Trump's Higher Impunity Revisited

Introduction - the New York Times Notes Trump's History of Impunity

In today's New York Times, and article entitled "New Trump Charges Highlight Long-Running Questions About Obstruction" touched on former President Donald Trump's long history

of gamesmanship on his part with prosecutors, regulators and others who have the ability to impose penalties on his conduct.

in the context of the recent charges of obstruction of justice after the Department of Justice found he had absconded to Mar-a-Lago with multiple confidential government documents, then tried to cover this up.  

The article further stated that "over many decades" Trump

 engaged in gamesmanship with prosecutors, regulators and officials who had authority in aspects of the industries in which he operated. He lived in a New York City where corruption touched aspects of the political and government establishments and the real-estate construction businesses, and he came to believe that everything could be worked out through some kind of deal

However, it provided no detail about how he had maintained his impunity over his long career prior to winning the presidency in 2016.

Yet, by early in that presidency, there was substantial documentation of this impunity.  In fact, in 2018, our post "A Higher Impunity - How Can we Reduce Health Care Leadership's Impunity When the President Claims His Own Impunity? summarized the best documented cases.  So to supplement the NYT article, I have re-upped the relevant content of that post below.

Examples of Donald Trump and Family's Apparent Impunity Before He Became President

As a wealthy businessman, Donald Trump and his family were often linked to apparently illegal activities, but seemed to avoid any intensive investigation, much less negative consequences.

A 2016 Politico article cataloged Trump's ties to organized crime, and found "Some of Trump’s unsavory connections have been followed by investigators and substantiated in court; some haven’t." Also,

Trump’s career has benefited from a decades-long and largely successful effort to limit and deflect law enforcement investigations into his dealings with top mobsters, organized crime associates, labor fixers, corrupt union leaders, con artists and even a one-time drug trafficker whom Trump retained as the head of his personal helicopter service.

We have found numerous examples, which are below listed chronologically according to the time of occurrence of relevant events.

Trump Accused of Lying to Federal Investigators about his Mafia Connections in the 1980s

A WNYC piece from October, 2016, was based on an interview with a federal prosecutor who had investigated organized crime in the 1980s,

Attorney Kenneth McCallion was one of the federal prosecutors involved in that investigation. He says there appeared to be a sweetheart deal between the Teamsters Local 282 and Trump, where Trump would get a promise of cooperation from organized labor—including breaking up any strikes by minority workers—in exchange for no-show jobs, a lucrative concrete contract and a luxury apartment for the union president's girlfriend.

'After we indicted them, the Teamster leaders called a citywide strike, but there were two job sites they exempted from that. One was Trump Tower and the other was Trump Plaza,' McCallion said.

Yet despite this, Trump was never prosecuted.

'Even though Donald Trump lied to law enforcement about his relationship and lying to federal agents is a federal crime, he basically got a pass at that point,' he said.

Trump Accused in Legal Papers of Accepting Kickbacks, but the Charges were not Investigated

The 2016 Politico article also noted:

[An associate of a convicted racketeer] in court papers accused Trump of taking kickbacks from contractors, asserting this could 'be the basis of a criminal proceeding requiring an attorney general’s investigation' into Trump. Trump then quickly settled, paying the woman a half-million dollars.

No further investigation ensued.

After a Judge Found that he Conspired to Violate Fiduciary Duty and Committed Fraud, Trump was able to Settle with Details Sealed

Again in Politico,

In 1991, a federal judge, Charles E. Stewart Jr., ruled that Trump had engaged in a conspiracy to violate a fiduciary duty, or duty of loyalty, to the workers and their union and that the 'breach involved fraud and the Trump defendants knowingly participated in his breach.' The judge did not find Trump’s testimony to be sufficiently credible and set damages at $325,000. The case was later settled by negotiation, and the agreement was sealed.

It is not clear that Trump was personally responsible for paying whatever the settlement entailed.  No criminal charges apparently followed.  

Applying for a Casino License, Trump Failed to Disclose he was Under Grand Jury Investigation, but Later Kept his License

As also reported by Politico, when Trump was trying to obtain a license for a New Jersey gambling casino,

Trump was required to disclose any investigations in which he might have been involved in the past, even if they never resulted in charges. Trump didn’t disclose a federal grand jury inquiry into how he obtained an option to buy the Penn Central railroad yards on the West Side of Manhattan. The failure to disclose either that inquiry or the Cody inquiry probably should have disqualified Trump from receiving a license under the standards set by the gaming authorities.

But it didn't. And despite the fact that

Once Trump was licensed in 1982, critical facts that should have resulted in license denial began emerging in Trump’s own books and in reports by Barrett—an embarrassment for the licensing commission and state investigators, who were supposed to have turned these stones over. Forced after the fact to look into Trump’s connections, the two federal investigations he failed to reveal and other matters, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement investigators circled the wagons to defend their work. First they dismissed as unreliable what mobsters, corrupt union bosses and Trump’s biggest customer, among others, had said to Barrett, to me and other journalists and filmmakers about their dealings with Trump. The investigators’ reports showed that they then put Trump under oath. Trump denied any misconduct or testified that he could not remember. They took him at his word. That meant his casino license was secure even though others in the gambling industry, including low-level licensees like card dealers, had been thrown out for far less.

Trump's Casino Company Paid Multiple Fines for Violating Regulations, but Trump was not Personally Sanctioned 

An Atlantic article from January, 2017, stated,

Trump has been repeatedly fined for breaking rules related to his operation of casinos. In 1990, with Trump Taj Mahal in trouble, Trump’s father Fred strolled in and bought 700 chips worth a total of $3.5 million. The purchase helped the casino pay debt that was due, but because Fred Trump had no plans to gamble, the New Jersey gaming commission ruled that it was a loan that violated operating rules. Trump paid a $30,000 fine; in the end, the loan didn’t prevent a bankruptcy the following year. As noted above, New Jersey also fined Trump $200,000 for arranging to keep black employees away from mafioso Robert LiButti’s gambling table. In 1991, the Casino Control Commission fined Trump’s company another $450,000 for buying LiButti nine luxury cars. And in 2000, Trump was fined $250,000 for breaking New York state law in lobbying to prevent an Indian casino from opening in the Catskills, for fear it would compete against his Atlantic City casinos.

Also, while Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of a rival casino,

the Federal Trade Commission fined him $750,000 for failing to disclose his purchases of stock in the two companies, which exceeded minimum disclosure levels.

