.” Marjorie Taylor Greene, the extremist representative from Georgia, called Jackson “pro-pedophile.”
Their attack on Judge Jackson failed, but Mayer shows that they have slimed other well-qualified nominees, leaving key positions unfilled. she calls AAF “the slime machine.”
Among the nominees the group boasts of having successfully derailed are Saule Omarova, a nominee for Comptroller of the Currency, and Sarah Bloom Raskin, whom Biden named to be the vice-chair for supervision of the Federal Reserve Board. David Chipman, whom the President wanted to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and David Weil, Biden’s choice for the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, both saw their nominations founder in the wake of A.A.F. attacks. Currently, the group is waging a negative campaign against Lisa Cook, who, if confirmed, would become the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
Tom Jones, the A.A.F.’s founder and executive director, is a longtime Beltway operative specializing in opposition research. Records show that over the years he has worked for several of the most conservative Republicans to have served in the Senate, including Ron Johnson, of Wisconsin; Ted Cruz, of Texas; Jim DeMint, of South Carolina; and John Ensign, of Nevada, for whom Jones was briefly a legislative director. In 2016, Jones ran the opposition-research effort for Cruz’s failed Presidential campaign. When I asked Jones for an interview, through the A.A.F.’s online portal, he replied, “Ms. Meyers . . . Go pound sand.” Citing an article that I had written debunking attacks on Bloom Raskin from moneyed interests, including the A.A.F., he said, “You are a liberal hack masquerading as an investigative journalist—and not a very good one.” Jones subsequently posted this comment on his group’s Twitter account, along with my e-mail address and cell-phone number…
Mayer describes vicious A.A.F. campaigns against Biden nominees, most of whom were women or people of color. one such was the sliming of Lisa Cook.
Mayer writes:
Liberal and conservative political groups habitually scrutinize a prominent nominee’s record or personal life in search of disqualifying faults. But the A.A.F. has taken the practice to extremes, repeatedly spinning negligible tidbits or dubious hearsay into damning narratives. The group recently deployed its unorthodox methods, Politico has reported, while “desperately pursuing dirt” on Lisa Cook, the nominee for the Federal Reserve. Cook, who has been a tenured professor of economics and international relations at Michigan State University since 2013, has attracted bipartisan support. Glenn Hubbard, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush Administration, has said, “Cook’s talents as an economic researcher and teacher make her a good nominee for the Fed, adding to diversity of perspectives about policy.” In college, Cook won a Marshall Scholarship. She subsequently obtained a Ph.D. in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, taught at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and served as a staff economist on President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. She also held appointments at the National Bureau of Economic Research and at various regional Federal Reserve banks. The A.A.F., though, has portrayed her as unqualified, and suggested that her tenure at Michigan State is undeserved.
On April 13th, Jones sent out the latest of at least three e-mail blasts from the A.A.F. to about fifty of Cook’s colleagues at Michigan State. In the most recent of these messages, which were obtained by The New Yorker, Jones said that Cook “did not warrant” tenure. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the A.A.F. obtained records showing that the school’s provost had granted Cook full professorship in 2020, overruling a decision not to give her that title the previous year. Jones sent these personnel records to dozens of Cook’s colleagues, and asked, “Are any of you concerned that . . . she’s not good enough to sit on the Federal Reserve Board?” He urged any detractors to “not hesitate to” contact him. Meanwhile, Jones fished for further information by posting a message on an anonymous online gossip forum, Economics Job Market Rumors, which has been decried by one prominent economist as “a cesspool of misogyny.”
