Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.
The members of Congress may occasionally be sloppy boobs, but we must defer to them when their intent is clear. That's the main message of the Supreme Court decision handed down this morning that protects Obamacare. The issue at hand was whether what was essentially a typo—a poorly worded sentence in the law—could be used to deny health care insurance subsidies to millions of Americans in states where the federal government (not the state government) set up an exchange in which consumers can purchase insurance. Writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts told the conservative plaintiffs who had tried to exploit a drafting error (which mentioned only exchanges created by states and not the federal government) to get out of town.
The majority opinion is mostly dry, with Roberts devoting much attention to justifying the court's decision to consider the full intent of the law and not just the meaning of a few words in a single sentence. Here are some of the best passages:
1. When analyzing an agency's interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach "is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). "In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation." Ibid.
This is one of those cases... If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). But oftentimes the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Id., at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is "to construe statutes, not isolated provisions." Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290 (2010).
2. If we give the phrase "the State that established the Exchange" its most natural meaning, there would be no "qualified individuals" on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange.
As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to "make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals"—something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. §18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider "the interests of qualified individuals . . . in the State or States in which such Exchange operates"—again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. §18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create "one Exchange . . . for providing . . . services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers," rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).
These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase "established by the State" in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.
3. The upshot of all this is that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits.
4. The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.
5. Anyway, we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]" is unambiguous.
6. Petitioners' arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]" may seem plain "when viewed in isolation," such a reading turns out to be "untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole." Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.
7. In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—"to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.
8. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress's plan, and that is the reading we adopt.
Spencer Zwick has been the most courted political fundraiser in GOP circles. He pulled in nearly $1 billion for Mitt Romney's unsuccessful 2012 campaign. So, naturally, several 2016 Republican contenders this year have been trying to rope him in. But, as Politicoreports, Zwick has rebuffed all the candidates in favor of becoming chairman of America Rising PAC, an outfit dedicated to developing and disseminating opposition research targeting Hillary Clinton. The group was co-founded by Matt Rhoades, who ran Romney's 2012 effort. This move certainly seems to guarantee that this get-Clinton crusade will be generously funded.
Clinton's critics on the right (and the left) have howled about how the Clinton clan blurs the lines between politics and private finance. And Zwick, in his own way, is a good example of this phenomenon. Earlier this year, when Romney was toying with the notion of a third White House run, I wrote a piece noting that the former Massachusetts governor could encounter a conflict-of-interest problem should he run, because since 2013 he had been helping to run Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm co-founded by his son Taggart and Zwick. This raised obvious questions for Romney: Who were Solamere's investors, and what was the firm investing in? But when Romney decided against one more try, those queries evaporated.
Yet Solamere remained an interesting firm—something of a model for exploiting political contacts for financial gain (and vice versa). Here's how my previous article described the Romney-Zwick venture:
Solamere's bare website...only describes the company as "a collection of families and influential business leaders leveraging their broad networks and industry expertise to invest strategic capital." But the firm has recruited scores of investors willing to give the Romneys millions, and it has invested in an untold number of other funds and companies. Any of these parties—the investors or the investments—could pose a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate or raise a significant question. Has Solamere invested in companies that outsource? Or in overseas firms that compete with US firms? Has it drawn investments from people or corporations at home or abroad that want to curry favor with a possible president? Might the companies and private equity firms Solamere invests in have an interest in lobbying a future Romney administration? There is no way for the public to know; the firm does not disclose any information on its investors or investments....
Shortly after Romney ended his presidential bid in early 2008, Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, who had been the Romney campaign's financial director, formed Solamere, which was named after a ritzy part of Utah's Deer Valley, where the Romney family owned a ski mansion. As the New York Timesreported, "Neither had experience in private equity. But what the close friends did have was the Romney name and a Rolodex of deep-pocketed potential investors who had backed Mr. Romney's presidential run." The pair brought in a third partner, Eric Scheuermann, who did have years of private equity experience. In its early days, the firm seemed part of the Romney network. At one point, Solamere shared an address with Romney's political action committee. It solicited investments from the well heeled, generally seeking a minimum of a $10 million buy-in. According to the Times, Mitt and Ann Romney sank a "critical, early" $10 million into their son's venture, signaling that the firm had Mitt's blessing, which Tagg and his crew could use as a selling point as they chased after funding from others.