Trump and Family were Accused of Self-Dealing and Accepting Illegal Donations while Operating the Trump Foundation, but were not Individually Penalized

Also reported by the Atlantic,

The [Trump] foundation appears to have broken IRS rules on 'self-dealing” by paying to resolve the legal disputes as well as buying a portrait of Trump and a Tim Tebow helmet that went back to the Trump family. In November, in tax filings posted online, the Trump Foundation said it had violated self-dealing rules in 2015 and in previous, indeterminate, years. On the donation, Trump and Bondi both say there was no quid-pro-quo, but the donation was an illegal one for a charitable nonprofit, and the foundation had to pay a $2,500 fine. Liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington charges other laws may have been broken as well. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has reportedly launched an investigation into the foundation. Schneiderman has also informed the foundation that it is in violation of rules on fundraising and ordered it to quit. Trump has announced plans to shutter his foundation, but reportedly cannot do so while it is under investigation.

Yet so far no person has been charged with any related violations. Note that it appears that Trump may have had leverage on Mr Schneiderman, who has now resigned (see below).  Although there were reports in 2017 that the Foundation was going to shut down, as of March, 2018, according to an article in The Hill, the ranking Democratic member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was still trying to get records related to the self-dealing described above from the leadership of the apparently still existing foundation (look here). 

Trump's Taj Mahal Casino Was Fined for Breaking Rules about Money Laundering, but Trump Paid no Penalties

A May, 2017, CNN story stated,

The Trump Taj Mahal casino broke anti-money laundering rules 106 times in its first year and a half of operation in the early 1990s, according to the IRS in a 1998 settlement agreement.

It's a bit of forgotten history that's buried in federal records held by an investigative unit of the Treasury Department, records that congressional committees investigating Trump's ties to Russia have obtained access to, CNN has learned.

The casino repeatedly failed to properly report gamblers who cashed out $10,000 or more in a single day, the government said.

Trump's casino ended up paying the Treasury Department a $477,000 fine in 1998 without admitting any liability under the Bank Secrecy Act.

There is no record suggesting anyone looked into Trump's involvement with these violations. Note that

The 1998 settlement was publicly reported at the time, and the Associated Press noted it was the largest fine the federal government ever slapped on a casino for violating the Bank Secrecy Act.

However,

But key details of the casino's cash reporting violations are missing from the publicly released documents, including the identities of the gamblers and casino employees involved in the transactions.

Then, in 2015, FINCEN publicly announced:

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today imposed a $10 million civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort (Trump Taj Mahal), for willful and repeated violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In addition to the civil money penalty, the casino is required to conduct periodic external audits to examine its anti-money laundering (AML) BSA compliance program and provide those audit reports to FinCEN and the casino’s Board of Directors.

Trump Taj Mahal, a casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, admitted to several willful BSA violations, including violations of AML program requirements, reporting obligations, and recordkeeping requirements. Trump Taj Mahal has a long history of prior, repeated BSA violations cited by examiners dating back to 2003. Additionally, in 1998, FinCEN assessed a $477,700 civil money penalty against Trump Taj Mahal for currency transaction reporting violations.

'Trump Taj Mahal received many warnings about its deficiencies,' said FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery. 'Like all casinos in this country, Trump Taj Mahal has a duty to help protect our financial system from being exploited by criminals, terrorists, and other bad actors. Far from meeting these expectations, poor compliance practices, over many years, left the casino and our financial system unacceptably exposed.'

Trump Taj Mahal admitted that it failed to implement and maintain an effective AML program; failed to report suspicious transactions; failed to properly file required currency transaction reports; and failed to keep appropriate records as required by the BSA. Notably, Trump Taj Mahal had ample notice of these deficiencies as many of the violations from 2012 and 2010 were discovered in previous examinations.

Again, there is no record of any negative consequences for Mr Trump

Trump Made False Statements Under Oath, but was not Charged with Perjury

A Mother Jones article published February, 2016, recounted that in connection with a libel suit Mr Trump filed against journalist Timothy O'Brien alleging O'Brien under-reported Mr Trump's wealth,

In 2007—two years before a New Jersey judge tossed out the case—Trump was questioned during a deposition. Over the course of the two-day-long interrogation, Trump was forced repeatedly to acknowledge having made false statements. And at one point, a lawyer for O’Brien and his publisher asked Trump a straightforward question: Have you ever before associated with individuals you knew were associated with organized crime?'

Trump, who was testifying under oath, answered, 'Not that I know of.'

That was a clear and unequivocal response. But it was not true. Two years earlier, O’Brien had interviewed Trump and specifically asked him about Sullivan and Shapiro. O’Brien, now an editor and writer at Bloomberg, has provided Mother Jones with a transcript of the interview, and it conclusively shows that Trump believed that these two men were associated with organized crime....

Trump: They were tough guys. In fact, they say that Dan Sullivan was the guy that killed Jimmy Hoffa. I don’t know if you ever heard that.

O’Brien: I have heard that. And that he was, you know…

Also,

Trump: I just was able to handle them. And I, really, I was able to handle them. I found Sullivan to be the tougher of the two. I started hearing reports about Sullivan, that he killed Jimmy Hoffa….

Also,

O’Brien: What was Shapiro like?

Trump: He was like a third-rate, local, real estate mob guy. Nothing spectacular. And I, you know, I got lucky. I heard a rumor that Sullivan, because Sullivan was a great con man, I heard a rumor that Sullivan killed Jimmy Hoffa. And because I heard that rumor I kept my guard up. You know, I said, 'Hey, I don’t want to be friends with this guy.'

So here was Trump connecting Sullivan to the Hoffa murder and calling Shapiro a 'mob guy.'

The same article also asserted that Trump lied in a deposition about knowing and working with Felix Sater, who who "had once been involved in a Mafia-linked stock swindle," and who "had worked with the Trump Organization."

Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr Escaped Indictment for Fraud

As reported by the New Yorker in October, 2017, despite considerable evidence that the two children of Donald Trump had misled potential buyers of Trump SoHo condominiums, Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan District Attorney overruled his staff by halting an investigation of them in 2010.  Later, the Trumps' attorney, Marc Kasowitz, made a large donation to Mr Vance's campaign.   

