Prison playbook: How Trump could run his campaign – and the nation – from behind bars

Prison playbook: How Trump could run his campaign – and the nation – from behind bars
Facing a federal indictment and other legal woes, former President Donald Trump could feasibly run for president or even serve as commander in chief from behind bars. Jon Stall / Shutterstock

The notion was once unthinkable.

More recently, purely theoretical.

Now, there’s a legitimate chance Donald Trump could be running for president, or even serving as commander in chief, from behind bars.

Two overriding factors contribute to this bizarre reality.

Firstly, there’s very little — legally speaking — preventing Trump from doing so.

Secondly, Trump himself has offered no indication he’ll step away. To the contrary, he’s as emboldened as ever to run for and win the presidency he lost in 2020.

To recap:

For the first time in U.S. history, a grand jury on June 8 federally indicted a former president — Trump.

Trump faces 37 felony counts related to the alleged willful retention of classified documents and conspiracy to conceal them. If convicted, Trump could face significant prison time.

Separately, Trump is charged in New York with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to payments the Trump Organization made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His trial is slated for March 2024, in the midst of the Republican presidential primary.

There’s more: Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis is in the final stages of a criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. And Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the classified documents case, is also investigating Trump’s involvement in inciting the January 6, 2021, insurrection in the U.S. Capitol.

Such a laundry list of legal woes could sabotage any politician’s campaign efforts. But the looming federal indictment and other pending cases haven’t slowed Trump down in his pursuit of a second term as president or slashed his chances at getting the Republican nomination.

Trump has made it clear he has no intention of dropping out of the race.

“I see no case in which I would do that,” Trump said on Sunday during an appearance on a radio show hosted by political strategist Roger Stone, a longtime confidant. “I just wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. I had opportunities in 2016 to do it, and I didn't do it.”

But Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University, said campaigning for president and defending himself against criminal charges are two very different endeavors.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains why certain Americans will never quit Trump no matter what the ex-president does

“He thinks he can win this case in the court of public opinion, but the truth is, Trump can huff, and Trump can puff, but he can't blow the courthouse down,” Lichtman said. “It’s a very, very different game once you enter a federal courthouse or a state courthouse. You can't just bluster. Anything that you present has to be proven, and you're subject to perjury.”

Still, Trump can continue to run his campaign while facing these charges — and he could even do so from prison in the event he were to be tried, convicted and sentenced before the 2024 election.

“Trump’s legal problems shouldn’t affect his campaign. Many of his supporters believe that he is being treated unfairly, and there is no prohibition against a defendant under indictment or even a convicted felon from serving as president,” said Neama Rahmani, a former assistant U.S. attorney and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers. “Theoretically, Trump could even be president while in prison.”

Indeed, the U.S. Constitution stipulates only that a presidential candidate be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old and a U.S. resident for 14 years. Trump easily checks all those boxes. And congressional Democrats’ strongest efforts to potentially disqualify Trump from ever again seeking the presidency — convicting him following impeachment trials — failed.

So what would it take for Trump to run a presidential campaign — or govern the nation — from prison?

Raw Story interviewed historians, legal experts, political operatives and former government leaders who pieced together a playbook for how he could do it — and the peril that he’d face along the way as he attempts to defeat a field of GOP rivals ahead of a 2024 general election rematch with President Joe Biden.

Campaigning from a cell

Each of the charges Trump faces in the federal indictment carries maximum prison sentences between five and 20 years.

Being behind bars would, of course, prevent Trump from campaigning in his signature fashion: at big, rowdy MAGA rallies.

But Amani Wells-Onyioha, operations director at Democratic political firm Sole Strategies, envisions Trump still figuring out ways to communicate with potential voters.

“There's no doubt in my mind that he would have some recorded press from the little prison phone. There's no doubt in my mind that he would set up press opportunities whenever he's out on the yard getting his recreational use in, that there would be cameras there,” Wells-Onyioha said. “He would be using every opportunity to campaign. I don't see him stopping at all, and I only see him using this as fuel to make him go harder.”

