

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.

Representatives from an array of public interest organizations delivered more than 550,000 petition signatures to the White House today, calling on President Barack Obama to curb the pernicious influence of money in politics by issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
Using a 15-foot inflatable flashlight as a prop to highlight the need to shine a light on dark money, the groups urged Obama to act immediately. They joined activists participating in nearly 60 events in 30 states to highlight the fact that Obama can single-handedly help curb Big Money dominance in elections, which he himself deemed a problem in his latest State of the Union address.
Events ranged from a rally at a street festival in New Orleans, Louisiana, to a demonstration on a pier filled with beachgoers in Clearwater, Florida, to a peaceful vigil in Leesburg, Virginia, to student-led protests on California and Minnesota college campuses, to events featuring everyone from members of Congress to Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's.
Further showing momentum for action, more than 55 organizations have signed a letter calling on Obama to shine a light on political spending by government contractors.
"An executive order would be a real start toward a more completely transparent political system. It would help the public to feel confident in our elected representatives and head off further perceptions of pay-to-play corruption," said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.
The support for an executive order shows that Americans are fed up with the current system, in which corporations that bid for government contracts do not have to disclose their campaign spending. This has led to a corrupt pay-to-play environment where government contractors can secretly funnel untold sums to help elect the very same lawmakers who are responsible for awarding government contracts. However, the solution does not require an act of Congress. Obama has the authority to fix the problem with the stroke of a pen.
"The fact that money plays an outsized role in our political system is no secret, but President Obama can sign an executive order to make our system just a little bit better - by requiring corporations that receive money from the federal government to disclose who they are financially supporting in Congress," said Greg Moore, NAACP National Voter Fund executive director. "The NAACP, a founding member of the Democracy Initiative, wholeheartedly supports this action and is committed to a political system that enables us to elect better representatives, enact better public policy and achieve a better, more representative government."
A March analysis conducted by Public Citizen found that just 27 percent of the 15 largest publicly traded federal contractors fully disclose the details of contributions they make to nonprofit groups and trade associations that could be used for electioneering expenditures. These contractors collectively were due $129.1 billion in federal payments in fiscal year 2013.
Additionally, a report released earlier this week by the Brennan Center lays out how and why Obama should mandate disclosure of political spending by government contractors. The analysis makes the case that an executive order from the president could ensure taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollars and head off any potential improprieties that could create opportunities for corruption.
"Americans deserve to know which corporations are trying to buy political influence. We deserve to be able to follow the money and call out corporations when they try to rig the system in their favor," said Diallo Brooks, director of outreach and partner engagement at People For the American Way. "President Obama, please hear the voices of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are asking you to act."
"Fossil fuel companies like Chevron are taking millions in taxpayer-backed federal contracts, and then turning around and secretively spending millions more to elect politicians who will let them pollute with impunity," said Courtney Hight, director of Sierra Club's Democracy Program. "By signing an executive order that brings more transparency to our political system, President Obama can take a huge step forward in breaking big oil's stranglehold on our government and work toward protecting our democracy and our environment at the same time."
"It is vital that the public sees where UPS, FedEx and Pitney Bowes - all with a hand in the government contracting till - are sending their corporate cash," said Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union. "We demand to know whose campaigns they are funding as they seek to weaken the public good, the public Postal Service. That will go a long way toward helping us to hold our elected representatives accountable."
"Voters are rightly frustrated and disenchanted by the corrupting influence of money in America's political system, and it is well past time to increase transparency and accountability in political spending," said Michele Jawando, vice president of legal progress at the Center for American Progress. "By requiring that taxpayer-funded government contractors disclose all forms of political spending, taxpayers and businesses alike can be assured that federal contracts are being awarded solely based on merit rather than by wielding financial leverage."
The events that took place today mark the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which further flooded elections with unprecedented amounts of money from corporations and the super-wealthy.
Find more information about the events.
View Public Citizen's petition. Other groups gathering petition signatures included Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, CREDO Action, Daily Kos, Democracy For America, Democrats.com, EveryVoice, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Just Foreign Policy, MoveOn.org, People For the American Way, Progressives United, Sierra Club, USAction and U.S. PIRG.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed," said Norman Solomon of RootsAction, which has led calls for the release.
Even former Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly "has no problem with a public airing" of the Democratic National Committee's internal "autopsy" report on her 2024 loss to Republican President Donald Trump—which the DNC has continued to conceal, despite mounting demands for transparency.
Harris' position was reported Thursday by NBC News, which noted that "while she indicated to donors that she had no issue with releasing it, Harris has not discussed the postmortem with DNC Chairman Ken Martin and did not know about his decision to keep it under wraps until it happened."
NBC cited "a person who has heard the conversations," one of multiple sources journalists Jonathan Allen and Natasha Korecki spoke with for their broader report exploring "turmoil over the Democratic Party’s future" and Harris' consideration of a 2028 run.
For months, Martin has resisted pressure to release the autopsy—which, as Axios revealed in February, found that the Biden administration's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip contributed to Harris' defeat.
Citing a "person close to Harris," NBC also reported Thursday that the former VP "is signaling privately that she has more to say about the Middle East now that she is freed from the Biden White House policy," and "she is likely to do so after the midterm elections," either "from the perspective of a party elder or from the perspective of a candidate seeking votes."
