WE'RE A REPUBLIC NOT A DEMOCRACY

The Federalist Society Isn’t Quite Sure About Democracy Anymore

After recent Supreme Court wins, the society’s youth arm debates the next stage for the conservative legal movement.


Despite accusations from liberals that the Federalist Society is merely the eggheaded puppet of the Republican Party, many of the society’s members genuinely view themselves as independent-minded intellectuals. | POLITICO illustration/Photos by iStock

LONG READ

By IAN WARD
03/17/2023
Ian Ward is a contributing writer for POLITICO Magazine.

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas sun was just beginning to rise over central Austin as groups of neatly-dressed law students arrived at the AT&T Hotel and Conference Center, a beige monolith plopped on the southwestern corner of the University of Texas’s sprawling campus. Once inside the lobby, the students ascended two flights of stairs, crossed a courtyard, descended two more flights of stairs and rode two escalators down to a subterranean ballroom, where members of one of the most maligned organizations in American politics were gathering for breakfast.

It was the start of the second day of the Federalist Society’s National Student Symposium — an annual gathering of conservative and libertarian law students hosted by the conservative legal behemoth  — and as I sidled up to one group of attendees, I got the sense that they were caught off guard to find a reporter in their midst.

“People think we’re some sort of shadowy cabal, but all we really do is invite speakers to campus and then go to Chipotle for tacos,” one of the attendees, a first-year law student from Georgetown University, assured me as we drank coffee and picked at mini croissants. “Or least, that’s all I’ve seen of FedSoc so far.”

And to be fair, the symposium — which is part academic conference, part high-powered networking event, and part extended cocktail party — was hardly shrouded in mystery. At a reception the night before, gaggles of fresh-faced law students had sipped frozen margaritas and piled their plates with barbecue from a nearby buffet. Many of the students accessorized their suits and cocktail dresses with cowboy boots and Stetsons. Peals of laughter rippled around the room. It was the type of event where you’d expect everyone to slink back to the hotel afterward to get drunk and hook up, except that most of the students I talked to were either married or engaged. A few of the young attendees had brought their infant children along with them.

But the event, which took place the first weekend in March, wasn’t merely a multi-day schmooze-and-booze fest, either. Built around a series of panel discussions with prominent legal scholars, lawyers, and federal judges, the annual gathering offers up-and-coming conservative lawyers a prized opportunity to rub elbows with the leading lights of the conservative legal movement — and, as an added benefit, to meet face-to-face with potential future employers. This year’s symposium wasn’t lacking in political star power, either, with Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott slated to give a keynote address to cap off the programming on Saturday evening.

“The people I met at student conferences a decade ago are now sitting federal judges,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at the Southern Texas College of Law and a fixture of the Federalist Society speaking circuit. “The people you meet here and the networks you build up over years — they’re very, very important.”  

“The people I met at student conferences a decade ago are now sitting federal judges.”

Josh Blackman, professor, Southern Texas College of Law

This year’s gathering was even more important than most. As the first student symposium since the Supreme Court handed conservatives a historic package of victories on gun rights, religious freedom, environmental deregulation, and, of course, abortion, the weekend offered a window into the shifting priorities and preoccupations of the youngest and most elite members of the conservative legal movement, at a time when the future of the movement as a whole is quietly unsettled. 

The first major clue about those preoccupations came from the symposium’s theme, which the organizers had designated as “Law and Democracy.” As the programming unfolded over the next day and a half, it became alarmingly clear that, even among the buttoned-up young members of the Federalist Society — an organization not known for its political transgressiveness — the relationship between those two principles is far from settled. From radical new theories about election law to outlandish-seeming calls for a “national divorce” the symposium-goers were grappling with ideas that raised fundamental questions about American democracy — what it means, what it entails, and what, if anything, the conservative legal movement has to say about its apparent decline.

‘That Ship Has Sailed’

As the symposium kicked off in Austin, another group of conservatives was gathering halfway across the country in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. where the annual Conservative Political Action Conference was getting underway. The reports coming out of CPAC were worrisome for establishment conservatives: Before a visibly thinned-out audience, the MAGA faithful dutifully leaned heavily into culture war tropes and parroting Donald Trump’s baseless claims about fraud in the 2020 election. 

In Austin, meanwhile, there were no red, white and blue sequined blazers — or at least none that I saw — and Donald Trump’s name went almost entirely unspoken, except for the occasional mention in hushed tones. 

“I don’t know where I’d be if Trump hadn’t won,” I overheard one Federalist Society staffer confide to a colleague as we milled around the foyer outside the main ballroom, apparently referring to the 2016 election. “Probably working some corporate job that I’d hate.” 

The symposium, however, mirrored CPAC’s ambivalent assessment of the future of American democracy — even if that ambivalence was expressed in slightly more elevated terms. 

To those who have followed the Federalist Society closely since its triumphs at the Supreme Court last year, the symposium’s focus on law and democracy may hardly seem incidental. Since its founding in 1982, the Federalist Society has championed “judicial restraint,” the notion that judges should limit their roles to interpreting the law as written, leaving the actual business of lawmaking to democratically elected legislatures. 


During the first weekend of March, 2023, the Federalist Society’s National Student Symposium gathered at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law for the first time since the Supreme Court handed conservatives a historic package of victories. | Ian Ward/POLITICO

That approach made sense for conservatives when they still saw the federal judiciary as a liberal force dragging the country to the left. But now that conservatives have secured a solid majority on the Supreme Court — and voters in several red states have soundly rejected hard-line positions on abortion — a spirited debate is underway within the Federalist Society about the wisdom of deferring to democratic majorities as a matter of principle.

“From our very beginning, there has been an aspect of judicial restraint, and there has been an aspect that it’s judges’ jobs to interpret the Constitution, that whatever it says, that’s what they should do — and those two can sometimes be in tension,” said Eugene Meyer, the president and CEO of the Federalist Society, as we spoke in a back hallway of the conference center. 

I had only convinced Meyer to talk with me after assuring him and his handler that I wasn’t trying to back him into answering specific questions about cases currently before the Court. At Meyer’s urging, the society goes to great lengths to emphasize that it does not take policy positions or weigh in on the merit of individual cases, preferring to present itself as a neutral “debate society” for right-leaning intellectuals. But Meyer — who tapped his foot nervously as we spoke — was willing to admit that the intellectual winds within the organization are shifting.

“I think it would be fair to say there’s been some movement over time more in the direction of interpreting the Constitution and less in the direction of pure judicial restraint.”

Eugene Meyer, president and CEO, Federalist Society

“I think it would be fair to say there’s been some movement over time more in the direction of interpreting the Constitution and less in the direction of pure judicial restraint,” he told me.

When I spoke with Blackman, the Southern Texas law professor, he noted that that tension was neatly captured in two of the headline-making decisions that went conservatives’ way in the last Supreme Court term. In the Dobbs ruling, the conservative majority returned the abortion question to state legislatures, limiting federal judges’ role in determining the extent of reproductive rights. Meanwhile, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen —  which struck down a New York law that set the requirements for individuals to receive a concealed carry permit for handguns — the Court trumped the decision of a state legislature in favor of conservatives’ preferred reading of the Second Amendment. 

