Wednesday, July 10, 2024

 BRITAIN

A Labour landslide?





TUESDAY 9 JULY 2024, BY TERRY CONWAY

There is a new government at Westminster. Rishi Sunak’s gamble of calling a snap election did not pay off.

But while Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer claims a landslide the reality is different if you look at votes cast. His left-wing predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, whom Starmer detests, motivated more people to vote Labour than he did. Turn out at this election was low. This was an election the Tories lost rather than one Starmer won.

Total Labour votes in last three General Elections

2017 (Corbyn)12 877 918
2029 (Corbyn)10 269 051
2024 (Starmer)9 634 399

And that matters because there will be challenges to the new Prime Minster, even electorally. Not only was Corbyn, banned by Starmer from standing as a Labour candidate, re-elected as an independent but four other independents standing on a pro-Palestinian platform also defeated their Labour opponents. It will particularly rankle that one of the scalps that was taken here was that of arch-Starmerite and shadow cabien member Jonathan Ashworth, deeply implicated in the witch-hunt against the left. And the fact that the even more dangerously neoliberal MP Wes Streeting, predictably appointed as Health Secretary, came within 500 votes of losing his seat to Leanne Mohamed, a British Palestinian woman, leaves no room for complacency. We should also note that the Green Party – which while it has weaknesses is definitely well to the left of Labour under Starmer, went from a single MP to four. Then there are a small number of reliable left MPs who did manage to stand for Labour, not by any means least Diane Abbott, the first Black woman to be elected to Westminster. Starmer attempted to block her from standing but was forced to back down by a huge campaign in her support.

And it is not only from the left that there will be tests for the new Prime Minister. Nigel Farage, the leader of the far right party Reform finally won a seat in parliament at his eight attempt – and is joined by four other MPs. And what is as much of a concern to anyone worried about the shift to the right in the centre of British politics, they came second in many other places. As good news from France about the electoral defeat of the National Rally (Rassemblement National) percolates across the airwaves, the fear is that it is not only the Tories who are responding to their growth by accommodating to their ideas, but the new government itself.

It is true that Starmer has said that the deeply reactionary scheme to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda is dead – but only because he argues it would not be effective. Labour’s rhetoric on migration is within the same ideological framework as Reform, the Tories and indeed the French NR – that migrants are a ‘problem’ that need to be managed, rather than human beings fleeing war, poverty and climate chaos that are created by the driving search for profit and for power regardless of the cost to others.

And migration is not the only policy on which the new government needs to be challenged. Public services are in crisis after a decade and more of austerity and living standards have fallen disastrously both for those in and out of employment. But Labour’s insistence to religiously stick to spending limits will do nothing to change any of this meaning that it is unlikely there will be much of a honeymoon period before unions and campaigners begin to organise systematically to demand change.

A similar pattern may well be repeated on other key questions from climate – where Labour has significantly diluted earlier promises, to the National Health Service where they want to deepen private sector involvement and many more areas than there is scope to explore In this article. Meanwhile the genocide in Gaza continues and the Palestine solidarity movement, despite both post-election exhaustion and appalling weather, has made it clear it intends to keep the pressure up on this government as much as on the last.

7 July 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

 FRANCE

A surprise victory and a reprieve from the RN



WEDNESDAY 10 JULY 2024, BY LÉON CRÉMIEUX


The Nouveau Front populaire (New Popular Front), a coalition built in just a few days by the left-wing parties (whereas they remained splintered at the recent European parliamentary elections), has just won 182 deputy seats in the French National Assembly, beating the Rassemblement national (RN) and its allies, with 143 seats, and the camp of President Macron with 168 seats.

This is a spectacular reversal of the situation meaning we have gone from the threat of a far-right stranglehold on the state apparatus to a relative left-wing majority in the Assembly, elected on a programme of rupture with neoliberal policies. This reversal cannot be understood without looking at the massive mobilisation in recent weeks of the activist forces of the workers’ and democratic movement in the face of the far right, leading first to the formation of this New Popular Front (with la France insoumise (LFI), Europe Ecologie Les Verts (EELV), the Socialist Party (PS), the Communist Party (PCF) and others including the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (NPA)), then to a major mobilisation at the ballot box and a very broadly supported vote to reject the RN.

Following on from its 31.34% result in the European elections on 9 June, the RN obtained more than 33% of the vote in the first round of legislative elections on 30 June, and everything suggested that it would obtain a very large number of deputies in the second round, with all the polls giving it well over 200 deputies and possibly even an absolute majority of 289 seats.

In France, MPs are elected in a first-past-the-post system in the country’s 577 constituencies. Basically, if no candidate obtains 50% of the votes cast in the 1st round, there is a second round the following Sunday, in which candidates who obtained more than 12.5% of the votes cast in the 1st round may stand. Candidates may also withdraw spontaneously within two days of the 1st round. 76 M.P.s were elected in the 1st round. Of the remaining 501 constituencies, only 191 were automatically duels, as the other candidates fell below the 12.5% threshold. But three or even four candidates remained in the running in 310 other constituencies. The RN and its allies from Les Républicains (around Éric Ciotti, President of the LR) had won 39 seats in the 1st round and were leading in the 260 remaining constituencies.

There was therefore a good chance that, in the event of a three-way tie, the RN would win a large majority of these seats. On Sunday evening, the Nouveau Front populaire announced in a single voice that it was withdrawing its candidates wherever it was in third place, to prevent the election of far-right candidates. Throughout Sunday evening and Monday, the Macronist camp dithered, explicitly refusing to call for a barrage against the Rassemblement National, with several voices, such as that of former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe and National Assembly President Yaël Braun Pivet, maintaining a parallel rejection of the RN and LFI. Finally, on Tuesday evening, under pressure, 81 of the 95 third-placed Ensemble candidates withdrew, bringing the total number of withdrawals against the RN to 221.

Above all, in the days following the 1st round, there was a clear upsurge of activist forces, trade unions and associations from the workers’ and democratic movement, to block the RN and prevent it from taking power. This has manifested itself in appeals, demonstrations and, particularly on social networks, a spectacular denunciation of the reality of the RN, a far-right force that has its roots in French fascist currents and, like its European equivalents in the “Identity and Democracy” group, is developing a racist policy that undermines social and democratic rights. [1]

RN activists and officials were a little too quick to relax between the two rounds, confident of victory, and the veneer of respectability they had been brushing for months in the media began to crack. Racist comments and attacks increased in towns and neighbourhoods, and the RN declared that it would wage its first battle against French citizens with dual nationality, saying that they were ineligible to hold office. For example, Hollande’s former education minister, Najat Vallot-Belkacem, should never have held the post in the first place, in their view, as she is Franco-Moroccan. Similarly, social networks and independent media have revealed the reality of dozens of RN candidates displaying Nazi symbols, responsible for violent actions or making openly racist comments.

In just a few days, Gabriel Attal, the outgoing Prime Minister, had to make a 180° turn. After stigmatising the NFP, criminalising la France insoumise as “anti-Semites refusing to call Hamas terrorists”, after calling for a rejection of “the extremes”, he had to clearly call for the RN candidates and the “threat of the far right” to be defeated everywhere.

The reality of the RN, a force that represents a danger not only to the rights and security of the racialised working classes, but also to the rights and security of women, LGBTQ+ people, democratic freedoms and all social rights, became clear. The profound anti-Semitic and anti-social nature of the RN was forcefully denounced, breaking with a climate of resignation and benevolence distilled in particular by the 24-hour news media in the hands of a few French billionaires.

If Macron and his candidates had appeared to be the only alternative to the RN, this groundswell would never have happened. Moreover, Macron was already positioning himself as the “heroic” president standing up to a government of the RN after having himself created the possibility of such an accession. The dynamic of rejection was made possible by the existence of the NFP, which emerged as an alternative to the RN, and the consolidation of the NFP was itself made possible by the dynamic of the social movement, particularly the CGT trade union federation. On the evening of the announcement of the early parliamentary elections, Sophie Binet, Secretary of the CGT, called for the creation of a popular front against the extreme right. This social mobilisation was reflected in an inter-union joint call from the CGT, CFDT, FSU, Solidaires and UNSA unions for people to vote against the far right.

The movement to vote against the RN candidates on 7 July exceeded all the forecasts and opinion polls, with withdrawals not leading to a drop in turnout and vote transfers largely to the detriment of the RN. The far right is still massively rejected in the country, and a majority of voters were not prepared to let them come to political power.

But even down to 143 MPs, the RN bloc nevertheless represents a very significant increase for this party, by more than 50 MPs, which is below its electoral weight, having only 25% of the seats after having obtained 33% of the vote.

The NFP is therefore the leading group in the National Assembly and together with the various left-wing parties represents around 190 seats. Nothing is settled, however.

The NFP has a legitimate claim to the post of Prime Minister, as the President of the Republic must, in accordance with institutional practice since 1958, appoint a representative of the group that came out on top in the legislative elections. This should not be open to challenge but, as always, Macron does not want to acknowledge his political failures, arguing that the NFP does not have an absolute majority in the Assembly, with the left having only 190 seats. Yet he himself has governed since June 2022 with a relative majority of 250 seats, imposing his policies with decrees and 49-3 articles that avoid a vote in the Assembly. [2]

The Macronists would therefore like to stand in the way of the NFP by acting as if they themselves had a majority, by seeking to build, ex nihilo, out of odds and ends, a new fictitious coalition, with variable geometry according to different hypotheses put forward by the leaders of the Macronist party, Ensemble - an alliance of Ensemble (163 seats) with the small group of the LR (Les Républicains, 66 seats), or also the hypothesis of a centre-right and left front without LFI, with socialists and ecologists, allied with the Macronists.

Clearly, Macron is currently blocked in the National Assembly, but there is also a general seizure, due to the institutional functioning of the French Fifth Republic, created to avoid parliamentary coalitions and to weld majority camps around the president, based on the single-member constituency ballot. Since 1958, the Gaullist system has rejected the parliamentary alliances with which the Fourth Republic functioned, imposing majorities built around the presidential party. Then, from 1986 onwards, the system had to evolve, accepting “cohabitations” between a left-wing or right-wing president and opposing parliamentary majorities. But the system has never allowed coalitions formed by several parties negotiating around a government programme, relegating the President of the Republic to a secondary role. Moreover, Macron still imagines organising a pseudo majority in which he would remain the conductor of the orchestra. On Monday morning, he reappointed Gabriel Attal as Prime Minister. Having lost nearly 100 seats, a loss that would have been much greater without the carryover of votes from the left in the second round, Macron would like to appear victorious in these elections without acknowledging his own defeat. We’ll see how this tug-of-war plays out in the days ahead.

THE NEW POPULAR FRONT RESISTS

Until now, the NFP parties have resisted the centrifugal forces that led to the break-up of the NUPES alliance a year ago. This is the result of pressure from the social movement and the threat from the RN. Despite all the efforts of the media devoted to Macron’s regime, the representatives of the four parties forming the backbone of the coalition have been speaking with one voice for the last fortnight and avoiding any discordant initiatives. Clearly, in the coming days, maximum pressure is going to be brought to bear on the leaders of the PS, EELV and even the PCF, and on figures from LFI such as François Ruffin, to try to break this front.

Until now, the leaders of both the PS and EELV have understood that giving in to the siren calls of social liberalism or a dubious agreement with Macron would mean falling back into the ruts that made the far right flourish and led to the crisis of certain Green parties at the European level.

François Hollande’s presence as an NFP deputy has not changed the nature of this. Without being a programme for breaking with capitalism, the NFP programme focuses on social demands on wages, prices and public services, in particular, which are an extension of the mobilisations of recent years and correspond to the demands of the social movement and the needs of the popular classes in the face of the damage caused by neoliberal capitalism. This is what the vast majority of the components of this social and trade union movement have understood, even its most radical components, and it is also the meaning given by the NPA to its participation in the NFP, with the candidacy of Philippe Poutou in the Aude. For reasons of identity, groups like Lutte ouvrière, the POID, Révolution permanente and the NPAR have placed themselves on the margins of the movement in recent weeks, but this did not correspond to a widespread posture in activist circles, even radical circles who understood the urgency and did not mix up the stages. This was the case, for example, with the position of the Union communiste libertaire.