Trump University Settled Fraud Allegations, Trump Not Charged

As reported by the New York Times in 2017, "the final settlement of allegations that 'Trump University students had been cheated out of thousands of dollars in tuition through high-pressure sales techniques and false claims about what they would learn" was approved by a judge. Litigation about these allegations had gone on for years, but after his election in November, Mr. Trump reversed course and agreed to pay $25 million to resolve the litigation. He did not admit fault, and he maintained in posts on Twitter after the settlement announcement that he "did not have the time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U."

The settlement resolved lawsuits brought by the Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, among others.  However, Mr Trump was never charged with a crime by Mr Schneiderman among others.  There is some reason to think Mr Trump took actions to ensure his impunity.

According to Bloomberg on May 11, 2018,

Back in 2013, Donald Trump was exploring a presidential run. His Trump University was in the crosshairs of New York’s crusading attorney general. Around the same time, Trump and his personal lawyer got an interesting piece of information: Eric Schneiderman, the AG, was accused of sexually abusing two women.

The details of the accusations were not made public at that time, but later,

Trump took aim at Schneiderman in a tweet on Sept. 11, 2013, that also referred to New York politicians who’d resigned over allegations of sexual misconduct, Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer.

'Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone -- next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner,' Trump tweeted.

Mr Schneiderman never brought criminal charges against Mr Trump.  Could it be that he was made aware that Trump had information about Schneiderman's sexual behavior that he could use against him? This month, the allegations of his sexual misconduct were finally made public and he then resigned.  The settlement, again absent any charges against Mr Trump, was approved in March, 2017.

Summary of Trump's Pre-Presidency Impunity

While Trump's firms have had to pay multiple fines for breaking rules and laws, and Trump and the immediate family members who work with him in the Trump Organization were credibly accused of multiple types of wrong-doing, including various apparent crimes, neither Trump nor his family members were ever indicted, or apparently investigated for crimes.

Summary

We concluded our 2018 post by summarizing how Trump's record of impunity made it much more difficult to push to address health care corruption and related issues.  But since 2018, we have become more aware of the multitudinous effects that Trump's corruption has degraded our society and representative democracy.  Lately, some have suggested that Trump would drag us into authoritarianism if not fascism simply to keep his sorry self out of jail.  See, for example,  Netanyahu and Trump: two desperate men exploiting power to save themselves.

 There were examples going back decades showing how Trump eluded accountability and justice by manipulating the system.  They were reported at the times they occurred, recalled by journalists before and soon after Trump's 2016 election victory, and largely ignored.

Maybe if we as a society had been paying better attention, we would all be in a better place today. 

Haunted by the Impunity of Rich Business Leaders - Will One Criminal Conviction make a Difference? The Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Pleads Guilty

 Impunity: an Introduction

We believe that unaccountable leadership is a major cause of health care dysfunction.  Impunity is an extreme form of unaccountable leadership.

We have noted that despite numerous legal settlements made by health care organizations of allegations like fraud, bribery, and kickbacks, almost never do top leaders who presided over these actions face any negative consequences.  Lack of deterrence caused by such impunity appears to be a major cause of  the epidemic of continuing unethical behavior, crime and corruption on the part of large health care organizations. How executives got to the point of having such impunity has never been clear.

But consider two important cases.  

Columbia/HCA CEO Not Held Responsible for Defrauding the Federal Government in 2003

 In 2010, we described the case of early dominant for-profit hospital system Columbia/HCA, which, after investigations beginning in the late 1990s, settled charges of defrauding the federal government.  The company paid a fine of $1.7 billion, a record amount at that time, but did not admit guilt.  More importantly, the company CEO, Rick Scott, was not charged with anything, suffered no negative consequences even though it was on his watch that the company was involved in apparently fraudulent behavior, and retired with a large golden parachute.  

Mr Scott then went on to be elected Governor of, then Senator from Florida as a Republican.  He is still in the Senate, and has become a big supporter for former President Trump.

In 2010 we wrote:

we have noted a parade of legal settlements involving and guilty pleas and criminal convictions by  health care organizations, (or often just subsidiaries conveniently available to take the rap).  As we have noted, resulting fines may be just be treated as costs of doing business by health care leaders.  Almost never have the people who authorized, directed, or implemented wrong-doing almost never suffer negative consequences.

Instead, they may just continue to haunt health care and society at large

.

and

as I have repeated seemingly infinitum, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Purdue Pharma Executives Convicted in 2007

In 2007, we made quite a lot about criminal convictions for Purdue Pharma, and of three of its executives for the "misbranding" of Oxycontin.  (That was just the beginning of the legal problems for Purdue, and other manufacturers and distributors of "legal" narcotics and their contribution to the epidemic of narcotic abuse.)  At the time, we marveled that

At least in the Purdue Pharma/ Oxycontin case top company leaders were prosecuted, plead guilty, and will personally have to pay substantial financial penalties. Maybe this will convince the leaders of health care organizations that deceptive marketing practices may not be in their long term interests.

Of course, at the time we did not realize that Purdue Pharma was a privately held corporation run largely by the family that owned it, the Sacklers.  While the three executives had some responsibility for company operations, they were not as powerful as the top executives of publicly held health care companies, and so their convictions did not really end the impunity even of the top leaders of even one important health care corporation.

Trump Organization CFO to Plead Guilty of 15 Felonies Involving Tax Cheating in New York Court

Today, as the New York Times reported:

 One of Donald J. Trump’s most trusted executives stood before a judge on Thursday and pleaded guilty to 15 felonies, admitting that he conspired with Mr. Trump’s company to carry out a scheme to avoid paying taxes on lavish perks — even while refusing to implicate the former president himself.

As part of the plea deal with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the executive, Allen H. Weisselberg, is required to testify at the company’s trial if prosecutors choose to call on him, and to admit his role in conspiring with Mr. Trump’s company to carry out the tax scheme. That testimony could tilt the scales against the company, the Trump Organization, as it prepares for an October trial related to the same accusations. 

This demonstrates that in 2022, it is still big news if an apparently top corporate executive is convicted of a crime involving his management of the corporation.  We have progressed so little.

In particular, we certainly have not yet progressed to the point at which the actual top leaders of big corporations are held accountable for their misbehavior.  The Trump Organization is a closely held private corporation.  Its top leader is generally acknowledged as Donald J Trump, and its other top leaders are likely his children.  None of them so far have been charged in this case.

