(Source: Sipa/AP Images)
On Saturday, libertarian magazine Reason highlighted Rep. Justin Amash's (L-MI) recently-introduced bill to end qualified immunity for police officers. Assistant editor Billy Binion writes:
"The insidious legal doctrine allows police officers to violate your civil rights with absolute impunity if those rights have not been spelled out with near-identical precision in preexisting case law. Theoretically, it protects public officials from bogus civil suits, but practically it often allows egregious misconduct.
"George Floyd's death at the hands of former Minneapolis cop Derek Chauvin forced new life into the debate, shining light on a doctrine that many people say has contributed to an environment of police abuse. Amash announced late Sunday that he would introduce the End Qualified Immunity Act, with Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.) signing on as a cosponsor Thursday.
"'It is the sense of the Congress that we must correct the erroneous interpretation of section 1983 which provides for qualified immunity,' the bill reads, 'and reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute, which does not limit liability on the basis of the defendant's good faith beliefs or on the basis that the right was not 'clearly established' at the time of the violation.'
"That 'clearly established' bit is what's most important, as the standard has become increasingly impossible to meet. Two cops in Fresno, California, were afforded qualified immunity after allegedly stealing $225,000 while executing a search warrant because it had not been 'clearly established' in case law that stealing is wrong. An officer with the Los Angeles Police Department was given qualified immunity after shooting, without warning, an unarmed 15-year-old boy who was on his way to school, because the boy's friend was holding a plastic airsoft gun replica. A sheriff's deputy in Coffee County, Georgia, received qualified immunity after shooting a 10-year-old boy while aiming at a nonthreatening dog. The list, unfortunately, goes on."
As of Thursday, Amash's bill has 17 cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats. Binion asks why there are no Republican representatives who have cosponsored it; after all, he says, the party "claims to be the party of small government and freedom, and they now have the opportunity to squash a dangerous doctrine that has put deadly power in the hands of the state at the expense of the little guy."
To answer Binion's question, let's focus on the House Liberty Caucus, a group of libertarian-leaning House members founded and chaired by Amash. His fellow members are Republican Reps. Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, Warren Davidson and Jim Jordan of Ohio, Morgan Griffith of Virginia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Additionally, the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) is a trade association that claims to be "one of the largest U.S. law enforcement organizations." Why does this matter? Well, the association has corporate "platinum partners" -- such as Alkermes, AT&T, Motorola Solutions, and Verizon -- that have donated to the aforementioned members of Congress this election cycle. Below is a list of each of the seven other Liberty Caucus members and how much money they have taken from the NSA's platinum partners:
Andy Biggs: Biggs has taken $5,000 in PAC money from AT&T.
Warren Davidson: Davidson has taken $5,000 in PAC money from AT&T, and $1,000 from Verizon. Additionally, he has received contributions from leadership PACs, including $5,000 from Eye of the Tiger PAC (which has received $10,000 from AT&T, $1,500 from Motorola Solutions, and another $10,000 from Verizon), $2,500 from Innovation PAC (which has received $5,000 from AT&T), and $10,000 from Majority Committee PAC (which has received $5,000 from AT&T and $10,000 from Verizon).
Paul Gosar: Gosar has taken $2,000 in PAC money from AT&T.
Morgan Griffith: Griffith has taken $1,000 in PAC money from Alkermes, and $3,000 from AT&T. Additionally, he has received contributions from leadership PACs, including $3,000 from CMR PAC (which has received $5,000 from AT&T and $3,500 from Verizon) and $10,000 from Majority Committee PAC.
Jim Jordan: Jordan has taken $1,000 in PAC money from AT&T. Additionally, he has received contributions from leadership PACs, including $7,500 from Eye of the Tiger PAC, $2,500 from Great America Committee (which has received $5,000 from AT&T), and $10,000 from Majority Committee PAC.
Thomas Massie: Massie has taken $3,000 in PAC money from AT&T. Additionally, he has received contributions from leadership PACs, including $5,000 from Reinventing a New Direction (which has received $5,000 from AT&T and $2,500 from Verizon).
Scott Perry: Perry has taken $5,000 in PAC money from AT&T. Additionally, he has received contributions from leadership PACs, including $5,000 from Citizens for Prosperity in America Today (which has received $5,000 from AT&T and $1,000 from Verizon), $5,000 from Eye of the Tiger PAC, $1,000 from Jobs, Energy & Our Founding Fathers PAC (which has received $5,000 from AT&T), and $10,000 from Majority Committee PAC.
So, to answer Binion's question, it appears as if the reason more Republicans, particularly libertarians, in Congress are not latching onto Amash's bill is because, as usually, money talks. At a time when so many police officers are violating Americans' civil rights, currently during ongoing peaceful protests, it is unfortunate that Congress is seemingly prioritizing their big-money donors' interests over these violations.
Comments