The NFP said that if it were able to form a government, its first decisions would be to raise the minimum wage (SMIC) from 1400 to 1600 euros net, increase civil servants’ wages by 10%, index wages to prices, repeal the pension reform and increased retirement age of 64 imposed by Macron a year ago, introduce a freeze on essential prices, and increase housing benefit by 10%. This would obviously be a positive step.

No one can predict what the weeks ahead will bring in terms of government or new twists and turns.

On the other hand, certain points are important, starting with the maintenance of the Popular Front as a unified political coalition around a political project and a programme to break with the system, even if this programme is limited in its proposals to challenge the system (nothing, among other things, about public ownership of key sectors of the economy). Similarly, there will be no social advances and no resistance to all the blockages that will be put in place by the neoliberal forces if the NFP does not extend beyond the electoral framework to a rally, a political front in the towns and neighbourhoods, particularly where the RN has succeeded in deceiving the popular classes by claiming to be the defender of their living conditions.

The social movements will also have to continue to play a direct political role and help build a common front of political and social forces capable of thwarting the RN’s advance. Of course, the RN’s advance has been halted in the Assembly, but that doesn’t mean that its influence in society has diminished. Anti-fascist action, anti-racist mobilisation and denunciation of the real nature of the RN are essential in the months ahead, but uprooting the RN from its popular base will require a political and social project based on social needs to be built, heard and organised to combat the ideas of neoliberal capitalism and the neoliberal, security-oriented and racist policies on which the far right thrives in France and Europe. If an anti-neoliberal, anti-capitalist alternative does not make itself heard among the popular classes, there will be no lasting barrier to the Rassemblement national.

9 July 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

FOOTNOTES

[1On 8 July, the RN - which has 30 MEPs, the biggest delegation of elected representatives in Strasbourg - joined the Patriots for Europe group, which brings together: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Fidesz, Austria’s far-right FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs), Geert Wilders’ PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid-Party for Freedom), ANO (Akce nespokojenych obcanu-Action of Discontented Citizens, ANO stands for Yes in Czech) led by former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, Santiago Abascal’s Vox (Spain), André Ventura’s Chega (Portugal), the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti), the Flemish independence party Vlaams Belang and Matteo Salvini’s Lega from Italy. Jordan Bardella is president of the Patriots for Europe. The group has 84 MEPs, while the EPP has 188 and the Social Democratic group 136.

[2Article 49.3 of the French constitution enables a government to push a bill through the National Assembly without a vote.

The Dictatorial Trump Court Has Put Our Democracy’s Rule of Law on Quicksand
July 10, 2024
Source: Nader.org



The six “corporate state” U.S. Supreme Court Justices, occupying unaccountable lifetime unelected positions, handed over dictatorial power for presidents and corporations that disassembled our Founders’ Constitution and the centerpiece of the American Revolution. In one week!

Led by the notorious Trump v. United States case these interwoven and dictatorial commands will live in infamy unless reversed or over-ridden by a constitutional amendment.

The paramount goal of our Revolution, starting with the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, was to end King George III’s iron rule over the American colonies and vaccinate the country against another “King George.”

Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States (a 6 to 3 decision) undid the American Revolution. He decreed that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for their core official acts (including starting wars of aggression or defying scores of Congressional subpoenas), “presumptively immune” for all other acts to be defeated by an infinitely opaque legal standard of “we’ll know it when we see it.”

Roberts refrained from providing a single hypothetical to illustrate his categories, except all exchanges with and orders to the Justice Department are immune, for instance, bribing the Attorney General to indict a political opponent on trumped up charges. Sonia Sotomayor’s powerful dissent stepped into the breach.

