Chop Wood, Carry Water 6/16

Hi, all, and happy Thursday.

I’m watching the hearings, so I’m going to be quick. I’ll simply leave you with a Marcus Aurelius quote I recently stumbled across:

“Here is a rule to remember in future, when anything tempts you to feel bitter: not "This is misfortune," but "To bear this worthily is good fortune.”

Sometimes I fall into self-pity. “Why,” I wonder, “did I have to be born in a time of such misery and unrest? Why did my kid need to be born into it?”

Such bitterness doesn’t serve me.

What does serve me? Asking myself “How can I bear this worthily?”

The answer, of course, is to help. To help the “good guys.” Help those most at risk. Help our kids. Help those who are frightened. Help those who are struggling. Help the helpers.

That’s what we try to do here. It’s truly the way we “bear this worthily.”

It’s also the way we win.

It’s a tough time, but we’re tougher, when we stick together and stay in action.

So let’s do that one more time.

Call Your Senators (find yours here)

Hi, I'm a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is ______.

First of all, every new revelation about Ginni Thomas makes it more clear that we have a major problem on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas is permanently tainted by the stench of his wife’s criminality. What is the Senator proposing to do about it? Are they yet co-sponsoring S 2512, the Supreme Court Ethics Act? If not why? Because doing nothing is NOT an option.

Also, I’m hearing that Republican Senators are already walking back some of the provisions in the gun bill the Senate is negotiating. This is NOT OK. The bill is already inadequate—any further weakening of it is unacceptable. Do NOT listen to a vocal minority of gun extremists. Listen to the majority of Americans who want action on gun violence! Thanks.

Call Your House Rep (find yours here)

Hi, I'm a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is _______.

Every new revelation about Ginni Thomas makes it more clear that we have a major problem on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas is permanently tainted by the stench of his wife’s criminality. What is the Congressmember proposing to do about it? Are they yet co-sponsoring HR 4766, the Supreme Court Ethics Act? If not why? Because doing nothing is NOT an option. We must be able to trust in the impartiality of this court. Right now we absolutely cannot.

Extra Credit ✅

I have a great and easy action for you today; (thanks to the reader who flagged it for me on twitter.) You may remember Walter Shaub, formerly the head of the Office of Government Ethics. He left during the Trump Administration and has been holding that agency’s feet to the fire ever since. He is urgently asking us to send a quick email, and I’ve made it as easy as possible by creating a click-to-send for you.

His reasons for wanting us to write the email are here.

The click-to-send is here.

Prefer to send it manually?

1. Address an email to ContactOGE@oge.gov

2. The subject line MUST read: "Proposed Rule: Legal Expense Fund Regulation (RIN 3209-AA50)"

3. Write a comment -- OR, and this is the easy part, cut and paste the one he’s drafted for you. It is (please personalize and add your name and city):

To the rulemakers at the Office of Government Ethics,

I'm writing to say that I oppose OGE’s proposed legal expense fund regulation as drafted.

OGE should:

- remove the exception that makes compliance with the regulation optional;

- replace the proposed recusal requirement with a broader 5-year recusal requirement that prevents donors of cash gifts from influencing decisions, policies, or regulations affecting them or the industries in which they have substantial interests;

- remove the offensive example involving an accused sexual harasser; and

- place nonprofit charities (501(c)(3) organizations) on an equal footing with large law firms by allowing them to hire legal counsel for whistleblowers.

I'm sure you're aware that without making these changes the rule contains giant loopholes that will allow for massive corruption. America deserves better than optional ethics for top officials. Please rewrite this rule and make it better!

Win Races! 🗳

Georgia’s primary runoff elections are on June 21st! New Georgia Project has just six days to have conversations with everyone they can ahead of the June primary runoff election.

They’ve got thousands of calls to make before the June primary runoff and that’s why they need YOUR HELP! Let’s get voters involved while keeping ourselves engaged too.

They will be dialing Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 5:30 pm EST to 8:30 pm EST and Saturdays from 1:00 pm EST to 4:00 pm EST. These are easy, friendly calls—you’ll love them!

Let’s get people excited about voting! Sign up here.

Resistbot Text (new to Resistbot? Go here! And then here.)

[to all 3 reps] [Taken from CREW article] [quick send: text SIGN PHLSEN to 50409]

This fall, a Wall Street Journal investigation found that at least 131 federal judges violated the law by hearing cases in which they had a financial interest in one of the parties. What’s more, 61 judges actively traded shares in a party to an ongoing case. 

Every day we get more damning information about Ginni Thomas, Clarence Thomas’s wife. She actively plotted to overturn an American election, yet her husband still sits on the Supreme Court, and has refused to recuse himself from cases related to that same election.

Our courts are in crisis.

Congress can and must act to restore the judiciary’s integrity and prevent anything like this from happening again. In addition to passing Rep. Johnson’s much-needed Supreme Court Ethics Act creating a code of ethics for the Supreme Court, Congress can create a simple, enforceable, and comprehensive judicial conflicts of interest regime with two small policy changes. 

First, Congress should enact a blanket prohibition on federal judges owning or trading any individual stocks, bonds, or similar financial instruments. This isn’t about forcing judges to take a vow of poverty—there are many ways to invest money that don’t come with the risk of creating conflicts, like mutual or index funds. Rather, this is about designing an effective legal regime to prevent conflicts of interest that undermine confidence in our democracy.

Second, Congress should apply the federal criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, to the judiciary. Currently, Section 208 only applies to employees of the executive branch, and serves as the stick behind federal ethics rules. Applying this criminal law to the judiciary would add teeth to the existing requirements, providing a mechanism to hold judges accountable for egregious violations of their ethical duties.

Federal judges are granted lifetime tenure, an immense privilege that carries with it a responsibility to uphold our laws. Because that role often requires federal judges to eschew public opinion, political pressure and other outside influences, the Constitution was drafted to provide a high bar for removing them short of their retirement or death. That constitutional protection makes it even more important that federal judges adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct. Make them do so, please. Thanks.

---

OK, you did it again! You helped save democracy! You’re amazing.

Talk tomorrow.

Jess