But Blackman’s assessment of the direction of the intellectual current within the Federalist Society was even more candid than Meyer’s.

“The norm that judges be restrained and moderate — that ship has sailed,” he said. 

Inside the cavernous ballroom, panelists took turns delivering their remarks from a raised platform, flanked on one side by the American flag and by Texas’s Lone Star Flag on the other. The symposium is hosted by a different law school every year, but there was a tidy irony to the fact that this year’s gathering landed in Texas, which has in recent years seen an influx of conservative transplants seeking refuge from what they see as the insanity and insipient authoritarianism of Blue America.

“Democracy is what philosophers call an ‘essentially contested concept,’” said Daniel Lowenstein, a professor of law emeritus at UCLA and an expert in election law, during a panel on Friday evening. “Differences that seem on their surface to concern the meaning of the word ‘democracy’,” he added, are actually struggles to advance particular and controversial political ideas.”

What democracy does not mean, Lowenstein argued, was “plebiscitary democracy,” or simple rule by democratic majorities. Citing the Federalist Papers — the namesake of the Federalist Society — Lowenstein suggested that governance based on simple mathematical majorities would enable “tyrannical domination of the minority by the majority.” 

“The assumption that only plebiscitary forms [of government] are truly democratic is fallacious, and should be openly and directly contested by those supporting non-plebiscitary positions,” he added. 

Behind me, somebody whispered, “We’re a republic, not a democracy” — a tongue-in-cheek slogan that some conservatives have adopted as a way to slyly signal their approval of minority rule.

Later on in the same panel, Joel Alicea, a law professor at the Catholic University of America, diagnosed the apparent threats facing American democracy today — political violence, abuses of governmental power, and attempted election subversion, to name a few — as symptoms of a deeper malaise. 

“At this point in our society, we can’t even agree whether somebody is a man or a woman, which suggests such a deep level of moral disagreement — and even disagreement about basic notions of reality — that to say that society can form an overlapping consensus is hopelessly naive,” he said. Faced with such fundamental disagreements, Alicea said that citizens have to choose between two approaches: coercion, suppressing disagreements by means of force and intimidation, or conversion, the slow and steady work of persuading people who disagree with you to come around to your point of view. 

Alicea advised the attendees to embrace conversion rather than coercion, but in the question-and-answer session after the panel, an audience member proposed a third option: a full-scale national divorce, of the sort recently proposed by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.


This year’s gathering landed in Texas, which has in recent years seen an influx of conservative transplants seeking refuge from what they see as the insanity and insipient authoritarianism of Blue America. | Ian Ward/POLITICO

On the dais, the panelists squirmed at the invocation of such pedestrian political ideas, and Alicea offered some high-level philosophical objections to the idea that America should fracture into independent ideological entities. But the question seemed to linger in the room: If the disagreements over democratic first principles are as serious as Alicea had suggested, then was the idea of a wholesale political rupture really so radical? 

The possibility of dramatic changes to America’s democratic order also hung over a panel on election law, where Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, briefed the audience on Moore v. Harper, a case that is currently awaiting judgment from the Supreme Court. The case, which arose from a challenge to North Carolina’s redistricting plan, is widely viewed by legal scholars as a referendum on the controversial independent state legislature theory, which posits that state legislatures should be allowed to exert broad control over the execution of federal elections. 

From the stage, Pildes — who testified about the dangers of the theory before the House last year —  seemed confident that the justices were not poised to endorse the theory in its most radical form. But even as the several panelists acknowledged the disruptive nature of the theory, none of them seemed eager to acknowledge that the four members of the Court who have flirted with the idea — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — all maintain close ties to the Federalist Society. 

That omission hinted at a deeper dilemma facing the Federalist Society. Despite accusations from liberals that the society is merely the eggheaded puppet of the Republican Party, many of the society’s members genuinely view themselves as independent-minded intellectuals, committed to the principles of individual freedom, judicial restraint and the rule of law. For the past two decades, the society’s members have pointed to those principles to justify the conservative movement’s efforts to weaken democratic norms and institutions, without having to go so far as to explicitly argue that a minority of Americans should be allowed to impose their will on the whole country. 

But now, as the American right lurches toward a more explicitly anti-democratic position,  the society’s members are face to face with a troubling possibility: that most conservatives couldn’t care less about their high-minded principles, and, even worse, that many of their allies view their attachment to those principles as a quaint — and slightly embarrassing — relic of the bygone era when conservatives still had to be coy about what they actually believed. And whether or not those criticisms are true, there was a definite sense of cognitive dissonance at the conference, where many of the panelists appeared willing to endorse the logic of anti-democratic arguments but shied away from those arguments’ more radical conclusions.

The next morning at breakfast, I met a law student from the University of Tulsa named James Carroll — who was, like me, one of the few male attendees not wearing a suit and tie. He told me he had grown up in Arizona before moving to Tulsa for law school, where he had fallen in love with Oklahoma, married his long-time girlfriend, and set down roots. He had recently accepted a job at the Tulsa County District Attorney’s office, where he had worked as an intern in law school. 

As we got talking, he described a vision of democracy that I hadn’t heard much of from the panelists the day before — democracy as something immediate, something pragmatic, something that people interact with in their daily lives and not just in philosophy textbooks.

“On the national level, democracy’s just a construct, but on the local level, it’s not a construct at all,” he said. 

I asked him what a functioning local democracy meant to him.

“Keeping your community safe, keeping murderers off the street, making sure people who need mental health support can get connected with those services,” he answered. He said his favorite part of his internship in the D.A.’s office during law school had been helping people who were struggling with mental health problems, and that his work on that issue had been part of what led him to join the office after graduation.

“Democracy,” he said, “works best on a small scale, in your community.”  

‘Maybe We Need More Shitposters’

The Federalist Society was founded by law students, and advancing the careers of ambitious, right-leaning lawyers has remained a major element of its work. That work begins on law school campuses, where local chapters host speakers and events, and it extends all the way to Washington, where the Federalist Society has become the GOP’s go-to clearinghouse for major judicial appointments. Although much of the national media attention has focused on the organization’s role in supporting Republican Supreme Court nominations, its presence on law school campuses has also been a source of controversy, especially since the Dobbs decision. Just last week, a Federalist Society event at Stanford Law School made national headlines after protesters heckled U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit, causing him to cut his remarks short.

In recent years, however, the Federalist Society has come under fire not only from its traditional opponents on the left, but also from some erstwhile allies on the right. According to these conservative critics, the Federalist Society has excelled at training monkish young lawyers to fill the ranks of the federal judiciary, but it has been less successful at inspiring those same professionals to eschew prestigious clerkships and partner-track jobs in favor of manning the front lines of an all-out war on the American political establishment. 

Or as Theo Wold, a former Trump administration official who now works for Idaho’s attorney general, recently put it during an interview on the American Moment podcast, which is popular with young conservatives, “Maybe [conservatives] don’t need any more well-credential lawyers. Maybe we need more shitposters from Twitter.” 