Keeping up his Truth Social posts from prison might not be such a challenge for Trump, Wells-Onyioha said, as some jails and prisons might allow internet access.

“I do see him using the internet because that's all that he has, and he's great at that already,” Wells-Onyioha said. “He's a huge internet, TV personality type of guy, so it really would just force him to be in a position to do something that he's the best at, which is unfortunate for the country, but as far as he's concerned, I think he thinks that this is political gold for himself.”

Plus, Trump isn’t building a campaign from scratch. His 2024 presidential campaign is flush with staffers. He enjoys the support of super PACs, which may raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on his behalf to promote the former president and attack his opponents.

And few politicians are as good at Trump at presenting himself as a victim — he’s single-handedly vaulted the terms “witch hunt,” “deep state,” “hoax” and “fake news” into the contemporary political lexicon. As an inmate, Trump could become a martyr to the MAGA cause.

“You’re obviously handicapped to campaign, but in this electronic age, you can certainly campaign virtually, plus Trump's pretty well known. It’s not like he has to introduce himself to the American people,” Lichtman said.

If not prison, maybe jail

Although it seems unlikely Trump will be serving an active prison sentence before the 2024 election, it’s conceivable he could wind up in pre-trial confinement while campaigning.

This, several legal experts said, will depend on Trump himself.

“He has to behave himself during a trial, and that's not beyond the realm of possibility that he'll act up, thinking that somehow he can win over the jury, but that would be a mistake,” said Kevin O’Brien, a former assistant U.S. attorney and partner at Ford O’Brien Landy LLP who specializes in white-collar criminal defense.

Brazenly defying a judge’s order or attempting to intimidate witnesses are among the more common ways a defendant can get himself thrown in jail before or during his trial.

This isn’t merely conceptual, according to Mike Lawlor, a criminal justice professor at the University of New Haven and former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives, who helped lead impeachment hearings against then-Gov. John Rowland, who ultimately pleaded guilty in federal court to political corruption.

ALSO READ: ‘Remember, Hitler went to prison’: moderate Republicans warn Trump prosecutors to ‘get this right’ or risk chaos

Lawlor expects delays in the federal trial — jury selection alone for a former president could prove a months-long headache — so he’s doubtful the trial will even have started by next year’s elections.

Still, knowing Trump’s penchant for cutting outbursts, Lawlor can envision a judge sanctioning Trump for defying directives. Trump will not only have one judge to contend with, but at least two — and possibly more — given the multiple legal actions against him.

“The opportunity to engage in contempt of court or witness tampering or obstruction of justice is fraught at this point. I’m not sure he has the self-control to keep himself from doing something that would get him confined pre-trial,” Lawlor said.

The U.S. House Jan. 6 select committee accused Trump of potential witness tampering, and Lawlor says he’s monitoring similar allegations here, especially because so many of the witnesses are GOP staffers of the former president.

“It’s so easy to imagine a situation where someone could be contacted and intimidated,” Lawlor said. “I think the temptation to do that for a guy like Trump is probably irresistible. I’m not sure his attorneys or the advisors he listens to can stop him from doing so. I don’t rule it out. As I said, it’s unlikely, but I can definitely see it happening.”

Using legal danger to fuel fundraising

The Trump campaign has wasted no time in exploiting the indictment to raise money, leaning into a familiar claim that the candidate is a victim of a Democratic witch hunt.

Only one day after news broke about Trump’s indictment, a fundraising appeal built around the charges appeared on the campaign website prominently displayed in a column on the left-hand side of the page, suggesting contribution amounts ranging from $24 to $3,300. The message lays out a bill of particulars with the former president at the center of the persecution narrative, beginning with the apocalyptic opener: “We are watching our Republic DIE before our very eyes.”