In 2008, Solamere set out to raise $200 million, and by May 2009 it had attracted $186 million from 39 investors, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records. Tagg Romney, Zwick, and Scheuermann, the records noted, would receive an estimated $16.8 million in management fees in the first six years. The records do not indicate the identities of the 39 investors who kicked in the initial financing. But other public records show that corporate titan Meg Whitman, a longtime friend and political ally of Mitt Romney, invested more than $1 million in Solamere. The University of Utah put about $1 million if its endowment into the firm's fund. H. Lee Scott Jr., the former CEO of Walmart and short-time member of the board of Goldman Sachs, was an early investor, became a partner, and served on Solamere's investment committee. Tagg Romney told the Times that his early investors included a few NASCAR drivers, two NFL quarterbacks, and nine heads of other private equity firms. One of Solamere's initial investments was in a North Carolina financial-services firm operated by former officials of a financial company run by Allen Stanford, who was later convicted of running a massive Ponzi scheme. These officials had come from the Charlotte office of the Stanford Financial Group, which had been closed by the feds for selling phony certificates of deposit.
During the 2012 election, with Zwick helping to run Solamere and simultaneously raising money for Mitt Romney's presidential bid, government ethics advocates questioned the probity of the coziness between Romney's political funders and his fellow Solamere investors. Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution told the Boston Globe that Solamere was an example of how business and political elites operate "in the first-class compartment."
Four months after Romney flamed-out as a presidential candidate, Solamere announced that he would "play a greater role" at the firm, chairing its executive committee and participating on its investment committee. "We believe that Governor Romney's experience and insight in private investing will enhance Solamere's distinctiveness," the firm said in an email to investors.
With Mitt Romney more involved, Solamere expanded. And demand to be in business with Romney was high. The firm, according to Fortune, was seeking about $300 million for a second round of investment. In the email to investors, Solamere noted, "We feel strongly that there is value in not raising too large of a fund, and therefore anticipate keeping the size to a level we feel we can appropriately manage within our desired band of target returns." But in May 2014, Solamere Capital filed reports with the SEC noting it had created two new funds, with 200 investors investing a total of $472 million. (Five months later, Solamere reported these two funds had actually drawn $527 million from 215 investors.) Investor interest had been so intense that the firm had raised its self-imposed limit on the size of the funds to accommodate all the investors who wanted to be in bed with Mitt and Tagg Romney. These new funds would invest in other private equity funds and invest directly in private companies.
Solamere freely mixed politics and business. In June 2013, as it was hunting for investors, the firm sponsored a policy conference convened by Mitt Romney at an exclusive resort in Park City, Utah, which attracted Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan as speakers. At the same time—and in the same place—Solamere hosted a conference for investors. As the Washington Post reported, "The concentration of wealthy Romney backers in one place is a natural draw for politicians with national ambitions. But, as Solamere investors acknowledged, the gathering also provided them with potential targets, lending the retreat an aura of personal enrichment along with the focus on public policy."
With America Rising digging for information on the Clintons' political-financial nexus, Zwick is the right guy to lead the organization. He sure knows how this game is played.
When Donald Trump strode onto the stage at Trump Tower on Tuesday to announce he would enter the Republican race for president, a rock and roll anthem blared: Neil Young’s "Rockin’ in the Free World." It was an odd choice, given that the 1989 song seemed to slam a Republican administration for not giving a damn about the poor. And Young has taken exception to Trump's appropriation of his tune. A statement issued to Mother Jones for Young by his longtime manager Elliot Roberts suggests Young was not pleased by Trump's use of the song:
Donald Trump's use of "Rockin' in the Free World" was not authorized. Mr. Young is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders.
In other words, it may be a free world, but you're not free to steal my song.