In recent years, the Federalist Society has come under fire not only from its traditional opponents on the left, but also from some erstwhile allies on the right. | Ian Ward/POLITICO

At the student symposium, none of the panels focused explicitly on shitposting — one breakout session provided an introduction to the Federalist Society’s lawyers division, and another offered advice on “becoming an academic” — but there was a palpable sense that many young attendees were hungering for some juicer political red meat.

“I think the students wanted it to be fierier than it was,” Carroll said, reflecting on the first panel. 

That hunger is partly a function of the iconoclastic energies that Trump introduced into the American right, and partly a function of generational divides within the conservative legal movement itself.

“I think the older generations had been beaten so many times that they felt sort of defeated,” Blackman, who is in his thirties, told me. “They lost Roe, they lost Casey and they weren’t so eager to overrule those decisions, so it was largely the younger generation — who didn’t have those sort of battle scars — who were pushing hard for the court to overrule Dobbs.” 

The students at the conference did get a taste of face-to-face conflict on Saturday evening, when a group of about 30 law students from a liberal student group at UT showed up outside the conference center to protest Greg Abbott’s speech. As the protesters waved hand-drawn signs and chanted “Get that sexist out of Texas!”, a small group of conference attendees gathered inside the hotel lobby to take jeering selfies with the protesters through the glass double doors. 

“I mean, I do support the First Amendment,” I overheard one conference-goer say, clearly relishing the opportunity to own the libs. 

Back in the ballroom, Abbott leaned into the conservative culture war rhetoric, telling the audience that he was on “a recruiting mission” to enlist young conservative lawyers in the fight against “the social justice warriors and the anti-constitutionalists” who are seeking to subvert the rule of law and undermine America’s constitutional order. 

“Those who believe in the rule of law are outnumbered…but I believe we are still winning, because we are on the side of the righteousness,” Abbott thundered. It wasn’t entirely clear what he meant by “winning,” but the audience didn’t seem to mind. They offered up another round of thunderous applause. 

Abbott’s speech went on in more or less the same fashion for the next half-hour, bouncing between punchy anecdotes from his legal career and perfunctory exhortations to defend the country from tyrannical social justice warriors. The audience applauded and laughed through mouths of salad and dinner rolls, and the whole room leapt to its feet as Abbott’s remarks drew to a close.

As the ovation died down, I left the hall for the foyer, where a team of hotel staff was clearing cocktail tables and emptying garbage cans. On one side of the room, a group of women in evening gowns took pictures in front of a FedSoc-branded backdrop. At the other, a group of men gathered around a table for a drink.

As I made my way to the bar, the men raised their glasses for a toast. 

“To America,” said one of them. 

“To America,” said the others.

US tribes get bison as they seek to restore bond with animal

By MATTHEW BROWN and THOMAS PEIPERT

1 of 11
One of the 35 Denver Mountain Park bison stands in a corral as it waits to be transferred to representatives of four Native American tribes and one memorial council so they can reintroduce the animals to tribal lands Wednesday, March 15, 2023, near Golden, Colo. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

VIDEO US tribes get bison as they seek to restore bond with animal | AP News

GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) — Dozens of bison from a mountain park outside Denver were transferred Wednesday to several tribes from across the Great Plains, in the latest example of Native Americans reclaiming stewardship over animals their ancestors lived alongside for millennia.

Following ceremonial drumming and singing and an acknowledgement of the tribes that once occupied the surrounding landscape, the bison were loaded onto trucks for relocation to tribal lands.

About a half-dozen of the animals from Colorado will form the nucleus of a new herd for the Yuchi people south of Tulsa, Oklahoma, said Richard Grounds with the Yuchi Language Project.

The herd will be expanded over time, to reestablish a spiritual and physical bond broken two centuries ago when bison were nearly wiped out and the Yuchi were forced from their homeland, Grounds said.

He compared the burly animals’ return to reviving the Yuchi’s language — and said both language and bison were inseparable from the land. Bison were “the original caretakers” of that land, he said.

“We’ve lost that connection to the buffalo, that physical connection, as part of the colonial assault,” Grounds said. “So we’re saying, we Yuchi people are still here and the buffalo are still here and it’s important to reconnect and restore those relationships with the land, with the animals and the plants.”

The transfers also included 17 bison to the Northern Arapaho Tribe and 12 to the Eastern Shoshone Tribe — both of Wyoming — and one animal to the Tall Bull Memorial Council, which has members from various tribes, city officials said.

Wednesday’s transfer came two weeks after U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland issued a bison conservation order meant to further expand the number of large herds on Native American lands. Haaland also announced $25 million to build new herds, transfer more bison from federal to tribal lands and forge new bison management agreements with tribes, officials said.

American bison, also known as buffalo, have bounced back from near-extinction in the 1880s but remain absent from most of the grasslands they once occupied.

Across the U.S., 82 tribes now have more than 20,000 bison, and the number of herds on tribal lands have grown in recent years. The animals have been transferred to reservations from other tribes, from federal, state and local governments and from private ranches.

Tens of millions of bison once roamed North America until they were killed off almost entirely by white settlers, commercial hunters and U.S. troops. Their demise devastated Native American tribes across the continent that relied on bison and their parts for food, clothing and shelter.

The animals transferred to the tribes Wednesday descend from the last remnants of the great herds. They were under care of the Denver Zoo and kept in a city park before being moved to foothills west of Denver in 1914.

Surplus animals from the city’s herd were for many years auctioned off, but in recent years city officials began transferring them to tribes instead, said Scott Gilmore, deputy executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation.

Gilmore said the land acknowledgement statement read out loud during Wednesday’s ceremony underscored the historical importance of the area to the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ute and dozens of other tribes that once lived in the area. But he added those were just “words on a piece of paper.”

“What we’re doing is putting action to those words for Indigenous people. Buffalo are part of the land, they are part of their family,” Gilmore said. “They are taking their family members back to their ancestral home.”

To date, 85 bison from Denver have been transferred to tribes and tribal organizations. City officials said the shipments will continue through 2030.

___

Brown reported from Billings, Montana.

‘Shut your mouth’: GOP senator clashes with union leader during hearing

Teamsters President Sean O’Brien

Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Wed, March 8, 2023

Teamsters President Sean O’Brien got into a heated argument with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) during a Wednesday Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on union busting tactics.

O’Brien told Mullin he was “out of line” after the GOP senator said that the union leader was “sucking the paycheck” out of workers to earn his salary, which was roughly $193,000 in 2019.

“Don’t tell me I’m out of line,” Mullin responded. “You need to shut your mouth.”

Mullin, who owned non-union plumbing companies before selling his majority stakes in 2021, accused union leaders of engaging in intimidation tactics in an effort to unionize his company so they could pay themselves “exorbitant” salaries.

“We hold greedy CEOs like yourself accountable,” O’Brien responded. “You want to attack my salary, I’ll attack yours. What did you make when you owned your company?”

Mullin — who had a net worth ranging between $31.6 million and $75.6 million in 2020, according to personal financial disclosures analyzed by Oklahoma newspaper Tulsa World — said that he kept his salary to around $50,000 to invest more money into his company.