Trump Save America, the beneficiary, is a joint fundraising committee for Donald J. Trump for President 2024 and the Save America PAC, which supports Trump.

The fundraising appeal contends that a “witch hunt began when the FBI RAIDED my home and then staged it to look like a made-for-TV crime scene with police sirens and flashing red and blue lights.”

Alluding to his previous indictment in New York state, the appeals continued: “So, after a state prosecutor failed to break us, the Deep State sharpened their attacks and unleashed a FEDERAL prosecutor to TRY and take us down.”

Notwithstanding Trump’s claim, the charges in New York state remain pending, and Smith, the special prosecutor appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, was investigating Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents four months before a grand jury in New Manhattan returned an indictment on the state charges related to the Stormy Daniels affair.

At least one prominent surrogate has helped retail the fundraising push.

Kari Lake, a fellow election denier who lost her race for governor of Arizona last year, joined a Twitter Spaces co-hosted by Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lynn Lawrence on the night news broke about Trump’s indictment on charges of mishandling classified documents. Stockton and Lawrence helped organize the rally that provided the springboard for the Jan. 6 insurrection. During her appearance on Stockton and Lawrence’s Twitter Space, Lake told more than 1,300 listeners she had just gotten off the phone with Trump shortly after news broke about the indictment on June 8. Lake said it wasn’t enough for Republican voters to just say they stand with Trump or condemn the indictment.

“And if we really stand with him, we need to go to DonaldTrump.com and make a donation tonight,” Lake said. “Everybody, whether it’s $5, $10, $500 — whatever you can afford. Because if we’re gonna stand with him, we need to put our money where our mouth is tonight.”

The political monetization of Trump’s legal woes grows deeper by the month. Go to Trump’s campaign website and you’ll find several items on sale — a black-and-white ceramic coffee mug is $24 — featuring a fake mugshot of Trump above the words “NOT GUILTY”.

The Federal Election Commission, which enforces federal campaign finance laws, would have no grounds to intervene in Trump’s fundraising efforts while facing criminal charges or even time in jail or prison, said Ann Ravel, who served as an FEC commissioner from 2013 to 2017, including one year as the commission’s chairwoman.

Trump's campaign is selling these black-and-white ceramic coffee mugs for $24.

Trump’s campaign could easily continue sending supporters incessant fundraising emails and text messages in Trump’s name.

“The only problems for him would be if there's failure to disclose, or if people are giving more than the limits, all of the things that are traditional FEC issues, but they don't have the authority to do anything with regard to a person who's been indicted and is still fundraising,” Ravel said. “That in and of itself is not sufficient for the FEC to take any action.”

Lessons of Eugene Debs, incarcerated presidential candidate

Trump wouldn’t be the first candidate to run for president from prison if he were convicted.

In the weeks before the 1920 election, Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party candidate for president of the United States and an inmate in federal prison, touched on the significance of the moment.

“Has there ever been anything like it in American history before?” Debs said, as reported by the socialist newspaper Appeal to Reason. “Will there ever be anything like it in American history again? We must impress it upon the people that this scene is symbolic of what has befallen this country.”

There has been one other. Lyndon LaRouche, whom The New Republic called “The Godfather of Political Paranoia,” ran from prison in 1992 after being convicted of tax evasion and mail fraud.

His vice presidential running mate, the Rev. James Bevel, did most of the campaigning. This suggests that a jailed Trump could lean heavily on the presence of a charismatic vice presidential candidate — be it someone such as Lake of Arizona, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia or even banished Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

LaRouche received .02% of the popular vote — 26,334.

Debs, who was serving a 10-year sentence for decrying the United States’ involvement in World War I, received 3.4% of the popular vote — 919,799.

He received 6% of the vote as a candidate eight years earlier, in 1912.

While emphasizing that she’s speaking as an individual, Allison Duerk, director of the Eugene V. Debs Museum, located in Debs’ home in Terre Haute, Ind., said she cringes at comparisons between Debs and Trump. In material ways, the two men are polar opposites.

