ReportWire

Tag: ethics

  • How to Navigate Ethical Considerations In Your Decision-Making | Entrepreneur

    How to Navigate Ethical Considerations In Your Decision-Making | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Business owners and managers often face difficult decisions that involve weighing ethical and unethical options. However, making choices that consider ethics can have significant long-term benefits for a company.

    When employees feel their company prioritizes ethics, it fosters trust and loyalty. They’ll be more motivated to give their best work. Customers also care deeply about supporting businesses with strong values. An ethical reputation builds goodwill that leads to repeat customers and word-of-mouth marketing.

    Moreover, in today’s transparent world, unethical actions usually don’t stay hidden for long. A single lapse in judgment can go viral on social media and seriously damage a brand. Several large companies have suffered enormous financial losses due to ethics scandals. Clearly, incorporating ethics into decision-making is simply a good business strategy.

    Still, ethics are not always black and white. Managers must thoughtfully weigh various factors like short-term profits versus long-term impacts. Here are some practical considerations to guide them.

    Related: More Than Just A Moral Compass: The Power Of Ethical Business Practices

    It’s not just about the bottom line

    Many business owners fall into the trap of focusing exclusively on financial outcomes when making choices for their companies. While profits are important, they should not be the sole criteria against which options are judged. Remember that your business does not operate in a vacuum — it has an impact on employees, customers, suppliers and the wider community. Ignoring ethics can seriously damage relationships and goodwill over time.

    For example, cutting corners on product safety or quality to reduce costs may lead to higher profit margins in the short term. However, it also risks harming customers, resulting in negative publicity, and losing the trust that has been built up. In contrast, prioritizing ethical practices shows stakeholders that you value more than money and helps ensure the sustainability of the business.

    Related: Are You an Ethical Entrepreneur? Here’s How Business Leaders Can Embrace Social and Environmental Responsibilities

    Think through unintended consequences

    Most organizational decisions are complicated, with outcomes that are difficult to predict with certainty. Hasty or self-interested choices often fail to consider all angles. It is wise to carefully weigh both intended and potential unintended consequences before acting on an idea.

    Imagine, for instance, a clothing company that decides to significantly lower the wages of its factory workers abroad to reduce production expenses. While this may boost profits in the accounting ledgers, have leaders fully contemplated how it impacts livelihoods and morale? Have they accounted for the possibility of quality or retention issues down the line from unhappy employees? Stepping into others’ shoes and viewing decisions from their perspective can surface important uncertainties or ethical issues to address.

    Staying consistent with core values

    Establishing a strong set of values and operating principles for a business is crucial. These provide an agreed framework and shared understanding for navigating complex choices. However, values only matter if teams consistently work to uphold them in both good times and bad.

    When under pressure to cut costs or hit unrealistic targets, it is all too easy to compromise on ethics “just this once” and rationalize it away later. Over time, these mini-exceptions can erode the integrity of an organization. By openly discussing values as part of decision-making, leaders can ensure options align with what the company stands for – not just what seems expedient right now but damages credibility in the long run.

    Related: Stand for Something: How to Establish Authentic Core Values

    The power of stakeholder feedback

    No business exists in isolation from those it interacts with. Customers, employees, and community members all have useful perspectives informed by their experiences. Making time for open communication and stakeholder feedback can be eye-opening, revealing both future opportunities and potential pitfalls that leaders may have overlooked.

    For instance, regularly surveying frontline workers gives insight into day-to-day operational realities and early warning of any brewing issues. While undesirable information requires courage to hear, ignoring problems often makes them worse. Building a two-way dialogue shows respect for others and improves the quality of choices by grounding them in reality.

    Related: What Does It Mean to Be An ‘Authentic Leader,’ Anyway? Here’s What You Need to Know.

    Consider all parties affected

    Many ethical lapses occur due to a narrow focus. It’s important to map how decisions reverberate throughout extended networks. For example, while optimizing one department may slightly benefit shareholders, what consequences ripple to suppliers, the environment or society? Taking a systems view ensures no one is left shouldering undue risks or costs.

    Review with hindsight

    Revisiting earlier choices allows for spotting patterns and blind spots. What could have been done differently with the benefit of hindsight? Lessons learned should inform future policy settings and discussions. It also reinforces wisdom gained over time. Through experience, judgment improves at building ethics seamlessly into a business’ strategic priorities and daily operations.

    Weighing ethical considerations cannot be set aside or delayed when times get challenging. On the contrary, it becomes even more crucial. Leaders who thoughtfully consider the impacts on all stakeholders, stay consistent with core values, and invite diverse input tend to build businesses that endure because they have wisely constructed strong foundations of integrity and trust.

    In the end, the most successful organizations are usually those deliberately guided not only by profits but also by principles.

    Murali Nethi

    Source link

  • Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court returns for first private meeting of the term amid even more controversy | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court returns to Washington to face a new term and the fresh reality that critics increasingly view the court as a political body.

    In the wake of a series of controversial decisions made possible by former President Donald Trump’s three nominees, including the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade, the justices find themselves catapulted into the very center of the political discourse.

    Their opinions feature prominently on the campaign trail, approval ratings have plummeted to new lows and Democrats in Congress are vowing to regulate the third branch in the midst of allegations justices are skirting ethics rules and attacks on the very legitimacy of the court.

    So far, they have struggled to respond. At public appearances they grasp at the promise of judicial independence while sending mixed signals about changes that might be afoot.

    Tuesday, the justices will meet in person for their first closed-door conference of the term.

    Chief Justice John Roberts is at the center of it all.

    How he navigates this term will shape the trajectory of his tenure going forward. Some say he’ll remain on the sidelines, out of the fray. Others say he cannot afford to do so.

    Earlier this year, Roberts declined an invitation to appear before the Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss Supreme Court ethics, citing separation of powers concerns. In May, speaking before an audience in Washington, Roberts said he wanted to assure the public that the court is committed to adhering to the “highest standards of conduct.”

    It was one line in one speech.

    But at the end of June, as controversy continued amid a raft of high-profile decisions that largely broke along ideological lines, Roberts made an unusual choice. In a 6-3 opinion striking down President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, the chief strayed from the case at hand.

    He said that it had become a “disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of government.”

    He appeared to be responding to the dissent penned by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “In every respect, the Court today exceeds its proper limited role in our Nation’s governance,” Kagan began.

    Noting her disagreement, Roberts took the occasion to write, “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement.” He added: “Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country,” he wrote.

    It was unclear if the line was directed at his dissenting colleagues or critics outside of court or both, but it was an unusual digression from a justice who, by definition, lacks an obvious pulpit to defend his branch of government.

    The way forward for Roberts is not obvious.

    Even if he did believe a formal ethics code is necessary, it’s unclear whether he would need a unanimous vote to move forward. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito might, for instance, balk at such a move arguing that it would never satisfy critics whose true goal is to damage the institution.

    Some believe Roberts ultimately will steer clear of the controversy.

    “I don’t see him moving in any direction to encourage further disclosure reforms, and I don’t see Congress as being able to get sufficient traction,” Cate Stetson, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells, said at the Cato Institute earlier this month.

    But if the court does nothing, pressure will continue.

    Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, a Democrat, traveled to the Supreme Court on September 12 as an invited guest to the annual meeting of the Judicial Conference – the policymaking body for the federal courts.

    Sitting next to the chief justice on Roberts’ home turf, Durbin lobbied him to adopt an enforceable code of conduct directed specifically at the justices, according to a source.

    Roberts and others have continuously stressed how difficult it would be to adopt such a code, particularly when it comes to recusal issues.

    In April, all nine justices released a new statement hoping to provide “clarity” to the public about their ethics procedures, noting that they consult a “wide variety of authorities” when addressing specific ethics issues. They noted that while the Judicial Conference has a code of conduct followed by lower court judges, the conference “does not supervise the Supreme Court.”

    The statement outlined complications that distinguish the Supreme Court from the lower courts.

    At the lower court level, for instance, federal judges can substitute for each other if one judge recuses from a case. That’s not true at the high court where only members can hear a dispute.

    The statement did little to appease critics who say the justices can no longer continue to voluntarily follow rules that govern lower court judges. They must, critics say, have a code of conduct that binds them directly.

    Response from the bench

    Some conservatives believe there is no impending judicial crisis. Instead, they say, critics of the court are manufacturing a controversy to delegitimize the institution and staunch the flow of conservative opinions.

    Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, who is also a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted recently that the problem is not corruption.

    “The problem is the coordinated campaign by dark money activists, radical politicians, and a willing media to imply there is corruption, undermining the Court’s integrity and selectively smearing the justices they disagree with,” she wrote.

    Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, has taken a radically different approach than the chief justice.

    In an interview in July that appeared on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, Alito said forthrightly that Congress should stay out of the Supreme Court’s business.

    “I know this is controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” he said. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Alito said that he marveled “at all the nonsense that has been written about me in the last year” and noted that in the face of a political onslaught he was rejecting the notion that judges and justices “should be mute” and leave it to others to defend them.

    “I’ve said to myself, nobody else is going to do this, so I have to defend myself,” he wrote.

    A month earlier he sought to preempt a ProPublica report that had not yet been published concerning allegations that he should have disclosed luxury travel from 2008.

    Over the summer, other justices were asked about ethics and the court’s legitimacy by friendly questioners at universities and judicial conferences – although they never addressed specifics.

    Unlike Alito, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in August that here was some daylight on the question of whether Congress has a role to regulate the Supreme Court. Last week, she told an audience in Indiana that she thought it would be a “good” idea if the court were to adapt the ethics code used by lower court justices to fit the Supreme Court.

    For her part, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that criticism of the court is nothing new. At an appearance before a judicial conference in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, she said that “critiques of the court” are part of its history. Public criticism “comes with the job” she said.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh had a different message in Ohio saying he was “hopeful” that there would be some “concrete steps” taken soon to address the ethics issue.

    But his sentiment may have been aspirational.

    As the justices grapple with how to respond, they are hampered by an additional factor.

    Change at the high court comes slowly. The court’s unofficial mascot – the tortoise – can be found at the bottom of bronze lampposts on the building grounds. The tortoises are meant to symbolize the slow and steady pace of justice.

    Almost nothing at the high court comes quickly, and the institution is not new to controversy. The justices may decide to ride out the storm.

