New York, New York, United States - Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Thursday, 3 April 2014

New York, New York, United States - Democracy Now! Daily Digest: A Daily Independent Global News Hour with Amy Goodman & Juan González for Thursday, 3 April 2014
democracynow.org
Stories:
Sen. Bernie Sanders: Supreme Court Undermines Democracy by Allowing Billionaires to "Buy Elections"
As the 2014 election season gets underway, the Supreme Court has struck down a long-standing limit on how much donors can give to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. Without any aggregate limit, a donor can now give millions directly to candidates and parties. The 5-to-4 decision in the McCutcheon v. FEC case is being described as the "next Citizens United," referring to the 2010 ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on U.S. elections. We speak to Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont about Wednesday’s landmark decision and his fight to remove big money from the electoral process. We also discuss Sanders’ potential presidential run in 2016, which he says he is considering "not because I wake up in the morning with a burning desire to be president … but [because] I happen to believe there are such enormous issues out there that I just don’t want to see swept under the rug."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: As the 2014 election season gets underway, the Supreme Court has issued a major ruling on campaign finance in a case described by many as "the next Citizens United." In a 5-to-4 vote Wednesday, the court’s conservative justices eliminated a long-standing limit on how much donors can give in total to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. Without any aggregate limit, a donor can now give millions of dollars directly to candidates and parties.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, quote, "There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. ... Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects."
In an unusual dissent from the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer said the decision, quote, "eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve." Judge Breyer went on to say, quote, "If the court in Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision may well open a floodgate."
Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas said he agreed with the majority opinion, but he wrote separately to say he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.
For more, we go to Capitol Hill, where we’re joined by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent senator from Vermont. Last year he introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling that allowed unrestricted, secret campaign spending. Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He’s the longest-serving independent member of Congress in American history.
Senator Sanders, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you first share your response to the Supreme Court decision?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It was a disastrous decision, following on the footsteps of Citizens United. And, Amy, in my view, you know, what the justices, the right-wing justices, are talking about is freedom of speech for billionaires and large corporations to own American democracy. At a time when we already have enormous income and wealth inequality in this country, what the justices are saying is that these very same people can now basically purchase the United States government, can spend unlimited sums of money on elections. And I think that is a disaster for the foundations of American democracy.
AMY GOODMAN: Could you pass a law that says contributions must be made transparent, and sooner than they are now?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yeah, you could pass that law. In fact, there’s been a bill around that we didn’t get Republican support for. It’s called the DISCLOSE Act. But that doesn’t go far enough. I mean, in the real world, this is what’s going on. In the real world, you have families like the Koch brothers, and you saw the spectacle in Las Vegas last week of Sheldon Adelson. And these people are prepared. These people, Amy, have billions of dollars. The Koch brothers are worth $80 billion. For them to pop a few billion dollars into the political process, for Sheldon Adelson to call prospective Republican nominees for the presidency to come before him to hear what they have to say so maybe he can anoint them with his hundreds of millions of dollars, is just an outrage to the struggles that people have undertaken in this country for democracy.
And, by the way, if you listen carefully—and you just mentioned this—what Judge Thomas was talking about—and this is where the Republicans want to go; make no mistakes about it—they say, "This is not enough. What we want," what Judge Thomas and the Republican Party want, "eventually, is to lift all limitations," so the Koch brothers or Adelson can pour millions of dollars directly into every right-wing candidate in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday morning, Republican House Speaker John Boehner praised the Supreme Court decision as a victory for freedom of speech. This is what he said.
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: What I think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. You all have the freedom to write what you want to write. Donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give. This was—remember, all this goes back to this bizarre McCain-Feingold bill that was passed that has distorted the political process in ways that no one—no one who voted for it ever believed in. Some of us understood what was going to happen. And when you—it’s pushing all this money outside the party structure into all these other various forms. And I’m all for freedom. Congratulations.
AMY GOODMAN: House Speaker John Boehner. Senator Sanders, your response?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, my response is that Boehner is right, in a sense. He’s talking about freedom for a few hundred of the wealthiest people in this country. If you go up to the average person and say, "Guess what! We’ve given you more freedom. Previously, you could only spend $125,000 in direct contributions to candidates; now you have the freedom to spend $4 or $5 million." People will look at you like you are crazy. This is freedom for a handful of the wealthiest people in this country to undermine American democracy and to buy elections. That is, to my mind, not what democracy is supposed to be about.
And let me add this, Amy, because I think a lot of people, you know, have concerns about the economy, healthcare, the environment. They say, "Well, this is really not all that important." They’re wrong. Understand what these folks want, most of the people who are contributing, the billionaires who are contributing into the political process. Take a look at what the Koch brothers’ agenda is about. It is to end Social Security—privatize it, cut it—end Medicare as we know it, end Medicaid, cut federal aid to education, do away with the Environmental Protection Agency so these guys can pollute and pollute and pollute. This is a decision that will impact every American’s life, giving more power to the very, very wealthy and, in my view, moving this country away from a democratic form of society into an oligarchic form of society.
