SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 05 2010, 12:19pm EDT
Contact:
Rick Bielke,Communications Director,(Ph)202.293.0222 | (Fx)202.293.0202,rbielke@publicampaign.org
Watchdog Responds to Troubling New Report on U.S. Chamber of Commerce Funding
WASHINGTON
Public Campaign responded to the new report from Think Progress alleging that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is using foreign donations to influence elections.
"The U.S. Chamber has pledged to spend $75 million this election
cycle to install its acolytes on Capitol Hill, and now it appears they
might be doing it with foreign money." said Nick Nyhart, president and
CEO of Public Campaign. "If these allegations are true, the Chamber must
immediately remove any advertisement paid for with foreign funds."
"No wonder the American people are angry--everyday they see a new
story about a secretive outside group spending unlimited sums on our
elections without any sort of transparency or accountability," said
Nyhart. "It's too late to do anything before November 2nd, but Congress
must immediately work to put elections back in the hands of voters."
According to the report, Think Progress has found that the Chamber is
fundraising for its general fund, which is used to pay for the attack
ads, from foreign nationals and foreign corporations, possibly in
violation of campaign finance law. The full report is available online.
In September, an IRS complaint was filed against the Chamber alleging
that it "violated tax codes by laundering millions of dollars meant for
charitable work from a group with ties to the insurance giant A.I.G."
Public Campaign and a broad coalition of organizations representing
millions of Americans have been urging Congress to pass the Fair
Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R. 6116/1826), legislation that would make
elected officials accountable to the people, instead of their big
campaign donors. With Fair Elections, candidates can run competitive
campaigns by relying on small donations from people back home.
On September 23rd, the Committee on House Administration passed the
legislation and it now heads to the floor. Nearly 300 state and national
organizations, representing millions of Americans, have signed a letter
to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urging her to bring the legislation
to a vote when Congress returns after the election.
Learn more at www.fairelectionsnow.org.
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics. Public Campaign is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system. Together we are building a network of national and state-based efforts to create a powerful national force for federal and state campaign reform.
LATEST NEWS
Most Campus 'Antisemitism' Probes Target Criticism of Israel, Not Anti-Jewish Hate: Report
The report shows how a landmark civil rights law "is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians," said one AAUP leader.
Nov 06, 2025
Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, pro-Israel and far-right advocacy groups have driven a surge of federal civil rights investigations conflating true antisemitism with university professors and students' criticism of the US-backed Israeli government and its genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
That's according to Discriminating Against Dissent: The Weaponization of Civil Rights Law to Repress Campus Speech on Palestine, a report published this week by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).
"Our members, because of their expertise on the region, have long borne the brunt of allegations that falsely equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism," MESA president Aslı Bâli said in a statement. "Complaints like these penalize scholars for teaching basic facts about the region."
The report begins: "Over the past two years, the United States government has taken unprecedented steps to suppress campus speech—including scholarship, advocacy, and protest—opposing the state of Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. This crackdown has paved the way for profound transformations in US colleges and universities."
"A long-standing 'Palestine exception' to the First Amendment now threatens to give way to a new reality: Palestine is less an exception to academic freedom than it is a pretext for erasing the norm altogether, as part of an authoritarian assault on the autonomy of higher education and on the very idea of racial and gender equity," the document warns.
The analysis comes as President Donald Trump continues his sweeping attack, aiming to shut down the Department of Education, deport foreign students critical of Israel, and bully campus leaders into signing an "extortion agreement" for federal funding.
"In effect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no longer being used to address racial discrimination in higher education," Bâli told the Guardian, which first reported on the findings. "Instead, Title VI has been repurposed as part of the administration's broader effort to remake higher education in line with its right-wing political and cultural agenda."
AAUP and MESA found that "more investigations were opened in the last two months of 2023 (25) than in all previous years combined (24). Investigations broke record numbers in 2024 (39) and are on track to do so again in 2025 (38, as of September 30)."
"All but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism," the document states.
The report highlights that "the Biden administration opened more antisemitism probes against colleges and universities (65) than for all other types of racial harassment combined (38)," and "the Trump administration appears to have halted racial harassment investigations altogether."
The federal probes "are producing a new system of government surveillance and monitoring of campus speech," the report notes, with over 20 schools agreeing to share internal data on discrimination complaints with the government.