“You mean you hid money,” O’Brien said, prompting visible outrage from Mullin.

Mullin finished his remarks by stating that he’s “not anti-union” but believes that workers shouldn’t have to pay union dues if they don’t want to. 

DUES ARE THE BEST TAX BREAK WORKERS GET

In 2013, the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged that then-Rep. Mullin received more than $600,000 in outside income from his companies, which is well above the congressional limit. The House Ethics Committee closed its investigation into Mullin in 2018 and ordered him to repay $40,000 to one of his businesses.

Wednesday’s hearing, hosted by committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), focused on anti-union tactics by large companies such as Starbucks, whose CEO Howard Schultz recently agreed to testify before the committee later this month after a subpoena threat from Sanders.

 The Hill.

Senator Markwayne Mullin ran a multimillion-dollar plumbing business and claimed he only took a $50,000 salary. His financial statements show otherwise.

Jack Newsham
Thu, March 9, 2023

Rep. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., speaks during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, April 15, 2021.Al Drago/Pool via AP

Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin had a heated argument with the head of a union on Wednesday.

Mullin claimed he only paid himself a $50,000 salary and "invested every penny" into his business.

But he'd reported his private-sector salary at $92,000, with another $200,000 in income.

A Republican senator drastically understated how much money he made in the private sector as he argued with the head of the Teamsters union at a hearing in Washington on Wednesday.

While lambasting Teamsters president Sean O'Brien for his nearly $200,000 salary, Oklahoma's Senator Markwayne Mullin claimed that he paid himself a salary of just $50,000 when he ran a plumbing business. But his financial disclosures show his salary was nearly $92,000 in 2012, the year he was first elected to Congress. His total income was even greater.

"What did you make when you owned your company?" O'Brien asked.

"When I made my company? I kept my salary down at about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny into it," Mullin replied.

Like many business owners, Mullin's biggest source of income wasn't his salary. He reported between $200,000 and $2 million in income in 2012 from two family companies, Mullin Plumbing Inc. and Mullin Plumbing West, and another $15,000 to $50,000 from shares he held in a bank.

In 2011, Mullin also made well over $50,000. His salary was over $77,000 and his other income from the same two businesses was also over $200,000. He also reported over $50,000 in rent that year from Mullin Properties.

Mullin's office didn't respond to a request for comment.

Wednesday's hearing of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which is chaired by the democratic socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, was focused on "Defending the Right of Workers to Organize." Before questioning O'Brien, Mullin described himself as a job creator and said in 2009, a union tried to intimidate his workers into unionizing.

"I started with nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, I started below nothing. And I started growing this little plumbing company with six employees, to now, we have over 300 employees," he said.

O'Brien seemed to enjoy sparring with Mullin on Wednesday. He could be seen grinning at one point, and after the hearing tweeted information from more recent financial disclosures about Mullin's being worth tens of millions of dollars.

The Tulsa World reported in October that Mullin's wealth ballooned to at least $31 million after the apparent sale of his plumbing business to HomeTown Services, a residential heating, air conditioning, plumbing and electrical company.

Mullin has served on Capitol Hill since 2012 and was elected to the Senate in a special election last year. He is a member of the Cherokee nation and the only Native American member of the Senate.

He is known for having clashed with State Department officials in 2021 as he sought to get into Afghanistan on a self-appointed rescue mission.

Iowa football settles race bias lawsuit using taxpayer money


IIn this Dec. 19, 2019, file photo, Iowa State Auditor Rob Sand speaks in Des Moines, Iowa, Dec. 19, 2019. A proposed settlement for more than $4 million has been reached in the lawsuit brought by former Iowa football players who alleged racial discrimination in coach Kirk Ferentz's program. The office of State Auditor Rob Sand disclosed the proposed settlement on Monday, March 6, 2023, and he was scheduled to speak at a news conference where he will announce his opposition to using taxpayer money to pay a portion of the settlement unless university athletic director Gary Barta is fired. (Brian Powers/The Des Moines Register via AP, File, File)

ERIC OLSON
Mon, March 6, 2023

Iowa taxpayers will pay $2 million to help the University of Iowa athletic department settle a lawsuit brought by former football players who allege racial discrimination existed in coach Kirk Ferentz's program, a state board decided in a vote Monday.

The state's Appeal Board voted 2-1 to approve the use of taxpayer funds for half of the $4.175 million settlement over the objection of State Auditor Rob Sand, a board member who said athletic director Gary Barta should be fired for a series of lawsuits ending in settlements under his watch.

“I can’t imagine a private company that would still have someone at the helm after four discrimination lawsuits under that person’s leadership,” Sand said at a news conference before the vote. "The athletic department, they’ve got the funds for it. The broadcast deal brings tens of millions of dollars every year going forward. I don’t know why they can’t cover their own mistakes and pay for their own mistakes instead of having taxpayer’s do it.”

The lawsuit filed in November 2020 involved former players including former star running back Akrum Wadley and career receptions leader Kevonte Martin-Manley. They alleged they were demeaned with racial slurs, forced to abandon Black hairstyles, fashion and culture to fit the “Iowa Way” promoted by Ferentz, and retaliated against for speaking out.

A message was left for Tulsa-based attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of about a dozen Black former players.

In response to a request for comment from Barta, the athletic department sent a statement attributed to him, saying the department “remains committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for every student-athlete and staff member involved in our program.”

“The Hawkeyes over-arching goal to win every time we compete, graduate every student-athlete that comes to Iowa, and to do it right, remains our focus,” the statement reads.

Barta has been Iowa's athletic director since 2006. In a statement to the Appeal Board, Sand noted four discrimination cases totaling nearly $7 million in damages under Barta's watch. The largest of those was $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit in 2017 over the firing of former field hockey coach Tracey Griesbaum. The money used to pay that settlement came from the athletic department, which does not rely on taxpayer funding.

State treasurer Roby Smith and Department of Management director Kraig Paulsen are the other two Appeal Board members.

Paulsen, before voting yes, said it's not up to the board to play a role in Barta's employment status.

“We’re here to make a decision as to what’s in the best interest of (Iowa) and it seems to me, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, this is the wise decision to make,” Paulsen said, according to Des Moines television station KCCI.

Barta, Ferentz, his son and offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz and former strength coach Chris Doyle were dismissed from the lawsuit last week, which signaled that a proposed settlement was imminent.

Kirk Ferentz said in a statement he is “greatly disappointed” in how the matter was resolved. He said negotiations took place between the plaintiffs’ attorney and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, which represents the university and the state Board of Regents.

“These discussions took place entirely without the knowledge or consent of the coaches who were named in the lawsuit,” Ferentz said. “In fact, the parties originally named disagree with the decision to settle, fully believing that the case would have been dismissed with prejudice before trial.”

Ferentz added that “as part of the settlement, the coaches named were dismissed from the lawsuit and there is no admission of any wrongdoing.”

The agreement calls for $2.85 million to be divided among 12 players and $1.9 million to go to Solomon-Simmons Law for fees and expenses.