“I bristle at recent casual references to the 1920 campaign — not because they are inaccurate on the surface, but because these two men and their respective projects are diametrically opposed,” she told Raw Story.

Duerk does believe Debs predicted the emergence of American political leaders such as Trump.

Illustration of Eugene Debs while running for president in prison. Indiana State University archives

“Take this quote from the speech that got him locked up,” she said, quoting Debs: “‘In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.’"

In an Appeal to Reason article, Debs said he believed in change “but by perfectly peaceful and orderly means.” He added, “Never in my life have I broken a law or advised others to do so.”

Unlike Trump, who nurses grievances daily, the article said of Debs, “Nothing embitters him. Injustice, oppression, persecution, savagery do not embitter him. It is a stirring, an uplifting thing to find a man who has suffered so much and remains so ardent and so pure.”

The U.S. government and the prison warden made small accommodations to Debs’ candidacy. He was, for one, allowed a single written message per week to voters.

“Where Debs had once stormed the country in a verbal torrent,” wrote Ernest Freeberg, author of Democracy’s Prisoner, “he would now have five hundred words a week.”

Debs still had some of the trappings of a political campaign, including a button that had his photo from prison with the words, “For President - Convict No. 9653.” He had printed material that said, “From Atlanta to the White House, 1920,” a reference to his residency inside the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

On election night, Debs received the results in the warden’s office and soon conceded the election to President-elect Warren Harding.

In his book Walls and Bars, Debs wrote that the question came up in the room about his potential ability to pardon himself as president — an action over which Trump has reportedly mused.

“We all found some mirth in debating it,” Debs wrote.

Serving as president from prison

If Trump ran a successful campaign from jail or prison, is there anything stopping him from assuming the Oval Office if he were elected president?

“There is nothing in our traditions or the Constitution that prevents someone who is indicted or convicted or, in fact, serving in jail, from also serving as the president,” said Harold Krent, law professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, who formerly worked for the Department of Justice. “Does it make any sense? No. But there is no Constitutional disablement from that happening. So, you could think of a scenario in which the case goes to trial, maybe after the primary and results in a prison time with President Trump and then he is inaugurated, and he gets to serve as president from some prison farm somewhere.”

Lichtman said “of course” Trump would just pardon himself of any federal crimes were he were reelected president. There’s also the possibility of Trump attempting to preemptively pardon himself, with then-President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon serving as an imperfect template.

But if Trump is convicted on any state-level charges, where federal pardons do not apply, that’s a different story.

“That's unprecedented, but the pardon power is pretty absolute,” Lichtman. “He can’t pardon himself for the New York case because that’s a state case. If he's convicted in New York, he's stuck. If charges are brought in Georgia, and he's convicted in Georgia, he can’t pardon himself from that either, because that's also a state case.”

Trump’s ability to pardon himself is widely debated in the academic community, Krent said.

Federal document listing indictment counts against former President Donald Trump. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida

“There's no law on the books that says you can't. You just have to reason from the idea of separation of powers and the Constitution or to think that it doesn't make any sense to have one person aggregate or accumulate so much power,” Krent said. “As a constitutional matter, I think that that would be too much of a conflict of interest to be able to pardon yourself.”

Interestingly, the federal indictment didn’t include counts related to 18 U.S.Code 2071, which deals with the concealment, removal or destruction of government documents. This would disqualify anyone found in violation of the code from running for office, Rahmani said.

“That particular provision was passed after Nixon as a disqualification provision that prevents anyone convicted of it from holding public office,” Rahmani said. “Trump's lawyers would have said that it's unconstitutional because only the Constitution can place limits on who could be president. You can be a felon. You can be in prison and still theoretically be president of the United States.”

The Constitution could be interpreted — ostensibly by the U.S. Supreme Court — that an imprisoned president wouldn’t qualify as capable of carrying out his duties, preventing him from taking the office, Ravel said.