Examining Trump's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, the researchers found that the Department of Education "has continued to open very high numbers of antisemitism probes even as its staff has been slashed by the Trump administration," and "in its high-profile campaigns against prestigious universities, the task force has systematically ignored the procedural requirements of Title VI, unlawfully cutting off vast sums of funding before any meaningful investigation, let alone findings."
For at least 78% of the complaints examined by AAUP and MESA, pro-Israel and right-wing advocacy organizations—including those without any campus presence—served as complainants or represented them. Such groups have also been involved with private lawsuits intended to redefine antisemitism as including criticism of Israel and restrict such criticism at universities.
"Antisemitism lawsuits surged after October 7, 2023 (two filed before that date, 26 since)," according to the analysis. "No court has yet made a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In nine cases, Title VI claims have been dismissed, including on free speech grounds; nine lawsuits have settled, some of which resulted in even more draconian policy changes on campuses than government investigations."
AAUP general counsel Veena Dubal said that "the findings in this report underscore how the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which passed in response to years of nonviolent civil disobedience against racial injustice—is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians."
"This is a perverse outcome," Dubal declared, as AAUP prepares for Friday protests pressuring leaders at over 100 institutions to reject the president's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" and make schooling more affordable.
As AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement about the day of action earlier this week, "From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of lifesaving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump's higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy."
"We're excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good," he added. Other supporting groups include Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Gen-Z for Change, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, March for Our Lives, and Sunrise Movement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning Against Taxpayer Bailout for Big Tech, Critics Fume Over OpenAI Execs' Talk of Government Loans
"Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure," warned one critic. "Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts."
Nov 06, 2025
Tech giant OpenAI generated significant backlash this week after one of its top executives floated potential loan guarantees from the US government to help fund its massive infrastructure buildout.
In a Wednesday interview with The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI chief financial officer Sarah Friar suggested that the federal government could get involved in infrastructure development for artificial intelligence by offering a "guarantee," which she said could "drop the cost of the financing" and increase the amount of debt her firm could take on.
When asked if she was specifically talking about a "federal backstop for chip investment," she replied, "Exactly."
Hours after the interview, Friar walked back her remarks and insisted that "OpenAI is not seeking a government backstop for our infrastructure commitments," while adding that she was "making the point that American strength in technology will come from building real industrial capacity, which requires the private sector and government playing their part."
Despite Friar's walk-back, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said during a podcast interview with economist Tyler Cowen that released on Thursday that he believed the government ultimately could be a backstop to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When something gets sufficiently huge... the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises," he said. "Given the magnitude of what I expect AI's economic impact to look like, I do think the government ends up as the insurer of last resort."
Friar and Altman's remarks about government backstops for OpenAI loans drew the immediate ire of Robert Weissman, co-president of consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, who expressed concerns that the tech industry may have already opened up talks about loan guarantees with President Donald Trump's administration.
"Given the Trump regime’s eagerness to shower taxpayer subsidies and benefits on favored corporations, it is entirely possible that OpenAI and the White House are concocting a scheme to siphon taxpayer money into OpenAI’s coffers, perhaps with some tribute paid to Trump and his family." Weissman said. "Perhaps not so coincidentally, OpenAI President Greg Brockman was among the attendees at a dinner for donors to Trump’s White House ballroom, though neither he nor OpenAI have been reported to be actual donors."
JB Branch, Public Citizen’s Big Tech accountability advocate, said even suggesting government backstops for OpenAI showed that the company and its executives were "completely out of touch with reality," and he argued it was no coincidence that Friar floated the possibility of federal loan guarantees at a time when many analysts have been questioning whether the AI industry is an unsustainable financial bubble.
"The truth is simple: the AI bubble is swelling, and OpenAI knows it," he said. "Big Tech is building a mountain of speculative infrastructure without real-world demands or proven productivity-enhancing use cases to justify it. Now it wants the US government to prop up the bubble before it bursts. This is an escape plan for an industry that has overpromised and underdelivered."
An MIT Media Lab report found in September that while AI use has doubled in workplaces since 2023, 95% of organizations that have invested in the technology have seen "no measurable return on their investment."
Concerns about an AI bubble intensified earlier this week when investor Michael Burry, who famously made a fortune by short-selling the US housing market ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, revealed that his firm was making bets against Nvidia and Palantir, two of the biggest players in the AI industry.
This has led to some AI industry players to complain that markets and governments are undervaluing their products.
