

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Garrett Russo // 202.408.5565
Being a convicted felon ought to disqualify someone from being
elected to Congress; unfortunately it doesn't. When a convicted crook
like James Traficant (I-Ohio) runs for Congress, it does, however,
unquestionably qualify him to join the Wall of Shame that is America's Most Crooked Candidates.
Being a convicted felon ought to disqualify someone from being
elected to Congress; unfortunately it doesn't. When a convicted crook
like James Traficant (I-Ohio) runs for Congress, it does, however,
unquestionably qualify him to join the Wall of Shame that is America's Most Crooked Candidates.
Since
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) first
released the list in late July, two candidates listed have been
defeated. Traficant is an exceptional entry to the list - he's one of
only two people ever to be expelled by the House of Representatives
since the Civil War.
The Youngtown, Ohio-area former congressman was convicted in 2002 of
10 bribery, tax evasion and racketeering charges. He was recently
released from prison after serving a seven year sentence.
"Given his felony convictions, for Mr. Traficant to claim he is the best person to represent the 17th
district of Ohio suggests he has -- to borrow his favorite tag-line --
been beamed up by Scotty," said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan.
CREW's Crooked Candidates focuses on office-seekers who have engaged in unethical and sometimes criminal conduct. Their misdeeds range from quid pro quo
schemes to abusing state office for the benefit of friends and donors,
to an obscenity charge. A few candidates even made the list because of
their involvement in national political scandals: two were involved in
the Abramoff investigation and one played a role in the Bush
administration's politicization of the U.S. Attorneys' offices. Two
crooked candidates (J.D. Hayworth and Jeff Greene) have already been defeated.
"The American People deserve better," concluded Ms. Sloan. "We
shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils when we go to
vote, and we shouldn't have to worry that the Most Corrupt Candidates
will someday grow up to become the Most Corrupt Members of Congress."
With more than 2,300 people running for office this year, CREW's list
is likely only the tip of the iceberg. CREW invites anyone who is aware
of a particularly disgraceful candidate to forward information about
that candidate's misdeeds to: Tipline@citizensforethics.org.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials -- regardless of party affiliation -- who sacrifice the common good to special interests. CREW advances its mission using a combination of research, litigation and media outreach.
"I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not."
Speaking with reporters on Friday about the killing of Renee Nicole Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis earlier this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the violence exposes a key contrast about the nation she wants to live in and the vision espoused by Vice President JD Vance, who has been outspoken in his demonization of the victim while defending the actions of Ross.
"I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not," said the New York Democrat to a gaggle of reporters outside the Capitol Building. "And that is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street."
REP. @AOC: “I understand VP Vance believes shooting a young mother in the face 3x is an acceptable 🇺🇸 he wants to live in, and I do not. That is a fundamental difference between VP Vance and I. I do not believe 🇺🇸 people should be assassinated in the street.” pic.twitter.com/KM6W6FpWnh
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) January 9, 2026
The specific question was asked by CBS News' Patrick Maguire who asked for Ocasio-Cortez's reaction to Vance claiming that the killing of Good was "a tragedy" of her "own making." In comments in the White House briefing room on Thursday, a day after the shooting, Vance said it was "preposterous" for anyone to criticize the actions of Ross.
Vance, along with President Donald Trump and other White House officials, have repeatedly tried to deny what video evidence of the shooting clearly shows: that Good was presenting no imminent threat to the officer, did not "target" him with her vehicle, and was not—as officials claimed—fully blocking the street from passing vehicles prior to her killing.
Vance on Thursday also falsely asserted that ICE agents like Ross have "absolute immunity" for their actions, a claim that legal experts—as well as prosecutors in Minnesota—have said is simply not true.
In her remarks to reporters on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez lamented what she called "extrajudicial killings" by ICE agents on the streets of America, exceeding their mandates and empowered by a huge influx of funding provided by the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers this year.
Ocasio-Cortez said it "shows the danger we are in," when Trump claims, like he did in an interview with the New York Times this week, that he will only be constrained by his "own morality," suggesting Congress and the judiciary are not obstacles to his power.
"We have a Republican majority that has decided to completely abdicate its power to the president," she said. "I think it's up to the American people to ensure that we take away power from those who do not use it well."
In contrast to Republicans who say ICE agents operating in cities across the country are "just doing their jobs," Ocasio-Cortez said, "I would not say that assassinating a young mother of three in the street is part of ICE's mandate." She encouraged people not to take her word for it, but to "watch the video for yourselves."
"Watch that video for yourself and you will see a woman trying to back up her vehicle and leave a volatile scene—and she was met with three bullets to the face," the lawmaker said. "Any law enforcement officer in the country, worth their salt, can tell you that is not how you handle that situation."
Ocasio-Cortez and Vance are both seen as leading possible contenders for their respective parties when it comes to the presidential race in 2028.
"Vance, who may see himself pitted against [Ocasio-Cortez] in a general election," said journalist Ryan Grim on Friday, "will deeply regret—I hope in his heart, but certainly politically—trashing Renee Good as "deranged" while valorizing his killer, who called her a 'fuckin' bitch' after shooting her through her side window."
Released Friday, and posted on social media by Vance, video footage taken from Ross' own phone, which was holding and filming with in the moment leading up to the shooting, Good's final words to recorded were not those of an angry or "deranged" person, but a smiling local citizen who said to Good, "It's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you."
"We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts," said the ACLU of Wisconsin legal director.