AMY GOODMAN: How does this McCutcheon decision compare to Citizens United?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It’s a bad decision, not as bad, in my view, as Citizens United. What Citizens United—you know, what this decision says is, "OK, you can now spend $5 million in direct contributions to candidates." That’s really bad. What Citizens United says is, "Hey, you can go into your corporate treasury. You can spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars."
Just one last point on that. Both Obama and Mitt Romney spent a little over a billion dollars in their campaigns. I suspect that in the next presidential campaign the Koch brothers—themselves—will spend a billion dollars to elect the candidate of their choice.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Senator Sanders, what are you planning to do about this?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think we’ve got to move forward in a couple of directions. I think the first point that we have to move—direction that we have to move in is to overturn Citizens United. And that requires a constitutional amendment. There are now many, many hundreds of cities and towns throughout the country who have gone on record in supporting overturning Citizens United. I think there are something like 16 or 17 states that have done that.
Here’s the point, Amy, on this one, and it’s an interesting point: I do not believe that this is simply a progressive-versus-conservative issue. I think you’ve got a lot of ordinary conservatives out there who say, "You know what? We didn’t fight and die in war to preserve democracy so that a handful of billionaires can control the political process." I think we can put together a strong coalition. I think we’ve got to focus on that. Groups like Public Citizen are already doing a great job.
Second thing we’ve got to do—longer-term, but equally important—we need to move to public funding of elections—doing exactly the opposite of what Boehner was talking about. Boehner talks about freedom for billionaires to be able to buy elections. Our job is to say to these billionaires, "Sorry, you’re not going to buy elections." Everybody in this country, whether you have a lot of money or not, should have the opportunity to run for office.
AMY GOODMAN: What about your plans in 2016, Senator Sanders? Are you considering running for president of the United States?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, what I have said, Amy, is that I am considering running it—running for president. It’s a long way from Election Day and very long time before I have to make that decision. The reason that I made that—that I said that is not because I wake up in the morning with a burning desire to be president. That really is not the case. But I happen to believe that there are such enormous issues out there that I just don’t want to see swept under the rug. The middle class in this country is disappearing. We have more people living in poverty than ever before. The gap between the very, very rich, everybody else, is growing wider. The scientific community tells us that climate change is the great environmental crisis facing our planet, that we need bold and aggressive action to reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Real unemployment today is 12 percent; it’s not 6.8 percent. We need to create millions of jobs. We need to be deal with the issue. You and I have been talking about election reform, constitutional amendment. This is a critical moment in American history, and the same old, same old is not really good enough. So, I’m going to be going around the country talking to people and see what kind of support there is for a strong progressive agenda.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, apparently, a lot of pressure was brought on Senator Elizabeth Warren not to run, from the Hillary Clinton camp—I can’t say campaign, because she hasn’t announced. Are you feeling any of that kind of pressure?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, I’m not. And, you know, I have a lot of respect for Elizabeth. She’s doing a great job in the Senate. But the issue to me is to make sure that the needs of working families, the needs of the middle class, the needs of lower-income people get a fair shot, that they are being heard, that the ideas that we need to transform American society are getting out there.
AMY GOODMAN: The minimum wage? President Obama’s push for $10.10?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I hope very much—I think, obviously, we’ve got to go higher than that, but $10.10 is a good start, will take many, many millions of people out of poverty. We also have to deal with the tip wage situation, where you have waiters and waitresses making just a few dollars an hour. So, if we’re talking about lowering the number of people who are living in poverty, giving people a little bit of dignity, we’ve got to start by at least raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Got to go further than that. But probably equally important, we need a massive jobs program in this country to create millions of jobs. We can do that by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obamacare—your state, Vermont, is going toward a kind of single-payer plan in the next few years.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: That is right. I am a strong advocate of a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program. I think we should all take a deep breath and ask why it is that the United States of America is the only major country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare for all people as a right. And yet, with tens of millions of people uninsured, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country. So, I do believe that healthcare is a right. I believe a Medicare-for-all, single-payer is the way to go. I hope my state of Vermont will lead the nation in that direction. And if we do it well, I suspect that other states will follow.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, NSA surveillance, your stance, from the USA PATRIOT Act to what has been exposed until now?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I voted against the USA PATRIOT Act on two occasions. I feared very much what in fact is happening. I think you have agencies like the NSA, CIA, for that matter, who are pretty much out of control and, under the guise of fighting terrorism, have taken a giant step in undermining constitutional rights and the privacy rights of the American people. I think there is no excuse for capturing the phone calls and filing the phone calls of virtually every American, no excuse, to my mind, for getting into the emails and visiting the websites that people are watching. You know, yes, of course, we have to be vigorous in protecting this country against terrorism. But I think there’s no question in my mind that the intelligence agencies have gone far beyond where they should be going.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Bernie Sanders, I know you have to leave. Thank you so much for joining us, speaking to us from the Rotunda in Washington, D.C. This is Democracy Now! Senator Sanders is the independent senator from Vermont. Last year he introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling that allowed unrestricted, secret campaign money. He is the long-serving independent member of Congress in U.S. history.
When we come back, we’ll go to a Mother Jones reporter to talk about just who Shaun McCutcheon is. The Supreme Court decision was called McCutcheon v. FEC. We’ll speak with Andy Kroll. Stay with us. 
-------
"The Next Citizens United": McCutcheon Opens Floodgates for 1 Percent to Spend Millions on Campaigns
We continue our coverage of Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, described by many as "the next Citizens United." In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservative justices eliminated a long-standing limit on how much donors can give in total to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. We are joined by Andy Kroll, senior reporter at Mother Jones magazine, who has extensively covered campaign finance and anonymous donations, called "dark money."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We continue our look at Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, described by many as the "next Citizens United." In a 5-to-4 vote, the court’s conservative justices eliminated a long-standing limit on how much donors can give in total to federal candidates, party committees, political action committees in a two-year election cycle. Joining us now is Andy Kroll, senior reporter at Mother Jones magazine, where he’s written extensively about campaign finance and dark money.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Andy. Why don’t you first tell us who Shaun McCutcheon is? What is this Supreme Court case based on?
ANDY KROLL: Shaun McCutcheon is a wealthy businessman from Alabama who, during the 2012 elections, decided that he wanted to cut a bunch of checks to right-leaning congressional candidates that he supported. You know, he actually made the checks out in the amount of $1,776—1776. You know, he’s a self-styled patriot, I suppose. What he found was that he could write several dozen of these checks, 27 of them, but he could not write the 28th. He had bumped up against what was called the aggregate limit, this kind of overall limit that was at issue in yesterday’s ruling in front of the Supreme Court. With the urging of some conservative lawyers and, ultimately, the help of the whole Republican Party, Shaun McCutcheon took his case to court and said, "I don’t think that you should be able to stop me from writing as many $1,776 checks as I want." And knowing that, with the Roberts court the way it is, his challenge would stand a pretty good chance of succeeding, he filed a case well over a year ago and has taken it all the way to the top. And yesterday we saw the Roberts court agreed with him.
AMY GOODMAN: The statement of Shaun McCutcheon praising the decision, he said, "Today the United States Supreme Court took a stand in favor of our Constitutional Freedom of Speech as codified in our First Amendment. First Amendment Free Speech enables us to support candidates for public office who share our views. While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to 1st amendment freedom," he said. So, can you respond to that? What exactly did this Supreme Court decision—does it mean for—well, for the 2014 midterm elections?
ANDY KROLL: Well, it’s empowered this very tiny slice of wealthy Americans who are fired up about politics and want to throw their money around in a whole new way. Before this decision yesterday, if you were a wealthy 1-percenter or .1-percenter and you wanted to get involved in politics—a Sheldon Adelson, a Michael Bloomberg—you know, you had options of forming a super PAC or giving to a super PAC, you know, these entities ushered in after Citizens United that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. You could also give to a nonprofit group. These are the shadowy entities that the Koch brothers like to use that also accept and raise—accept and spend unlimited amounts of money. Now, for the 2014 election, you can also cut checks of, you know, $2.3 million to support a whole array of congressional candidates. You could write a check for more than $10 million to political action committees. So this decision is going to reshape, you know, the world, but really for a tiny amount of people in this country who have that kind of means. And, you know, now they can also, in addition to giving to super PACs, in addition to giving to nonprofit groups, they can also give money to parties and candidates and PACs. So, it’s another option for a very tiny slice of our population.
AMY GOODMAN: During oral arguments for McCutcheon v. The Federal Election Commission, Justice Antonin Scalia questioned U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli, who defended limits on combined campaign contributions. Scalia argued, even if the limits were lifted, allowing a donor to give three-and-a-half million dollars to candidates and parties during a two-year period, that amount would be small compared to the large sums spent during an election season. This is a clip of their exchange.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: If you assume somebody that gives the maximum to every possible candidate and party he can contribute to throughout the United States, $3.5 million, just to put that in perspective, how much money is spent by political parties and PACs in all elections throughout the country?
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: No, I think that’s a—
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: In one election cycle.
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: I think that’s a good point, Justice Scalia. I think that it helps illustrate—
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Do you have any idea how much?
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: I do, I do. Take the 2010 elections, nonpresidential year. Each party spent—parties and candidates together, on each side, spent approximately $1.5 billion.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: One-point-five billion.
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: Right.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And what about PACs?
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: That, I don’t have the specifics for, but if that were—
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Oh, but that was a lot in the last few elections, wasn’t it?
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: But the parties—but here’s the problem.
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: And what about newspapers that spend a lot of money in endorsing candidates and promoting their candidacy? I suppose, you know, you have to put in that money, too. That is money that is directed to political speech. When you add all—add—when you add all that up, I don’t think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money.
SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI JR.: I don’t think—
JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Spread throughout the country.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Justice Antonin Scalia questioning U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli. Can you explain that for us, Andy Kroll?
ANDY KROLL: Yeah, the solicitor general was giving examples of how, if the court did agree with Shaun McCutcheon, donors would be able to cut seven- and eight-figure checks to political parties and to candidates. You know, the $3.5 million number is one that’s been tossed around to candidates and parties during an election cycle. And Scalia sort of takes a very common, and I think disingenuous, approach among conservatives, which is to say, "Well, $3.5 million, compare it to how much we spend on elections, well, that’s just a drop in the bucket, not very much money," as he said there. But, obviously, to the average person, $3.5 million in terms of political speech is a huge number. And if you talk to members of Congress or people who are running for office, $3.5 million from a single donor absolutely is a lot of money.
And it means a lot. And it has an effect on people running for Congress. It has an effect on those in office, thinking about legislating, thinking about the ramifications of their decisions, and knowing—now—that a donor has the ability to write this seven-figure check if they either maybe agree with you or don’t agree with you, they think your party is good, think your party is bad. So I think it—you know, as Senator John McCain, who actually supports some more campaign finance regulation, has said, you know, he thinks the Supreme Court is just naive about how campaigns and elections and influence work here in Washington. And I would tend to think that Senator McCain is onto something there.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the unusual reading of the dissent by Justice Breyer from the bench.
ANDY KROLL: Yeah, Justice Breyer just—he completely disagreed with the—you know, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in McCutcheon, as well as Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion, that went even further and basically said, "Let’s just nuke campaign finance regulation entirely." Justice Breyer really thinks that the Roberts court takes a far too narrow definition of what is actually corruption, and thus what can we regulate and what can’t we regulate. Justice Breyer believes that, you know, the Roberts Court has narrowed the definition of what corruption is—essentially, you know, a donor basically putting money in the back pocket of a lawmaker—and narrowed it to the degree to which, basically, no campaign finance regulation can stand anymore. And Justice Breyer has been very vocal in saying that, "Hey, look, you know, politics doesn’t just work like that. Corruption just doesn’t work like that. There are bigger issues at play here. And, you know, our democracy doesn’t work when you have donors basically free to write checks for a million or $10 million, if you’re talking about a super PAC." And so, Breyer has been very outspoken about that. And his dissent was quite a read yesterday, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to wrap their head around this issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Andy Kroll, talk about how these campaign finance regulations were put into place. Go back to Watergate.
ANDY KROLL: Sure, yeah, it’s a little bit of a history lesson. So, before Watergate, there really was no strong regulation of how money flows into our politics. You had the Watergate scandal, which at its core was a campaign finance scandal. You had a wave of lawmakers swept into office who were pro-reform, who supported, you know, more regulation and supported some kind of system about—you know, for how our campaigns and elections work. You had the creation of the Federal Election Commission, for instance, in the wake of Watergate. And that law—you know, the regulation after Watergate is challenged in court. The case is known as Buckley v. Valeo, which some people might have heard of. And the opinion in 1976 in the Buckley v. Valeo case, the Supreme Court decision, says that, yeah, it’s OK, you can put limits on contributions of me, the donor, giving to you, the candidate. You can put limits, like this aggregate limit, this overall limit that was at issue in McCutcheon. And the court said, you know, there is a real interest in protecting against corruption or the appearance of corruption, the kind of corruption that we saw in the Watergate scandal and in many instances before that. And so, that is sort of the bedrock of the system we have now. And what we have seen, since 1976, practically, is a systematic effort by conservatives, by libertarians, to demolish that bedrock.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Andy Kroll, we just have 30 seconds, but how this will affect the states individually?
ANDY KROLL: Yeah, well, there are a dozen states that have similar overall limits on the books, and those limits are about to be destroyed. I mean, it’s just a matter of time before the attorney general or some election administrator in those states says, "Well, our limit’s unconstitutional, too." So this is a—this decision will resonate in Congress, and it will resonate in these states.
AMY GOODMAN: Andy Kroll, thanks so much for being with us, senior reporter at Mother Jones magazine, has written extensively about campaign finance and dark money.
When we come back, we go to Washington to talk about GM. How many people have died because GM decided not to fix an ignition switch that cost them maybe a dollar a car? Stay with us.
-------
Ex-Auto Safety Head & Parent of Dead Victim: GM CEOs Should Face Prison for Covering Up Safety Flaws
In 2005, General Motors decided not to change a defective ignition switch redesign because it would have added about a dollar to the cost of each car. At least 13 people have died in accidents as a result, though the number could be much higher. Following two days of contentious congressional testimony by GM CEO Mary Barra, we are joined by two guests: Ken Rimer, whose 18-year-old stepdaughter Natasha Weigel died in a defective Chevy Cobalt in 2005, and consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: In 2006, two teenage girls died in a mysterious car crash in rural Wisconsin. [Fifteen]-year-old Amy Lynn Rademaker died within hours after the crash. Eighteen-year-old Natasha Weigel died after 11 days in a coma. The driver of the car survived with brain damage. They were driving in a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. For years, the families of the girls attempted to learn what happened. They received some of their answers this week when the CEO of General Motors was called to testify before the Senate over a growing scandal.
In recent months, GM has recalled millions of cars after acknowledging faulty ignition switches shut down engines and disabled air bags. The defects have been linked to at least 13 deaths and possibly hundreds. Internal GM documents show the company decided not to change a defective ignition switch redesign in 2005 because it would have added about a dollar to the cost of each car.
During Wednesday’s Senate hearing, the most hard-hitting questions came from Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a former prosecutor who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection. She criticized GM for what she called "a culture of cover-up" and said a GM engineer lied when asked last year about whether the defective part had been changed.
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL: A culture of cover-up that allowed an engineer at General Motors to lie under oath—repeatedly lie under oath. It might have been the old GM that started sweeping this defect under the rug 10 years ago, but even under the new GM, the owner of the company waited nine months to take action after being confronted with specific evidence of this egregious violation of public trust. Thousands of my constituents in St. Louis and Kansas City areas go to work for General Motors every day, building some of the finest cars on the road. I am proud of them, and I am proud of their work. This is not their failure. They and the American public were failed by a corporate culture that chose to conceal rather than disclose and by a safety regulator that failed to act.
AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about GM, we’re joined by two guests. Ken Rimer is with us, stepfather of Natasha Weigel, who died in the 2006 accident. Rimer attended the GM hearings this week, was among the victims’ family members who met with company CEO Mary Barra on Monday evening. We’re also joined by Joan Claybrook, former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and president emeritus of Public Citizen.
I want to go first to Mr. Rimer. Talk about what happened to your stepdaughter, to Natasha.
KEN RIMER: The accident happened—it was on October 24th. She was with two other friends. They took a little bit a side trip from where they lived in Baldwin, or outside of Baldwin, and just headed into a local town to just do a little bit of shopping. On the way back home from there, they—you know, on the side roads, not on the freeway, in the only car on the road at the time, and they—you know, what we had found out through all the accident investigation, you know, the car had shut off, and within five seconds, you know, with the steering wheel locked, the—no power brakes, no power steering, and the air bags dismantled, they went over an adjoining driveway on the road, which caused them to go airborne. They crashed through a—it was a telephone box, and then collided with a group of trees that, you know, caused the extent of all the damage.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did you understand happened at the time?
KEN RIMER: Kind of all we knew at the time was, you know, that—we did know, like I said, the black box did show that the car shut off. But we really didn’t know why. We didn’t have that answer why it shut off. You know, our assumption was, you know, you’ve got three teenage kids riding around in a car; you know, just about anything can happen. And so—and then Megan, the survivor, you know, with the damage, the head injuries that she had and the extensive physical damage, she was a long time recuperating. And, you know, we didn’t get a chance to really talk to her very much after the accident. You know, she was a—she’s got survivor’s guilt, just terrible. I mean, you know, obviously, she survived; her friends didn’t. So, she always looked at it as the accident was her fault. And so, she kind of kept clear—you know, stayed clear from us, and actually, she moved to another state even, just—you know, not necessarily to get away from us, but to just kind of—you know, she was getting a lot of accusations from her friends and that, you know, even just being in the area.
AMY GOODMAN: So, is your daughter, is Natasha, one of the 13 people that GM acknowledges, as well as Amy Lynn Rademaker, the 15-year-old who died—are they two of the 13 people that GM acknowledges died in these crashes with their defective ignition switches?
KEN RIMER: We haven’t seen anything in print that justifies it or that says it exactly. On our first taped episode that we did with the CBS announcer back in February, the producer did call me within a day or so after, you know, when we were putting the segment together, and not sure where he got the information, but he did verify that—this was at the time there was six deaths involved, you know, when we first heard about it back in February. And at that time, he did call me, and he told me that he did verify that Natasha was one of the six, so I would have to assume that Amy then was one of those six originals, as well, then.
AMY GOODMAN: And when did you understand it was the ignition switch?
KEN RIMER: I guess upon the recall. Well, we had seen the—I had seen the bulletin, whatever, the service bulletin from GM. We had copies of that after the accident, you know, when we were trying to piece everything together to find out what happened. And what that service bulletin had said, that with a heavy keychain or a short driver, you know, the ignition could be knocked into the off or the accessory position. So, you know, and the black box said that, too, that the ignition switch did turn off within five seconds prior to the accident happening. So we knew the switch turned off; we just weren’t 100 percent sure whether it was a mechanical or some other thing that could have caused it. But now knowing everything that we do from within the last two months, you know, just everything we’ve read, everything we’ve heard, everything that GM’s putting out, I mean, it’s real obvious that it was the ignition switch, you know, went to the accessory position, shut off the car, basically. And, you know, that’s exactly what caused that accident.
AMY GOODMAN: Did—you met with Mary Barra, the head of GM. What did you say to her?
KEN RIMER: Well, it obviously was just more of a—you know, we tried not to have it as an accusation, you know, pointing fingers. And, you know, obviously, she realizes who we are. The whole idea was to put a face with the people that lost their lives in that accident. You know, it was just a—we were hoping to get a little bit more just personal time, and because, you know, she’s a mother, as well. And it was my wife’s only child, so, I mean, it was just devastating, and it has been devastating to her. And we just wanted to say, "Hey, Mary, you know, just—you know, this is what happened. This is what happened from what GM did or didn’t do." And, you know, that was kind of the whole idea. You know, she gave a short speech when we first got there, basically to say, you know, she apologized to each one of us specifically. And then, from there, she mentioned, as far as—you know, she can’t change what happened in the past, but she’s putting every effort that she can to change how GM is—you know, handles things in the future. You know, and obviously—
AMY GOODMAN: And have you sued GM?
KEN RIMER: We have filed a lawsuit. I think it was filed about two weeks ago.
AMY GOODMAN: In response to a question from Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, GM CEO Mary Barra says she would allow her son to drive a Chevy Cobalt if he only had the ignition key.
MARY BARRA: The testing that has been done has been in—on our proving ground, that has extensive capability where the vehicle would be jarred. And with just the key or the key and the ring, it has—it has performed.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Is it your testimony here today that those cars are as safe as any other car on the road today?
MARY BARRA: Again, as you look across all the safety technology that is on vehicles from the past to present, there is variation on safety based on the technology that’s on cars today. So there’s variation with—across the whole population.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Is that Cobalt car, as driven now, safe for your daughters to drive? Would you allow them behind the wheel?
MARY BARRA: I would allow my son and daughter to drive—well, my son, because he’s the only one eligible to drive, if he only had the ignition key.
AMY GOODMAN: That was GM CEO Mary Barra being questioned by Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. I want to bring in Joan Claybrook to the conversation, former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Major questions being raised about why the agencies also did not regulate GM properly. But int he front-page piece in The New York Times today, Rachel Abrams and Danielle Ivory write, "Not only has G.M. twice adjusted the number of deaths it says are linked to an ignition switch defect, but it has also refused to disclose publicly the list of the confirmed victims, now said to be 13." So, we’re not really clear if Natasha and Amy, the two young women we were just speaking about, 18 and 15 years old, are actually even part of this list of 13, or if 13 is an accurate number. Joan Claybrook?
JOAN CLAYBROOK: Well, without that information, we just don’t know. My belief is that the call centers that General Motors set up about three or four weeks ago, with 50 people answering the phones, have probably resulted in a lot of new information that we don’t yet know about, either. And so, the number could be much, much higher. We had families come to Washington for a press conference to meet the senators and representatives and with Mary Barra and so on. And there were, I would say, almost 13 deaths involved in our—with just our group. And that’s not all the people that have lost loved ones. So, we just don’t know what the numbers are now.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the failure? Go back to the beginning, as you have reconstructed it. You know, you have been head of a major transportation agency, and you, of course, have been a watchdog for so many decades. Talk about what you believe happened with GM.
JOAN CLAYBROOK: Well, in terms of what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration knew, they, I think, really fell down on the job. First of all, they have some concept that is totally inaccurate, that you have to establish a trend in order to open an investigation of a defect. And that’s just inaccurate. For years, the agency has said, if there is a design defect in a vehicle that can cause failure and it’s a critical safety part that can cause death or injury, that is, per se, a safety defect. And you do not have to have body bags all over the highway in order to say we’ve established a trend.
Now, this was somewhat complicated because they weren’t sure why the air bag was not inflating initially. But as soon as they found out that the ignition switch was turning off, that was a very large hint. And the agency complains that it couldn’t make a finding or even open an investigation until it got more information from General Motors, which was not forthcoming. But I find that to be unacceptable, because the agency has subpoena power. It has investigatory power. It has research and testing power. It has a lot of power. And it really just didn’t apply the capacity that it had.
I would add that they have a very small budget, and so there’s a lot of reluctance at the agency, unfortunately, to open investigations that they don’t see an end to, they don’t see that it’s going to produce the information that they’re going to need. The agency has a $10 million budget for all defects across the entire United States. And that’s less than Mary Barra makes every year. So—and the whole agency only has a budget of $134 million, which is a pittance. So, this agency is really handicapped. And I believe we’re going to need some legislative changes in order to both deter auto companies in the future and also facilitate the agency doing its job.
AMY GOODMAN: Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri questioned GM’s Mary Barra Wednesday.
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL: Someone at General Motors had switched out the unsafe ignition switches in several car models and covered it up by using the same part number for the same switch—for the new switch. The simple work of the engineer hired by the trial lawyer representing the Meltons had discovered the defective part and its replacement with the same number. And when Mr. Cooper confronted General Motors’ Mr. Ray DiGiorgio, their lead switch engineer, with the evidence of the parts switch, he lied. I guarantee you, if I’m a lawyer and I’m at a deposition where this bombshell has been dropped on my client, that there are two identical—two different parts with the same number, one of which is defective—I guarantee you I don’t go back and tell the folks at the law firm; I’m on my cellphone in the lobby saying to General Motors, "We’ve got a problem." So, what I want to know is: What investigation began after that deposition?
MARY BARRA: That is part of the investigation that we’re doing.
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL: So you don’t know whether or not anything happened after that investigation?
MARY BARRA: I don’t have the complete facts to share with you today.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator McCaskill excoriated GM’s Mary Barra for hiding key documents from family members.
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL: A key piece of documentary evidence in a litigation concerning a part that was changed without a part number change, that is spelled out in this document for anyone to read, how does that happen?
MARY BARRA: I cannot—I don’t condone not providing information when requested, you know, in a legal proceeding. And if that was done, we will deal with the individuals accountable for that.
SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL: Well, I think it’s very important that we find out how many cases this document was provided to counsel in, when it was requested. It’s clearly within the scope. I guarantee you there is not a request for documents being made of GM, around these cases, that the scope of the request did not include this document. And I want to know how many cases they buried this document, because this is what happens in America. Corporations think they can get away with hiding documents from litigants and that there will be no consequences. And I want to make sure there’s consequences for hiding documents, because this is hiding the truth from families that need to know. And it’s outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and she helped The New York Times in identifying one of the 13 victims that they believe are in that 13 list who died as a result of the ignition defect. I wanted to ask you, Joan Claybrook, Michael Moore wrote, "I am opposed to the death penalty, but to every rule there is usually an exception, and in this case I hope the criminals at General Motors will be arrested and made to pay for their pre-meditated decision to take human lives for a lousy ten bucks." Can you talk about criminal liability here over these years?
JOAN CLAYBROOK: Well, we have been trying since 1966 to get criminal penalties into the Department of Transportation safety statute, and we’ve always failed because the auto companies have opposed it vigorously. But I think that the time has now come to put a requirement that if an auto company knowingly and willfully covers up or refuses to disclose a safety defect or a noncompliance with a safety standard, that they are liable for criminal sanctions. And that would include jail time as well as dollar amounts. So, it’s really past time for that. The Toyota case, where they also did a cover-up with these runaway cars, sudden-acceleration cars, the U.S. attorney, using some power in the Justice Department statute for covering up documents, found a $1.2 billion penalty for Toyota but did not put anybody in jail. It is my belief that until some auto manufacturer employees, whether it’s the top or the middle or whoever did the cover-up, go to jail for allowing a defective system to kill people, that we’re never going to have any understanding within the company of how that culture has to change and safety has to be the number one priority.
There are other things that I think need to be done, as well, which is higher civil penalties. Right now, the maximum is $35 million. I think it ought to be unlimited, with $5,000 per vehicle per violation. And that could add up to billions of dollars. And also, we ought to have less secrecy at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It’s a very secretive agency, does not like being criticized. So it makes it very difficult for the public, for the press, for consumer advocates, to ever get any information out of them and to really exercise any oversight.
So, what we’re talking about here are two major, huge entities that are supposed to be devoted to safety—the Department of Transportation, the auto companies—and both of them have failed to do their job. The NHTSA is not the cop on the beat. It is not determined to find these defects. It has put some false requirement that they have to find a trend in order to make a defect finding. That’s totally inaccurate. That’s never been the case in the agency until recently. And it ought to be abandoned. And they ought to look at what—if there is a design defect in a vehicle, and it can happen, we know it can occur, and it can kill, that’s a, per se, safety defect, and that ought to be totally clarified. And then, also, there ought to be authority for challenges to the failure or refusal of the Department of Transportation to initiate a recall. That authority is not there. So they never feel, inside the agency, that they’re going to be challenged. If the auto companies won’t—
AMY GOODMAN: Joan Claybrook, I just want to point out, General Motors was doing this as it was being bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.
JOAN CLAYBROOK: Correct.
AMY GOODMAN: So it was knowingly killing the very taxpayers who were bailing them out, because they weren’t willing to change a dollar ignition switch.
JOAN CLAYBROOK: That’s correct. And so, that’s another complication here, if you would, for General Motors. But it really is very disturbing for the American public.
AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds. Ken Rimer, do you believe that GM executives and workers in the company should be held criminally liable for the death of your daughter?
KEN RIMER: They knew what was going on. They were aware that the switch was not correct. I mean, there—and, you know, all through the organization—I can’t just put the blame on one person, but there’s many there that made that decision. And then there’s also many more that made the decision to hide that. So, yes, I mean, they need to be held accountable for those decisions that they made, and throughout process, not just the guy that signed off the original paper, but, you know, his supervisor and all the way up the chain of command.
AMY GOODMAN: Ken Rimer, I want to thank you for being with us, and our condolences on the death of your 18-year-old stepdaughter Natasha Weigel. She died in the car crash in 2006, along with her friend. I also want to thank Joan Claybrook for joining us.
-------
Headlines:
Iraq War Vet Kills 3, Wounds 16 Before Taking Own Life in Fort Hood Rampage
Three people have been killed and 16 have been wounded by a U.S. soldier who opened fire at the Fort Hood military base in Texas and then took his own life. The gunman was identified as Ivan Lopez, an Iraq War veteran who was being treated for mental illness. He was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder but had not yet been diagnosed. President Obama reacted to the shooting during a trip to Chicago.
President Obama: "We’re heartbroken that something like this might have happened again. And I don’t want to comment on the facts until I know exactly what has happened. But for now, I would just hope that everybody across the country is keeping the families and the community of Fort Hood in our thoughts and in our prayers. The folks there have sacrificed so much on behalf of our freedom. Many of the people there have been through multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve with valor, and they serve with distinction. And when they’re at their home base, they need to feel safe."
At least three of the surviving 16 victims are listed in critical condition, some suffering multiple gunshot wounds. Fort Hood is the same base where 13 people were killed and 32 wounded in a 2009 shooting also by a U.S. soldier.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Election Cycle Limits on Political Donations
The Supreme Court has struck down a long-standing limit on how much donors can give to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. Without any aggregate limit, a donor can now give millions directly to candidates and parties. The 5-to-4 decision is being described as the "next Citizens United" for further removing barriers to big money in politics.
Obama Campaigns for $10.10 Minimum Wage
President Obama continues a public campaign for a hike in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Speaking to students at the University of Michigan, Obama said workers deserve a living wage.
President Obama: "As Americans, we understand that some people will earn more than others. But here’s one thing we do believe: Nobody who works full-time should be raising their family in poverty, right? If you’re working, if you’re responsible, you should be able to pay the rent. There are always going to be folks who do critical work, who bust their tails every day—airport workers, restaurant workers and hospital workers and retail sales people—who deserve an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. They’re doing necessary jobs. They should be able to make a living."
New York City Apartment Building Workers March Ahead of Strike Vote
Thousands of apartment building workers have marched in New York City ahead of an upcoming strike vote. The workers are seeking a new contract that offers higher pay and protects benefits. On Wednesday, a large crowd marched through some of the city’s wealthiest blocks on the Upper East Side.
James Bouccoleri: "The city is the way it is because we put our hard work in it. We want to make it right for everybody. We fight for a fair contract, no givebacks."
Marco King: "I’ve got to work two jobs, you know, just to keep up with what’s going on in this city. We’re not asking for too much. We’re just asking for a fair increase, just to keep on living in this city that all of us love."
GOP Senator, Gov. Coordinated with Anti-Union Effort in Tennessee
Newly leaked documents show the offices of two top Tennessee Republicans — Sen. Bob Corker and Gov. Bill Haslam — coordinated with an effort to defeat a union drive at a local Volkswagen plant earlier this year. In a blow to organized labor, Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga rejected unionization, declining to make their plant the first unionized foreign-owned car factory in the United States. The union faced intense opposition from Republican lawmakers including Corker, who suggested the plant might miss out on future subsidies or on a new SUV line if the union was approved. According to Nashville TV station NewsChannel 5 and the website In These Times, aides to Corker and Haslam had extensive communications with a prominent anti-union group and several other anti-union consultants.
Texas Abortion Providers Challenge Anti-Choice Law
Abortion providers in Texas have filed a federal lawsuit to block an anti-choice rule they say could shut down all but six remaining abortion clinics in the state. The provision, which takes effect in September, requires abortion providers to meet hospital-style building requirements. It was passed as part of the sweeping anti-choice bill challenged by Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis and a people’s filibuster last summer. The new lawsuit also seeks to immediately block the law’s requirement that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital as it applies to two clinics in McAllen and El Paso, which are among the last providers in their communities. The McAllen clinic was recently forced to close, leaving the poorest part of the state without a legal abortion provider. In a statement, the Center for Reproductive Rights said: "We filed this lawsuit to stop the second-largest state in the nation from plunging millions of women back into the darkness and grave danger of illegal abortion."
Mississippi Lawmakers Advance Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT Bills
Lawmakers in Mississippi have passed a bill banning abortion at 20 weeks, with no exception for rape or incest. The bill takes effect 20 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period — two weeks earlier than 20-week bans passed in other states. A law with a similar cutoff in Arizona has been permanently blocked by courts. Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has pledged to sign the measure. Mississippi lawmakers have also passed a so-called religious freedom bill which critics say would legalize discrimination against LGBT people. The bill has been compared to the one vetoed in Arizona earlier this year following a national uproar.
Former Gov’t Contractor Sentenced to 13 Months for North Korea Leak
A former government contractor whose case ignited a controversy over the Obama administration’s targeting of journalists been sentenced to 13 months in prison. Stephen Kim was convicted earlier this year of leaking documents on North Korea to Fox News. Kim was charged under the Espionage Act, the nearly century-old law which was also used to classify Fox News reporter James Rosen as a "co-conspirator" in the case. Kim is the sixth official to be convicted of leaking documents under the Obama White House.
Senate Report Finds Caterpillar Evaded Billions in Taxes
The equipment giant Caterpillar is being accused of hiding billions of dollars in profits offshore to avoid paying taxes. A new Senate report says Caterpillar has exploited a tax loophole in Switzlerland to avoid taxes of $2.4 billion in the United States. Instead, Carterpillar was able to pay just $55 million.
18 Nations Ratify U.N. Arms Treaty
The world’s first-ever treaty regulating the $70 billion global arms trade has moved a step closer to taking effect. On Wednesday, 18 United Nations member states ratified the measure, bringing the total number of ratifications to 31 — 19 short of the 50 needed for it to enter force. Anna MacDonald of the Control Arms Coalition urged the remaining holdouts to sign on.
Anna MacDonald: "You now have the opportunity to lead by example. All governments are responsible for the arms trade, and all governments need to act to ensure it is brought under control. States must now rigorously asses all arms and ammunition transfers, whether they are leaving, entering or passing through their territory. They must apply the treaty’s criteria robustly and deny arms transfers where there is a substantial risk that they will be used for violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including gender-based violence."
The measure regulates the sale of conventional weaponry, including tanks and guns, in a bid to prevent acts of genocide or terrorism. The United States is the world’s largest weapons exporter. It signed the treaty last year, but has not yet ratified it over opposition in the Senate.
European Parliament Votes to Adopt Net Neutrality
In a victory for advocates of an open Internet, the European Parliament has voted in favor of net neutrality, the principle of equal treatment for all Internet traffic. The decision comes ahead of talks with the European Union member states on an overhaul of regulations for the telecommunications industry.
-------