Some of the A.A.F.’s attacks on Cook carried racial overtones. Cook had made donations to bail funds for impoverished criminal defendants, including racial-justice protesters who had been arrested; she was following a tradition of activist lawyers in her family, and considered it a form of charity. The A.A.F. argued on Twitter that she had made “racist comments” and “even bailed out rioters who burned down American cities.” Cook’s reputation was sullied enough that the Senate Banking Committee vote on her nomination resulted in a tie, with no Republicans supporting her. Cook’s nomination can still proceed to the Senate floor, but her confirmation remains in limbo, as one conservative news outlet after another repeats the A.A.F.’s talking points. A writer for the Daily Caller, Chris Brunet, said in a Substack column that Cook is a “random economist at Michigan State University who has shamelessly leveraged her skin color and genitalia into gaining the backing of several key White House officials.” Brunet tweeted proudly that his critique had been promoted on Fox News by Tucker Carlson.
Cook’s nomination might yet go forward, but other targets with exemplary records, have been rejected because of A.A.F. slime campaigns.
Dark Money is a blight on our democracy. This particular group is using its resources to derail the agenda of the Biden administration. It is yet another strategy to undermine our democracy by preventing the duly elected President from staffing his administration with fully qualified appointees of his choice.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom to lie. Freedom to have your speech heard is involved in having the money to amplify your ideas regardless of their veracity. If we do not control big money’s attempt to control the narrative for its own good, freedom of speech will become freedom for some.
Hate speech, like the above statement that the economist had been promoted on the basis of her skin color and sex, should have to stand up in court. If Tucker Carlson repeats a false rumor, he should be arrested. People with megaphones should be held responsible for their use.
“Freedom of speech does not include freedom to lie”
Not sure about that one.
“If Tucker Carlson repeats a false rumor, he should be arrested.”
For what?
Freedom of speech means that people can say some pretty horrible things, including lies, distortions and obfuscations as well as the truth, facts and reality. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from being criticized or even being sued for telling lies, smears, distortions and making slanderous or libelous comments.
if someone walked up to the President and said directly “I am going to kill you” what would happen to that person? The response should be the same for every citizen.
The first rule of totalitarianism is to make the people distrust the truth. If we allow people with a loud megaphone to lie continually, the people begin to distrust their information sources in general. Totalitarianism wins.
If we OK freedom of speech that attacks the principles of representative government, how can representative government stand? Sounds like fire in the theater to me.
“If we OK freedom of speech that attacks the principles of representative government, how can representative government stand?”
So you would restrict speech that attacks the principles of representative government? Who decides what speech attacks the principles of representative government? This is a terrible idea, in my opinion.
The hypocrisy:
Whenever someone conservative is criticized for their blatant lies they spew, they claim to be victimized by people taking away their freedom of speech.
Meanwhile, those conservatives regularly pass laws that restrict what other people can say and make it a crime to say them.
Or you can be Alex Jones and lie and lie and get your followers to believe the lies and even threaten the lives of entire families, and then whine that you are bankrupt.
Yes, it is puzzling that conservatives whine about “cancel culture” as they merrily censor and ban book and even viewpoints.
I’ve long known that this blog is a haven for the far Left, but I give credit to Roy for revealing how totalitarian at least one of its regular commenters is. Tucker Carlson has said many things that I disagree with, but he is an opinion journalist – a pundit – who has wide latitude to express his view points. What some people regard as untrue others sincerely believe is true. Who is going to be the judge of the veracity of opinions? Roy would be more at home in Stalinist Russia.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Trump keeps lying about the election, he has NOT conceded the election, this is unprecedented as far as I know.
The electoral math is simple: Biden won 7 million votes more than Trump. Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232.
That’s decisive.
Clinton won three million votes more than Trump in 2016, but he won the electoral vote. She conceded.
Trump detests the Constitution.
Wow! Stalin! I have achieved much! Is it totalitarianism to attack untruth? If I sincerely believe that Mr A is a B, are you sure you want a body politic believing that is the case when he is actually Mr A? how does a free country remain free if truth is as relative as all that?
Believing that there should be restrictions on freedom to lie does not make me a totalitarian. Indeed, dedication to truth is a guard against the totalitarianism that is threatened in so many countries today.
So what should be disallowed? Easy. Lies.
