When ProPublica reported on the undeclared luxury fishing trip Justice Samuel Alito took courtesy of billionaire Vulture Fund manager Paul Singer, they reported there was a major conflict of interest with a case that Singer brought in front of the Supreme Court against the Nation of Argentina (which I wrote about in my book Billionaires & Ballot Bandits). But they failed to mention another very important case Singer was involved in.
Singer's big goal in influencing the judiciary was to overturn the Voting Rights Act. He was a big promoter of Shelby v. Holder. Now, Shelby, Alabama didn’t have the money to take the case to the Supreme Court, it came from two groups of donors: the Koch Brothers, through Donors Trust, and Paul Singer, through the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank which he funds and pretty much directs.
So, Shelby v. Holder, the most devastating decision against voting rights, was directly created and propagated by Singer. His fishing buddy, Justice Alito should have recused himself. That would've changed the outcome, because the decision was made 5 to 4, with Alito's being the surprise deciding vote.
Alito should not have been on that case, and if he'd recused himself — as he should have done — we would still have the full Voting Rights Act.
▶️ Get the full story. Download my film, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy — available for FREE for a limited time.