In addition, the university would direct $90,000 to support graduate or professional school tuition for the plaintiffs, with no individual receiving more than $20,000, and provide mental health counseling for the plaintiffs through March 15, 2024. The athletic department also is required to hire University of Texas Black studies professor Leonard Moore to oversee a five-year diversity, equity and inclusion plan.

The players initially sought $20 million in damages plus the firings of Barta and the Ferentzes.

Doyle agreed to leave Iowa five months before the lawsuit was filed after widespread accusations that the longtime strength coach used his position to bully and disparage former players, particularly those who are Black. Iowa agreed to pay Doyle $1.1 million in a resignation agreement.

In 2020, before the lawsuit, the university hired the Husch Blackwell law firm to review the program after dozens of former players, most of them Black, spoke out on social media to allege racial disparities and mistreatment. Their activism came as protests against racial injustice swept the nation following the death of George Floyd and after attempts to raise concerns inside the program resulted in only minor changes.

The report said that some of the football program’s rules “perpetuated racial or cultural biases and diminished the value of cultural diversity.”

Iowa football settles race bias lawsuit using taxpayer money

ERIC OLSON
Mon, March 6, 2023 

Iowa taxpayers will pay $2 million to help the University of Iowa athletic department settle a lawsuit brought by former football players who allege racial discrimination existed in coach Kirk Ferentz's program, a state board decided in a vote Monday.

The state's Appeal Board voted 2-1 to approve the use of taxpayer funds for half of the $4.175 million settlement over the objection of State Auditor Rob Sand, a board member who said athletic director Gary Barta should be fired for a series of lawsuits ending in settlements under his watch.

“I can’t imagine a private company that would still have someone at the helm after four discrimination lawsuits under that person’s leadership,” Sand said at a news conference before the vote. "The athletic department, they’ve got the funds for it. The broadcast deal brings tens of millions of dollars every year going forward. I don’t know why they can’t cover their own mistakes and pay for their own mistakes instead of having taxpayer’s do it.”

The lawsuit filed in November 2020 involved former players including former star running back Akrum Wadley and career receptions leader Kevonte Martin-Manley. They alleged they were demeaned with racial slurs, forced to abandon Black hairstyles, fashion and culture to fit the “Iowa Way” promoted by Ferentz, and retaliated against for speaking out.

A message was left for Tulsa-based attorney Damario Solomon-Simmons, who brought the lawsuit on behalf of about a dozen Black former players.

In response to a request for comment from Barta, the athletic department sent a statement attributed to him, saying the department “remains committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for every student-athlete and staff member involved in our program.”

“The Hawkeyes over-arching goal to win every time we compete, graduate every student-athlete that comes to Iowa, and to do it right, remains our focus,” the statement reads.

Barta has been Iowa's athletic director since 2006. In a statement to the Appeal Board, Sand noted four discrimination cases totaling nearly $7 million in damages under Barta's watch. The largest of those was $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit in 2017 over the firing of former field hockey coach Tracey Griesbaum. The money used to pay that settlement came from the athletic department, which does not rely on taxpayer funding.

State treasurer Roby Smith and Department of Management director Kraig Paulsen are the other two Appeal Board members.

Paulsen, before voting yes, said it's not up to the board to play a role in Barta's employment status.

“We’re here to make a decision as to what’s in the best interest of (Iowa) and it seems to me, upon the recommendation of the Attorney General, this is the wise decision to make,” Paulsen said, according to Des Moines television station KCCI.

Barta, Ferentz, his son and offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz and former strength coach Chris Doyle were dismissed from the lawsuit last week, which signaled that a proposed settlement was imminent.

Kirk Ferentz said in a statement he is “greatly disappointed” in how the matter was resolved. He said negotiations took place between the plaintiffs’ attorney and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, which represents the university and the state Board of Regents.

“These discussions took place entirely without the knowledge or consent of the coaches who were named in the lawsuit,” Ferentz said. “In fact, the parties originally named disagree with the decision to settle, fully believing that the case would have been dismissed with prejudice before trial.”

Ferentz added that “as part of the settlement, the coaches named were dismissed from the lawsuit and there is no admission of any wrongdoing.”

The agreement calls for $2.85 million to be divided among 12 players and $1.9 million to go to Solomon-Simmons Law for fees and expenses.

In addition, the university would direct $90,000 to support graduate or professional school tuition for the plaintiffs, with no individual receiving more than $20,000, and provide mental health counseling for the plaintiffs through March 15, 2024. The athletic department also is required to hire University of Texas Black studies professor Leonard Moore to oversee a five-year diversity, equity and inclusion plan.

The players initially sought $20 million in damages plus the firings of Barta and the Ferentzes.

Doyle agreed to leave Iowa five months before the lawsuit was filed after widespread accusations that the longtime strength coach used his position to bully and disparage former players, particularly those who are Black. Iowa agreed to pay Doyle $1.1 million in a resignation agreement.

In 2020, before the lawsuit, the university hired the Husch Blackwell law firm to review the program after dozens of former players, most of them Black, spoke out on social media to allege racial disparities and mistreatment. Their activism came as protests against racial injustice swept the nation following the death of George Floyd and after attempts to raise concerns inside the program resulted in only minor changes.

The report said that some of the football program’s rules “perpetuated racial or cultural biases and diminished the value of cultural diversity.”

___

AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/college-football and https://twitter.com/ap_top25 Sign up for the AP Top 25 newsletter here: https://link.apnews.com/join/6nr/morning-wire-newsletter-footer-internal-ads

Oklahoma voters reject legalizing recreational marijuana





 Oklahoma Marijuana Store manager Josh Poole is pictured in a Mango Cannabis medical marijuana dispensary, Monday, March 6, 2023, in Oklahoma City. 
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 7, 2023


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma voters on Tuesday rejected the legalization of recreational marijuana, following a late blitz of opposition from faith leaders, law enforcement and prosecutors.

Oklahoma would have become the 22nd state to legalize adult use of cannabis and join conservative states like Montana and Missouri that have approved similar proposals in recent years. Many conservative states have also rejected the idea, including Arkansas, North Dakota and South Dakota last year.

Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and many of the state’s GOP legislators, including nearly every Republican senator, opposed the idea. Former Republican Gov. Frank Keating, an ex-FBI agent, and Terri White, the former head of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, led the "no" campaign.

“We’re pleased the voters have spoken," said Pat McFerron, a Republican political strategist who ran the opposition campaign. "We think this sends a clear signal that voters are not happy with the recreational nature of our medicinal system. We also think it shows voters recognize the criminal aspects, as well as the need for addressing mental health needs of the state.”

Oklahoma voters already approved medical marijuana in 2018 by 14 percentage points and the state has one of the most liberal programs in the country, with more than 2,800 licensed dispensaries and roughly 10% of the state’s adult population having a medical license to buy and consume cannabis.

On Tuesday's legalization question, the “no” side was outspent more than 20-to-1, with supporters of the initiative spending more than $4.9 million, compared to about $219,000 against, last-minute campaign finance reports show.

