Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue
Image: IVN staff

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue

If you asked Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, or Donald Trump whether they put voters first, all three would say yes.

They would say it confidently.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.

Getty Images, sommart

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crumpled dollar bills, two coins, a wallet, book, glasses, and home phone on a table.

A new economic study shows tariffs are paid overwhelmingly by American consumers, exposing trade policy as a hidden domestic tax.

Getty Images, David Harrigan

The Tariff Receipt Americans Can No Longer Afford

For years, the American public has been told that tariffs are a sophisticated form of tribute, a way to extract wealth from foreign adversaries while shielding the domestic worker. It is a seductive narrative, painted in the bold strokes of nationalistic pride. But as a rigorous new study from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy confirms, the reality is far less heroic. The bill for these trade barriers is not being mailed to Beijing, New Delhi, or Brussels. It is being delivered, with startling efficiency, to the kitchen tables of the American family.

The findings are as clear as they are sobering. After analyzing more than 25 million shipment records totaling nearly 4 trillion dollars, researchers found that American importers and consumers have shouldered 96 percent of the cost of recent tariffs. Foreign exporters, by contrast, have felt a mere 4 percent of the sting. Despite the robust rhetoric emanating from the White House, the data suggests that tariffs function not as a foreign levy but as a domestic consumption tax. The government may have collected 200 billion dollars in customs revenue in 2025, but that money was extracted almost entirely from the pockets of the people it was ostensibly meant to protect.

Keep ReadingShow less