She asserted without dispute from Roberts that the majority had invented a “law-free zone” entrusting the president with a “loaded weapon” for future occupants of the White House to brandish. Specifically, “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune, immune, immune.” She added that never in U.S. history have presidents had more confidence that they would be immune from prosecution for crimes of any sort.

“Moving forward, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity,” she wrote. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide by will not provide a backstop.”

In short, Roberts and his clique of five other authoritarians have re-installed the doctrine of “The King Can Do No Wrong,” that was total ANATHEMA TO OUR FOUNDERS AND FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Constitutional law specialist, Bruce Fein, declared that Roberts’ decision itself was unconstitutional, citing provisions in the Constitution including Article 2, section 3 the “Take care” clause that the laws be faithfully executed.” In a long incisive op-ed in the New York Times, on July 2, 2024, leading constitutional law scholar Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe called the ruling “OUTRAGEOUS.”

If asked, millions of Americans might be responding to my alarm with the words “Relax Ralph, it’s obvious that presidents have always been ‘above the law’ and that they do whatever they want and get away with it.” A few might even cite the brazen declaration in July 2019 by then-President Donald Trump: “Then I have Article II, where I have the right to do anything I want as president.” He did just that and is now a very successful fugitive from justice in twin federal criminal cases and a state criminal case – all following indictments – which have faltered due to a legal system built for delay after delay for rich defendants paying rich attorneys.

Trump while president even got away with defying over 125 congressional subpoenas including one by the Jan 6th House Select Committee. His colossal record of immunity is sui generis. His special assistant Peter Navarro defied one congressional subpoena and is serving several months in prison.

People, you are correct that the presidency has been practicing daily lawlessness against our Constitution, federal statutes, and international treaties the U.S. signed and often initiated, turning the White House into an ongoing crime scene – whether Democratic or Republican incumbents. (See, President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged criminal misconduct by Conor Shaw, citizensforethics.org).

So, what’s the big deal? The highest court in the land has hijacked our constitution and noble ideals and entrenched presidential immunities beyond the power of Congress to change. That’s the big deal. Trump, who chose three of the sitting Supreme Court Justices, is delighting in disbelief over his good fortune.

The cunning, devious Supreme Court majority kept delaying its decision to preclude any Trump trial before the November 2024 presidential election. Last year, the Court turned down a petition by Special Counsel Jack Smith for an expedited decision by leapfrogging the court of appeals since all the lower courts had decided no immunity with no conflicting precedents. Then on February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court decided to take the Trump appeal, after the Court of Appeals weighed in, and waited until the last day of this session, July 1, 2024, to issue its opinion. It then remanded the case to the federal district court to divine like Joseph interpreting Pharoah’s dreams, whether the government could defeat Trump’s presumptively immune actions to void President Joe Biden’s election. If Trump loses, another round of immediate appeals will follow while trial proceedings are frozen until the Supreme Court makes a final decision a year or so down the road. Get the strategy?

By contrast, prior Supreme Courts decided the constitutional issues of Bush v. Gore in 48 hours, the Nixon Tapes case in two weeks and the Pentagon Papers case in four days. The Court knows how to gallop instead of walk if it wants to.

Additional wreckage by the Court in its last week before a long summer vacation included:The six justices fortified a previous decision dramatically narrowing federal bribery laws by further restricting the crime to exclude a request for a legislator to do something and then belatedly giving him/her money or property after the request is honored. The court labelled the latter a “gratuity” and okay!!
The Court overturned the Chevron doctrine where the courts could defer to the expertise of federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and the FDA. The six justices said that the courts can take charge and decide these cases because the agencies were acting on Congress’s vague legislative authority. The courts don’t have anywhere near the budgets, staff and expertise necessary to interpret hyper-technical regulatory statutes. What the Supreme Court has done is to provide an open invitation for corporate lawyers to so delay agency actions as to diminish them with settlements that are little more than exhortations.
The six Justices prohibited the SEC’s administrative law judges from fining a defendant after due process in a statutory fraud case giving the latter a right to a jury trial if the SEC charges are analogous to common law fraud. This gives hordes of corporate lawyers the leverage to coerce sweetheart settlements with the SEC or have it overwhelmed with expensive, budget-draining trials.
Adding to their previous years of straitjacketing of the EPA’s life-preserving missions, the six Justices gutted the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor Provision” such as actions prohibiting states from allowing pollution to stream into sister states.