    Source link

  • How Business Leaders Can Embrace Social and Environmental Responsibilities | Entrepreneur

    How Business Leaders Can Embrace Social and Environmental Responsibilities | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In a connected and digital world, consumers aren’t interested in just the products they’re buying – they want to know the faces behind them.

    Entrepreneurs today have corporate social responsibility. Profit results from motivated employees, loyal customers and new investors wanting to be involved with a business that is mindful of its surrounding community and environment. To be successful, entrepreneurs need an eye for sustainability.

    What does social responsibility look like? What falls under the umbrella of environmental sustainability? This article will explore ethical entrepreneurship and what it means to run a business and understand consumer behavior.

    Related: Ethics in Entrepreneurship: Learning from Elizabeth Holmes’ Lies

    Ethics explained

    Broadly defined, ethics is the theoretical study of “right” versus “wrong” – it provides a lens into morality and judgment.

    • Applied ethics assesses what a person should (or shouldn’t) do in a given situation. Many fields — from engineering to science, public service to business — incorporate applied ethics.
    • Business ethics pertains explicitly to the trust built between consumers and business owners. The discipline rose in prominence in the 20th century as society became consumer-based and held corporations accountable for their influence on the environment and social causes.
    • Clarity and transparency about core values are key to cultivating this public trust.

    Related: 7 Critical Pieces of Business Advice for Entrepreneurs Just Getting Started

    Being an ethical entrepreneur

    When starting a new business, entrepreneurs today must focus on well-defined goals. They consider their personal aspirations, tolerance of risk, the strength of their strategy and their potential to execute said strategy. Forward-thinking is critical: What impact will their businesses have, what values will they endorse, and how will they be consistent in doing so?

    Communicating corporate values to employees ensures business representatives act with the customer in mind rather than themselves. Entrepreneurs can develop an ethics statement and make it public. A strong foundation allows leaders to highlight scenarios that show ethics in practice and clarify what to do when those values are broken. Allocating the time to define and communicate core values encourages workplace integrity, attracting stakeholders.

    Related: Are Employees Truly More Ethical in the Office? A Behavioral Economist Debunks This Deeply Rooted Belief.

    Why transparency matters

    By 2025, millennials will comprise an estimated 75% of the American workforce. This generation wants to be led by business leaders who are driven and accomplished, act as willing mentors, and don’t shy from transparency in their personal and professional lives.

    Similarly, millennials, as consumers, expect businesses to be transparent on social media. They want brands and CEOs to share their values and be reassured that these individuals are fair, respectable, and considerate – and worth their money.

    While millennials have a strong presence on Instagram, Gen Z leads consumer behavior on TikTok. In fact, out of all the age demographics, Gen Z has the biggest influence on consumer trends. They have an estimated buying power of over 400 billion dollars in the United States alone.

    As digital natives, Gen Zers expect businesses to be authentic and relevant on social media. They want to buy – and accept brand deals – from businesses spearheading social change and prioritizing fair labor, diversity, inclusivity, and sustainability.

    Across the board, 70% of consumers feel a stronger connection to brands with CEOs with active social media accounts. They like brands that positively contribute to society and help people in need. Overall, 81% of people think brands are responsible for being transparent on social media. Entrepreneurs are expected to:

    • State company values.
    • Welcome discussion.
    • Clarify how and when customer data is used.
    • Explain all facets of billing and fees.

    Above all, entrepreneurs should stand by their word and keep their social and environmental stewardship promises.

    Related: How to Balance Ethical Growth and Competitive Advantages

    Social responsibility

    Having a core ethics statement and being transparent about it is necessary for ethical entrepreneurship — but what activities do business leaders actually participate in? How do they engage their social responsibility?

    Entrepreneurs can take part in philanthropic work, whether donating money, products, or services, volunteering with nonprofits, or partnering with charities and local community groups. Business leaders might also encourage their employees to volunteer. According to a 2017 Deloitte Volunteerism Survey, 74% of working Americans thought corporate volunteerism provided an improved sense of purpose. In addition, 89% believed companies that sponsored volunteer activities boasted a better work environment overall. Social impact is a significant motivator, as well. Of the millennials surveyed, 75% felt they would volunteer more often if they had a better understanding of the impact of their work.

    Ethical entrepreneurship ensures fair wages, treatment, and working conditions, and it promotes community engagement in matters that truly resonate with the business. This authenticity radiates to all stakeholders: investors, employees, suppliers, and customers.

    Environmental sustainability

    Business owners also have a responsibility to the environment. Sustainability (defined by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development) is the balance between meeting the needs of the present without compromising the future. It operates under the assumption that resources are finite.

    As suppliers of a service or product, entrepreneurs are part of a cycle that requires giving back and doing their part to ensure the longevity of resources. Business owners can adopt green habits, such as reducing paper waste, incorporating reusable products into their practice, lowering emissions, and improving energy efficiency by using LED bulbs, for instance.

    Consumers look for companies with a dedicated mission to environmental sustainability and are willing to pay more for sustainable products. While millennials and boomers think about the materials a company uses, Gen Z is starting to focus on the manufacturing process itself. A company focused on sustainability – from material sourcing to manufacturing, shipping, and selling – benefits not only from a strong reputation but also from the long-term cost savings of improved operational efficiencies.

    Prabhat Sharma

    Source link

  • Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics

    Why was Weiss named special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden? It’s complicated. | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Attorney General Merrick Garland did not provide a robust explanation on Friday for why he needed to give US attorney David Weiss special counsel status for the Hunter Biden probe, or why it was necessary five years after the investigation began.

    In a televised statement, Garland only said that Weiss informed him on Tuesday that “his investigation has reached a stage at which he should continue his work as a special counsel.” Garland said he reviewed Weiss’ request, “as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter” and “concluded it is in the public interest” to make him a special counsel.

    But the attorney general did not say what those “extraordinary circumstances” were. And Weiss didn’t make any statements on Friday.

    The simplest explanation is that the plea talks between Weiss and Hunter Biden over tax and gun charges have collapsed, and the case now appears to be headed to trial. Indeed, it is “extraordinary” for the Justice Department, which is part of the executive branch, to go to trial against the son of a siting president. Instead of a speedy resolution with a plea, a trial guarantees there will be months or even years of future litigation.

    But no one at the Justice Department has publicly offered this explanation. Friday, Garland never mentioned this major change in the trajectory of the case – from a misdemeanor plea deal to an unprecedented trial with potentially several felony charges.

    It’s not clear what else may have changed to trigger the special counsel appointment.

    IRS whistleblowers who worked on the case and congressional Republicans have claimed that Weiss needed special counsel powers because, as the US attorney in Delaware, he couldn’t pursue charges in other jurisdictions. The whistleblowers testified that Justice Department officials blocked Weiss from filing felony tax evasion charges in California and Washington, DC.

    But as these questions mounted, Weiss and Garland have repeatedly insisted that Weiss always had the powers he needed, even as a US attorney. Weiss said he retained “ultimate authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges.” As recently as July 10, he said he never asked to be appointed as special counsel.

    So why elevate him to special counsel now?

    This is the third time Garland has appointed a special counsel. In the two past instances, he specifically mentioned that the ongoing investigations involved a presidential candidate and therefore the independence of a special counsel was warranted, for the public interest. (Those probes are separately scrutinizing President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.)

    That raises the question of whether the ongoing Hunter Biden probe has moved closer to the president, though there is no public indication that this is the case.

    Indeed, the IRS whistleblowers told Congress they wanted to interview Biden family members, after finding financial improprieties in Hunter Biden’s tax records, but were blocked by Justice Department officials. Also, an unverified tip from an FBI informant about supposed bribes paid to Joe and Hunter Biden was passed onto Weiss’ prosecutors, potentially for further inquiry. (Joe Biden says these claims are false.)

    Politics is also hanging over the investigation, especially emanating from Capitol Hill.

    House Republicans are investigating the claims from the IRS whistleblower and are asking questions about how Hunter Biden nearly walked away with what they call a “sweetheart deal.”

    GOP Rep. Jim Jordan, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is seeking interviews with nearly a dozen Justice Department officials who were involved in the investigation. He also has sought testimony from Weiss, who previously committed to appearing at a public hearing this fall.

    But Weiss’ new role as special counsel, and the implosion of the plea talks, could put all of that on ice. It will be much easier now for the Justice Department to do what it often does – swat away oversight requests because of an ongoing investigation, especially with a trial looming.

    Justice Department officials stressed Friday that Weiss will issue a public report as part of his special counsel responsibilities. But that could be years away: Past special counsels, like Robert Mueller and John Durham, only testified on the Hill after their reports were released.

    Source link

  • What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics

    What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    It’s undeniable that Justice Clarence Thomas’ friendships with billionaires willing to foot his bill on their vacations together have given the conservative jurist a lifestyle most Americans could only dream of.

    But determining whether Thomas violated ethics rules and laws by failing to disclose that hospitality is tricky.

    The law in question is the Ethics in Government Act, and how it should be applied to the extravagant travel that Thomas and other justices have been treated to has been a subject of debate.

    The debate centers on what counts as “personal hospitality” – i.e., accommodations and entertainment that judges are treated to personally by their friends – which does not have to be reported on annual financial disclosures under certain contexts.

    The Supreme Court’s critics note that, even if Thomas was not technically in violation of the rules, his pattern of accepting – and not reporting – lavish experiences such as skybox tickets to major sporting events and far-flung trips on mega-yachts shows that the high court cannot be trusted to police itself under the current standards. Some argue that more stringent ethical reforms – perhaps in the form of legislation – are needed.

    Further complicating the picture is that the regulations laying out when personal hospitality need not be reported have recently been tightened. Thomas’ defenders have pointed to those changes, announced earlier this year, to argue that the old regime did not require the justice to report the types of hospitality now under scrutiny. Thomas himself – in a rare statement released in April, when ProPublica published its first investigation into the extravagant travel perks he has received – noted that reworked ethical guidance and vowed to follow it going forward.

    But assessing whether the gifts and hospitality described in the latest ProPublica report – which puts the tally at 38 destination vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight helicopter trips and a dozen VIP tickets to sporting events – would require disclosure, either then or under the tightened rules, is a complicated question. It sometimes depends on details about how the high-end trips were financed that were not fully fleshed out by the report.

    “The question is: Who is absorbing the cost?” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University School of Law professor who has written extensively about legal ethics and rules.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has engaged in such jet-setting. When Justice Samuel Alito was the subject of a ProPublica report detailing a 2008 private flight he took to Alaska on a plane owned by a GOP megadonor, he argued in a preemptive essay published by Wall Street Journal’s opinion section that he was not required to disclose it under ethics rules in place at the time. Alito claimed that plane trip fit the definition of “facility” in the requirements’ exemptions for personal hospitality extended to judges “on property or facilities owned by (a) person”

    Ethics experts have pushed back on the idea that a private flight could be interpreted to fall under the term “facility.” The new guidance announced in March makes clear that going forward, private plane trips cannot be excluded from the reporting requirements because “substitutes for commercial transportation” are not part of the exemptions.

    ProPublica’s latest report, published Thursday, surfaces several helicopter trips that Thomas took apparently at the expense of his billionaire benefactors. Even under the new guidance, there could be some argument that certain helicopter trips may not require disclosure, according to Gillers, who gave the example of a helicopter ride over the Grand Canyon.

    Since such a ride would not be a replacement of a commercial flight, but instead a form of entertainment offered by a friend, disclosure could potentially be avoided. But another key question, under the new guidance, is whether the helicopter ride was being paid for personally by the friend of the judge.

    The new guidance states that accommodations offered to a judge that are not paid for out of the personal pocketbook of an individual – but through a third-party entity, which could include the friend’s company or another business – would require disclosure. If the person footing the cost is seeking a tax deduction for the expense of the accommodation or gift, that would also trigger a judge’s reporting requirement.

    Justice Roberts wrote ‘condescending’ letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics

    That means if the helicopter rides described in the ProPublica report – which Thomas occasionally enjoyed in the mid-2000s because of his friendship with the late corporate titan Wayne Huizenga – were on a helicopter owned by Huizenga’s business, Thomas would have to disclose them under the new rules. Even if Huizenga owned the helicopter personally, if he put the cost of the rides toward a tax exemption, that would also mean Thomas’ helicopter jaunts would fall outside of the exemptions.

    Thomas’ friendships with oil baron Paul “Tony” Novelly and real estate mogul Harlan Crow have led to the billionaires hosting him on their mega-yachts. Those trips have included ventures with Novelly in the Bahamas and island-hopping with Crow in Indonesia. Since Thomas presumably was sleeping on the yachts, he can argue they’re covered by the disclosure exception for accommodations personally offered by friends.

    “Thomas could say that, just as a weekend at a country home at the invitation of a friend is personal hospitality, a week on my friend’s yacht is also personal hospitality. It’s just that one is on the land and one is on the water,” Gillers said.

    Another area of scrutiny in the new ProPublica report is tickets to major sporting events – often for skybox seats – that Thomas received from his wealthy friends. Government ethics experts quoted in the story raised the disclosure requirement for gifts valued at more than $415 as potentially problematic for Thomas.

    However, according to Gabe Roth, who heads the organization Fix the Court, the ethics questions over the tickets hinge more on the entertainment exemption for judges when they are receiving personal hospitality.

    “You could make the argument that sporting tickets count as entertainment,” said Roth, whose group advocates for ethics reform and more transparency in the judiciary.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has failed to report sporting event tickets on their disclosures. Justice Elena Kagan attended a University of Wisconsin football game – sitting in the Chancellor’s Box – in 2017 that went unreported on her disclosure for that year, according to a Fix the Court review.

    Still, ProPublica points to the example of 60 lower court judges who reported sporting event tickets on their annual forms between 2003 and 2019.

    It is a particularly complicated endeavor to decipher Thomas’ reporting obligations for the access he reportedly got, via his friendship with Huizenga, to an exclusive Florida golf course. The report describes a “standing invitation” Thomas had to the members-only course, the Floridian, but ProPublica said it was not clear whether Thomas was granted a full-fledged membership or whether he was just able to visit the course as a guest of Huizenga.

    However, there are signs pointing toward disclosure for judges who do receive gifted golf club memberships. In his filing for 2008, Chief Justice John Roberts reported honorary memberships to two golf courses – valued in the thousands of dollars – that he was gifted, while even noting in the disclosure forms that he didn’t use the memberships.

    “If that’s John Roberts’ interpretation of the federal disclosure law, I am going to side with him on this,” Roth said.

    The latest investigation into Thomas’ conduct also hit on an issue that has emerged around several of the justices: whether their activity with certain charities and other organizations violates ethical standards limiting judges’ participation in fundraising.

    ProPublica, piggybacking off recent reporting by The New York Times, dug into Thomas’ involvement with the Horatio Alger Association, which offers scholarships and mentorships to students, and which connected Thomas to some of the billionaire benefactors highlighted in the report.

    Thomas, according to The Times and ProPublica, facilitated events for the organization that were hosted at the Supreme Court, with the latest investigation reporting that access to one such event cost $1,500 or more in contributions per person.

    Under a set of ethics rules for the judiciary that are separate from the financial disclosure requirements, judges are barred from allowing the “prestige” of their office to be used for the purpose of fundraising.

    “You can attend an event of an organization, a non-profit that serves as a fundraiser,” Gillers said. “But the justice or judge cannot be identified as an attraction for people to come and donate money.”

    Source link

  • When John Roberts wants things done, he acts. What that means for ethics rules | CNN Politics

    When John Roberts wants things done, he acts. What that means for ethics rules | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Soon after he became chief justice of the United States, John Roberts faced what he believed was a “crisis” involving the judiciary: Federal judges were underpaid.

    What Roberts did next to address the situation stands in stark contrast to the way he has tiptoed through the current controversy over the Supreme Court’s integrity.

    As he pushed for a pay raise, he arranged a meeting at the White House to win support from then-President George W. Bush. He encouraged emissaries to talk to members of Congress. And he devoted an entire year-end report to the situation.

    “I am going to discuss only one issue – in an effort to increase even more the chances that people will take notice,” Roberts wrote on January 1, 2007. “That is important because the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.”

    His concern: “I am talking about the failure to raise judicial pay.”

    Today, Roberts is at the center of the controversy over the court’s lack of transparency and absence of a formal code of ethics. The justices have been inconsistent in reporting travel and gifts bestowed on them by wealthy benefactors who may be trying to influence the court.

    The 68-year-old chief justice, who will be starting his 19th term in October, has moved with little apparent urgency.

    On Thursday, the issue was again in the spotlight as Justice Clarence Thomas filed a long-awaited annual financial disclosure form that pointed up his relationship with Texas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow. Thomas acknowledged that he had traveled on private jets at Crow’s expense for Dallas events and taken a separate vacation excursion to Crow’s opulent estate in the Adirondacks.

    Thomas also reported that Crow had in 2014 bought property in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas and his family. Thomas’ lawyer said any delays or other filing errors were “inadvertent” and described public criticism of Thomas as “political blood sport.”

    Justice Roberts wrote ‘condescending’ letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics

    The backdrop to Thursday’s filing by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom had sought extensions from a May deadline, is the rising attention to the Supreme Court’s inability to monitor itself on this front. The justices’ extracurricular activities and lack of any process for resolving complaints has become as much a topic of public scrutiny as their rulings pushing the law in America to the right.

    For years, individual justices have said the court was considering its own code of conduct, as now covers lower court judges. But that consideration has never produced any public result.

    Members of Congress, advocacy groups and even some justices have looked to Roberts for leadership, to no avail.

    Roberts told an audience of lawyers in Washington, DC, in May: “I want to assure people that I am committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct. We are continuing to look at things we can do to give practical effect to that commitment.”

    Yet when the justices left town for their summer recess in June, they were at a stalemate on whether a formal code was even necessary.

    In separate public appearances this summer, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan, when asked about a possible ethics code, said they didn’t want to get out ahead of Roberts on the issue.

    While Roberts has sent muted signals, he has made his resistance to congressional involvement clear.

    Roberts in April declined an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about judicial ethics, referring to “separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”

    The Democratic-run Senate committee in July advanced legislation that would require a Supreme Court ethics code and a set of procedures for resolving complaints regarding their behavior. Given the tight partisan divide in the Senate and Republicans’ control of the House, the bill is unlikely to become law.

    So, much depends on the justices themselves.

    Roberts is known for formidable powers of persuasion. Before he became a US appeals court judge in 2003 and a Supreme Court justice in 2005, he was a star appellate advocate at the high court. But there are limits to his authority as chief, and the regard he engenders among individual colleagues varies.

    There may also be limits to the personal capital Roberts wants to put toward a dilemma that lies beyond the consideration of cases.

    The chief justice had made the judiciary’s pay raise a singular concern, and eventually judges and justices obtained full cost-of-living increases and higher pay.

    Unlike with judicial pay, which naturally generated support among black-robed colleagues, the ethics issue has defied consensus in Roberts’ ranks.

    Alito said in a Wall Street Journal interview published in July that he “voluntarily follows” the rules that apply to lower court judges, and he denigrated congressional efforts in this area: “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m going to say it. No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court – period.”

    Last month in Portland, Oregon, Kagan also referred to internal differences.

    “It’s not a secret for me to say that we have been discussing it,” she said, referring to a formal set of ethics rules. And it won’t be a surprise to know that the nine of us have a variety of views about this, as about most things. We’re nine free-thinking individuals.”

    Source link

  • FBI agent contests whistleblower claims in Hunter Biden case, transcript shows | CNN Politics

    FBI agent contests whistleblower claims in Hunter Biden case, transcript shows | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The FBI agent managing the team on the Hunter Biden criminal case testified to the House Judiciary Committee that US Attorney David Weiss had ultimate authority over the case, contesting testimony brought forward by whistleblowers.

    Thomas Sobocinski, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Baltimore field office, told committee investigators in a closed-door interview last week that from his perspective, Weiss had the authority to bring forward whatever charges he wanted in whatever venue he preferred.

    “It was my understanding that David Weiss had the authority, and at no point did I ever differ from that,” Sobociniski said, according to a copy of his interview transcript obtained by CNN. “There’s never been anything in my view that changed that.”

    Sobocinski’s transcript, which was first reported by The Washington Post, comes as House Republicans continue to investigate allegations that the criminal case of President Joe Biden’s son was mishandled. It’s all part of the House GOP impeachment inquiry into the president, even though Republicans have yet to find evidence that the president did anything illegal.

    Sobocinski’s testimony disputes a number of claims from an Internal Revenue Service whistleblower about a key October 2022 meeting including FBI and IRS agents, Weiss, and other Justice Department prosecutors that occurred at a critical point in the criminal probe. IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who was in the meeting and worked on this case, said Weiss revealed in that meeting that he is not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. Shapley provided his notes on that meeting and email exchanges about it to Congress to support his claim. The notes say, “Weiss stated – He is not the deciding person.”

    But Sobocinski was also in that October 2022 meeting and said Weiss never said that.

    “I went into that meeting believing he had the authority, and I have left that meeting believing he had the authority to bring charges,” Sobocinski testified.

    Reflecting on Shapley’s accusation of Weiss, Sobocinski said, “In my recollection, if he would have said that, I would have remembered it.”

    In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee responding to Sobocinski’s testimony, Shapley’s legal team contested Sobocinski’s testimony, noting that Shapley took notes of the October 2022 meeting while Sobocinski did not.

    “Mr. Sobocinski apparently acknowledged that he took no notes in the meeting, nor did he document it in any contemporaneous fashion afterwards,” wrote Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt and attorney Mark Lytle, according to the letter obtained by CNN. “By contrast, SSA Shapley took notes during the meeting. These notes, combined with his fresh memory of the meeting, formed the basis for the email he sent later that day and corroborate his current recollection.”

    House Republicans responded to the comments saying that the whistleblowers, Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, a 13-year IRS special agent with the Criminal Investigation Division, were “wholly consistent.”

    “Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler have been wholly consistent throughout their disclosures to Congress, and the only people who haven’t are people like David Weiss, Merrick Garland, and their liberal cronies,” said Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican.

    Sobocinski also disputed Shapley’s claim that Weiss said in the October 2022 meeting he was denied special counsel status and denied venues to bring forward charges.

    Sobocinski told the House Judiciary panel he was informed of Weiss’ special counsel status the day Attorney General Merrick Garland announced it last month, and that Weiss was not previously denied special counsel status as Shapley has claimed.

    “I don’t have a recollection with him saying that there or at any point in my communication with Mr. Weiss,” Sobocinski said. “That would have been a total 180 from all our previous conversations about authorities.”

    When asked if anybody at FBI headquarters ever prevented Weiss from taking any steps or accessing any necessary resources, Sobocinski replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”

    Sobocinski told congressional investigators that he did raise concerns repeatedly about the pace of the investigation into Hunter Biden.

    “I would have liked for it to move faster,” he said.

    Republicans on the committee raised the question of why Weiss was eventually given special counsel status if Weiss had the ultimate authority as Sobocinski has argued. Sobocinski acknowledged that Weiss would be the best person to answer these questions, and more specifics about how special counsel status was granted.

    On whether Weiss was denied venues to bring forward charges against the president’s son, Sobocinski said he only had “high-level conversations” about the specific charges, but from his understanding “there was a process” within the Justice Department for US attorneys to bring forward charges outside of their district that involved a lot of “bureaucracy” but was “not a permission issue.”

    “Without going into specifics, there were discussion about taxes and venue,” Sobocinski said. “And, once again, Mr. Weiss had the authority to bring it.”

    Shapley’s notes on the October 2022 meeting included that an FBI agent asked the group if they were concerned about the investigation being politicized. Sobocinski noted that part of why the meeting was called was in response to a media leak about the status of the criminal investigation. He told congressional investigators that he wanted to ask anyone in the room if they felt the investigation into the president’s son had been politicized, and he said no one in the room, not even Shapley, raised any concerns.

    “I wanted to go on record in the room of the leaders who were involved in this investigation,” Sobocinski said. “Thought that it was no, and nobody in that room raised their voice to say anything other.”

    Sobocinski also addressed broader claims made about how the Hunter Biden criminal investigation has been handled. To discredit GOP claims that prosecutors colluded with Hunter Biden’s Secret Service by informing them they wanted to interview Hunter, Sobocinski said that as a former Secret Service agent, he said it was “expected” for an investigative entity to speak with him ahead of interviewing a protectee of his. Sobocinski also said he is not aware of any evidence that the Department of Justice has retaliated against the IRS whistleblowers who have come forward.

    The Department of Justice sent Sobocinski a letter the day before his interview giving him permission to discuss the details of the October 7, 2022, meeting and Weiss’ authority on the case. But Sobocinski was not permitted to discuss the ongoing criminal investigation.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link

  • Amy Coney Barrett: Supreme Court ethics code would be a good idea | CNN Politics

    Amy Coney Barrett: Supreme Court ethics code would be a good idea | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Amy Coney Barrett on Monday became the latest Supreme Court justice to address ethics concerns, saying that she thought it would be a “good idea” for the justices to adopt a formal code of conduct that would directly bind the justices.

    Her comments came during an appearance that was briefly interrupted by protesters at University of Minnesota Law School in a talk moderated by Professor Robert A. Stein. “Not the Court, not the State, People must decide their fate,” chanted the protesters, who appeared to make reference to her controversial vote last year to overturn Roe v. Wade – a decision that has triggered protests nationwide.

    When the talk resumed, Barrett confirmed that the justices have been discussing ethics concerns and are committed to holding themselves to the “highest standards.”

    It would be a “good idea” to adopt a formal code, she said, “particularly so that we can communicate to the public exactly what it is that we are doing in a clearer way than perhaps we have been able to do so far.”

    She stressed there is “unanimity among all nine justices that we should and do hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards possible.”

    Although Barrett didn’t address specific concerns, news reports over the last several months have detailed alleged ethics lapses on the part of some of the justices and Democrats in Congress are pushing for legislation that would enforce a code conduct.

    Other justices have confirmed in recent months that talks about ethics are ongoing, although no concrete steps have been announced. Barrett said she couldn’t speak to the timing of any announcement.

    Barrett, who voted with her conservative colleagues last year to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to an abortion, was also asked about when a justice should vote to overturn precedent.

    She said that there are several considerations a judge thinks about when voting to overrule precedent, including the “effects of that error” on the law today and whether the error “has distorted other areas of the law.”

    “Overturning precedent is not something to be done lightly,” Barrett said.

    On a different note, Barrett, who has seven children, also spoke of the perils of being a working mother – noting that she shares the same struggles as many working parents.

    She recounted a morning last term where one of her children had been listening to the Baha Men’s “Who let the dogs out” just before the school bus arrived.

    Hours later, Barrett confessed, she found herself walking down the austere marble hallways of the court humming the hit because she couldn’t get it out of her head.

    Motherhood, Barrett said, is very “grounding” and keeps her “very much rooted in real life.”

    Asked if she was enjoying herself on the high court, Barrett said the job has its “ups and downs” and that she feels a “grave responsibility” at times.

    “Enjoying myself is not quite the word I would use, but it is a privilege to serve, and I have no regrets about undertaking the service, and I am fully conscious that everything I am doing is very important for the people of America and those are the people for whom I work,” she said.

    Source link

  • Earth Charter International Announces Florida Conference: Reimagining Education for Ecological Civilizations

    Earth Charter International Announces Florida Conference: Reimagining Education for Ecological Civilizations

    Join us April 12 – 14 for the 2024 Earth Charter Conference held in the United States at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. This 3-day conference builds on four previous Earth Charter Conferences focused on education for sustainability and global citizenship, and for planetary well-being. It will bring together a global diversity of educators, activists and Earth Charter educators, affiliates, and partners, to share good practices and research.


    SAN JOSÉ, Costa Rica, July 18, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Earth Charter International (ECI) announced an international conference centered on Reimagining Education for Ecological Civilizations to take place on April 12-14, 2024. For the very first time, in the history of the Earth Charter Global Movement, this conference will take place in the United States. This one-of-a-kind networking and educational experience will convene at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. 

    The dynamic three-day event will bring together a global gathering of educators, academics, activists, businesspeople and thought leaders to build on four previous Earth Charter Conferences focused on values- based education for sustainability, global citizenship, and planetary well-being. 

    “With this conference, we want to offer a space to exchange knowledge and experiences, as well as identify synergies and enhance collaboration among innovative approaches for transformational change towards sustainability,” stated Mirian Vilela, ECI Executive Director. “We want to bring together practitioners and researchers working on new educational approaches to address our current challenges.”

    The impressive lineup of speakers and facilitators for this event include: Dr. Sam Crowell, author of “Emergent Teaching: A Path for Creativity, Significance, and Transformation” and “The Re-Enchantment of Learning: A Manual for Teacher Renewal and Classroom Transformation;” Dr. Akpezi Ogbuigwe, a high-profile expert in transformational change in higher education in Africa, environmental law and climate change education and former Head of the Environmental Education and Training Program at the United Nations Environment Program; and Jeremy Lent, author of “The Web of Meaning” and  “Principles and Practices of Deep Transformation: Laying the Groundwork for an Ecological Civilization.”

    “We are thrilled to bring together such an inspiring lineup of thought leaders and activists who know how to inspire change and get things done,” cited Michael J. Bracken, Chairman of the Board at ECI. We have several sponsorship opportunities still available for educational institutions, businesses, religious organizations, and NGO’s who want to support the Earth Charter International’s mission of “turning conscience into action” and join efforts to reimagine education for ecological civilizations. 

    Sponsorship opportunities are still available for organizations interested in supporting this important initiative. By sponsoring the conference, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to sustainable education and gain visibility among global leaders in the field.

    This conference will offer both in-person and virtual options for attending. Please visit our website at https://earthcharter.org/events/conference-2024 for more information about the conference and how to register for either the in-person or virtual attendance options. If you are interested in presenting at the conference, please visit our website for information on our call for abstracts.

    Earth Charter International (ECI) is a global network dedicated to promoting the Earth Charter, an ethical framework for sustainability, justice, and peace. The organization aims to inspire individuals, organizations, and societies to act towards building a more sustainable and equitable world. ECI holds a UNESCO Chair in Education for Sustainable Development with the Earth Charter and is located on the campus of The University for Peace in San Jose, Costa Rica.