State Question 820, the result of a signature gathering drive last year, was the only item on the statewide ballot, and early results showed heavy opposition in rural areas.

“Oklahoma is a law and order state," Stitt said in a statement after Tuesday's vote. "I remain committed to protecting Oklahomans and my administration will continue to hold bad actors accountable and crack down on illegal marijuana operations in our state.”

The proposal, if passed, would have allowed anyone over the age of 21 to purchase and possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana, plus concentrates and marijuana-infused products. Recreational sales would have been subjected to a 15% excise tax on top of the standard sales tax. The excise tax would be used to help fund local municipalities, the court system, public schools, substance abuse treatment and the state’s general revenue fund.

The prospect of having more Oklahomans smoking anything, including marijuana, didn't sit well with Mark Grossman, an attorney who voted against the proposal Tuesday at the Crown Heights Christian Church in Oklahoma City.

“I was a no vote because I'm against smoking,” Grossman said. “Tobacco smoking was a huge problem for my family.”

The low barriers for entry into Oklahoma's medical marijuana industry has led to a flood of growers, processors and dispensary operators competing for a limited number of customers. Supporters had hoped the state's marijuana industry would be buoyed by a rush of out-of-state customers, particularly from Texas, which has close to 8 million people in the Dallas-Fort Worth area just a little more than an hour drive from the Oklahoma border.

Michelle Tilley, campaign director for Yes on 820, said despite Tuesday's result, full marijuana legalization was inevitable. She noted that almost 400,000 Oklahomans already use marijuana legally and “many thousands more” use it illegally.

“A two-tiered system, where one group of Oklahomans is free to use this product and the other is treated like criminals does not make logical sense,” she said in a statement.

Oklahoma Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Effort To Legalize Recreational Marijuana

Jonathan Nicholson
Tue, March 7, 2023 

Oklahoma voters sharply rejected a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana Tuesday, a defeat that came almost five years after voters had easily approved the legalization of medical marijuana.

With almost all precincts having reported, the vote on State Question 820 was 62% opposed and 38% in favor.

“We think this sends a clear message that Oklahomans oppose the unfettered access to marijuana we have experienced under our so-called medical program. Voters clearly want to protect our children, crack down on organized crime and improve the mental health of those in our state,” said Pat McFerron, a spokesperson and pollster for Protect Our Kids No 820.

The campaign was a relatively low-key affair, though, as the vote was pushed back from the November 2022 date marijuana proponents had been hoping for to March, where the initiative was the sole item to be voted on in many places.

Supporters of legalized recreational marijuana saw that placement as one of the main obstacles to its approval.

“With a March special election and no other issues on the ballot, we knew from the beginning this would be an uphill battle,” said Brian Vicente, a lawyer and a steering committee member for the pro-legalization group Yes on 820.

Michelle Tilley, the group’s campaign director, said it was only a matter of time before Oklahoma joined 21 other states in approving marijuana for recreational use.

With a March special election and no other issues on the ballot, we knew from the beginning this would be an uphill battle.Brian Vicente, steering commitee member for the Yes on 820 pro-legalization group

“There are almost 400,000 Oklahomans ― that’s almost 10% of our population ― using marijuana legally; there are many thousands more using marijuana acquired off the illicit market,” she said.

“A two-tiered system, where one group of Oklahomans is free to use this product and the other is treated like criminals does not make logical sense.”

Proponents touted the prospect of additional tax revenue for the state from expanding the marijuana market and the fairness of allowing people with minor convictions in marijuana cases to have them expunged.

Opponents, led by former Republican Gov. Frank Keating, a onetime FBI agent, pointed to problems with the existing medical marijuana regime as well as fears that legalizing recreational marijuana would bring more crime and environmental problems.

Legalization advocates held a decisive edge in cash for the campaign, raising $3.2 million through the end of 2022 and airing broadcast TV commercials in the closing weeks. The anti-legalization side, according to its pollster Pat McFerron, was expected to spend only about $250,0000 and concentrate on satellite and cable TV ads.

Ethan McKee, vice president of Mango Cannabis, weighs marijuana flowers at an Oklahoma City dispensary on Feb. 28.

Ethan McKee, vice president of Mango Cannabis, weighs marijuana flowers at an Oklahoma City dispensary on Feb. 28.

But the backdrop was in many ways unfavorable to marijuana advocates. In November, four Chinese nationals were found shot to death at a farm in rural Kingfisher County in a crime that made headlines statewide and that law enforcement officials said showed the potential pitfalls of a larger cannabis industry.

In addition, there had been growing and bipartisan consensus that regulation of medical marijuana, which was approved in a similar statewide vote by a 57% to 43% margin in 2018, had not kept up with the industry’s explosive growth. Oklahoma has nearly three times as many licensed cannabis dispensaries and almost as many licensed grow facilities as California, despite the latter having 10 times Oklahoma’s population and having already legalized recreational marijuana years ago.

Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s Republican attorney general praised the vote Tuesday, saying, “Regardless of where one stands on the question of marijuana legalization, the stark reality is that organized crime from China and Mexico has infiltrated Oklahoma’s medical marijuana industry.”

The recreational marijuana measure voted on Tuesday would have allowed sales to residents 21and older and taxed them at 15%. Proceeds from the taxes would have been split among schools, drug treatment programs and state and local governments. It also would have allowed for the expungement of minor marijuana-related criminal convictions.

According to the pro-legalization advocates, about 4,500 Oklahomans are arrested annually over small amounts of marijuana. Ryan Kiesel, a senior adviser to Yes on 820, said expungement of criminal records must still be fought for.

“We have thousands of families being torn apart and thrown into chaos every year because a mom or a dad has a small amount of marijuana that would be legal in 21 other states and legal in Oklahoma for medical card holders,” he said.

Ahead of the vote, Drummond told the Tulsa-based Black Wall Street Times he was willing to look at making expungement easier.

“If it does not pass, I do think in the spirit of criminal justice reform, marijuana possession and consumption should be addressed. And there should be a mechanism considered by the legislature that I’m happy to administer toward the expungement of those things,” he said.

'We are going to keep showing up.' Activists rally at Oklahoma Capitol for gun reforms

Aspen Ford and Jessie Christopher Smith, Oklahoman
Tue, March 7, 2023 

More than 50 gun safety advocates rallied Monday morning at the Oklahoma Capitol to demand legislators strengthen the state's gun laws.

Members and volunteers of the Oklahoma chapter of Moms Demand Action ― a nationwide movement that started after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting more than 10 years ago ― and the parent nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety gathered on the steps of the Capitol to call for tightening gun loopholes and passing commonsense gun reform.

"I know we’re dealing with a false reputation here that we’re trying to take people’s guns, but we're gun owners," said Beth Furnish, a volunteer leader for the Moms Demand Action chapter. "Like a lot of Oklahomans, we have firearms at home. We have veterans. We have a broad representation of concerned people that are just fed up with lawmakers not doing anything to address gun violence that’s impacting people’s lives."