Donald J Trump as leader of the Trump Organization had a very long record of impunity as leader of the Trump Organization (look here).  It is possible that had he been held to account for his earlier actions, we might never have run for President of the United States.  Trump as President was accused of a long list of conflicts of interest and corrupt acts (look here).  He has denounced the 2020 election, which he lost, as "rigged" despite no evidence in support of that.  He currently is under investigation for leading an insurrection to overturn the election and stage an auto-coup.

Conclusion

We are still haunted, now dangerously haunted, for our failures as a society to hold rich, top business leaders accountable for their actions.

When will we ever learn? Will be learn before it is too late?

 

Leadership of Big Health Care Corporations Go Back to Financially Supporting the Opponents of Democratic Governance

At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and poltical organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post).

Now two new reports show continuing support by large health care corporations for Republican legislators who also supported the nullification of the election, and legislation that might decrease voting by citizens who oppose Trump

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression

In April, 2021, Public Citizen published "The Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression." It detailed support from direct corporate contributions and corporate political action committees (PACs) from 2015 through March, 2021, to state legislators who authored, sponsored or voted for 245 bills that could have made it more difficult for citizens to vote in elections. 

The 25 companies contributing the largest amounts of money to these legislators included UnitedHealth Group ($411,200 total); Pfizer ($308,085); and Centene Corp ($205,200).  Companies that gave somewhat less included Merck ($180,000),  CVS ($174,000), Anthem ($138,150) Eli Lilly ($124,000) and Cigna ($109,225).

Two health care related trade groups also gave significant funds to these legislators: the Virginia Dental Association ($223,000) and the  Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America/PhRMA ($200,000).   

Note that the data did not include personal contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators.

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of the Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election

In June, 2021, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) published "This Sedition is Brought to You By..." It detailed contributions from corporate PACS and trade groups to those in the US Congress who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election and the two main party organizations that supported them, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) since the vote not to certify.  

The largest contributions from health care corporate PACs included those tied to Fresenius Medical Care Holdings ($76,000); CVS ($45,000); Cigna ($42,500); Johnson & Johnson ($30,000); Pfizer ($20,000); and Humana ($15,000).

Note that the data also did not include contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators. 

Discussion

Most health care corporations profess to missions that are pluralistic and support the community and society as a whole.  For example, Pfizer's mission statement includes:

We partner with governments, non-profits, and other organizations to ensure that more people around the world have access to the medicine and resources they require.

UnitedHealthCare's mission statement includes:

UnitedHealthcare is dedicated to helping people live healthier lives and making the health system work better for everyone

Merck's mission statement includes:

We demonstrate our commitment to patients and population health by increasing access to health care through far-reaching policies, programs and partnerships

However, leaders of some large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would restrict voting rights in ways likely to impact already disadvantaged groups, and challenge election outcomes without strong evidence of irregularities would seem to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness like those above.    

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

However, there are problems with this formulation.  As we wrote before,  it is obvious why a pharmaceutical company might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.  It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  It may be that top corporate leaders are not just interested in making more money.  Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, if not openly fascist national political leadership.  Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)

At least health care professionals, policy makers, patients and the public at large deserve to know how health care corporate leadership is directing money to political causes, and how they benefit from doing so. 

 

    

A Few Leaders of Big Health Care Corporations Hesitate in Their Support of Extreme Politics and Insurrection, But Will Anything Really Change?

 Some recent but not well publicized articles suggests how big health care corporations are still enabling some of the worst aspects of health care and larger political economic dysfunction.

Introduction - Health Care Corporate Political Donations Become More Partisan and Ideological

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away big health care corporations in the US had an apparently straightforward philosophy of political giving.  They gave contributions more or less equally to both major political parties.  Apparently the theory was that the corporate giving would be remembered favorably by whoever won elections and got governmental power.  Corporate contributions raised major concerns about their ability to purchase access and influence policy far beyond those of less wealthy groups and the public at large.  At least, however, it was overtly non-partisan, and ostensibly not ideological.

However, things changed, and health care (and larger corporate) political giving became more partisan, and and more ideological. As we discussed here, 

- In June, 2018, we first noted how the huge pharmacy chain CVS, had been secretly making contributions to America First Policies, an ostensibly non-profit organization.  CVS claimed that it helped fund AFP because it supported tax reform.  Actually, AFP acted to promote Trump administration policies. AFP encouraged repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and building a wall on the US southern border.  These seemed at odds with CVS claims about its social responsibility.  

- In September, 2018, we noted that big health care corporations often make high-minded public pledges about supporting patients' and the public's health, and sometimes social responsibility, but have been found to be covertly supporting policy initiatives that seemed to subvert these goals, using "dark money."  The dark money groups they used to channel this money often had explicitly partisan leadership and direction, usually right-wing and Republican.

 

- In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates.

- In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians.

- In March, 2019, we discussed a study of the personal political contributions of CEOs of large corporations.  In the 21st century, the CEOs' contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

- In October, 2020, we discussed the apparent relationship between the support to Trump provided by large pharmaceutical corporations and his inclination to outsource his coronavirus pandemic management to them. 

Corporate leadership's enthusiasm for Trump, his policies, and his associates seemed to arise from  economic interests of the corporations and the self-interest of their top management, but without consideration of how Trump and associates' actions may have harmed larger corporate, social, or national interests.  As discussed in a Washington Post article on January 8, 2021:

Business groups big and small largely stuck by Trump as he broke one norm after another over the past four years, including insulting immigrants, appearing to empathize with white supremacists in Charlottesville and clearing a Black Lives Matter protest in Washington for a photo op. They stuck by him still after he pressured the Ukrainian president in a bid to help his own election chances, after his impeachment, after he intentionally downplayed the effects of the novel coronavirus and last week after he was recorded pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to overturn the election results.

Even Trump supporters admitted the corporate leaders' extreme compartmentalization:

'It isn’t going to affect tax rates. How about monetary policy? Allow me to stay pure to my turf,' Art Laffer, a supply side economist who is close with White House economic officials and speaks to the president, said in a brief interview.

One observer described their thinking thus:

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee. 'They should have known from the beginning.'

However, the Trump administration's actions and policies often seemed to directly contradict the stated values, visions and missions of health care corporations.  For example, Pfizer declares its values to be:

customer focus, leadership, quality innovation, collaboration, respect for people, integrity, and performance

How would the value "respect for people" align with Trump's hostility toward immigrants, or sympathy for white supremacists?  How would the value "integrity" align with Trump's pressure on the Ukraine to influence his election, or his pressure on officials in the state of Georgia to alter the election results in his favor?  