    “We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.” – Earth Charter Preamble

    Source: Earth Charter International

    Source link

  • 3 Things to Look for to Determine If AI Is Being Used Ethically | Entrepreneur

    3 Things to Look for to Determine If AI Is Being Used Ethically | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    AI has been a topic of great interest — we’re all amazed by its potential and the impact it may have on our lives, mostly because AI is the first tool in history that can make decisions by itself. Take ChatGPT as an example. It embodies more knowledge than any human has ever known. This tool can be a force for enormous good. Imagine what AI can do in healthcare and its enormous databases of genes, medicines and disease symptoms and drug interactions, for example? It can literally save lives. But that’s also a huge responsibility we’re putting on a technology that we haven’t even begun to fully understand.

    As investors, entrepreneurs and users, we directly impact where the technology will go, and we are setting the stage for where it will end up.

    Related: What Are Some of the Ethical Concerns of Artificial Intelligence?

    The hype around AI

    AI is a technology that has been in the making for many years now. We’ve seen ups and downs around AI, but most recently, there’s a lot of hype. The reason that AI is now having its moment is mostly because of two simple reasons:

    • There’s more data available now than ever before, and AI feeds and grows from data

    • Computing and data storage have become exponentially cheaper, so the technology required to train AI became sufficient enough to make it broadly accessible

    We’ve seen AI in every aspect of our lives, from the way we shop, search for information, the way we pay, etc., — and we’ll continue to see AI enter our lives and our decision process in more and more ways. The applications are endless, from conversational agents (like Apple’s Siri or Amazon’s Alexa) to new ways of doing specific things, like creating the graphics of a marketing campaign or an ad.

    In healthcare, for example, AI is enhancing diagnoses, treatments and patient care. Machine learning algorithms can analyze medical data, detect diseases at early stages and predict patient outcomes. AI-powered systems have improved medical imaging, enabling more accurate and faster diagnoses.

    In finance, AI is optimizing processes from fraud detection to customer experience personalization. AI algorithms can analyze vast volumes of financial data in real time, helping banks and financial institutions detect anomalies and prevent fraud.

    AI has revolutionized the manufacturing sector through automation, predictive maintenance and quality control. AI-powered robots and machines automate repetitive tasks, improving efficiency and reducing errors.

    But how can we make this technology, that’s already part of our lives in a very intimate way, actually be supportive? As creators of this technology, it’s our responsibility to give it use cases that support human potential not diminish it; which is why ethics is important.

    Related: Emerging Ethical Concerns In the Age of Artificial Intelligence

    3 things to look for to find ethical AI

    1. AI’s general parameters:

    Responsible and ethical AI starts by knowing how to assess the technology, the company and the team developing it. It can be hard to establish where to draw the line, however, there can be general parameters or rules to set the stage; human rights, fundamental freedom and human dignity are a cornerstone to assess if a technology or a tool is augmenting our capabilities or if it’s going to hurt us and/or others (especially minority groups).

    For example, gender has been historically excluded in many aspects of scientific research, and we’ve established that AI learns from data and from past examples. If AI is learning from examples that hold bias and discrimination that we’ve had in our society, we are reinforcing patterns instead of breaking them. AI holds the promise of solving more problems than it creates. However, we can’t ignore challenges like equitable outcomes and personal privacy. Questioning the team and the company to understand how they are working towards breaking bias is important. The goal is to have the most thoughtful application of what AI’s knowledge is building.

    2. The team:

    It’s key to have people on the board and in the organization who are watching closely. There are always highly trained financial professionals who oversee the financial health of a company; same for compliance with regulations. Today, there should also be experts who assess the intended and unintended consequences of AI and its impact.

    Having diversity in the team will foster a more ethical company. When you have different cultures, ages, personalities, etc., you get challenged to see more perspectives. It’s important to bring in different perspectives in the development journey to have an inclusive final product.

    3. Trusting AI:

    Marketing and sales experts know that relationships and trust with their customers are a fundamental driver for business outcomes — trust is key for business. As users and customers of AI, we’re also witnessing an impact. How can creators enable a trusting relationship between technology and customers? We live in a world where a lack of trust in institutions and governments has become more common. In other words, today, we are subject to manipulation because there’s no longer one single source of truth, and this makes us an unstable society. Today, AI tools that are completely trustworthy are rare, but we might get to a point where they will no longer be a nice-to-have but a must.

    Related: AI Isn’t Evil — But Entrepreneurs Need to Keep Ethics in Mind As They Implement It

    Unfortunately, today, there are no regulations or certificates that show if a company is building an AI model ethically or not, but if we question the development journey, we’re more likely to find out the principles upon which the technology was built on.

    The important part is that we are all an integral part of the ecosystem; the incredible thing about AI is that we are all relevant enough to have an impact even if we are not the experts working in the industry. We are already involved, the data comes from us, from our decisions and actions, and our participation is likely to keep growing. So, after all, ethics might be up to us.

    Karim Nurani

    Source link

  • Controversial Chinese scientist He Jiankui proposes new gene editing research | CNN

    Controversial Chinese scientist He Jiankui proposes new gene editing research | CNN


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    He Jiankui, the Chinese scientist who sparked global outrage in 2018 when he revealed that he had created the first gene-edited children, has put forward a new proposal for modifying human embryos that he claims could help aid the “aging population.”

    He, who in 2019 was sentenced to three years in prison in China for “illegal medical practices,” reemerged last year and surprised the global scientific community when he announced on social media that he was opening a research lab in Beijing.

    Since that time, updates on his research posted on his Twitter account have focused on proposed plans to develop gene therapy for rare disease.

    But on Thursday, he again courted controversy by posting a new research proposal that experts say is reminiscent of his earlier work, which scientists broadly decried as unethical and dangerous – with the potential to impact human DNA across generations.

    In a succinct, one page document, He proposed research that would involve gene-editing mouse embryos and then human fertilized egg cells, or zygotes, in order to test whether a mutation “confers protection against Alzheimer’s disease.”

    “The aging population is of grave importance as both a socioeconomic issue and a strain on the medical system … Currently, there is no effective drug for Alzheimer’s disease,” he wrote in an apparent nod to China’s growing demographic burden due to a rising proportion of elderly.

    Unlike the science that landed him in jail, this potential experiment involves a kind of abnormal fertilized egg cell generally considered not suitable to be implanted in a woman.

    No human embryo would be implanted for pregnancy and “government permit and ethical approval” were required before experimentation, the proposal said.

    It’s not clear whether He would get approval for such work in China, even if the proposal he put forward were deemed to have merit – and outside experts say the current proposal is not scientifically sound.

    Authorities in China took multiple steps to tighten rules and ethical standards affecting human gene editing in the wake of the revelations about his previous research. They also banned He from engaging in work related to assisted reproductive technology services and placed limits on his work with human genetic resources, according to state media.

    But the scientist’s release of a new proposal involving gene editing of embryos has scientists and medical ethics experts concerned – and confused.

    “The whole thing is, to put it bluntly, insane,” said Peter Dröge, an associate professor at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, who focuses on molecular and biochemical genetics.

    The proposed research could be seen as a step to explore if such a method of genetic editing could be used in a viable embryo in future, according to Dröge.

    Apart from ethical considerations, gene-editing an embryo to address a complex disease that affects people toward the end of their life and doesn’t have a clear, single genetic cause is “highly questionable,” he said.

    “He basically wants to genetically modify the human species so they don’t get Alzheimer’s,” he said. “I’m really surprised that he’s coming forward with this again.”

    Joy Zhang, founding director of the Centre for Global Science and Epistemic Justice at the University of Kent in Britain, said the proposal seemed to be “more of a publicity stunt than a substantiated research agenda.”

    “However, we do need to take these public claims with vigilance, as it may nevertheless misguide patients and their families, and tint the reputations not just of science in China, but global research effort in this area,” she said.

    In response to questions from CNN, He said he was “collecting feedback from scientists and bioethicists now” and did not have a timeline for the study.

    “I will make a revision to the Alzheimer’s disease proposal later. I will not conduct any experiments until I get the government permit, and also get the approval by an international ethics committee with bioethicists from USA and Europe,” he told CNN via email.

    “I want to emphasize that this is a preclinical study, no embryo will be used for pregnancy in this study. The research will be open and transparent, and all experiment results and progress will be posted on Twitter,” he said.

    He did not address questions on whether he was limited from conducting certain work in China.

    CNN also approached China’s Ministry of Science and Technology and National Health Commission for comment.

    In 2018, He, formerly a researcher at the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, claimed he had used a gene-editing tool called CRISPR to modify human embryos of twin girls in the hopes of protecting them from HIV. A third genetically edited baby was also born from He’s experimentation, a court in Shenzhen later said.

    The research sparked a fierce uproar over the ethics of using new and potentially dangerous technology in people and the risk of unintended mutations being passed on not only to the children but potentially any future offspring. It also raised concerns about cracking open the door to a potentially species-changing future of “designer children.”

    In recent media interviews, He has indicated he feels he acted “too quickly” in conducting the research and has given sparse details on the children, besides indicating they were living “normal” lives.

    Genetic manipulation of human embryos – both viable and nonviable ones – is typically tightly controlled globally and some countries ban all such research, experts say.

    But there is robust global debate around allowing genome editing of human embryos to treat serious genetic conditions or expanding research.

    Scientists say genome editing, including in adults, shows promise for one day treating diseases that are currently difficult to treat or cure, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease.

    Chinese law does not allow gene-edited human embryos used in research to be implanted into humans, or developed for more than 14 days. All gene editing for reproductive purposes has also long been banned.

    Since 2019, a broader raft of regulation of China’s biosciences field has added more legal controls and ethical standards to such research, including a major update to national bioethics guidelines earlier this year.

    There’s also been sharp backlash against He within China’s scientific community.

    In March, over 200 Chinese scholars released a statement in response to his public activities, including what they said was He’s “misleading marketing campaign” over his claimed research plans on rare disease.

    They condemned He’s “attitude and refusal to reflect on his criminal actions of violating ethics and regulations of gene editing,” and called for regulatory authorities to launch a new investigation into He’s “alleged re‐violation of scientific integrity, ethical norms, laws and regulations.”

    “The ethical boundaries shall not be crossed,” they wrote.

    As for the future of He’s research, Canadian bioethicist Françoise Baylis of Dalhousie University said numerous questions should be considered, from whether He has the requisite scientific expertise to test the hypothesis, to whether he can be trusted to follow the rules for research involving humans.

    “It is possible for people to learn from their mistakes and to change their behavior … but many are concerned, however, that He Jiankui may not have learned from his past mistakes,” Baylis said.