“There's nothing to stop him from becoming president either because the provisions in the Constitution about the presidency and the requirements for presidency don't reflect any concern if a president has been indicted or is in jail,” Ravel said. “Although if he goes to jail, it would create a problem for him because the Constitution does have concerns about the inability to carry out the obligations of the office, which he certainly wouldn't be able to do in jail.”

Specifically, Section 4 of the Constitution’s 25th Amendment potentially empowers Congress to determine — via a two-thirds vote of both chambers — that a president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” and thereby transfer presidential powers to the vice president.

But if Trump is elected next year, and a Trump trial takes place after November 2024, some of his legal peril could subside — at least at the federal level.

“There's clear Department of Justice memos and policies. It's pretty clear that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted,” Rahmani said.

If Trump won and was convicted but on appeal, he would “probably” still be able to get inaugurated, Krent said.

“The question is whether they would stop the appeal and let him serve out the presidency before it would continue,” Krent said. “Uncharted waters in terms of how this would go. It's gonna affect the primary. It would affect the general election, and it certainly would affect his ability to conduct a presidency.”

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

“There’s a day of reckoning coming.”

That is the opinion of a prominent oil industry executive who is predicting a major surge in prices at the gas pump as Donald Trump’s war on Iran, and the accompanying closure of the Strait of Hormuz, drags on.

As oil prices surge and supply dwindles globally, energy experts predict a catastrophic price shock that could decimate Republican chances in the midterms, reports Politico's Scott Waldman and Eli Stoklos.

According to Dan Pickering, chief investment officer at Pickering Energy Partners, when summer driving season begins, gas prices will deliver a shock that "hits people in the face." "It will be painful because I can tell you that the stock market's ignoring this," he said.

The timing will likely be politically toxic, the report notes, with another spike in prices predicted around Memorial Day potentially dealing a fatal blow to Republican chances for holding onto the House next year, as Americans' confidence in the economy continues to drop.

A senior administration official dismissed expert warnings about the looming crisis, telling Politico: "Everyone feels like we can hopefully get back to even lower prices at the gas pump. That's always the goal. So everyone is very sober about the uptick in gas prices, but everyone feels confident that we can get it down before the end of the year."

Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank, isn't buying the White House spin, and suggested Trump's optimistic messaging is backfiring.

"By talking down the market so effectively, when the price spike becomes inevitable, it's going to hurt way worse because we'll have lost weeks or even months of time where producers could have been ramping up output," she told Politico.

There are also oil industry complaints about Trump's optimistic spin on the crisis.

Oil and gas executives are openly frustrated with Trump's market-manipulating rhetoric," the report notes with one insider complaining that the president "sends conflicting signals to operators who cannot plan rigs and capital budgets when prices swing wildly based on tweets."

"Our hypothesis is [that] the paper market is being manipulated. This will likely lead to an even worse supply and demand imbalance and higher prices in the medium term (next 12 months)," the executive added.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

A dozen voters who backed President Donald Trump in 2024 expressed disillusionment with his second term as part of a focus group convened by the New York Times.

The 79-year-old president still enjoys 80 percent approval among Republicans, but his standing with independents has cratered, and many of his own voters – like those who spoke to the Times – say they regret their choice.

"So much has happened," said Kitty, a 36-year-old student and political independent from Pennsylvania. "We’re starting to see, we’re getting disillusioned, and all these false promises are starting to be like, we know it for what it is now. Now that we know and we don’t feel as naïve or trusting, then we can properly create a path forward to going in better direction."

Chris, a 42-year-old Republican electrician from Illinois, told moderator Margie Omero he was surprised by Trump's presidency.

"Life is becoming more and more unaffordable," he said. "The prices of things like gasoline and food overall haven’t come down. I thought it all would just be a lot more affordable."

Daniel, a 41-year-old California independent who works in manufacturing, told the Times he felt annoyed by the president.

