Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ending racial injustice begins with curbing law enforcement industry's political power

Opinion

Protest against private prison

Protestors in Florida speak out against private prisons, which prefer to house Black people because they cost less than white people, according to Kellogg.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Kellogg is a volunteer in Lincoln, Neb., for Wolf-PAC, which is seeking to build grassroots support for a constitutional amendment that would permit more regulation of money in politics.

"I can't breathe." The panic in my brother's faint voice struck me like a hammer blow. These words have become dreadfully familiar. We were at my uncle's house for an overnight stay and my brother's asthma had flared up. But for Black folk nationwide, these words are far more ominous.

My little cousins and I knew what to do. We set up a nebulizer and gave him medicine — and he could breathe easily again in less than five minutes. Compare that to the way police officers commonly treat unarmed Black men in this country. Imagine the repercussions if we hadn't helped my brother. Then, compare that to the impunity with which officers deal out murder and abuse to Black folk.

Now that everyone has a video camera in hand, the racism of policing and our justice system is starkly obvious. But how did we get here? What made our system so biased, and what is the history behind this?

President Richard Nixon began his drug war in 1971. His effort had racist roots and was based on bogus evidence as well as willful ignorance. Thus, part of Nixon's legacy is that Black people are arrested for drug possession at a far higher rate than whites, even though white and Black people do drugs at close to equal rates.

Because several of Nixon's successors expanded this policy — Ronald Reagan supported no-knock warrants like the one that got Breonna Taylor killed — an entire industry has a profit motive to ensure people of color are arrested more often. The private prison industry, which sprang up during the Reagan administration, prefers housing Black people because they cost less than white people, who are more often older and less healthy. Besides, their contracts with the states often dictate that a high percentage of their prison beds must be filled, or else the company gets paid for the empty beds.

The "corrections corporation" CoreCivic Inc. made so much revenue from its prisons last year that a mechanical counter tabulating a dollar every second would take almost 63 years to finish: $1.98 billion. But in order to keep the gravy train going, the industry participates in campaigns and influences lawmakers by investing some of its profit in candidates. It would take about three weeks for that same machine to tabulate all the money the industry put into the 2020 election: $2.7 million, which was 40 percent more than two years before.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and members of Congress ranging from Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, have all taken money from this industry at some point in their careers.

The industry has even influenced judges. This was evidenced by the 2009 kids for cash scandal in Pennsylvania, in which two judges were paid kickbacks by the owners of for-profit juvenile detention centers in return for sentencing hundreds of kids to time in those facilities. The industry does whatever it can politically to keep the inmates coming in and the cash flowing, including pushing for harsher laws and longer sentencing periods.

The undue influence of money in our election system makes it close to impossible for we the people to stop this injustice. So, how do we fix it? We fix it by getting rid of that influence. Amending the U.S. Constitution is the best way to do this. We need language in there to prevent dollars from drowning out the voices of average Americans. Personally, I'm not sure what the exact language should be. We would decide that together at a convention to propose the amendment.

This is why I volunteer with Wolf-PAC. Our plan is to propose real reform of our campaign finance system through a convention of the states. Five states out of the 34 we need have already passed legislation calling for an Article V convention, and our activism contributed to these successes.

Amending the Constitution is the only way to bypass our broken Congress and the Supreme Court. Besides, we must make this change permanent. So join us. We need all of the help we can get.


Read More

Members of a women's softball team cheerfully join hands during practice on a sunny day, showcasing team spirit, cooperation, and enthusiasm for the sport.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.

luza studios/Getty Images

Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.

This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State

Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.

But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.

Keep ReadingShow less