The losers here are all the people who want clean air, water and soil, who want corrupt politicians and corporate crooks held accountable, and who, most definitely, do not want a president to be a King above the law, brandishing immense powers of illegal violence abroad and at home, secrecy, and destruction of the people’s right to freedom, justice, health, safety and economic well-being. Ordered by lifetime justices who have no robes.

Don’t you think impeachment and a constitutional amendment should be on the table?
NATE


Ralph Nader

Nader is opposed to big insurance companies, "corporate welfare," and the "dangerous convergence of corporate and government power." While consumer advocate/environmentalist Ralph Nader has virtually no chance of winning the White House, he has been taken quite seriously on the campaign trail.

Indeed, he poses the greatest threat to Sen. John Kerry. Democrats fear that Nader will be a spoiler, as he was in the 2000 election, when he took more than 97,000 votes in Florida. Bush won Florida by just 537 votes. The win gave Bush the election. Nader, an independent candidate, who also ran in 1992 and 1996, is on the ballot in 33 states, including Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Mexico—tough battleground states. Kerry stands a chance of losing those vital states if Nader siphons away the votes of Democrats. President Bush and Kerry have been in a statistical dead heat in nationwide polls, and votes for Nader could well tip the balance in favor of Bush.

Many Kerry supporters contend that a vote for Nader is in reality a vote for Bush and have made concerted efforts to persuade Nader to throw his support behind the Democratic candidate. Nader, however, has held fast to his convictions that the two candidates are nearly indistinguishable and are pawns of big business.

Designing Cars for Everything but Safety

Nader was born in Winsted, Connecticut, on Feb. 27, 1934 to Lebanese immigrants Nathra and Rose Nader. Nathra ran a bakery and restaurant. As a child, Ralph played with David Halberstam, who\'s now a highly regarded journalist.

Nader with Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter outside of Jimmy Carter\'s home on August 7, 1976, discussing Consumer Protection. (Source/AP)
Nader graduated magna cum laude from Princeton in 1955 and from Harvard Law School in 1958. As a student at Harvard, Nader first researched the design of automobiles. In an article titled "The Safe Car You Can\'t Buy," which appeared in the Nation in 1959, he concluded, "It is clear Detroit today is designing automobiles for style, cost, performance, and calculated obsolescence, but not—despite the 5,000,000 reported accidents, nearly 40,000 fatalities, 110,000 permanent disabilities, and 1,500,000 injuries yearly—for safety."

Early Years as a Consumer Advocate

After a stint working as a lawyer in Hartford, Connecticut, Nader headed for Washington, where he began his career as a consumer advocate. He worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the Department of Labor and volunteered as an adviser to a Senate subcommittee that was studying automobile safety.

In 1965, he published Unsafe at Any Speed, a best-selling indictment of the auto industry and its poor safety standards. He specifically targeted General Motors\' Corvair. Largely because of his influence, Congress passed the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Nader was also influential in the passage of 1967\'s Wholesome Meat Act, which called for federal inspections of beef and poultry and imposed standards on slaughterhouses, as well as the Clean Air Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

"Nader\'s Raiders" and Modern Consumer Movement

Nader\'s crusade caught on, and swarms of activists, called "Nader\'s Raiders," joined his modern consumer movement. They pressed for protections for workers, taxpayers, and the environment and fought to stem the power of large corporations.

In 1969 Nader established the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, which exposed corporate irresponsibility and the federal government\'s failure to enforce regulation of business. He founded Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group in 1971, an umbrella for many other such groups.

A prolific writer, Nader\'s books include Corporate Power in America (1973), Who\'s Poisoning America (1981), and Winning the Insurance Game (1990).