"Well, living in California, our governor, it’s just all false promises," he said. "All these additional taxes that are coming out. Money’s not being well spent. Just no accountability whatsoever. And with the current administration, it’s something new every week. DOGE, Venezuela, immigration, Iran. This week, the president’s feuding with the pope. I’m very disappointed, and I served in the military. There’s a reason why I voted for Trump. Usually Republicans are pro-military. But this whole conflict with Iran is just uncalled for."

Nancy, a 55-year-old Arizona independent who works in operations, said Trump's second presidency has not played out like she expected.

"Frankly, I just wasn’t a fan of Kamala," she said. "It was the lesser of two evils. I could have written in somebody, but I felt like I had a better chance of a little hope with Trump. I was hoping that Congress and other branches would keep him in check, and that he’d have better advisers, and that maybe the second go-around, he’d learn some lessons. But it seems like it’s just total chaos."

Jose, a 62-year-old employment specialist and independent from Florida, expressed a similar sentiment about Trump's second term.

"I thought he’d learned his lesson, and was going to prove to everybody he learned from his mistakes, and he was going to turn the country around and he was going to be a stellar president," Jose said. "But it’s turned out to be a horror movie. I was so wrong with the vote for him."

"There’s not one promise that he made that he’s followed through on. He said we’re not going to be in any wars," Jose added. "We have had wars. We’re discriminating against anybody that looks different than us or believes in whatever religion or sexual preference. That’s not what we’re about. I don’t watch the news anymore because I get depressed."

Michelle, a 45-year-old Maryland Republican who works in construction administration, said the naysayers were right about Trump.

"I feel foolish. In a family full of Democrats, I really stood my ground twice to defend my stance," she said. "I feel like time and time again, all of the things that they pointed out would happen have ended up happening, and I looked dumb as hell believing in fairy tales and wishy-washy promises. I feel like if Trump would have approached the country and the problems that the nation has been having as passionately as he had his personal vendettas against Biden and those before and after him, he would have been an amazing president. I really did believe at one point that he was also a frustrated American who was so fed up he was going to make a world of difference."

Michelle specifically cited Vice President JD Vance chastising Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office as a breaking point for her, and so did Pamela, a 65-year-old Tennessee Republican and small business owner.

"I had the exact same moment as Michelle," Pamela said. "I was horrified sitting there watching that interaction. I felt so bad for Zelensky. What was going through my head is that I was imagining Trump, out where all the soldiers are, going in and seeing how they are. Zelensky, you always see him with the soldiers. He’s right there. He is so hands-on. It’s just horrible."

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Saturday night shouldn’t surprise us. Not only does America have the world’s most active small-arms industry that essentially controls the GOP (the reporters got a taste of what American — and only American — schoolkids experience every few months from their “realistic” active shooter drills), but we also host the world’s largest and most profitable hate-amplification industry.

Algorithms that amplify hate and division in order to “increase engagement” have made Mark Zuckerberg into one of the richest people on the planet, complete with a super-yacht and a doomsday bunker estate in Hawaii; Elon Musk’s X has turned into a sewer of Nazi-style rhetoric while Musk himself has posted, according to The Washington Post, nakedly white supremacist slogans and statements over 850 times just in the past seven months.

The Republican Party writ large has also benefited from all this, since it was reinvented mid-20th century by Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy and Reagan’s embrace of “states’ rights” as the party of Christian white male supremacy. (The last four Black Republicans in the US House of Representatives are ending their political careers this year.)

Because every right-wing movement in history has been founded on hate and/or xenophobia, the openly neo-Confederate MAGA movement was simply the logical end-point of this turn the Party took a half-century ago. History shows that when the right wants to seize power, it reaches for the oldest weapon in politics: teach people to fear and then hate their neighbors, as I lay out in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy.