Nonetheless, until very recently, hardly anyone seemed to notice that large health care corporations had changed their political giving so as to make its effects antithetical to the corporations' declared principles and values.  

Trump's Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election Inspire A Few in Corporate Leadership to Rethink Its Political Support for Him and His Associates

Yet things apparently changed after Trump's attempts to overturn the election, including claims that he actually won despite obvious evidence to the contrary, baseless legal challenges to the election results that were almost all dismissed by the courts, and an attempt by Trump supporters in Congress to challenge and possibly override the election results in congressional proceeding.  That crossed a line.

Within days, corporate leaders who had generally been quiet about Trump administration's actions and policies that ran counter to their organizations' stated goals and mission began to speak up.  Several hundred signed a statement:  

Congress should certify the electoral vote on Wednesday, January 6. Attempts to thwart or delay this process run counter to the essential tenets of our democracy.

Most of those who signed lead financial firms, but the list did include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, a firm that had been one of Trump's favorites (see above).

Then, Trump's exhortation to his supporters at a rally to march on the Capitol while congress was debating Trump's supporters' challenge to the election results, which led to an insurrection and armed occupation of the Capitol building,  which was eventually beaten back by law enforcement with significant casualties led some corporate leaders to rethink their positions. 

The next day, per the Washington Post:

The mob scenes at the Capitol attracted harsh and unusual criticism from business groups, including the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest banks saying he is 'disgusted' and a manufacturing trade group calling it 'sedition' and suggesting that President Trump must be removed from office immediately.

It was a stunning series of rebukes for a president who had received widespread support from corporate America for most of his turbulent term, especially for his efforts to cut government regulations and reduce corporate tax rates.

But what occurred Wednesday seemed finally to be too much. Trump staged a rally in Washington a short walk from where Congress was counting the electoral college votes, with Trump whipping up his followers with fabrications about election results and urging them to march to the Capitol to protest. Later, Trump appeared to sympathize with the mob and support the violent actions.

 The National Association of Manufacturers soon after released an extraordinary statement from its president, Jay Timmons, saying Vice President Pence 'should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to preserve democracy.'

At that time, one more CEO of a pharmaceutical company that had been one of Trump's favorites spoke up:

Alex Gorsky, the chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement that he is 'devastated by this assault on what our country has stood for since its founding: free, fair and peaceful elections.' He said it is time to stand for unity, 'not face-to-face in conflict — and to chart our path to a better and healthier future.'

Furthermore, some large corporations, including health care corporations, announced a review or freeze on political donations through their corporate political action committees (PACs). Per the New York Times, January 11, 2021:

A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees.... Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific... are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes.

On January 12, 2021, StatNews summarized responses by health care corporations:

 The list, so far, is short: the Blue Cross BlueShield Association, an insurer federation, said this week it would pause contributions specifically to candidates who effectively voted to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election.  Drug manufactures Gilead Scientific and Amgen, as well as BIO, the biotech lobbying group, said they would pause contributions to all candidates regardless of how they voted on election certification, according to spokespeople.  UnitedHealth Group and Boston Scientific, the medical device giant, said the same.

Others, like CVS Health and the insurance lobby group America's Health Insurance Plans, were more cautious, saying they would review their future giving.

However,

Many other health care corporations and lobby groups... have not responded publicly.

The article also noted:

Many of the GOP lawmakers who voted against certifying the Electoral College results are those whom the drug industry and other health care sectors have long viewed as allied.  

The list included Republicans in Congress whom may be regarded as extreme supporters of Trump, eg Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Rep Andy Harris (R-MD).

I found one other report of a big health care corporation which changed its political donation policy in response to the attempt to overturn the election.  Per the Kansas City Star, January 13, 2021:

Cerner Corp. will suspend political donations to Sen. Josh Hawley and other politicians who it determines helped to incite the violent mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol building last week.

The North Kansas City-based healthcare IT firm is the latest to seek distance from Hawley, a Missouri Republican, and others who have supported baseless allegations of voter fraud in the November presidential election. 

A company spokesperson said:

'Effective immediately, Cerner PAC will suspend contributions to any candidate or official who took part in or incited violence last week in Washington, D.C.,' the statement said. 'Focusing on the health and well-being of the American people transcends partisan politics, and we will continue working with all elected leaders to advance policies that put the patient at the center of their care.'

I found another report of a big industry group which planned a "review" of its giving.  The American Hospital Association announced on January 14, 2021:

The tragic events last week at the U.S. Capitol were an assault on our democracy. This prompted the AHA to begin an immediate review of our political giving practices to ensure they are guided by our Association’s vision and mission, as well as the democratic values we share as a nation.

But that was it, a total of six large health care corporations and three industry groups announced a pause or review of political contributions (apparently limited to those from corporate PACs) to some of the politicians who voted to challenge the election results.  The Potter Report, authored by health care insurance whistle blower Wendell Potter, noted: 

There’s been a lot of talk this week about big corporations such as Amazon, Verizon and Comcast deciding to stop giving money to House and Senate Republicans who voted to overturn last year’s election. 

Guess which giants aren’t on that list? America’s big for-profit health insurers. 

Over the past two election cycles, Big Insurance has donated to just about all the 147 House and Senate Republicans who voted against certifying the election. That includes Cigna and Humana, where I once worked, and Centene and CVS/Aetna. Plus, the industry’s lobbying group, the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

 The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which represents a lot of nonprofit insurers and for-profit Anthem, says it’s suspending donations to those Republicans. And UnitedHealth says it will 'pause' its political donations. But let’s see how long these 'pauses' actually last. 

So far, we haven’t heard a peep from AHIP or the other big for-profits, all of which have made huge profits during the pandemic, thanks largely to having lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle in their pockets. 

Big Insurance donated more than $9 million to House and Senate candidates during the 2020 cycle. Among their favorites? Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who led the effort to overturn the election. All the big for-profits donated to Cruz, and all but CVS/Aetna donated to Hawley. 

Note that no health care corporation announced changes in the donations by its top management.  Certainly none even mentioned political contributions through dark money groups (like those that CVS had been revealed to be making, see above).  So the attempt at overturning the election to keep Trump in office, first by quasi-legal maneuvering, then by an armed insurrection, had little effect on continuing underwriting by big health care corporations of the politicians who acquiesced to or actively supported this assault on the fundamentals of our representative democracy 

Two Months Later, Health Care Corporations "Back to Bankrollling Insurrectionists"

Within months, some of the few health care corporations who paused donations again seemed ready to cozy up to anti-democratic politicians.  As reported by the Daily Beast, March 24, 2021:

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, more than 120 corporations swiftly vowed to suspend campaign donations to Republicans who objected to certifying the 2020 election....

But it took less than two months for Pfizer to break that pledge. Their PAC gave $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by one of eight GOP Senators who voted to decertify election results—Rick Scott of Florida—on Feb. 23.

In total, The Daily Beast identified four companies that appear to have gone back on their suspension of donations to GOP election objectors: AT&T, Cigna Health, Ford Motors, and Pfizer.

[Note that I had not earlier found notice that Cigna Health, a for-profit insurance company, had suspended donations.]

Summary

So as far as I can tell, while Trump is out of office, the big health care corporations that provided plentiful financial support for his initial election and attempts at remaining in office, through electoral and anti-democratic means, are back to supporting the political party that has become his personal sandbox.

 It is increasingly evident that big health care corporations, despite their protestations of social responsibility and non-partisanship, now are actively supporting one wing, an extreme one, of the political spectrum.  This raises big questions: cui bono? Who benefits?

It is obvious why a pharmaceutical company, for example, might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.

It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Now, the most obvious theory is that the new practice of secret donations only in right-wing, Republican, pro-Trump, and/or anti-democratic directions, which must be orchestrated by top corporate management, and which are not disclosed to employees or smaller corporate shareholders, are likely made to support the top managers' self interest more than the broad priorities of the corporations and their various constituencies. By virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  This could present many temptations, but the rationales for particular managers directing their corporations' fund to particular politicians or organizations remain unknown.  

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to ask that all organizations disclose all political funding which allows their leaders and managers to leverage their own political intentions.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the Trumpist movement in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

 

ead more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

Political Leaders Continue to Spread Disinformation and Advocate Policies and Take Actions Based on It

The coronavirus pandemic in the US seems past its third peak, but daily case rates have now plateaued at a level similar to the last peak.  While hospitals and health care professionals are not totally overwhelmed, they are working extremely hard and continuing to burn out.  People are still getting sick, some seriously, chronically, or fatally. With the continuing rapid spread of the virus, mutations have occurred. New viral variants may be more contagious, and possibly more deadly. While three efficacious vaccines are now available, a majority of people in the US do not have immunity to the virus.  

At least we are now hearing evidence-based guidance from federal leaders who no longer must kowtow to Donald J Trump. They have been urging patience and continued mask wearing, social (that is, physical) distancing, handwashing and other preventative measures until herd immunity is achieved through new vaccines.   Yet

Another big source of disinformation since the onset of the pandemic has been Trump's faithful followers, including politicians at national, state, and local levels in the US. We first noted the onset of disinformation about the virus propagated by Trump supporters here, including the case of Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), who pushed the erroneous idea that the coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan. Since then we have noted many other cases in which Trump supporting US politicians have peddled disinformation about the pandemic, most recently here. However, since Trump left office,  political leaders who support the former president continue to spread disinformation, and advocate policies and take actions informed by disinformation, not by evidence-based public health.

We present the latest cases of politicians spreading disinformation, and politicians acting on or promoting policies based on such disinformation, in chronological order by the dates of relevant publications.

Spreading Disinformation

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) Promotes Unproven Treatments for COVID

As reported by the New York Times, December 7, 2020, Sen Johnson convened a hearing of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in which he featured witnesses who pushed unproven treatments for the virus  

Mr. Johnson’s lead witness on Tuesday, Dr. Jane M. Orient, has cast doubts on coronavirus vaccines and has pushed for the use of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug pushed by Mr. Trump, as a treatment. She helps run a group that believes government vaccine mandates violate human rights.

After numerous trials, there is no good evidence that hydroxychloroquine has benefits that outweigh its harms in the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.  The hearings also included

the Washington cardiologist Ramin Oskoui, [who] said on Fox News last month that it was 'settled science' that 'social distancing doesn’t work, quarantining doesn’t work, masks don’t work.' On the contrary, it is settled science that all three are effective in limiting the spread of the virus.

Two others promote the use of ivermectin, a drug often used to fight lice and pinworms, to treat coronavirus patients, despite the National Institutes of Health’s recommendation against its use outside clinical trials.

Dr Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, called the hearing "a powerful reminder that not even Congress is immune to toxic conspiracy theories." So much for  the "world's greatest deliberative body." (Look here) 

Representative Bob Good (R-VA) Says the Pandemic is "Phony"

As reported by the Washington Post, December 14, 2020:

Rep.-elect Bob Good took the stage at Freedom Plaza on Saturday afternoon and looked out at a sea of masklessness. Thousands had come to march for President Trump — some carrying signs declaring the novel coronavirus a hoax.

They were just the kind of group, Good told the crowd, who 'gets that this is a phony pandemic.'

'It’s a serious virus, but it’s a virus. It’s not a pandemic,' said Good (R), who will become Virginia’s newest congressman in the 5th Congressional District on Jan. 3. 'It’s great to see your faces. You get it. You stand up against tyranny.'

Good’s denial of the existence of a pandemic flies in the face of an unprecedented surge in coronavirus infections, which have claimed the lives of nearly 300,000 Americans — including more than 300 in Good’s congressional district, according to a Washington Post analysis of coronavirus data.

Note that the death toll is now over 500,000.

Rep Good also has advocated for actions informed by the canard that the pandemic is "phony," actions that could increase transmission of the virus during a time when more infectious, and possibly more deadly variants are spreading

'We have got to stop the insanity, and stop accepting the hoax that says forcing people to wear a mask, forcing businesses to close, prohibiting worship services, and keeping kids out of school will make a significant difference in whether or not we will die from this virus,' Good wrote on Twitter.

Rep Good has himself acted in such a way.

Good showed disdain for virus precautions throughout his campaign, opting not to wear a mask or encourage them at his events, and saying businesses should not be restricted in the interest of limited spread.

Even though members of congress can easily access world-class experts in medicine, health care, public health and epidemiology, Rep Good chose to spread dangerous nonsense about the pandemic, the sort of nonsense these experts have been dubunking since the pandemic began. 