That’s a ridiculous smear about Roy Turrentine, who is very knowledgeable about history and teaches history. Shame on you, Kate! Tucker Carlson is an apologist for Putin. The Russian state media regularly show clips from his show. He can say whatever he wants—it’s a free country—but he frequently lies in his slavish devotion to Trump and Putin. Look elsewhere if you have any interest in facts and truth.
Interesting questions here about fundamental freedom of speech.
Flerp: I use the word arrest to mean legally stop. It used to be that the media arrested untruth before it started. I can recall people losing their job for accepting weak sources. No legalities necessary. Laws allowing libel and slander lawsuits work to an extent, but these have not cured the rash of silly stories about pizza parlors or space lasers. Ultimately, if untruths are allowed to erode faith in representative government, it will die. People will not learn to respect truth but will instead accept men. We have a government of laws that constrain men. If some men are able to use a bigger megaphone than others, we may become a government of these men, not a government of all men (I use men in the classic sense of all humans). Ultimately, restrictions on speech must come in the form of rationally debated laws. These laws need not send the lawbreakers to the salt mines, so Kate can relax. No Stalin here.
All this said, I would guard jealously the right of the individual to criticize the government on any sound basis. I would, however, create a pretty high bar for argument. You should not be free to call someone a murderer just because they have committed double parking. You should not be free to suggest that a person is evil because he has been influenced by an extra-terrestrial, for we all know most of these people are out of this world.
What happens if some liar on Fox News repeats endlessly that Kate Levin is part of a child abuse ring that exploits children? Would Kate Levin say that those people have a right to express their opinion because – as Kate Levin herself puts it – “What some people regard as untrue others sincerely believe is true. Who is going to be the judge of the veracity of opinions?”
Let me see if I understand this. Democrats have a majority in the Senate. They can change Senate rules at any time with a majority vote. Majority votes are all that is needed for appointments .
Totally slanderous attacks out of Oz are launched at proposed nominees and the fault lies with those making the attacks. Where is the Democrat willing to hop on the table turn to Graham and the rest of the right wing garbage and and say, I know you would prefer a real rapist to a qualified judge.
In fact where was that Senator to hop and slam the table pointing out that the Rapist Kavanaugh did not deserve their sympathy the Rapist’s victims did. Oh yes they waited for an FBI investigation that never happened. And never was going to.
Dark money is only part of the problem. The parties are not equally matched in the strength of their convictions. Perhaps on many issues that is a dark money problem.
Joel,
I’m not sure but I think there is a convention in the Senate where one Senator can put a “hold” on a Presidential nomination, and it slows or stops the approval.
That certainly didn’t hold during Trump’s tenure. The Democrats would have to be brain dead to allow such a convention to dictate the appointment of demonstrably qualified candidates. Look at the yahoos that gained appointments during trump’s tenure.
Would that Democrats had a majority in the Senate. Manchin and Sinema might as well be Republicans.
And I guess when a young activist says that in a tweet or points out the financial corruption of their position . Not even hidden as “Dark Money”. They are “weaponizing the internet ”
Or heaven forbid if they went one step further and pointed out that due to “Money ” those two are not alone . Yes those young activists are the equivalent to those calling for the deportation of US Congressman and their anchored children.
“@JoshMandelOhio
Ilhan Omar should be deported not supported”
A bit off topic but not. This morning on Morning Smoe (Being the enemy of my enemy makes me tolerate him) Jonathan Haidt was on talking about his piece in the Atlantic on the dumb-ing of America and the corrosive affects of Social Media on discourse. All of this seemingly starting in 2014 according to Haidt . The both-sides-ism was off the wall. Edie Glaude seeming more than a little annoyed asks him to provide an example from the left. “I keep hearing the left “. I suspect he was looking for a name or an example of a specific post or event . Its10:40 do you know where the answer is ?
I suspect Haidt forgot that Obama got elected in 2008. Then forgot the real slap in the face he did it again in 2012. The both-side-ism perhaps worse than the dark money.
Did you even read the piece? I did and I found it to be even sided and VERY interesting. It’s about social media and how it is factoring into our current discourse.