    Source link

  • Samuel Alito’s WSJ Op-Ed Is Raising A Lot Of Questions Supposedly Answered By The Op-Ed

    Samuel Alito’s WSJ Op-Ed Is Raising A Lot Of Questions Supposedly Answered By The Op-Ed

    Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery — and bizarre — rebuttal in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, defending himself against apparent ethics claims that have not been published yet.

    The Journal published the op-ed under the headline “ProPublica Misleads its Readers,” which accuses the outlet of leveling false charges against the justice. The rebuttal addresses whether Alito should have recused himself in cases linked to a billionaire named Paul Singer and whether he failed to report gifts on his annual financial disclosure forms.

    As of Tuesday evening, ProPublic had not yet published any story on Alito.

    The Journal included an editor’s note saying two reporters at ProPublica had emailed the justice last Friday with a series of questions, asking for a response by noon on Tuesday, as is standard practice in the media.

    Other journalists, however, quickly noted that publishing a rebuttal to a story that isn’t even public is not normal and questioned why the Journal would have done so.

    Still, Alito’s unusual response suggests that ProPublica has been delving into the justice’s relationship with Singer and a past trip in which he traveled in “what would have otherwise been an unoccupied seat on a private flight to Alaska.”

    “ProPublica suggests that my failure to recuse in these cases created an appearance of impropriety, but that is incorrect,” Alito wrote. “My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions … On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court.”

    Alito later added that Singer’s name did not appear in any filings as a party to cases before the Supreme Court: “During my time on the Court, I have voted on approximately 100,000 certiorari petitions. The vast majority receive little personal attention from the justices because even a cursory examination reveals that they do not meet our requirements for review.”

    The allegations are similar to those leveled against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Earlier this year, ProPublica detailed decades of lavish trips Thomas took with the billionaire Harlan Crow, including travel aboard private jets and a yacht and a real estate deal in which Crow bought property from the justice and his family. Thomas’ mother still lives rent-free in one of those homes.

    Alito’s ethics have been scrutinized in the past. He was previously accused of leaking the outcome of the 2014 Hobby Lobby case, which involved the company’s religious objections to covering the cost of some contraceptives for female employees.

    Source link

  • Adopting Business Value Does Good & Makes You More Money | Entrepreneur

    Adopting Business Value Does Good & Makes You More Money | Entrepreneur

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    In the past, society broadly — and entrepreneurs specifically — tended to embrace the capitalist rubric of “profit at all costs.” However, growing income inequality and increasing awareness of sustainability and employee well-being are fueling real change. Increasingly, altruism offers a better path for leaders to build resilient, future-proof enterprises.

    Here’s how.

    Words people first associate with for-profit structures likely don’t include altruism. On the contrary, the average person might offer diametrically opposed qualities, like greed and avarice. Unfortunately, this perception often perpetuates a dog-eat-dog culture, and the plain truth is that finding ways to embrace altruism as a core business value can fuel both broad societal good as well as revenue.

    A tale of shifting values

    People’s frustration with greed is growing, and they’re expressing it in various ways. As reported in a 2021 article in The Washington Post, employee loyalty is at an all-time low, reflective in part of the fact that the average worker typically receives little more than a paycheck in exchange for work. Largely gone are the days of fringe benefits, pension plans and generous vacation time allocations.

    Moreover, anxiety about growing economic inequality is increasing. Wealth disparities in countries like the U.S. are greater than ever, leading populations to face the possibility of their children winding up worse off than they are. In response, people are starting to think more broadly and deeply about how companies’ values reflect their own.

    One result of this is the growth of a new economic segment: the socially-conscious consumer. Among other qualities, these people think about the concept of wealth in wider terms than the simple accumulation of material things and are increasingly demanding that employers reflect this outlook. A remarkable 2022 Qualtrics survey found that 56% of respondents “…wouldn’t even consider a job at a company that has values they disagree with, while a 2020 CNBC/Momentive survey found that “40% of workers say they would likely quit their job if their organization took a stand on a political issue they do not agree with.”

    In other words, we’re witnessing the growth of altruism in the business world from the ground up.

    Related: 18 Business Leaders on Creating an Inclusive and Equitable Society

    Turning altruism into an advantage

    Entrepreneurs have much to gain from making a practice of disinterested and selfless concern. In doing so, they can generate tremendous value within companies, enhance employee loyalty and engender public trust, gaining significant advantages over firms still prioritizing the bottom line above all else.

    Here are a few ways to make it a core business practice:

    • Prioritize employee well-being: A business that puts staff members’ needs above its own is more likely to have loyal employees that demonstrate altruism themselves, according to a 2022 report by the Research Journal of Management Practice. This could be achieved by providing paid leave during significant life events — extending beyond maternity and paternity leave to cover unexpected lapses in childcare coverage, as well as caring for a sick family member or attending to the mental health of a loved one. Offering remote work options can also help gain employee trust.
    • Build value-based business connections: Entrepreneurs might be wise to consider a policy of only doing business with firms that share their values, extending this approach to the way they connect clients with trusted partners. This arrangement can be mutually beneficial, even if it means choosing a partner that costs a bit more. Building industry partnerships based on shared beliefs rather than rote costs can lead to more sustainable and meaningful connections.

    Embracing an altruistic future

    Our world is already changing, with consumers, employees and the general public demanding more from companies. Entrepreneurs can embrace this change and use it to build entities that stand the test of time. “Doing well by doing good” has the potential to not only produce financial success but also create a more fulfilling and meaningful entrepreneurial journey — with benefits that include increased employee loyalty and public trust, as well as a growing market of socially-conscious consumers.

    Here are some additional strategies for integrating this spirit into entrepreneurial ventures:

    • Embrace corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR initiatives that address social, environmental and economic issues relevant to your industry and community not only actively contribute to the well-being of society and the environment, but also demonstrate a business’s commitment to altruism, and will foster goodwill among customers and stakeholders alike.

    Related: Corporate Social Responsibility Can Actually Be a Competitive Advantage, So Where’s Your CSR Program?

    • Encourage a culture of giving back: Promote volunteerism and philanthropy within your organization by offering employees, say, paid time off for volunteer work, or matching their charitable donations. Such a culture can enhance staff morale and strengthen a company’s reputation as a socially responsible enterprise.
    • Practice transparent communication: Be open and honest with employees, customers and stakeholders about business practices, goals and challenges. Transparency fosters trust and demonstrates a commitment to ethics. So, share your successes and setbacks in implementing forward-thinking policies, and use the resulting feedback to make improvements.
    • Create an ethical supply chain: Work with suppliers that share your commitment to altruism, ensuring that they adhere to ethical labor practices, maintain sustainable operations and minimize their environmental impact. This can create a positive ripple effect that benefits all parties involved. A Business of Sustainability Index by GreenPrint revealed that 68% of Americans are willing to pay more for sustainable goods and otherwise support eco-conscious companies.
    • Measure and report on your impact: Regularly assess and report on the social, environmental, and economic impact of your business practices. By quantifying progress and sharing results, you showcase a commitment to altruism and inspire others to follow suit.

    Related: 3 Keys to Developing a Sustainable Supply Chain

    Chris Porteous

    Source link

  • Silicon Valley is knowingly violating A.I. ethical principles. Society can’t respond if we let disagreements poison the debate

    Silicon Valley is knowingly violating A.I. ethical principles. Society can’t respond if we let disagreements poison the debate

    With criticism of ChatGPT much in the news, we are also increasingly hearing about disagreements among thinkers who are critical of A.I. While debating about such an important issue is natural and expected, we can’t allow differences to paralyze our very ability to make progress on A.I. ethics at this pivotal time. Today, I fear that those who should be natural allies across the tech/business, policy, and academic communities are instead increasingly at each other’s throats. When the field of A.I. ethics appears divided, it becomes easier for vested interests to brush aside ethical considerations altogether.

    Such disagreements need to be understood in the context of how we reached the current moment of excitement around the rapid advances in large language models and other forms of generative A.I.

    OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, was initially set up as a non-profit amid much fanfare about a mission to solve the A.I. safety problem. However, as it became clear that OpenAI’s work on large language models was lucrative, OpenAI pivoted to become a public company. It deployed ChatGPT and partnered with Microsoft–which has consistently sought to depict itself as the tech corporation most concerned about ethics.

    Both companies knew that ChatGPT violates, for example, the globally endorsed UNESCO AI ethical principles. OpenAI even refused to publicly release a previous version of GPT, citing worry about much the same kinds of potential for misuse we are now witnessing. But for OpenAI and Microsoft, the temptation to win the corporate race trumped ethical considerations. This has nurtured a degree of cynicism about relying on corporate self-governance or even governments to put in place necessary safeguards.

    We should not be too cynical about the leadership of these two companies, which are trapped between their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and a genuine desire to do the right thing. They remain people of good intent, as are all raising concerns about the trajectory of A.I.

    This tension is perhaps best exemplified in a recent tweet by U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and the response by the A.I. community. In discussing ChatGPT, Murphy tweeted: “Something is coming. We aren’t ready.” And that’s when the A.I. researchers and ethicists piled on. They proceeded to criticize the Senator for not understanding the technology, indulging in futuristic hype, and focusing attention on the wrong issues. Murphy hit back at one critic: “I think the effect of her comments is very clear, to try to stop people like me from engaging in conversation, because she’s smarter and people like her are smarter than the rest of us.”

    I am saddened by disputes such as these. The concerns that Murphy raised are valid, and we need political leaders who are engaged in developing legal safeguards. His critic, however, is not wrong in questioning whether we are focusing attention on the right issues.

    To help us understand the different priorities of the various critics and, hopefully, move beyond these potentially damaging divisions, I want to propose a taxonomy for the plethora of ethical concerns raised about the development of A.I. I see three main baskets: 

    The first basket has to do with social justice, fairness, and human rights. For example, it is now well understood that algorithms can exacerbate racial, gender, and other forms of bias when they are trained on data that embodies those biases.

    The second basket is existential: Some in the A.I. development community are concerned that they are creating a technology that might threaten human existence. A 2022 poll of A.I. experts found that half expect A.I. to grow exponentially smarter than humans by 2059, and recent advances have prompted some to bring their estimates forward.