Republican Representatives Deride Face Masks

Politico reported on January 22, 2020 that after President Biden issued an executive order requiring the wearing of face masks on US property:

'The Biden administration is already headed in the wrong direction,' Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said on Friday. 'Continued federal overreach won’t end the Covid-19 pandemic or put food on the table.'

Not to put too fine a point on it:

A month ago, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was chiding Biden’s mask mandate idea on Twitter. 'On day one,' he said, 'I will tell you to kiss my ass.'

How is that for dignified debate?

Vaccine Opponent, Who Said "Proper Studies" About Vaccines are Lacking, Appointed Chair of Ohio House of Representative Health Committee

As reported by the Cleveland Scene on February 8, 2021:

Rep. Scott Lipps, R-Franklin, has pushed legislation to weaken Ohio’s vaccine laws; called in to video conferences hosted by anti-vaccine groups; made public statements about the need to slow or stop the COVID-19 vaccine rollout; and alleged a lack of 'proper studies' about the COVID-19 vaccines.

House Speaker Bob Cupp, R-Lima, renamed Lipps to the top health post for the two-year legislative session that started last month. 

Results of the controlled trials of the three COVID-19 vaccines currently available under a US emergency use authorization are actually widely available, eg here. It would have taken a few minutes on a web search engine for Rep Lipps to find that out.

Multiple Republican State Lawmakers Spread Various Disinformation

Again and again, Republican Trump fans in state legislatures have pushed nonsense packaged into disinformation. 

A summary article by the Associated Press on February 28, 2021 (per ABC News here) reported numerous instances in which

in their own comments or by inviting skeptics to testify at legislative hearings, some GOP state lawmakers are using their platform to promote false information about the virus, the steps needed to limit its spread and the vaccines that will pull the nation out of the pandemic.

These included

Last week, YouTube pulled down a video of committee testimony in the Ohio House after a witness inaccurately claimed COVID-19 wasn't killing children. 

A House Oversight Committee meeting in Michigan

did include Jayme McElvany, a virus skeptic who also has posted about the QAnon conspiracy and former President Donald Trump's unfounded claims of election fraud. Founder of a group called Let Them Play, McElvany questioned mask mandates and the science behind state COVID-19 data during a legislative hearing that didn't feature any witnesses from the other side.  

Also,

In Tennessee, a Republican lawmaker is pushing legislation that would ban most government agencies from requiring anyone to get COVID-19 vaccines, which isn't a mandate anywhere. Rep. Bud Hulsey has tried to drum up support downplaying the seriousness of the disease.

While testifying, he ticked off selective statistics that COVID-19 has a lower death rate among children and falsely alleged that the vaccines could cause genetic modifications.

In Alaska, a state legislator called current COVID-19 vaccines 'experimental,' despite the results of large randomized controlled trials [see above].

Also,

In Idaho, Rep. Heather Scott opened the legislative session in January by declaring, 'The pandemic is over.' She said Idaho's 1,600-plus COVID-19 deaths at that time amounted to 'nowhere close to a pandemic.'

But

The average number of daily COVID-19 cases is falling in Idaho, but the death toll has risen.

Finally,

In Virginia, Republican Del. Dave LaRock, who attended the Trump rally in Washington, D.C., that preceded the attack on the U.S. Capitol, warned a state House Health committee in late January that COVID-19 vaccines couldn't be trusted. He said they were especially risky for several communities, including the elderly and people of color.

At CPAC, Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) Called Lockdowns"Tyranny"

Per the Independent on February 26, 2021:

Opening the gathering’s first day in Orlando, Mr DeSantis began his speech in a triumphant mood: 'For those of you who aren’t from Florida, welcome to our oasis of freedom!'

Mr DeSantis contrasted his state with 'a country that’s suffering under the yoke of oppressive lockdowns', lamenting that in other states he sees 'schools closed, businesses shuttered, and lives destroyed.'

'And while so many governors over the last year have kept locking people down, Florida lifted people up.'

However,

While the state’s authorities have used a fairly light touch in recent months, they were forced to impose lockdown measures in the summer of last year when cases spiked. And while Florida does have lower per capita rates of Covid-19 deaths and hospitalisations than many states which locked down hard, it also compares favourably to many states that didn’t – and it is currently seeing more cases and hospitalisation per million than Democratic-run California, where restrictions have been much tougher. At 142 deaths per million as of 26 February, the state is in the middle of the pack nationally speaking.

Also,

Utah Senator Mike Lee, ...delivered a speech bluntly stating that 'faith in government' would lead the US down the road to tyrannical rule akin to that he said was suffered under the 18th century British crown.

He then linked that idea to

a broadside against coronavirus lockdown measures – including an upbeat rant at the expense of 'sad, sad California'

Taking Actions and Advocating Policies Based on Disinformation

Republican governors and state legislators have not merely spouted disinformation.  They have acted on it. 

Iowa Republican Governor Reynolds Lifted Pandemic Restrictions with no Explanation

As reported by the Washington Post on February 10, 2021:

Last weekend, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) lifted all pandemic restrictions. There was no explanation, no warning. Nor did the governor consult with the state’s Public Health Department before removing mask mandates and limits on gatherings and indoor dining. Whatever thin protections separated Iowans from the coronavirus were just gone. The announcement came the same week that new variants of the virus were detected in the state and just one day after Iowa surpassed 5,000 deaths.

Since the governor provided no justification for her decision, she certainly did not provide any justification based on clear evidence and reasoning.

North Dakota House of Representatives Made Mask Mandates Illegal

As reported by KYFR on February 22, 2021:

By only two votes, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill that would make mask mandates illegal in the future....

A small group of lawmakers said no level of government should be allowed to order the use of masks, arguing it was an infringement of freedoms.

'Our state is not a prison camp,' Rep. Jeff Hoverson, R-Minot, said.

However, opposers of the bill said while they don’t like wearing masks, they said there are times when public health and safety must take a higher priority.

 Note that states which are not prison camps mandate various articles of attire and other aspects of public behavior.  

South Dakota Republican Governor Noem Deceptively Defended Her Failure to Require Masks, Social Distancing, or Business Closures 

As reported by the Independent on March 1, 2021:

South Dakota governor Kristi Noem claimed to have successfully responded to her state’s Covid-19 pandemic, and took aim at widespread restrictions, as she addressed conservatives on Saturday.

