CCP Chairman Brad Smith appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” today to talk about a controversy manufactured by Common Cause in an attempt to discredit Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (and the Court’s majority decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).
The segment, 8:30 long, also features Arn Pearson of Common Cause.
A rushed transcript of the segment appears after the jump…
>>> with all due deference to separation of powers, last week the supreme court reversed a century of law that i believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations. to spend without limit in our elections. i don’t think american elections should be bankrolled by america’s most powerful interests.
>> welcome back to “hardball.” president obama made clear in that speech he opposed the ruling in the cases known as citizens united. now the group xhoun cause is pushing for an investigation into whether supreme court justice thomas had a conflict of interest. orrin pierce is pushing for that investigation, former — charm bradley smith also joins us. he says common cause is wrong. so we have both sides here. orrin, let me ask you this question. did justice thomas take money or gain any kind of perk or any kind of favor from a group that had an interest in a — did he take anything from a koch brothers or anyone that had an interest in a supreme court decision?
>> well, no, justice thomas didn’t take any money. that isn’t the standard.
>> does did he get any benefits? that’s usually what we look for in conflict of interest. did he tyke anything? did he get anything? any favors? any benefits at all that might have influenced a decision he voted on?
>> no, he didn’t. hi wife had a financial interest that we have raised in this matter action and he had — there’s an appearance of conflict, which is actually the standard. in order to recuse a judge, you don’t need a judge to receive a financial benefit.
>> then what’s the appearance? i didn’t know about this meeting out there. you’re saying because he went to a meeting of the federalist society, and that’s all over the place in this town. i didn’t know they were a discredited organization or conservative legal society. you’re saying to appear before the federalist society is a conflict of interest?
>> no, it’s not appearing before the federalist society. we’re raising questions about whether he attended a closed-door political strategy and fund-raising in the session by koch industries and paid his way is there by the federalist society.
>> i see. in other words, this was a pass-through to get him to go to a koch brothers event. is that what you’re saying?
>> that’s what it appears to be. we raised the question, because koch industries put out a letter touting their past events had featured justices thomas and scalia. when we raised those questions, the court put out an official statement saying they spoke as a federalist dinner sponsored by the kochs and justice thomas just dropped by. we went back and looked at his disclosures forms, and he had his accommodations and meals paid for in sunny palm springs for four days.
>> by the federalist society. i nigh you threw in the sunny part to slant it — it’s not funny.
>> no, it’s not. he went to a federalist society meeting, and i just want to know, has any associate justice or supreme court or federal judge talked before a common cause event, to your knowledge?
>> no, i haven’t, but you’re misunderstanding.
>> no, i’m asking, has the supreme court justice ever spoken to a common cause event at all?
>> no. what other groups do you not want a supreme court justice to speak to?
>> this isn’t about the federalest society. we’re not challenging an event. what we’re raising a question about is whether he attended a political strategy and fund-raising closed-door session with koch industries.
>> do you know if he did?
>> the judges appear.
>> did he? are you accusing him of doing that? are you accusing him of involving himself in conservative strategy that would affect a supreme court ruling? conservative strategy?
>> it appears that koch industries has said he intended. his disclosure forms show him in palm springs for four days on days that appear to be the same day.
>> okay. so it’s a federal society meeting, they paid for his trip out there, he stayed a few extra days he shouldn’t have. fine. that’s your point. now, the question is, do you know if he participated in a strategy meeting yourself? would you swear to the fact that he was at a strategy meeting — i don’t think they should have anything to do with the ko counter. h brothers. are you saying he sat in a strategy meeting with him?
>> no.
>> what are you saying?
>> we’re asking the question.
>> you’re asking the question.
>> we don’t have the information. we’re asking the question. we asked the justice department to investigate.
>> let’s hear from the other gentleman.
>> well, chris — i think — there are legitimate interests about — justice breyer’s does it, scalia does it, thomas does it, and some people say they should take the approach, but justice thomas has been on the supreme court for over 20 years. he’s voted to strike down as unconstitutional every single campaign finance case that’s come before him. nobody thinks his decision has anything to do with, you know, him having spoken to a group of people that immediate meet that talk about political issues.
>> your response, arn? you’re saying it affects his decision?
>> i think if the — if a liberate justice had attended a democracy aliancalliance, strategy and —
>> but you don’t know —
>> the republicans would be up in arms.
>> but you don’t know — i just asked you, are you charging an associate justice with sitting in on a strategy session?
>> i am raising the question, based on the koch industries’ own statement that he was featured at a strategy session, and by his disclosure forms that suggest that he was there, and asking the court to provide the american public with a clear explanation of whether he was there or not.
>> and he was at a corh brothers there, a federalist society event or koch brothers event.
>> exactly.
>> i’m asking the question. was he at a federalist society event, which he clearly put on his form, four days paid for, he’s not denying it, he said he was there, he did that. you’re saying it was something different he was a koch brothers event?
>> we think there’s a strong likelihood that it was, yeah. there’s no record of a federalist society event, so —
>> okay. mr. smith?
>> let me take this further, of course, to give the nature of the complaint. they have several counts. one of alleged counts, so to speak is that clarence thomas is on the supreme court. engine ip ginny tom was worked for, at on the board runs a man who runs a consulting business. one of his clients at times has been the koch brothers. the koch brothers used the constitutional liberties that the court affirmed. and the koch brothers then used that liberty in the last campaign. from that common cause wants you to hold that justice clarence thomas i just don’t think — it’s just a partisan effort to sort of discredit the court, and it’s the kind of thing that historically liberalists have sort of championed the independence of the court. we shouldn’t let conservatives or others maid broadsided attacks, and i think common caution is engaging in that tactic, not to excuse what conserve ’tises may have done in the past. there’s no question of bias here and this complaint is just to gain attention and try to discredit the court.