Finally, the billionaire class and the massive, monopolistic corporations that made them rich benefit from the hate industry because when working-class people are mobilized to hate each other based on race, religion, gender (and gender identity), nationality, or political affiliation, they’re far less likely to organize together to demand union rights, benefits, healthcare, education, and/or better wages.

Some even argue that the current state of GOP corruption, billionaire greed, and societal hate in America proves that democracy has run its course. Oddly, most arguing that are the billionaires themselves, or the lickspittle “dark enlightenment philosophers” they celebrate and fund.

Billionaire Peter Thiel famously wrote, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” and the CEO of his company Palantir recently released an arguably neo-fascist 22-point manifesto claiming that America must resist “the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism” and — without a trace of irony about today’s billionaire subculture that’s working to capture our government and crush worker’s movements and unions — that “certain cultures and indeed subcultures” are “regressive and harmful.”

There’s actually a long history for this antidemocratic worldview.

Plato himself argued that democracy would always ultimately lead to tyranny because democratic rule could so easily be co-opted by authoritarians using the tools of democracy itself. Karl Popper rebutted this extensively in 1945, arguing that democracies must become “intolerant of intolerance,” essentially putting limits (like the German people have done for themselves) on “free speech” when that speech is being used to undermine and ultimately destroy a democracy.

The European option would run afoul of our First Amendment, so America must come up with a different way to deal with the hate-industrial complex. There are a few options.

While corporations will argue that they are “persons” protected by the First Amendment (an argument I rebut extensively in my new book Who Killed the American Dream: The Greatest Political Crime Ever Told) and will say that their algorithms that favor outrage, hate, and division are merely corporate “free speech,” it should still be possible to regulate these bits of computer code.

I’m not proposing that people lose their right to speak online. The real issue is whether giant social media corporations should have the unlimited right to use their top-secret algorithms to pour gasoline on hate, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny, and political violence just because outrage keeps people clicking and that drives engagement/ad-views and thus profits.

That’s not free speech in any meaningful human sense: it’s just a democracy-destroying business model.

Thus, one obvious reform is to separate hosting speech from amplifying it. If somebody wants to post something vile but lawful, that’s allowed under the First Amendment. But when a corporation’s software algorithm identifies that vile content as profit-promoting and shoves it into millions of feeds, that’s no longer passive hosting: it’s active promotion. And active promotion can be regulated.

Another fix is to require transparency. Make these companies openly disclose what their algorithms reward. Do they boost rage reactions, conspiracy content, fear, tribal conflict, and endless doom-scrolling just because it increases ad revenue for their billionaire owners? Let independent researchers audit the systems so the public can see whether hate is being engineered for profit behind the curtain and use public shame to discourage it.

And finally, give social media users real choice. Break up the social media monopolies. Require a simple chronological feed, for example, and an easy opt-out from manipulation-based recommendations, along with a legal duty of care when platforms knowingly drive people toward extremism or violence.

You still get free speech; what corporations lose is the right to use the invisible part of their machines to poison our minds, our children’s minds, and our democracy for money.

None of this deals with the problem of right-wing billionaires acquiring massive media platforms and then requiring their employees to also spin the news in ways that are anti-democracy and pro-billionaire.

But reversing Reagan’s 1983 decision to largely abandon our anti-trust laws and his 1987 decision to abandon the Fairness Doctrine could go a long way toward mitigating the damage Australian-billionaire-owned Fox “News” and others have done to America.

Combine these steps with rational gun control and a re-commitment to teaching civics and critical thinking (as several European countries have done and we did before Reagan gutted federal education spending) and there’s a good chance America can rise again from the ashes of the hate and violence that today’s conservative movement and billionaire subculture have imposed on us.

The choice before us is stark. We can continue letting right-wing billionaires, monopolists, gun merchants, and hate-profiteers pit Americans against each other while they strip wealth and power from working people, or we can remember the oldest lesson of democracy: when ordinary people refuse to be divided, no oligarch or billionaire can stand against them.

Tag, we’re it!

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}