Members and volunteers of the Oklahoma chapter of Moms Demand Action and the parent nonprofit Everytown for Gun Safety gathered Monday on the steps of the Capitol to call for tightening gun loopholes and passing common sense gun reform.

More:How America’s schools have changed since deadliest mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary

Several other participants at the rally voiced similar feelings, emphasizing that they were not opposed to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the right to bear arms, but felt that passing "reasonable regulations" would help lessen higher rates of gun violence.

Cacky Poarch, 55, said she joined Oklahoma's Moms Demand Action after the Parkland shooting in 2018, and feels compelled by the mass shootings she sees in media reports to advocate for more gun safety.

"We, of course, have seen so many school shootings over and over and over," Poarch said. "Unfettered access to firearms makes us less safe on so many levels."

Joshua Harris-Till, a cousin of the late Emmett Till, also joined the group Monday. He said people in his family have been affected by gun violence and believes the state needs to do a better job preventing people with histories of mental health issues from having such easy access to firearms.

"My two little brothers were 13 and 10 the first time they got shot, and I lost my sister to that," Harris-Till said. "It’s something that’s extremely important. And there’s multiple stories for folks in our organization who relate to things like that, who don’t want other families to go through what they’ve gone through."

Harris-Till told The Oklahoman he believes that many of the state's legislators, who are overwhelmingly Republican, don't necessarily advocate so fiercely for loosening gun restrictions because they believe the bills will make it out of committee, but because they want to remain part of a national narrative and need to "prove they're more 2A than the next guy" to their constituents.

"It’s not like their constituents are saying, 'Hey, we need more pro-gun bills'; it’s them saying, 'Hey, I have to be pro-gun to be reelected,'" Harris-Till said, attributing the state's hyper-partisan focus on guns to "demagoguery."

Moms Demand Action members rally Monday on the south plaza of the Capitol.

State Rep. Trish Ranson, D-Stillwater, championed a bill that would repeal the state's 2020 anti-red flag law and allow for "extreme risk protection orders" that prohibit or temporarily remove firearms from an individual if they pose a threat to themselves or others. Ranson said the bill never even had a committee hearing.

“But I wanted to start the conversation," Ranson said. "I think we need to have common sense gun laws so that way everyone is safe, but not just gun owners.”

Ranson said she is often discouraged by the state's high rate of domestic abuse and increasingly vitriolic rhetoric against teachers who, under some proposals, could even be asked to carry firearms in place of security personnel. Ranson believes it would be unhealthy for both the teachers and the students to have the dynamics of their classroom relationship complicated by a gun.

"At some point, people have to understand the logic in the way we treat each other," Ranson said. "I just feel like there will be a time when things balance out and the pendulum will swing back and we’ll be able to find some common sense gun laws that we can put in place."

State Sen. Julia Kirt was originally scheduled to speak at the rally Monday, but could not attend due to illness. Her office, however, provided a statement of support for the organizers.

"I always appreciate having people in the People's House voicing their concerns and sharing the common sense reforms they see to issues like gun violence," Kirt's statement read.

Candace Frates, of Tulsa, claps Monday at Moms Demand Action rally on the south plaza of the Capitol.

Some advocates consider SB 1046 ― a bill proposed by state Sen. Darrell Weaver and state Rep. Robert Manger that would make the first conviction of violence against a pregnant woman a felony ― as the most viable proposal out of Oklahoma's current Legislature.

But activists with Moms Demand Action hope that continued advocacy will bring awareness to other statewide proposals.

"The gun violence doesn’t stop, so we are going to keep showing up," Furnish said. "Until lawmakers respond to the people in this state, we’re going to keep coming. We make our presence known, we’re watching, we’re demanding that they do something."

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Organizers, volunteers rally at Oklahoma Capitol to demand gun reform

Tank Fire Prompts Evacuation at Port of Catoosa, Oklahoma

The roof of a chemical tank (foreground) caught fire at the Port of Catoosa on Wednesday, prompting a full evacuation (

Tulsa Fire Department / Gabe Graveline)

PUBLISHED FEB 17, 2023 12:48 AM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

On Wednesday, a fire broke out on the top of a chemical storage tank at the Port of Catoosa, an inland port at the western end of Oklahoma's Verdigris River. 

The fire broke out at about 0900 hours local time on Wednesday, and the port and a nearby elementary school were evacuated as a precautionary measure. Smoke from the tank was drifting towards a residential area, so local residents were ordered to shelter in place while fire crews responded to the blaze. 

According to the Tulsa Fire Deparment, the tank was empty at the time that the fire broke out. The first fire crew on scene reported fire and heavy smoke, and they applied water to extinguish the fire. Once the fire was out and temperatures on the tank fell, the site was turned back over to the tank farm operator. 

"You know, we prepare for it," Port Director David Yarbrough told local media. "Every now and then, something goes not according to plan, and you just react, and you do what you gotta do."

The extent of the damage to the tank is still under investigation, but some amount of soil surface remediation is expected. 

Image courtesy Tulsa Fire Department / Gabe Graveline

Port of Catoosa is a 2,000-acre industrial park and intermodal port on the northeast edge of Tulsa, and it is one of the largest, furthest-inland riverine ports in the United States. Its lessees employ about 3,000 people in a variety of manufacturing industries. The Verdigris River connects the port with the Arkansas River, then onwards to the Mississippi, and handles about 1,000 barges per year in traffic. 

Day of Solidarity with Leonard Peltier Set for Monday, Feb. 6th

Leonard Peltier  was arrested in Canada on Feb. 6, 1976. 

BY NATIVE NEWS ONLINE STAFF FEBRUARY 04, 2023

On February 6, 1976, Leonard Peltier was arrested in Hinton, Alberta, Canada. Monday, February 6th will mark the 47th anniversary of his arrest.

Following a controversial trial, Peltier was convicted of aiding and abetting murder of two FBi agents and has been imprisoned ever since. Many people and human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, National Congress of American Indians, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and others believe Peltier is a political prisoner who should be immediately released.

To mark the anniversary, people worldwide will commemorate Monday as a Day of Solidarity for Leonard Peltier, who is currently incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in Coleman, Florida.  

As he enters his 48th year of incarceration, hundreds of his supporters will host “Rise Up for Peltier” events in numerous cities around the world, including Paris, Rome, Berlin, Switzerland. 

In the United States, events will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rapid City, South Dakota; Tampa, Florida; Santa Fe, New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Tulsa, Oklahoma; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C. 

Related: A Message to President Biden: No Prisoner Swap Needed to FREE Leonard Peltier

Peltier is 78 years old in deteriorating health with multiple serious ailments. Supporters have been asking President Joe Biden to grant clemency so that he can spend his final years with his loved ones and tribal community.

Those interested in sending President Biden a letter should address the letter as follows:

President Joseph Biden 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20500 USA

JESUS RAISED THE DEAD, VIAGRA CAN TOO

‘He Gets Us’ organizers hope to spend $1 billion to promote Jesus. Will anyone care?

This year’s Super Bowl will feature a $20 million pair of pro-Jesus ads promoting the idea that Jesus ‘gets us,’ part of the larger ‘He Gets Us’ campaign. Organizers hope to spend a billion dollars in the next three years to redeem Jesus’ brand.