There were many absurd moments during Jeb Bush's official I'm-running-for-president announcement on Monday. But the most Bizarro World instance might have come when Bush, the brother of the president who committed one of the greatest strategic blunders in US history, and the candidate who has enlisted the architects of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq as his own foreign policy advisers, embraced the right's Obama-is-feckless meme. Bush slammed President Barack Obama and his foreign policy team for failing "to be the peacemakers." He added, "With their phone-it-in foreign policy, the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed."
This has become a conservative mantra: Obama has done nothing to counter the foes of the United States. Forgotten are the raid that nabbed Osama bin Laden, the drone strikes that have decimated Al Qaeda, the special forces assaults on the Taliban, and the bombing raids mounted against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Obama's moves in the fight against these extremists are certainly open to debate. But his conservative critics keep insisting the guy essentially does nothing. Note Bush's brazen accusation that Obama refuses to oppose violence.
Running for president is tough. Candidates must spend long stretches on the road, devote many hours to sucking up to rich people to raise a boatload of money, and eat tons of bad food. Yet those who take the leap usually don't whine about all this. But not Ted Cruz. In one of the more unusual fundraising emails of this campaign season, Cruz, a tea party GOP senator from Texas, bitches about the hardships he is forced to endure as an official presidential wannabe.
In the note, Cruz moans that he's "sacrificing a great deal" to seek the White House. He has less time with his family. He and his wife Heidi, who until recently was a Goldman Sachs executive, are taking a financial hit because of the campaign. His personal time is encroached upon by campaign obligations. ("My days are no longer my own," he grouses. "Days start before dawn and many times don't end until early the next morning.") And, perhaps worst of all, the food is lousy, and—OMG!—campaigning interferes with his sleep needs: "My runoff campaign for the Senate in 2012 took a toll, but now I'm sacrificing even more sleep with long nights and constant travel."
The only thing that seems to be missing from the solicitation is this: Bwaaaaaaaaa!
But here's his pitch: if Cruz can suffer through all these awful sacrifices, other "courageous conservatives" can "make an instant and secure sacrificial gift" to his campaign. From $35 to $1000.
In other words, while Cruz is putting up with a "pizza diet" to advance the conservative cause, right-wingers ought to at least kick in the money for his junk food and hotel rooms.
If Cruz is now griping about the lack of sleep, imagine how much he'll complain if he does become president.
Here's the email:
Dear ----- ,
I'm about to ask you to make a sacrifice in the next 48 hours. But before I do, I want you to know: I wouldn't ask you if I hadn't already done it myself.
Please let me briefly explain.
You see, running for President of the United States is a significant sacrifice. Only through prayer and many late night discussions with my wife, family, and closest friends did I make THE decision. And I must share with you -- I've committed to sacrificing a great deal for our campaign:
Time with my family: Spending almost every day on the campaign trail or fighting on the Senate floor means precious little time spent with my wife, Heidi, and my daughters -- the very family that gives me the motivation and drive to fight.
Health and sleep: My runoff campaign for the Senate in 2012 took a toll, but now I'm sacrificing even more sleep with long nights and constant travel. And the pizza diet is a staple on the campaign trail.
Finances: the cost of campaigning back and forth across the country for president is increasingly expensive, but Heidi and I are willing to invest our livelihoods into this sacrifice.
Personal time: You think of this the least, but as a candidate, my days are no longer my own. Days start before dawn and many times don't end until early the next morning. There is almost no personal time when you run for president.
------, I've chosen to sacrifice part of mine and my families lives to run for President -- but I think you will agree with me that the sacrifice is well worth it.
Unless courageous conservatives are willing to make tough sacrifices to stand up and fight, we will not be able to restore America.
Will you be a courageous conservative and make a special gift today to help restore America? I can only reach this goal with your help.
I wouldn't ask you if 1) I wasn't willing to make the same sacrifice myself; and 2) the stakes weren't so high.
------, time is critical, and if you will, please make this special gift in the next 48 hours -- I would be so grateful.