    The third basket relates to concerns about placing A.I. models in decision-making roles. Two technologies have provided focal points for this discussion: self-driving vehicles and lethal autonomous weapons systems. However, similar concerns arise as A.I. software modules become increasingly embedded in control systems in every facet of human life.

    Cutting across all these baskets is the potential misuse of A.I., such as spreading disinformation for political and economic gain, and the two-century-old concern about technological unemployment. While the history of economic progress has primarily involved machines replacing physical labor, A.I. applications can replace intellectual labor.

    I am sympathetic to all these concerns, though I have tended to be a friendly skeptic towards the more futuristic worries in the second basket. As with the above example of Senator Murphy’s tweet, disagreements among A.I. critics are often rooted in the fear that existential arguments will distract from addressing pressing issues about social justice and control.

    Moving forward, individuals will need to judge for themselves who they believe to be genuinely invested in addressing the ethical concerns of A.I. However, we cannot allow healthy skepticism and debate to devolve into a witch hunt among would-be allies and partners.

    Those within the A.I. community need to remember that what brings us together is more important than differences in emphasis that set us apart.

    This moment is far too important.

    Wendell Wallach is a Carnegie-Uehiro Fellow at Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, where co-directs the Artificial Intelligence & Equality Initiative (AIEI). He is Emeritus Chair of the Technology and Ethics study group at the Yale University Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics.

    The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

    More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

    Wendell Wallach

    Source link

  • Federal judge calls out judicial panel’s handling of 2011 ethics complaints against Clarence Thomas | CNN Politics

    Federal judge calls out judicial panel’s handling of 2011 ethics complaints against Clarence Thomas | CNN Politics


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Leaders of the policy-making body for the federal courts repeatedly failed to inform its full membership of complaints raised by lawmakers and watchdog groups about Justice Clarence Thomas’ pattern of nondisclosure on his financial reports more than 10 years ago, a sitting federal judge testified to a Senate panel on Wednesday.

    In 2011, the Judicial Conference received a number of complaints from lawmakers and watchdog groups about Thomas after media reports revealed that he failed to disclose income his wife earned between 1998 and 2003 from The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

    The complaints asked the conference to refer the matter to the US attorney general to probe whether the justice’s behavior ran afoul of a federal ethics law. Thomas quickly amended his reports when the allegations were brought to his attention, leading the body to conclude that no further action was needed.

    But US District Judge Mark Wolf, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said on Wednesday that the full Judicial Conference did not receive notice of the complaints sent to leaders of the conference and therefore couldn’t decide how the body should act on them.

    “This concerned me because the issues raised by the letters were serious,” Wolf said in testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee looking into court ethics.

    “Pursuant to established conference policies and procedures, if the committee (on financial disclosures) had considered the letters, my colleagues on the Judicial Conference and I should have been informed of them in its reports to the Conference, even if the committee was not recommending any action by the Conference,” he said.

    “Such information would have afforded me and the other members of the conference the opportunity to discuss and decide whether there was reasonable cause to believe Justice Thomas had willfully violated the act and, if so, to make the required referral to the attorney general,” Wolf added.

    The decade-old complaints have reentered the spotlight amid recent reports about Thomas’ decision to not disclose years of luxury travel and expensive gifts that were paid for by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, as well as a real estate deal he and his family cut with the donor.

    Those reports have fueled similar calls by lawmakers and watchdog groups for the Judicial Conference to refer the justice to the attorney general for potential violations of the ethics law, and CNN has reported that Thomas intends to amend his financial disclosure forms to reflect the 2014 real estate deal.

    They’ve also put the Judicial Conference, which among other things handles financial disclosure forms submitted by justices and federal judges, in the hot seat. When the 2011 complaints were made, Wolf was serving on the conference, which is comprised of a small selection of federal judges from various courts around the country.

    Earlier this week, the conference defended its decision more than 10 years ago to not refer Thomas to the DOJ to investigate allegations that his pattern of nondisclosure on his financial reports broke federal law.

    Roslynn Mauskopf, the conference’s secretary, explained its reasoning in a letter Monday to Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee looking into court ethics, noting that Thomas “immediately amended his reports” after the issue was raised with the justice.

    “The then-chair of the committee, the Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, reviewed the January 2011 allegations and the amended reports and concluded that the reports were properly amended and that no further action was warranted,” Mauskopf wrote.

    Source link

  • Writer Defends Clarence Thomas’ Free Trips Without Mentioning He Was On The Same Trips

    Writer Defends Clarence Thomas’ Free Trips Without Mentioning He Was On The Same Trips

    That’s because his opinion article failed to mention that he had gone on many of the same excursions that have led to the scandal over Thomas’ failure to disclose the trips hosted by the businessman and his possible conflicts of interest.

    Mark Paoletta posted the piece Thursday on the conservative National Review’s website under the headline “Justice Thomas Acted Properly and Was Not Required to Disclose His Trips.”

    In the article, Paoletta, who was general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration, claims that Thomas did everything properly when it comes to disclosure, even though the allegations were considered serious enough to have them referred to a federal panel that oversees financial disclosure laws.

    Although Paoletta’s article notes that he is friends with Thomas, worked on his 1991 Senate confirmation, co-edited a book on him and represented Ginni Thomas in the House select committee’s Jan. 6 investigation, there is one thing he didn’t disclose that is putting him on the social media hot seat.

    Paoletta didn’t mention that he was on the same trips with Thomas and Crow that raised eyebrows when ProPublica wrote about them earlier this month.

    So a funny thing happened when he posted the op-ed on Twitter: A lot of people showed up with receipts.

    Paoletta’s tweet did inspire one person to make a wish.

    HuffPost reached out to Paoletta for comment, but he did not immediately respond.

    Source link

  • Sen. Wyden asks billionaire Harlan Crow for list of gifts to Supreme Court Justice Thomas

    Sen. Wyden asks billionaire Harlan Crow for list of gifts to Supreme Court Justice Thomas

    Harlan Crow, chairman and chief executive officer of Crow Holdings LLC, sits for a photograph at the Old Parkland estate offices in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, Oct. 2, 2015.

    Chris Goodney | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on Monday asked GOP megadonor Harlan Crow for a complete list of gifts to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and evidence that the billionaire real estate developer complied with federal tax law in connection with the long-undisclosed largesse to Thomas.

    “This unprecedented arrangement between a wealthy benefactor and a Supreme Court justice raises serious concerns related to federal tax and ethics laws,” Wyden, who heads the Senate Finance Committee, wrote in a six-page letter to Crow.

    Wyden’s letter was sent as Thomas and the Supreme Court itself face criticism following an April 6 report by ProPublica that the chairman of Crow Holdings for more than two decades has treated the conservative justice to luxurious trips worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    ProPublica also reported on April 13 that a Crow company in 2014 purchased three properties in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas and his family, including a home where the justice’s mother has lived rent-free for more than a decade.

    The gifted trips to Thomas and his wife, Ginni, were to places such as Indonesia, New Zealand and Greece, with travel on Crow’s private jet and 162-foot superyacht Michaela Rose.

    Thomas had not disclosed any of the gifts from Crow, or the property purchases by him, until they were revealed by ProPublica.

    “The secrecy surrounding your dealings with Justice Thomas is simply unacceptable,” Wyden wrote in his letter to Crow.

    “The American public deserves a full accounting of the full extent of your largesse towards Justice Thomas, including whether these gifts complied with all relevant federal tax and ethics laws,” he wrote.

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., speaks during a Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing on Feb. 23, 2021.

    Greg Nash | Pool | Reuters

    The letter asks for a list of all flights Thomas took on any of Crow’s jets, as well as details of those trips. Wyden requested similar details about the justice’s trips on the Michaela Rose and information about the Georgia property purchases.

    He concluded by writing, “Please list any additional gifts or payments with a value in excess of $1,000 made to Justice Thomas or members of his family since he was sworn into the Supreme Court that
    would not be captured by” the prior questions.

    CNBC Politics

    Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

    Wyden’s letter noted that federal tax law requires the giver of a gift to pay any applicable tax.

    “The IRS has long made clear the gift tax applies to the transferor of a gift, including in cases where
    the transferor provides for the ‘use of property’ without expecting to receive something of at
    least equal value in return,” Wyden wrote.

    In addition to asking Crow for evidence related to the possibility of gift taxes being owed by the business, Wyden asked whether Crow claimed business deductions or depreciation for his plane and yacht related to the trips by Thomas.

    Wyden is the ranking Senate Democrat on Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

    Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas arrives for the swearing-in ceremony of Judge Neil Gorsuch as an associate Supreme Court justice in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, April 10, 2017.

    Joshua Roberts | Reuters

    A spokesman for Crow did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC about Wyden’s letter. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent to the Supreme Court’s media affairs office.

    Last week, Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, invited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to testify about ethics reform of the high court.

    Durbin’s letter to Roberts noted that “there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges.”

    Roberts has yet to reply to that invitation, Durbin noted over the weekend.

    Source link

  • Democrats bash Justice Clarence Thomas but their plan to investigate ethics allegations is unclear | CNN Politics

    Democrats bash Justice Clarence Thomas but their plan to investigate ethics allegations is unclear | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Democrats railed against Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday amid reports that the Supreme Court conservative failed to disclose luxury travel, gifts and a real estate transaction involving a GOP megadonor, but their plan to investigate the conservative jurist remains unclear.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin has promised that his committee will hold a hearing on the alleged ethics violations in the coming weeks, but shared no details when pressed by CNN on whether lawmakers will seek testimony from Thomas or others who might have knowledge about his relationship with the donor, Texas-based billionaire Harlan Crow.

    Asked if subpoenas were on the table, Durbin said that no decision has been made on that yet. He said that it was “too soon” to share more information about what his committee’s hearing on Supreme Court ethics might look like. He and other Judiciary Democrats sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts last week calling for him to open an investigation into the Thomas allegations.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters Tuesday that “the American people deserve all of the facts surrounding Justice Thomas’s blatant violation of law.”

    “I hope that [Thomas] will voluntarily appear, and if not, we should consider subpoenas for him and others, like Harlan Crow, who have information,” Blumenthal said.

    Other Democrats on the committee said Tuesday that they were deferring to Durbin, who huddled with Democrats on Monday evening to discuss their strategy towards Thomas.