During her Wednesday WSJ interview, for instance, Friar complained that "I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individual."
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, meanwhile, told the Financial Times that China was going to beat the US in the race to develop high-powered artificial intelligence because the Chinese government offers more energy subsidies to AI and doesn't put as much regulation on AI development.
Huang also complained that "we need more optimism" about the AI industry in the US.
Investment researcher Ross Hendricks, however, dismissed Huang's warning about China winning the AI battle, and he accused the Nvidia CEO of seeking special government favors.
"This is nothing more than Jensen Huang foaming the runway for a federal AI bailout in coordination with OpenAI's latest plea in the WSJ," he commented in a post on X. "These grifters simply can't be happy making billions from one of the greatest investment manias of all time. They'll do everything possible to loot taxpayers to prevent it from popping."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Aim to Stop Trump 'From Dragging This Country Into War' With Venezuela
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," stressed one of the war powers resolution's co-sponsors.
Nov 06, 2025
As the Trump administration argues that it can continue its extrajudicial assassination spree of alleged drug runners on the high seas without congressional approval, the US Senate is set to vote Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block military action against Venezuela absent lawmakers' assent—as required by law.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a resolution to block US military "hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress," citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and Congress' sole ability to declare war under the Constitution.
Posting on X ahead of Thursday's vote, Schiff said that the measure's co-sponsors "are forcing a bipartisan vote to block the administration from dragging this country into war in South America."
"Congress needs to assert its constitutional power to prohibit use of military force," he added.
Trump has PUBLICLY threatened land strikes in Venezuela—after already killing at least 66 unknown people on boats in the Caribbean—unnecessarily putting the U.S. at risk of war. Here’s what @schiff.senate.gov, Senator Paul, and I are doing about it:youtube.com/shorts/TQKsF...
[image or embed]
— Senator Tim Kaine (@kaine.senate.gov) November 6, 2025 at 8:29 AM
Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy, a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that President Donald Trump "talks about himself as a historic peacemaker while continuing to order reckless military strikes and threatening to invade countries around the world."
"His actions violate both the Constitution and his own promises to be an anti-war president," he added.
This is the second time Kaine and Schiff have tried to introduce a Venezuela war powers resolution. Last month, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman joined his GOP colleagues in voting down a similar measure. Paul joined Democrats and Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) in voting for the legislation.
Since September 2, Trump has overseen 16 reported attacks on vessels allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America, killing at least 67 people. Venezuelan and Colombian officials, as well as relatives of some of the slain men, assert that some victims were fishers and condemned the attacks as war crimes.
Trump—who deployed an armada of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela—has also approved covert CIA action and, along with senior administration officials, threatened to attack targets on land inside the oil-rich country, which has long been subjected to US meddling, regime change, and deadly sanctions. Late last month, the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said that his country’s security forces captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a "false-flag attack" against the nation.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration at the tail end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and mandates that lawmakers must approve troop deployments after 60 days.
That 60-day door closed on Monday. However, according to The Washington Post, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel T. Elliott Gaiser told lawmakers this week that Trump is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, as the administration does not believe that the boat strikes legally meet the definition of "hostilities" because the victims of the attacks aren't fighting back.
The dubious argument that acts of US military aggression aren't hostilities isn't new—the Obama administration asserted similar immunity from the War Powers Resolution when it decided to attack Libya in 2011, leading to the ouster of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi and over a decade of enduring conflict and division.
As Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser who is now a senior official at the International Crisis Group, wrote for Just Security this week:
There are many flaws with the Trump administration’s reported interpretation of hostilities. As indicated in the legislative history, Congress understood the term “hostilities” to apply broadly, more broadly than “armed conflict.” The Obama administration’s prior attempt to restrictively interpret the term garnered strong bipartisan congressional opposition...
That the Trump administration would resort to creative lawyering to circumvent the limits of the War Powers Resolution is hardly a surprise... It nonetheless is yet another legal abuse and arrogation of power by the executive. And it is a power grab in the service of killing people outside the law based solely on the president’s own say-so.
"Congress needs to push back against this attempt by the White House to further encroach upon its constitutional prerogatives on the use of military force," Finucane added. "The legislative branch should reject the executive’s strained legal interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, including possibly in legislation. Congress should also continue efforts to halt these killings at sea and block an unlawful attack on Venezuela."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular