Jimmy Carter's anti-corruption legacy is being desecrated The contrast with Trump reflects how far our standards have fallen. Stephen Robinson Jan 3 Jimmy Carter on his peanut farm in Plains, Georgia. (Getty) 🍑🍑🍑 With corporate outlets obeying in advance, independent political coverage will be more vital than ever in 2025. Public Notice is made possible by paid subscribers. If you aren’t one already, please click the button below and become one to support our work. 🍑🍑🍑 There are many obvious differences between the late Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump, but perhaps the most jarring is how they managed their family business when they were elected president. Partly in response to the criminality of the Watergate era, Carter set a new standard for presidential rectitude by putting his peanut business into a blind trust. President-elect Trump, by contrast, isn’t even going through the motions of pretending to divest from his business interests to avoid conflicts of interest ahead of his second term. With help from his GOP enablers and voters who can’t seem to be bothered to give a damn, Trump has normalized White House corruption to an extent that would’ve been unthinkable not so long ago. So as the tributes to Carter roll in following his passing last weekend and ahead of his state funeral next week, it’s worth reexamining why a commitment to presidential ethics was important when he took office in 1977 — and why it still should matter today as the most corrupt president in American history prepares to retake power. Don't be gaslit: Trump's corruption is unparalleled Stephen Robinson · June 21, 2024 Read full story Shortly before his inauguration in 1977, Carter transferred his holdings from his peanut warehouse business into a blind trust. He’d retain ownership of the property, but the trust agreement would "insure that he will not benefit financially from agricultural policy decisions that he may make as President.” His business was valued at about $1.6 million, or $8.8 million in 2024 dollars — hardly a vast enterprise, but nonetheless, Carter stated in the trust documents that he “wants the trustee to arrange the assets of the trust so that no one should reasonably assert that [his] actions as President were motivated by a desire to foster his own personal monetary gain or profit." Four decades later, Trump demonstrated no such scruple. Sure, he initially suggested that he’d follow Carter’s example, tweeting on November 30, 2016, “While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses.” However, like most of what Trump says, this was a lie. He announced in January 2017 that he wouldn’t divest from his businesses and instead would simply hand over control temporarily to his sock puppet sons. A note from Aaron: Working with fantastic contributors like Stephen takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please sign up to support our work. Last January, at a Fox News town hall, Trump blew off any concerns about keeping his business interests should he return to the White House. “If I have a hotel and somebody comes in from China, that’s a small amount of money,” Trump said, before promoting his hotel chain some more. “I was doing services for that. People were staying in these massive hotels, these beautiful hotels, and they stayed there and they paid. I don’t get $8 million for doing nothing.” This should come as no surprise. Carter considered the presidency a form of public service, for which sacrifice was required. For Trump, the White House is merely another means of self-aggrandizement. A tale of two presidencies When Carter was elected president in 1976, he prioritized restoring public trust in government, which had diminished thanks Watergate and its aftermath, including President Ford’s pardon of Nixon. Carter wasn’t shy about calling out the corruption and cronyism in Nixon’s administration. During a Face the Nation interview, he claimed a major problem with foreign policy was that Nixon’s ambassadors to South America, Central America, and Europe were “not qualified to be diplomats for this country. They are all appointed as a political payoff … they are appointed because there are political interrelationships and not because of quality. Now, the last time I was in Europe, for instance, out of 33 ambassadors who served in the whole European theatre, only three of them were professional diplomats. The others were appointed for political reasons.” (Watch below.) Trump is plumbing even greater depths of cronyism with his appointments. He recently selected his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s father and fellow convicted felon Charles Kushner for ambassador to France. He also picked Kimberly Guilfoyle as ambassador to Greece. As Carter lamented about Nixon’s ambassador picks, it’s not clear Guilfoyle even “speaks the language” or possesses any relevant qualifications beyond the fact she dated Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr. Trump even installed his unqualified daughter-in-law Lara Trump as head of the Republican National Convention. Like his idol Andrew Jackson, Trump fully embraces the spoils system. How Democrats can win the messaging war Aaron Rupar and Thor Benson · December 24, 2024 Read full story Carter said on the campaign trail, “Everyone who serves in a position of policymaking ought to reveal to the public his or her financial holdings, where his or her riches are invested, and where his or her special interests are, so that no conflict with the public interest will exist.” And this tough, somewhat populist rhetoric as a candidate wasn’t just talk, either. Although the president and vice president are technically exempt from conflict of interest laws, Carter believed more was required from those who held such power. As president, he imposed strict ethical guidelines within his administration. This included financial disclosure rules for his appointees to “remove any possibility of hidden conflicts of interest.” He told Congress in May 1977, “I have obtained a commitment from these officials to adhere to tighter restrictions after leaving government, in order to curb the ‘revolving door’ practice that has too often permitted former officials to exploit their government contacts for private gain.” Carter said that “no gifts of value should ever again be permitted to a public official” and that “a report of all minor personal gifts should be made public.” Trump's Time interview provides a sobering reminder Noah Berlatsky · December 17, 2024 Read full story Conversely, a House Democratic oversight investigation revealed in 2023 that the Trump family consistently failed to “disclose gifts from foreign government officials while in office, as required by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.” The more than 100 foreign gifts that were never properly reported included golden golf clubs from the Japanese prime minister, swords and daggers from Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, and a “larger-than-life” portrait of Trump from the President of El Salvador. Trump’s corruption as president was far-reaching. He held himself and those close to him to no discernible standard, and he turned the presidency into just another product offering from Trump Incorporated. It’s a revealing difference with Carter, whose high ethical standards carried a tremendous personal cost. The peanut farmer vs. the wannabe robber baron Carter had already sacrificed a great deal to his run his family business. His parents, Earl and Lillian Carter, owned a peanut farm, warehouse, and a store outside Plains, Georgia. He was arguably a far better businessman than young Trump, who relied heavily on his wealthy father’s assistance and still went bankrupt at least six times. As a teenager, Carter received an acre of his father’s farmland, and he grew, packaged, and sold peanuts. When the price of cotton crashed, he bought up excess bails and sold them for a profit. He used that money to purchase some tenant housing that he rented out to farm workers through his time in college. Carter received an appointment to the Naval Academy in 1943, and he married Rosalynn Carter in 1946. The Carters lived in Virginia, Hawaii, Connecticut, New York, and California during his deployments. For a couple who’d grown up in the same small Georgia town, this travel was extensive, almost cosmopolitan. In 1953, Carter started a six-month course in nuclear power plant operation at Union College in Schenectady, New York. He planned to eventually work on the USS Seawolf, which was intended to become the second US nuclear submarine. But his plans changed permanently when his father died that summer. The family farm was in decline and might not have survived, which would’ve devastated Carter’s mother. So, much like George Bailey, Carter put his personal ambitions aside and returned home to run his family business. This was a difficult decision, especially for Rosalynn, who missed the travel and financial security of their military life. She’d said returning to Plains felt like "a monumental step backward." Trump begins his lame duck term pre-hobbled David R. Lurie · December 31, 2024 Read full story Carter’s first year harvest failed due to drought and he took out several lines of credit to stay afloat. However, with a lot of hard work and dedication, the business steadily improved under his leadership. He started growing peanut seed himself rather than buying and reselling certified seed like his father. He expanded the warehouse operation to include supplying liquid nitrogen, bulk fertilizer, and lime. He bought corn, provided custom grinding and mixing, and ginned cotton. His business also provided fire and casualty insurance. After investing so much personal sweat equity and emotional equity into the business, it must’ve been difficult to fully step away, even just temporarily. However, Carter insisted on doing so, because he knew it was the right thing to do. His blind trust agreement required that his farm land was leased during his presidency at a fixed amount set in 1977 so he wouldn’t even appear to benefit from his administration’s farm policies. Trump, on the other hand, didn’t hold himself to any such restrictions. He used the presidency to elevate his personal “brand,” and he actively promoted his own properties while in office. During his first term, Trump shamelessly charged the Secret Service, the people assigned with keeping him alive, as much as $1,185 per night to stay at his properties when he traveled. That was more than five times the recommended government rate. And Republican political organizations dropped more than $3 million at Trump’s DC hotel, which was conveniently located just a few blocks from the White House. Trump consistently thumbed his nose at the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which guards against foreign interests buying off a president. Revenue at his New York hotel surged in 2018 thanks to conveniently timed visit from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. In 2019, Trump even tried to have his Doral resort selected as the site where world leaders would gather for the G7 summit. Carter sold all his personal stock before entering the White House. Trump returns to office with a $3.76 billion stake in the social media company, Truth Social, that he still uses as one of his primary platforms for disinformation. After the election, when Trump posted of his shares, “I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING,” Truth Social’s stock price soared, which directly benefitted him financially. Yet Trump’s transition spokesperson and incoming press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, had the gall to tell the Washington Post, “Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn’t get into politics for profit — he’s fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again.” With Trump, gaslighting is policy. Trump made a fortune from his presidency. He raked in $2.4 billion during his first term, and there’s apparently no grift too small for him to slap his face on. For instance, his supporters can buy $2 bills bearing his likeness for the sucker’s price of $19.95 … … and Trump has even recently dabbled in guitar sales. Carter’s personal business suffered during his presidency. His blind trust placed an Atlanta law firm in full control of the business while he was in the White House. After he lost reelection to Ronald Reagan, his financial trustee informed the Carters that due to three years of drought and general warehouse mismanagement, they were now more than $1 million in debt. “We thought we were going to lose everything,” Rosalyn said in 2018. At the time, Jimmy was 56 and Rosalyn was 53. Their financial setback had but one solution — they sold the family business that they once sacrificed so much to save. Carter started writing books (he’s rejected most speaking engagements) and they lived modestly in their Plains home, valued at $176,000. He devoted the rest of his life to philanthropy, through the Carter Foundation and Habitat for Humanity. “We give money, we don’t take it,” Carter told The Los Angeles Times in 1989. Of course, despite Carter’s high ethical standards and personal character, Americans denied him a second term in part due to inflation and a sense that he wasn’t in control of world events (sound familiar?). And the notion that voters care about ethics is belied by the fact a near majority just reelected Trump despite his blatant self-dealing and rejection of basic human decency. He’s likely to profit even more from his presidency during his second term, now almost fully unfettered from any true accountability. But if America is to remain a democracy where leaders are accountable to voters, there will have to be a reckoning with the corruption Trump has normalized. And when that time comes, Jimmy Carter's example will endure. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. That’s it for this week We’ll be back with more Monday. If you appreciate today’s newsletter, please support us by signing up. Paid subscribers make PN possible.

 

Mass Deportations & The Return of Family Separation Joyce Vance Jan 3 Previously, we’ve discussed the outbreak of warfare in MAGA between the “close the border now” faction and the “but, please let in my highly skilled cheap tech labor pool (so I can make more money than I would if I had to employ Americans)” faction. No matter who wins, something the dispute won’t do is wipe out Trump’s campaign promise to engage in mass deportations. That promise is embedded in Project 2025 and continues to be a theme Trump lands on. He went so far as to tell NBC News in November that there would be “no price tag” for his mass deportation plans. And, mass deportations means a return of family separations. Trump supporters chanting “Send them back” at a June rally. The resurrected of the inhumane “zero tolerance” policy that led to family separations during Trump’s first administration is still haunting. While that policy was in effect, 6,000 children were separated from their parents and guardians. About 1,000 have still not been reunited, despite a settlement the ACLU reached with the Biden Administration. I wrote about that development in Ms. L., et al. v. ICE, et al., the 2018 class action case that asked the courts to enjoin further separation of parents and children at the southwest border in October of 2023. It is heartbreaking that some of the children who were taken from their families were too young at the time to be able to provide information about who they were and where they came from, and even now, have not been reunited with their parents. That’s where we’re headed again. There has already been extensive reporting on how the private prison industry is gearing up to build—and profit from—massive detention centers. Stop for a minute and think about why those facilities would be needed. It’s not for people who commit crimes. Anyone charged with a violent crime like murder or assault or people charged with federal immigration crimes like illegal reentry into the country after prior deportation will be housed in the state or federal criminal justice systems and held in custody in jails and prisons. So, who would this massive expenditure on new facilities involve? That would be for people who aren’t charged with any crime but are being deported because they are in this country without legal immigration status; people who go to work every day; people who benefit our economy, including small business owners, school children, families, babies. The thing is, separating kids from their families is a feature, not a bug, of Trump’s immigration policies. Even if family separation was an unintended consequence during the 1.0 administration—and it wasn’t—Trump understands by now how this works and that more kids will inevitably be forcibly separated from their families if he proceeds with mass deportations. I am no historian, but sometimes, a little foray into history is instructive. In October of 2021, the New York Times ran a report on the origin of the family separation policy during the Trump Administration. As U.S. Attorneys in the border states “recoiled” from an order to prosecute parents even if it meant breaking up families, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions told them, “We need to take away children.” One of them, taking notes in shorthand, wrote, “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.” A feature, not a bug. The Times report continued, “Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said that government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants.” “‘We have now heard of us taking breastfeeding defendant moms away from their infants,’ one government prosecutor wrote to his superiors. ‘I did not believe this until I looked at the duty log.’” At a meeting of law enforcement officers in 2018, Jeff Sessions cited the Bible to justify family separation, telling the group that the Apostle Paul gave “a clear and wise command in Romans 13, for people to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order.” This time, Trump’s immigration policy comes online with far fewer, if any, guardrails in place. Trump’s proposed border czar, Tom Homan, who oversaw family separation during the first Trump administration, has already promised to bring it back. The Washington Post reported that Homan, in a late December interview, said he would “look to hold parents with children in ‘soft-sided’ tent structures similar to those used by U.S. border officials to handle immigration surges” and that “The government will not hesitate to deport parents who are in the country illegally, even if they have young U.S.-born children.” He said it would be up to those families to decide whether to leave together “or be split up,”—Sophie’s Choice for parents who fled dangerous conditions to protect their children. Our immigration laws give presidents broad authority to deport people who are in this country without legal status, leaving them with enormous discretion over how to implement them. Some presidents, like Ronald Reagan, have opted for forgiveness. In 1987, Reagan made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty, providing protection for three million people. That is not the path Donald Trump has laid out after rejecting a Democratic immigration reform proposal last year that would have given Republicans most of what they’ve been trying to get on the issue for decades. For Trump, mass deportations may be all political theater. It’s hard to imagine he has strong convictions against using undocumented migrant labor, in light of reports that the man who cried “They’re taking your jobs” during the campaign may have used undocumented laborers to build Trump Tower and work in some of his properties. But the people who are impacted by his policies are real people—kids who may grow up thinking their parents didn’t want them and left them behind, parents tortured with uncertainty about their children’s fate. In 2018, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics said Trump’s policy of separating families at the U.S. border with Mexico “amounts to child abuse.” Later that year, the American Medical Association joined the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as the American Psychological Association and the American College of Physicians, in urging the administration to end its family separation policy because of the long-term consequences for children’s mental and physical health. In the first Trump administration, lawyers became heroes overnight when they flocked to airports to try and prevent the immediate removal of people subject to Trump’s “Muslim Ban.” The legal path this go-round may not be as straightforward. Trump will be relying on existing laws and power that his predecessors hesitated to exercise in the extreme way he has said he will. The lawyers can challenge some of the means he uses to implement his policies—for instance, if he tries to engage the military in domestic law enforcement, which is prohibited by The Posse Comitatus Act—but the federal government, and so, the president, is largely left in charge of immigration policy and enforcing the law. It’s a bleak prospect. It’s one we must not ignore. Do you remember this story? In 2017, Roberto Beristain, who had been in the United States illegally for almost 20 years and had no criminal record, was caught up in Trump’s wave of deportations. His wife and children were American citizens. He had just become the owner of a local restaurant. CBS reported that after he was deported, Beristain’s wife and his friends began to reconsider their votes for Trump. Apparently, just like a lot of Americans in 2024, they didn’t take his campaign promises seriously. "I voted for [Trump] because he said he was going to get rid of the bad hombres. Roberto is a good hombre." Beristain’s friend Dave Keck was quoted as saying. The lawyers will do their part, but when Trump starts using the power of the presidency to engage in mass deportations that will harm kids, families, and our communities, it’s going to be up to us to let the White House and our elected officials know what we thing about it. It’s just possible that a lot of people who supported themselves, like Bertain’s friends and family, will join in. That was what turned the tide during Trump’s first administration. Public backlash gave Republicans a bad case of nerves, especially as the midterms approached. Images of kids in cages, sleeping on cement floors under plastic space blankets, with little ones being cared for by young teenage girls forced a step back. It’s hard to believe people didn’t take Trump seriously during the campaign when he talked about mass deportations, but that sentiment that deportation is only meant for “bad guys” and that their friends, family, babysitter, and so forth are “good guys” is bound to develop. It did the last time, too. Instead of meeting their voices with “I told you so,” bring them into the fold. Public backlash is something we know a little bit about here at Civil Discourse. We know how to write, call, and show up at our elected officials’ offices. We know how to build groups in our communities and make sure our voices are heard. Lots of things that matter are going to start happening as we get closer to inauguration day. Separating families is something we cannot set aside. In the words of Alex Vindman, “Here, right matters.” Separating families is not right, and we cannot ignore it. We’re in this together, Joyce

 

From the Robber Barons to Elon Musk: Will History Repeat Itself?

Preparing for the Trump Regime, Part 1.

Robert Reich Jan 3

Friends,

Ultra-wealthy elites. Political corruption. Corporate monopolies. Anti-immigrant nativism. Vast inequality.

These problems aren’t new. In the late 1800s, they dominated the country during America’s first Gilded Age. We overcame these abuses then, and we can do so again.

Mark Twain coined the moniker “The Gilded Age” in his 1873 novel to describe the era in American history characterized by corruption and inequality that was masked by a thin layer of prosperity for a select few.

The end of the 19th century and start of the 20th marked a time of great invention — bustling railroads, telephones, motion pictures, electricity, automobiles — that changed American life forever.

But it was also an era of giant monopolies — oil, railroad, steel, finance — run by a small group of men who had grown rich beyond anything America had ever seen.

They were known as “robber barons” because they ran competitors out of business, exploited workers, charged customers exorbitant prices, and lived like royalty as a result.

Money consumed politics. Robber barons and their lackeys donated bundles of cash to any lawmaker willing to do bidding on their behalf. When lobbying wasn’t enough, the powerful moneyed interests turned to bribery — resulting in some of the most infamous political scandals in American history.

The gap between rich and poor in America reached record levels. Large numbers of Americans lived in squalor.

Anti-immigrant sentiment raged, leading to the enactment of racist laws to restrict immigration. It was also a time of voter suppression, largely aimed at Black men who had recently won the right to vote.

The era was also marked by dangerous working conditions. Children often as young as 10, but sometimes younger, worked brutal hours in sweatshops. Workers trying to organize labor unions were attacked and killed.

It seemed as if American capitalism was out of control, and American democracy couldn’t do anything about it because it was bought and paid for by the rich.

But America reached a tipping point. The nation was fed up. The public demanded reform. Many took to the streets in protest. Investigative journalists, often called “muckrakers” then, helped amplify their cries by exposing what was occurring throughout the country.

A new generation of political leaders rose to end the abuses.

Teddy Roosevelt warned that “a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power,” could destroy American democracy.

After becoming president in 1901, Roosevelt used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up dozens of powerful corporations, including the giant Northern Securities Company, which had come to dominate railroad transportation through a series of mergers.

Seeking to limit the vast fortunes that were creating a new American aristocracy, Congress enacted a progressive income tax through the 16th Amendment, as well as two wealth taxes.

The first wealth tax, in 1916, was the estate tax — on the wealth someone accumulated during their lifetime, paid by the heirs who inherited it. The second tax on wealth, enacted in 1922, was a capital gains tax — on the increased value of assets, paid when those assets were sold.

The reformers of the Gilded Age also stopped corporations from giving money directly to politicians or political candidates.

Then Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin (you may have heard of him) continued the work through his New Deal programs, creating Social Security, unemployment insurance, and a 40-hour workweek and requiring that employers bargain in good faith with labor unions.

But following the death of FDR and the end of World War II, and after America had built the largest middle class the world had ever seen, we seemed to forget about the abuses of the Gilded Age.

The reforms that followed the first Gilded Age withered.

Starting with Reagan, taxes on the wealthy were lowered. Campaign finance laws were weakened. Social safety nets became frayed. Corporations stopped bargaining in good faith with labor unions.

Now, more than a century later, America has entered a second Gilded Age.

Monopolies are once again taking over vast swaths of the economy. So we must strengthen antitrust enforcement to bust up powerful companies.

Now another generation of robber barons, exemplified by Elon Musk, is accumulating unprecedented money and power. So, once again, we must tax these exorbitant fortunes.

Wealthy individuals and big corporations are once again paying off lawmakers, sending them billions to conduct their political campaigns, even giving luxurious gifts to Supreme Court justices. So we must protect our democracy from Big Money, just as we did before.

As it was during the first Gilded Age, voter suppression is too often making it harder for people of color to participate in our democracy. So it’s once again critical to defend and expand voting rights.

Working people are once again being exploited and abused, child labor is returning, unions are being busted, the poor are again living in unhealthy conditions, homelessness is on the rise, and the gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else is nearly as large as in the first Gilded Age.

So once again we need to protect the rights of workers to organize, invest in social safety nets, and revive guardrails to protect against the abuses of great wealth and power.

Seeking these goals may seem quixotic right now, just weeks before Trump and his regime take power with a bilious bunch of billionaires.

But if history is any guide, they will mark the last gasp of America’s second Gilded Age. We will reach the tipping point where Americans demand restraints on robber-baron greed.

The challenge is the same as it was at the start of the 20th century: To fight for an economy and a democracy that works for all rather than the few.

I realize how frightening and depressing the future may look right now. But we have succeeded before, when we fought against the abuses of the first Gilded Age. We can — and must — do so again now, in America’s second Gilded Age.