Per the Washington Post 

Per the Washington Post on February 28, 2021, her justification was that such restrictions would have been economically disastrous, claiming.

that states who ordered Covid-related restrictions 'crushed the economy' created by Donald Trump.  

She continued: 'Everybody knows that almost overnight we went from a roaring economy to a tragic, nationwide shutdown.'

Also,

'South Dakota is the only state in America that never ordered a single business or church to close,' she said to applause and cheers. 'We never instituted a shelter-in-place order. We never mandated that people wear masks. We never even defined what an essential business is.'

However, as the Independent noted

Ms Noem, who refused any widespread mask wearing, social distancing, or business closures in South Dakota, went on to oversee more cases and deaths from Covid per capita than many states

In particular, per the Post,

South Dakota ranks second nationally for the most coronavirus cases reported per capita, eighth for total deaths per capita and ninth for peak hospitalized count per capita

While the governor provided no clear evidence of the economic success of her policy, she certainly provided no good argument that any such success was worth the resulting harms including disease and death.

Texas Republican Governor Abbott and Mississippi Republican Governor Reeves Ended Pandemic Restrictions Without Clear Justification

As reported by the Washington Post on March 3, 2021:

 On Tuesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) ended his state’s mask mandate and boasted in all-caps on Twitter that 'Texas is OPEN 100%. EVERYTHING....'

in Mississippi ...Gov. Tate Reeves (R) announced similar plans Tuesday

 In particular,

Abbott on Tuesday issued an executive order allowing Texas businesses to operate at full capacity and revoking a statewide mask mandate. The order also curtailed local officials’ ability to impose tougher restrictions in their communities, by barring countywide mask mandates and removing jail time and other penalties for those who do not follow local coronavirus rules....

In a similar move, Reeves announced Tuesday that businesses in his state would be allowed to fully reopen Wednesday and that masks would no longer be required by the state.

Gov Reeves justified his action by saying

we are not going to continue to use the heavy hand of government when it is no longer justified by the reality we see around us.

Again, as noted above, nearly all state and local governments make it illegal to walk around naked, whatever the weight of the hands required to do so.

On the other hand, the Texas Tribune reported on March 3, 2021 that:

 Abbott’s team of medical advisers appeared to play a minimal role in the decision. Three of the four said Wednesday that Abbott did not directly consult with them prior to the drastic shift in policy. The fourth said he couldn’t say whether the move was a good idea.

One such adviser expressed overt reservations about the move.

Furthermore, 

many experts said both states are still in dangerous territory. Texas had the fifth-highest number of daily deaths per capita and was ninth in daily reported cases per capita as of early Wednesday, according to a Washington Post analysis. Mississippi also ranked among the top 10 states for per capita daily deaths.

So while the governor provided no clear rationale for his actions, they clearly go against the best recommendations of local and national public health experts. 

Conclusions

While the coronavirus pandemic daily claims new victims, political leaders who supported Donald Trump while he was president continues to spread disinformation about the pandemic, and act and propose policies consistent with that disinformation, but hazardous to public health.  How did we get here?

A long time ago, hazy golden memories of the past suggest that politicians once hesitated to comment on issues that were perceived as being in the domain of expert professionals, like those in the medical, health care and public health realms, without the advice of scientists, or health care and health care professionals. 

During the Trump regime, things changed.  Perhaps inspired by examples from Trump himself, various political/ government leaders began to publicly say ignorant or downright stupid things about such topics. For example, in September, 2017, we noted a series of examples showing some basic ignorance of health policy, including fundamental confusion about the nature of health insurance.  In August, 2018, we noted that Trump had long been an apologist for asbestos, which is known to cause asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma, claiming that those opposing use of asbestos were associated with organized crime, while more recently Trump's EPA seemed willing to relax regulation of asbestos, at a time when Russia seemed ready to become the major US supplier of it.

The COVID-19 pandemic supercharged the problem.  Although he would not acknowledge it at the time, his interviews with Bob Woodward showed that President Trump was aware of the potential severity of the COVID pandemic by February 7, 2020.  Per the Washington Post, September 9, 2020, Trump then said:

You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed,... And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.

This is deadly stuff,

Nonetheless, he initially played down its severity, ostensibly to avoid "panic,"  

I wanted to always play it down,... I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.

but more likely because he feared that the pandemic could distract from his agenda and diffuse his political power.

 

Later, he discouraged mask wearing (look here), and promoted quick, but dubious COVID treatments, again to promote his political agenda.  Cumulatively he became a major source of pandemic disinformation (look here).

His political cronies and sycophants took up the banner of COVID disinformation (look here).  At one point, it appeared that they suffered from the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias, that is, they were unaware of the limitations of their knowledge and ability.  However, now it looks like their actions are more cynical.  With Trump out of power they may see promoting disinformation as a way of appealing to the extreme elements of the Trump "base" by affirming what they want to believe.

For example, An analysis in the Washington Post on March 5, 2021 suggested:

The decision this week by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to end his state’s mask mandate and lift all restrictions on business reflects a broader move by politically ambitious Republican governors to channel the rising anger of conservative constituents over government efforts to curb the coronavirus.

Furthermore, 

the move by Abbott demonstrates how GOP governors hostile to ­pandemic restrictions are taking center stage as the party considers a post-Trump future.

The governors — responsive to a Republican electorate radicalized by the pandemic and inflamed by animus against experts and government regulations — are jockeying to present themselves as chief adversaries to President Biden.

In addition, the moves by Abbott and company may appeal to

Republican voters influenced by Internet-inspired arguments portraying opposition to public health guidelines as a cultural battle against liberal elites.

That is, some politicians may be pandering to an increasingly extreme voting bloc by telling them what they want to hear, no matter how nonsensical or bizarre it is, and regardless of the implications for their or the whole public's health.  

So, why trust politicians who suddenly proclaim themselves experts on public health and epidemiology and promote nonsensical theories and unproven solutions to the worst pandemic of the last 100 years? Would you trust a politician who suddenly proclaimed himself an expert on nuclear physics and tried to promote his personal design for a nuclear reactor?   

Finally, those of us who are health care professionals should combat politically motivated pandemic disinformation whenever we can, and call out and condemn its perpetrators.  History will not look kindly on them, but it will not look kindly on us if we stand by and do nothing when there are lives in jeopardy.