    Meanwhile, Republicans appear mostly united in defending the Thomas, suggesting the court can handle its own affairs.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attacked Democrats for criticizing the court, and said he has confidence in Roberts “to deal with these court internal issues.”

    “The Democrats, it seems to me, spent a lot of time criticizing individual members of the court and going after the court as an institution,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

    Bringing more transparency to the high court has had some bipartisan support in the past, but the court’s jerk to the right – particularly with the three justices that former President Donald Trump put on the bench – has raised the partisan stakes around the issue. In recent years, the conservative majority has handled pivotal rulings undoing abortions rights, dismantling gun regulations and reining in the powers of executive branch agencies – all prompting outcry from Democrats.

    Even as Senate Democrats have yet to settle on a plan for their own response to the Thomas allegations, they sought to highlight the issue and framed it within their broader push for a code-of-ethics for the Supreme Court, which is excluded from many of the ethics rules that apply to lower rungs of the federal judiciary.

    “I’m disturbed by the recent reports detailing potentially unethical – even potentially illegal conduct – at the highest levels of our judiciary,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said at a Judiciary Committee hearing for three lower court nominees on Tuesday. “It should go without saying that judges at all levels should be held to strict and enforceable ethical standards.”

    Durbin said in a speech that Congress shouldn’t have to wait for the court to act.

    “The Supreme Court doesn’t need to wait on Congress to clean up its act; the justices could take action today if they wanted to, and if the court fails to act, Congress must,” Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

    Back-to back-reports in ProPublica this month detailed how luxury travel and gifts to Thomas from Crow – and even a real estate transaction – went unreported in Thomas’ annual financial disclosures.

    Thomas has said that the travel and gifts to him and his family that were financed by the Crows went unreported because he had been advised that he was not required to do so, under an exemption in the court’s disclosure rules for so-called “personal hospitality.” After scrutiny of those rules by lawmakers, the Judicial Conference – which operates as the policy-making body for the federal judiciary – recently closed a loophole in those rules that appears to have covered some of the hospitality Thomas received. Thomas said that he intended to follow that updated guidance in the future, and a source close to the justice also told CNN in recent days that he planned to amend his disclosure form to report the real estate transaction, the sale of his mother’s home to Crow.

    “If the reports are accurate, it stinks,” Sen. Mitt Romney said Monday evening, in rare comments from a Republican criticizing Thomas’ lack of transparency.

    Other Republicans lined up in defense of the justice – who was named to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 – and said it wasn’t Congress’ place to push an ethics code on the high court.

    Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, suggested that the accusations against Thomas were part of a “multi-decade effort now to target Clarence Thomas by these liberal activist groups.”

    This is not the first time Thomas has been at the center of an ethics controversy. Last year, CNN reported that his wife Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist, was texting with Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows about the former president’s efforts overturn his 2020 election defeat, and her political lobbying has long raised questions about when justices are obligated to recuse themselves from cases.

    Yet Republicans have shown little interest in joining Democrats in using legislation to impose an ethics code on the justices.

    “The Court, kind of historically I think, has sort of policed itself,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the GOP’s Senate Whip, who said Thomas had been a “solid justice on the court through the years and has acquitted himself well there.”

    “Let’s see what the court does,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told CNN Tuesday. “I prefer them to do it internally.”

    Source link

  • Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose 2014 real estate deal with GOP megadonor, ProPublica report finds | CNN Politics

    Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose 2014 real estate deal with GOP megadonor, ProPublica report finds | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose a 2014 real estate deal he made with a GOP megadonor, according to a ProPublica report published Thursday.

    The deal involved the sale of three properties in Savannah, Georgia, that were owned by Thomas and his relatives to the megadonor, Harlan Crow, according to ProPublica, which said that tax and property records showed that Crow made the purchases through one of his companies for a total of $133,363.

    But Thomas “never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties,” the report said, noting that ethics law experts told the outlet that his failure to report it “appears to be a violation of the law.”

    “The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice,” ProPublica said in its report.

    Thursday’s report comes on the heels of a bombshell investigation published last week by ProPublica that detailed Thomas and his wife’s luxury travel with the Crows, which included trips on the donor’s yacht and private jet. The justice also did not disclose that travel, and he later defended the decision not to, saying in a rare statement last week that he was advised at the time that he did not have to report it.

    CNN has reached out for comment from the Supreme Court and Thomas.

    Crow said in a statement to CNN that he purchased the properties to “one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation’s second black Supreme Court Justice.”

    He added that he made the purchases at “market rate based on many factors including the size, quality, and livability of the dwellings.”

    Though two of the properties were later sold by Crow, according to his statement, the real estate magnate still owns the property on which Thomas’ elderly mother lives. Citing county tax records, ProPublica said one of Crow’s companies pays the “roughly $1,500 in annual property taxes on Thomas’ mother’s house,” which had previously been paid by the justice and his wife, Ginni.

    Experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ failure to disclose the 2014 deal raises more questions about his relationship with Crow.

    “He needed to report his interest in the sale,” Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who now works for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told the outlet. “Given the role Crow has played in subsidizing the lifestyle of Thomas and his wife, you have to wonder if this was an effort to put cash in their pockets.”

    The report has already prompted the watchdog group to call for an investigation into Thomas’ decision not to disclose the real estate deal and the various trips and gifts.

    In a letter sent Friday to Chief Justice John Roberts and Attorney General Merrick Garland, CREW said that Thomas may have violated the Ethics in Government Act. The group said Roberts also should investigate whether Thomas violated his “ethical obligations” under Judicial Conference regulations.

    In the wake of last week’s revelations, congressional Democrats have also called for an investigation into the matter and for a stronger ethics code for the justices, and some federal judges have also spoken out.

    Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it plans to hold a hearing “on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards,” and at least one watchdog group has urged lawmakers to call Thomas as a witness in the upcoming hearing.

    This story has been updated with additional details Friday.

    Source link

  • House Ethics Committee announces investigation into embattled Rep. George Santos | CNN Politics

    House Ethics Committee announces investigation into embattled Rep. George Santos | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday it is officially moving forward with a probe into embattled Rep. George Santos as the New York Republican faces mounting legal issues and calls to resign for extensively lying about his resume and biography.

    The Ethics Committee said in a news release that it voted to set up an investigative subcommittee with authority to look into a number issues, including whether Santos may have engaged in unlawful activity related to his 2022 congressional campaign.

    According to the release, the investigative panel will have jurisdiction to determine whether Santos “may have engaged in unlawful activity with respect to his 2022 congressional campaign; failed to properly disclose required information on statements filed with the House; violated federal conflict of interest laws in connection with his role in a firm providing fiduciary services; and/or engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual seeking employment in his congressional office.”

    Santos responded to the announcement in a tweet.

    “The House Committee on Ethics has opened an investigation, and Congressman George Santos is fully cooperating,” his office’s Twitter account wrote. “There will be no further comment made at this time.”

    Santos told CNN in early February that he is “not concerned” about a House ethics probe or about New York constituents calling on him to resign.

    “You’re saying that the freedom of speech of my constituents is a distraction to my work?” Santos said. “Do you think people are a distraction to the work I’m doing here?”

    In a recent interview with Piers Morgan, Santos also suggested the local grassroots campaigns demanding his ouster were not representative of the district. But a poll released on Monday by Siena College found that 66% of New Yorkers wanted him out – including 58% of Republicans.

    “The ‘good’ news for Santos is that even in these hyper partisan times, he’s found a way to get Democrats, Republicans and independents to agree about a political figure,” pollster Steven Greenberg said in the survey’s release. “The bad news for Santos is that the political figure they agree on is him, and they overwhelmingly view him unfavorably.”

    Apart from outlandish lies about his personal life, academic and professional record, Santos has been implicated in a litany of shady business operations, including his work at Harbor City Capital Corp. in 2020 and 2021, a company the SEC called a “classic Ponzi scheme” in an April 2021 complaint against the firm. (Santos was not listed in the complaint.)

    More potentially damaging, though, might be increased scrutiny of his campaign finances. CNN reported late last year that federal prosecutors in New York were looking into issues surrounding his wealth and loans totaling more than $700,000 he made to his successful 2022 campaign. Santos has repeatedly said the cash he put into the campaign was legally obtained. But a complaint from a campaign watchdog group has questioned the source of that financial windfall. Just two years earlier, Santos had reported a salary of $55,000 and no assets.

    Additionally, the campaign’s bookkeeping has also come under a harsh spotlight, especially following the revelation that his former treasure listed dozens of expenses just a penny beneath the legal threshold for keeping receipts.

    That treasurer, Nancy Marks, has since been replaced. But the true identity of her successor remains a mystery.

    On the Hill, Santos will also now have to answer for an accusation by a prospective staffer who claims Santos made an unwanted sexual advance toward him during a private encounter in the congressman’s office. Shortly after he rebuffed Santos, the accuser says, he was denied a job. Santos has denied the claims.

    The individual, Derek Myers, said in a House Ethics complaint that Santos “touched” his groin before allegedly inviting him to his home and said his husband was out of town, according to a copy of the document provided to CNN last month.

    Santos has brushed off repeated calls for his resignation, including from fellow Republican House members and local Republican officials. He has played coy when asked if he plans to seek re-election, though filed required paperwork to keep the option open.

    GOP leaders in Washington have stopped short of demanding he leave, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy allowed him to be seated to a pair of House committees. Santos, though, chose to withdraw from those assignments as the furor over his lies intensified in late January.

    The Ethics Committee also said in a statement Thursday that it is extending its inquiry into New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and whether she may have accepted unallowed gifts as a member of Congress. The committee released a report by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which said that Ocasio-Cortez “may have accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala in 2021.”

    Counsel for Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement to the committee that “though no Ethics violation has been found, the Office of Congressional Ethics (‘OCE’) did identify that there were delays in paying vendors for costs associated with the Congresswoman’s attendance at the Met Gala. The Congresswoman finds these delays unacceptable, and she has taken several steps to ensure nothing of this nature will ever happen again.”

    “Even after OCE’s exhaustive review of the Congresswoman’s personal communications, there is no record of the Congresswoman refusing to pay for these expenses,” David Mitrani wrote in the letter. “To the contrary, there are several explicit, documented communications, from prior to OCE’s review, that show the Congresswoman understood that she had to pay for these expenses from her own personal funds – as she ultimately did. We are confident the Ethics Committee will dismiss this matter.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    Source link