Patricia Clarkson on playing her icon Lilly Ledbetter and the political moment greeting the movie
NEW YORK (AP) — The film 'Lilly,' a biopic about the equal pay icon Lilly Ledbetter, lands in theaters at a difficult time for her biggest political and civil rights champions.
Many are gone or out of power, their hopes of building on Ledbetter's legacy interrupted by a more fundamental fight over President Donald Trump's shake-up of civil rights institutions.
It's difficult not to flashforward to the present as the most famous of those supporters appear in interspersed documentary footage: the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former first lady Michelle Obama and former President Barack Obama, who signed the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthened the right of workers to sue for pay discrimination.
Less well-known is Jocelyn Samuels, played as a key character by Deirdre Lovejoy. Back then, Samuels was an executive at the National Women's Law Center, guiding Ledbetter through the halls of Congress as they lobbied for the law. Currently, Samuels is one of two Democratic commissioners fired by Trump from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an unprecedented power play she is fighting in a lawsuit.
Ledbetter died in October at the age of 86. The following month, Trump's election all but dashed Democratic hopes for passage any time soon of the more comprehensive Paycheck Fairness Act, which Ledbetter championed and would, among other measures, strengthen the ability of the EEOC to investigate pay discrimination.
Patricia Clarkson, who stars as Ledbetter in 'Lilly,' doesn't shy away from the politics of the film, directed by Rachel Feldman. The Academy Award-nominee shared the red carpet with Clinton, who made a surprise appearance at the film's May 7 premier in New York City. She often recalls how her own mother, the late former Louisiana state legislator Jackie Clarkson, cried for joy when learning her daughter would play Ledbetter.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarkson said the politics are a salient backdrop for what people should remember most: The resilience of a woman, who for most of her life, was an unknown working mother until an anonymous note tipped her off that her male co-workers were getting paid thousands of dollars more for the same job, and she decided to fight back.
The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q: What did you do to prepare for the role? I understand you never met Lilly Ledbetter and it that it was an intentional choice.
A: I imprint very easily with people and so I was afraid if I met Lilly, I would try to imitate her, play her. I realized that I owed her the very best of me as an actress, as a woman and a person. And the way to do that is to bring the best of you and to bring the best of yourself emotionally and physically and intellectually. And you can't do that if you are living with such an image. And Lilly is a very powerful image in my life. And so I had to kind of just bring her back to an ordinary life.
Q: Did you did you dig into her writings or her speeches?
A: I looked at a certain amount ... But I wanted her emotional life ever-present ... That's what's important because change is hard and people suffer to fight injustice .... I didn't care about mannerisms. I just wanted her emotional strife and struggle to be present.
Q: It must have been hard to anticipate how different the political moment would be when the movie was released.
A: I literally and figuratively had dreams of being on a press tour with Lilly. It was going to be the highlight of my life to be with this remarkable human being ... but then she passed. But maybe right now, is the greatest time for this film because it's reminding people that there can be accomplishments.
Q: Is it a more difficult political climate for a film like this?
A: I know the Democrats embraced her but let me tell you something: Lilly was not really a deeply political person, and that's something I held strong to ... And yeah, she spoke at the (Democratic National Convention) but she would have spoken at the (Republican National Convention) if she has been asked. Equal pay is equal pay. Whether you are North, South, East, West, whether you were red, blue or purple. She didn't care.
Q: You also recently starred in 'She Said,' the 2022 film about the New York Times' uncovering of the sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein. What are the parallels with 'Lilly'?
A: It's all of a piece. It's a mindset of certain men we have had to work with, either in Hollywood or in the workforce ... Hollywood's come a long way because I've been in it since 1985, and I've spoken about this. We used to meet male producers and directors in hotel rooms and actors in hotel rooms, and we all thought that was fine. We were paid less throughout. I was paid less throughout the whole beginning of my career.
Q: If there's one thing that you want the audience to take away about Lilly, what would it be?
A: She got back up, and you should be a proud American when you watch her.
_______
The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Alexandra Olson, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
33 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Chicago Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' .
New York Times
43 minutes ago
- New York Times
Justice Jackson Just Helped Reset the D.E.I. Debate
At the heart of the debate over diversity, equity and inclusion is a question: How much should the law treat a person as an individual rather than as a member of a group? For a very long time, American law and American institutions answered that question unequivocally. People were defined primarily by the group they belonged to, and if they happened to be Black or Native American or a woman, they were going to enjoy fewer rights, fewer privileges and fewer opportunities than the people who belonged to the categories white and male. That was — and remains — a grievous injustice. At a minimum, justice demands that a nation and its institutions cease and desist from malicious discrimination. But doesn't justice demand more? Doesn't it also require that a nation and its institutions actually try to provide assistance to targeted groups to help increase diversity in employment and education and help targeted groups overcome the systemic effects of centuries of discrimination? On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a case that was directly relevant to the latter question, and while the outcome wasn't surprising, the court's unanimity — and the identity of the author of the court's opinion — certainly was. The facts of the case, Ames v. Ohio, are simple. In 2004, the Ohio Department of Youth Services hired a heterosexual woman named Marlean Ames to work as an executive secretary. By 2019, she'd worked her way up to program administrator and set her sights higher — applying for a management position in the agency's Office of Quality and Improvement. The department interviewed Ames for the job but decided to hire someone else, a lesbian. The department then demoted Ames and replaced her with a gay man. Believing she'd been discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation, she filed suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