He Gets Us social media posts. Courtesy images

January 26, 2023

By 

Bob Smietana

(RNS) — The first time she saw an ad for “He Gets Us,” a national campaign devoted to redeeming the brand of Christianity’s savior, Jennifer Quattlebaum had one thought on her mind.

Show me the money.

A self-described “love more” Christian and ordinary mom who works in marketing, Quattlebaum loved the message of the ad, which promoted the idea that Jesus understands contemporary issues from a grassroots perspective. But she wondered who was paying for the ads and what their agenda was.

“I mean, Jesus gets us,” she said. “But what group is behind them?”

For the past 10 months, the “He Gets Us” ads have shown up on billboards, YouTube channels and television screens — most recently during NFL playoff games — across the country, all spreading the message that Jesus understands the human condition.

The campaign is a project of the Servant Foundation, an Overland Park, Kansas, nonprofit that does business as The Signatry, but the donors backing the campaign have until recently remained anonymous — in early 2022, organizers only told Religion News Service that funding came from “like-minded families who desire to see the Jesus of the Bible represented in today’s culture with the same relevance and impact He had 2000 years ago.” 

But in November, David Green, the billionaire co-founder of Hobby Lobby, told talk show host Glenn Beck that his family was helping fund the ads. Green, who was on the program to discuss his new book on leadership, told Beck that his family and other families would be helping fund an effort to spread the word about Jesus.

“You’re going to see it at the Super Bowl — ‘He gets Us,’” said Green. “We are wanting to say — we being a lot of people — that he gets us. He understands us. He loves who we hate. I think we have to let the public know and create a movement.”

---

RELATED:  A $100 million ad campaign wants to fix Jesus’ image. His followers remain a problem.

---

Jason Vanderground, president of Haven, a branding firm based in Grand Haven, Michigan, that is working on the “He Gets Us” campaign, confirmed that the Greens are one of the major funders, among a variety of donors and families who have gotten behind it.

Donors to the project are all Christians but come from a range of denominational backgrounds, said Vanderground. 

Organizers have also signed up 20,000 churches to provide volunteers to follow up with anyone who sees the ads and asks for more information. Those churches are not, however, he said, funding the campaign.

A Vegas-themed “He Gets Us” campaign advertisement at Harmon Corner in Las Vegas. Photo courtesy of “He Gets Us”

The Super Bowl ads alone will cost about $20 million, according to organizers, who originally described “He Gets Us” as a $100 million effort. 

“The goal is to invest about a billion dollars over the next three years,” he said. “And that is just the first phase.”

One of the ads that aired during the NFL playoffs was titled “That Day” and tells the story of an innocent man being executed.

“Jesus rejected resentment on the cross,” the ad says. “He gets us. All of us.”

A billion-dollar, three-year campaign would be on a par with advertising budgets for major brands such as Kroger grocery stores, said Lora Harding, associate professor of marketing at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee.

“This is a really remarkable ad spend for a religious organization or just a nonprofit in general,” said Harding, who worked on the “Open hearts, open minds, open doors” campaign for the United Methodist Church.

Religious-themed ads have been relatively rare at the Super Bowl. The Church of Scientology has run ads in the past, and in 2018 Toyota ran an ad with the message “We’re all one team,” featuring a rabbi, a priest, an imam and a saffron-robed monk headed to a football game, where they sat next to some nuns.

Closer to the “He Gets Us” model was the Christian Broadcasting Network’s $5 million national campaign to promote “The Book,” a repackaged version of The Living Bible translation, with a catchy theme song sung by country legend Glen Campbell.

Lora Harding. Photo by Sam Simpkins/Belmont University

Harding said that despite the cost, advertising at the Super Bowl makes sense for “He Gets Us.” Organizers want to reach a mass audience that is paying attention. Super Bowl ads have become part of the pageantry of the big game.

“There just aren’t ways to reach an attentive, engaged audience that size anymore,” she said.

She also said that the anonymity of the group behind the ads plays to the group’s advantage. It would be easy for viewers to dismiss an ad coming from a faith-based organization or religious group. The “He Gets Us” ads wait until the end to mention Jesus and don’t point to any specific church or denomination.

“That makes it even more powerful, and hits the message home in a really compelling way,” she said. “I think it does make Jesus more relevant to today’s audiences.”

Some viewers, including some evangelical Christians, are skeptical. Author and activist Jennifer Greenberg supports the idea of trying to reach those outside the faith and wants people to understand that Jesus gets them. But that’s not the whole message of Christianity.

“Yes, Jesus can relate to you,” she said. “But what did Jesus come primarily to do? He came to die for our sins.”

Connecting emotionally with Jesus is great, she added. But that won’t save your soul.

“I can look at Buddha or Sarah McLachlan or Obama and I can find things in common with them,” she said. “But that does not mean they are going to save me.”

A “He Gets Us” campaign advertisement in New York’s Times Square. Photo courtesy of “He Gets Us”

Michael Cooper, an author and missiologist, agrees. While Cooper is a fan of the ads, saying they powerfully communicate the human side of Jesus, they leave out his divinity.

“I began to wonder, is this the Jesus I know?” he said.

Cooper and a colleague offer what he called a “constructive critique” of the campaign in an upcoming article for the Journal of the Evangelical Missiological Society. That article calls for clearer messaging about the divine nature of Jesus.

“This wasn’t just a great teacher or preacher who was incarnated,” he said. “This was God himself.”

Ryan Beaty, a former Assemblies of God pastor and current doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma, said he’s been fascinated by the ads and wonders how the country’s political polarization may affect how the ads come across.

His conservative friends, he said, see the ads — such as one depicting Jesus as a refugee — as too political. Other folks who are more liberal see the ads as not going far enough.

Beaty also wonders if people outside the church will find the ads more compelling than true believers.

“People of no faith — or moderate learnings toward faith — will find these more compelling than people who identify with the Christian faith or strongly identify with politics,” he said.

Seth Andrews, a podcaster, author and secular activist based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, said the campaign seems to be marketing a version of Jesus that’s more in touch with modern American culture than earlier, more dogmatic versions.

“They are latching on to this touchy-feely, conveniently vague, designer Jesus,” he said.

Jason Vanderground. Courtesy photo

Andrews poses the question of what Jesus would think of the amount of money spent on the ads. Would he prefer that the money be spent on ministering to people’s physical needs or making the world a better place?

“Or would he say, no, go ahead and spend $100 million to tell everybody how great I am?”

While the ads are meant to reach what Vanderground called “spiritually open skeptics,” a secondary audience is Christians, whose reputations have fallen on hard times in recent years.

“We also have this objective of encouraging Christians to follow the example of Jesus in the way that they love and treat each other,” he said.

For her part, Quattlebaum said that in the end, she’s a fan of the ads, because they focus on the main message of Christianity.

“It all goes to Jesus,” she said. “ And if it all goes back to Jesus, it all goes back to love.”

---

RELATED:  $100 million media campaign depicts human side of Jesus in outreach to skeptics

---