Residents of Wisconsin and Washington, DC this week continued the legal fight against efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to gain access to confidential information about registered voters as the Democratic National Committee issued a related warning to 10 state governments.
The group Common Cause on Thursday highlighted its recent motion to intervene in United States v. Evans, a federal lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against the District of Columbia's Board of Elections, led by Monica Evans.
Lawyers from the ACLU National Voting Rights Project filed the motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Common Cause and two DC voters, Ruth Goldman and Chris Melody Fields, in late December.
As the filing notes, the Trump administration wants to obtain personal details about adults in DC and all 50 states "to build an unauthorized national voter database and to target voters for potential challenges and disenfranchisement."
The Republican administration has sued nearly half of US states plus DC in a bid to get their voter information.
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote."
Ethan Herenstein, staff attorney with the ACLU project, explained in a statement that "federal law does not authorize the Department of Justice to demand sweeping access to voters' most sensitive personal information."
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote," Herenstein warned.
Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, senior director of litigation at Common Cause, said that "voters in DC, and all voters, rightly expect the government to keep their personal information secure and only use it for its intended purpose of maintaining accurate records."
"We are committed to defending voters' rights and privacy in Washington, DC and nationwide, and this case is one of many where we are stepping in to ensure those protections are upheld," she continued.
The Trump administration's attempt to build a national voter database could be the catalyst for disenfranchising voters nationwide and putting our private data at risk.We're taking legal action to defend the states rightfully refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Justice Department's scheme.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) January 6, 2026 at 11:29 AM
Demonstrating that commitment, Common Cause and the ACLU also partnered with attorneys from Law Forward and three Wisconsin voters—Melissa Adams, Amanda Makulec, and Jaime Riefer—on Thursday to file a motion to intervene in a similar suit the administration launched against the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has refused to hand over vote data.
"If provided this data, the Justice Department could easily manipulate the data to spread disinformation about voting and attempt to baselessly target eligible voters and remove them from the rolls," said Ryan Cox, legal director at the ACLU of Wisconsin. "We've seen this play out in numerous other states, and there is no reason to believe that this administration wouldn't weaponize Wisconsinites' private data toward those same ends. We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts."
Eric Neff, the acting chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, said in federal court last month that Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming—which all have Republican secretaries of state—have "complied voluntarily" with the department's data demand. He also said that several other states "have expressed with us a willingness to comply" based on an agreement called a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "that we have sent them." The DNC issued warnings to 10 of those states on Friday.
Daniel Freeman, the DNC's litigation director, sent letters to election leaders Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah "to address an imminent violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)," pointing to Neff's comments about the MOU.
Specifically, the letter warns that the MOU's 45-day removal demand "has the potential to violate two provisions of the NVRA: the notice and waiting provision governing removal based on a suspected change in residence... and the quiet period provision barring systematic voter list maintenance in the months before a federal election."
"This letter does not constitute written notice of violations of the NVRA," Freeman noted. "Rather, the DNC sends this letter in the hope that the imminent violations set out above may still be avoided. Nonetheless, the DNC stands ready to issue a formal notice should evidence of ongoing violations come to light."
In a Friday statement, DNC Chair Ken Martin accused Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi of a "big government power grab" aimed at gathering "sensitive personal information like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and party affiliation, opening the door to privacy concerns and further political retribution."
"The DNC won't stand idly by as the Trump DOJ tries to get access to voters' sensitive information and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongfully purged from voter rolls, which is why we are calling on secretaries of state and election officials across the country to stand up for voters and reject the Trump administration's illegal agreement," he said. "To be clear: Democrats stand ready to fight back and defend voters, and we're prepared to use the tools at our disposal to do so."
Some state officials have already publicly responded. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen accused the DNC of "grandstanding" and said that he has no plans to sign an MOU but will send the state's registration list next month "unless barred by a court order," while a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that the state sent its voter roll last month.
Others have been tight-lipped. The office of Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson—who gave the administration a public statewide voter registration list last year—told Deseret News on Friday that she doesn't have anything additional to add at this time. Mississippi Today reported that Secretary of State Michael Watson's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TJ Lundeen, a spokeperson for the South Carolina Election Commission, told the Post and Courier that the agency's legal team is reviewing the DNC's letter. Lunden added that any deal with the DOJ will be presented and voted on during a public meeting.
Meanwhile, a DOJ spokesperson told Axios, which reported on the DNC letters, that "organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they'd like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court."
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also weighed in, telling the outlet that "the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all give the Department of Justice full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls."
"President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered noncitizen voters," she added of the Republican leader who notably tried to cling to power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The current fight over voter data dates back to Trump's controversial March executive order on US elections. In October, DC-based District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the part that required proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms. The ACLU was also involved in that legal battle. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the group's Voting Rights Project, welcomed the ruling as a "clear victory for our democracy."
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
ExxonMobil's CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently "uninvestible" following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration's goal of exploiting the South American nation's vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday's White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
There is also skepticism regarding Trump's promise of "total safety" for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela's vast oil resources.
The oil executives' apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump's own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. "And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House."
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that "already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil."
"This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives," Ratner added.
Noting that "Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday's meeting as "returning the favor" and "oligarchy in action."
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Trump shows you his priorities–Big Oil companies.“Running” Venezuela is all about enriching his donors.The American people are done fighting foreign wars to pad the pockets of oil executives.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jason Crow (@crow.house.gov) January 9, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
"That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about 'narcoterrorism' and always about oil," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro's ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
"Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?" Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
"Not pro-democracy leaders," she said. "Oil and gas executives."