Agree. You have to be pretty thick, I think, to not understand that Twitter and Facebook have dramatically impacted our political discourse (for the worse).
dianeravitch
Which is why I said they can change Senate rules. That rule I believe actually part of a more recent filibusterer reform. When the talking filibuster was changed to allow for a lower vote to overcome it . Not an ancient tradition .
LisaM
“But when the newly viralized social-media platforms gave everyone a dart gun, it was younger progressive activists who did the most shooting, and they aimed a disproportionate number of their darts at these older liberal leaders. Confused and fearful, the leaders rarely challenged the activists or their nonliberal narrative in which life at every institution is an eternal battle among identity groups over a zero-sum pie, and the people on top got there by oppressing the people on the bottom. This new narrative is rigidly egalitarian––focused on equality of outcomes, not of rights or opportunities. It is unconcerned with individual rights.”
It is fitting that he makes metaphorical reference to the Tower of Babble. Because the piece was mostly just that . What is lacking from the above excerpt or anywhere else in the piece was exactly what Glaude asked for , concrete examples. Even though he makes a reference to Trump and Gingrich. When you generalize with statements like the above you make it seem that both sides are equivalent. Who were those young activists and what exactly did they say. Was there validity in their comments.
Same with the fake rage over woke history or accountability. Southern Generals were not heroes they were traitors and Columbus was such a brutal murderer of Native and Spaniard that Isabel had him removed as Governor . And perhaps it is not fitting for a NY Times Science reporter to make racial comments on a trip with minors.Or White Nationalists should not be given the stage at Public or Private Universities no matter who invited them.
You seriously want to compare a young activist calling out a Democratic politician for empowering Big Pharma or refusing to raise the minimum wage…. with Marjorie Taylor Greene repeatedly calling for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019.And then being allowed to be seated in Congress by Republicans .
Besides his whole thesis being pretty much absurd . As Kurt Anderson points out in a far deeper analysis the changes we are seeing date back to the 60s. Amplified in the 90s. Went on steroids in 2008 with the election of Obama . As Stewart Stevens points out “It Was All A Lie” It was always about race and inciting rage. And it Goes back to Goldwater.
Both sides are not even close to the same. Not in the way they use social media either.
I went to Easter dinner in New Jersey, and everyone there except me was Catholic. One man, whom I have known for years, is active in the local veterans’ group. He told me how he has to listen to their Trump worship and not get into fights. I asked why they love Trump when he cut taxes for the richest. He said there is only one issue that unites them: race.
Joel,
Bravo!! Excellent analysis using facts instead of the endless platitudes we hear from those who spew the “both sides equally bad” right wing propaganda.
Anyone even remember the manufactured outrage when there was a secret campaign during the 2018 Alabama Senate campaign to mimic the right wing Russian-aided propaganda that (coincidentally I am sure) just happens to always demonize the Democrats to help the Putin worshipping Republicans win? The faux outrage was because false attacks that are the only thing the Republicans run on were used against the Republican!
Oh the faux outrage that a Republican would be demonized when according to those who spew the both siderism lies, the Republicans are allowed to lie about the Democrats and the Democrats are allowed to truthfully criticize the Republicans and that’s “fair”.
The both sider shills believe that there is no difference between truthful criticism of a Republican and lies about a Democrat.
The man Diane described at the dinner she attended who cited racism as the reason for GOP voting, neglected to mention that a major segment of Republican voters also want male entitlement to remain unchanged.
Conservative religion overtly discriminates against women. It’s a cultural view that advantages patriarchy. Political and religious protection of the male over female power dynamic has no legitimate defense.
Relative to the “greatest generation” myth, a pundit described their turn toward the right wing as evidence that they were the generation who took the most for themselves and enabled the richest 0.1% to impoverish Americans.
Haidt did interesting work with his moral foundations theory, but in his books and articles, he skews toward Libertarianism and moral panic.
Really disappointing to read him. He starts out making sense, then makes these illogical leaps toward defense of the indefensible.
He seems to me another extremely self-satisfied, well-to-do white guy in the suburbs who hasn’t a clue about life among those not as privileged as he is.
Bingo
I think Haidt lives in NYC. But he is fairly well-to-do, and even more damning, he is white.
Yeah, imagine if Haidt was not white and was treated with the nasty attacks directed toward Nikole Hannah-Jones, where white folks who claimed not to be racist at all worked hard to cancel and demonize Hannah-Jones for having the same perspective that white historian Jill Lepore referenced in her book without those (supposedly non-racist) white folks demanding that Jill Lepore be cancelled and her books banned from all schools.
?
?
4-3-2022
“Watchdog, A. A. F., Sues Voice of America…” The article cites AAF as having a view that the VOA demonstrates ‘pro Islamic’ bias.
One of the cornerstones of the right wing’s agenda is the ant-American belief that conservative Christians should be over other religions.
From a recent article at Raw Story, “Sen. Rick Scott’s (Fl.-R) plan for American Theocracy… transforming our democracy into a white, male, Christian theocracy.”
Jefferson’s warning- in every country, in every age, the priest aligns with the despot.
The playing field is not even in the United States. The rightwing is very well funded, with lots of organizations that prepare model legislation, fete politicians, issue press releases, publish “news” stories, originate agitprop, etc. Almost nothing comparable from the progressive left, and money talks.
This isn’t the “progressive left,” but the Democrats generally benefitted from a boatload of dark money last election cycle.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/03/one-billion-dark-money-2020-electioncycle/
I don’t get upset by dark money that protects our democracy and the rule of law and the Constitution. I get upset when dark money protects the low taxes of billionaires and prevents gun control and funds people who want to destroy our democracy and pollute the air and water.
Don’t you see a difference?
I agree that how money is spent matters, but I’m not a fan of dark money in general. It’s also good to have the facts. Democrats have been winning the election dark money wars since the 2018 cycle.
Glad to hear it.
Democrats are also benefitting this year from gerrymandering, which is bipartisan, according to 538.
In other news, Russia’s foreign minister says that Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which means that they must be considering using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Oh, and guys out there, don’t miss Putin Propaganda Ministry Foreign Correspondent Tucker (spell that with an F) Carlsen’s latest deep science on lasering your junk.
Not since disinfectant injections for Covid have we seen such brilliance.
Unfortunately, I can’t agree that the A.F.F. attack on Judge Jackson “was ultimately unsuccessful, because it was built on lies and distortions, and the attacks foundered in the face of Judge Jackson’s poise, demeanor, and temperament.” Based on what I’ve seen and heard at the social organizations and clubs I belong to here in a conservative part of our nation, the A.F.F. arguments were successful in convincing a great many conservatives that accusations thrown at Judge Jackson are true and that the only reason she was confirmed was because of some “traitors” in the Republican Party.
That’s the sad and tragic way it is in America today.
I would agree with this assessment. This is why lies need to be addressed. My conservative acquaintances believe that Jackson is morally repugnant, a pedophile, a murderer (abortion is murder), and a fake (black people cannot succeed unless they are advanced unfairly, Oh wait, Clarence Thomas is the exception so I am not a racist).
We have to have guardrails for speech against lies that undermine logical political discourse.
That’s very sad. Justice Jackson was smeared and slimed by Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton. They lied shamelessly. She is one of the best qualified justices on the Supreme Court today.
The poisoning of Judge Jackson is more dangerous than we imagine. He right wants only to assure its base that it is fine to hate a liberal, especially one that looks like her. It is not OK. Hate is not going to lead us to better government.
In the eyes of rightwingers, Justice Jackson started with three strikes against her:
1) she is a woman, and her place is in the kitchen;
2) she is black, and any black (except the unusually unqualified Clarence Thomas, who had never had a judicial appointment);
3) she is far better educated than those who lol down on her, and no doubt they hold that against her too.