While touring the country for the book she wrote after her loss, Harris has publicly acknowledged that she is weighing another White House run. Though the 2028 election is two and a half years away, she has led early polling. However, the party's potential primary field is incredibly crowded, featuring dozens of current or former governors and members of Congress.
Potential contenders include governors from the Trump 2.0 era—such as Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan—as well as leading progressive voices in Congress, such as Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction, which has spearheaded calls for publishing the full postmortem, wrote in a recent opinion piece for Common Dreams that "Martin's concealment of the autopsy report puts a thumb on the scale for one candidate: Kamala Harris."
Solomon highlighted the DNC's reported conclusion about the role of the Gaza genocide in the election result, and suggested that "renewed attention to the Harris 2024 finances would also be unwelcome."
In response to Harris' reported remarks to donors, Solomon said Thursday that "more than four months have passed since Martin announced he was reneging on his promise to release the autopsy.
"But Harris still hasn't made any public statement that she believes it should be released," he added. "Saying so privately to some big donors is very different than publicly calling for transparency from the DNC, which is badly needed."
"Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest, it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor."
A group of Senate Democrats on Thursday told Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr to back off his threats to strip Disney-owned TV network ABC of its broadcast licenses.
In a letter addressed to Carr, the Democrats took Carr to task for ordering Disney to file early license renewals for eight ABC stations shortly after President Donald Trump demanded that the network fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Kimmel earned Trump's ire when he jokingly likened first lady Melania Trump to an "expectant widow" days before a gunman stormed into the White House Correspondents' Dinner in an alleged attempt to assassinate the president.
The senators called Carr's order an "extraordinary abuse of power" and "the latest and most extreme step in your use of the FCC’s licensing authority as a cudgel against broadcasters whose editorial choices displease the president."
The Democrats charged that the order "appears to penalize Disney for refusing to capitulate to Trump’s demands to fire Kimmel and to send a message to other broadcasters: Modify your speech to favor Trump or face the FCC’s wrath," while noting that the order was the first time in over 50 years that the commission had called on a broadcaster to apply for early renewal.
The day before the order to Disney, the FCC sent a similar order to a small station license holder called Bridge News.
Carr's order to Disney was also part of a broad pattern of Trump administration assaults on the free press, including calls to fire Kimmel last year after the comedian said Trump and his political allies were trying “to score political points" after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"Although the FCC has the authority to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest," they wrote, "it cannot serve as President Trump’s roving censor, threatening to revoke licenses against broadcasters whose editorial content—including a comedian’s jokes—displeases the president."
The Democrats concluded their letter by asking Carr to provide information about the timing and process by which the FCC decided to send Disney its early renewal order, including whether any FCC staff had communicated with the White House about the order before it was issued.
The letter was signed by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Maria Cantwell (D-NM), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabethe Warren (D-Mass.).
"Performative dipshittery, wrapped in fictional jingoism, delivered by an incompetent drunk wearing the clothes of an adolescent boy," said one critic of Hegseth's video.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drew instant ridicule on Thursday after he released a video touting President Donald Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion military budget as a fiscally responsible plan that is "putting the American taxpayer first."
At the start of the video, Hegseth accuses defense contractors of bilking the Pentagon for expenses such as factory construction, while also constantly charging more for cost overruns.
Hegseth then claims that Trump has brought together a group of private-sector negotiators whom he's labeled "Deal Team Six" to lay down the law on the defense industry and save the US taxpayer money.
Thanks to President Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget, this War Department has moved from bureaucracy to business.
This is a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT in our Arsenal of Freedom—ensuring our military remains the most lethal fighting force in the world. pic.twitter.com/ykIfMw3kuU
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) May 7, 2026
Hegseth never explains how it is possible that the president and his "Deal Team Six" are saving US taxpayers money while at the same time asking US taxpayers to fund a $1.5 trillion military budget that would be over 50% more than the 2025 US defense budget and more than four times the money spent on defense by China, the world's second biggest defense spender.
Regardless, Hegseth wrote in a social media post that the $1.5 trillion budget would be "a FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT in our Arsenal of Freedom—ensuring our military remains the most lethal fighting force in the world."
Critics of the Trump administration erupted in mockery after seeing the Hegseth video.
"Spread this lame ass video everywhere," wrote Pod Save America co-host Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama. "I want every voter to know that Trump has requested a $1.5 TRILLION Pentagon budget. Shut up if you want better healthcare or for Social Security to remain solvent. All you get is more bombs to drop on Iranian schools."
Indigo Olivier, a reporter for The New Republic, said Democrats could make the proposed Trump budget a winning issue given how many other problems—including the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, and healthcare—that the Trump administration seemingly has no interest in addressing.
"I would love to hear Democrats talk about Pentagon price gouging with even half the energy they devote to Hasan Piker," she wrote. "The administration pushing a $1.5 trillion defense budget somehow becoming the face of anti-waste messaging is political malpractice."
Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) described Trump's proposed Pentagon budget as "hundreds of billions more in waste and fraud—at taxpayer expense."
"Remember when this administration pretended it was going to bring down the national debt?" Amash asked.
Former Republican political strategist Jeff Timmer delivered an even harsher assessment of Hegseth's video, which he labeled "performative dipshittery, wrapped in fictional jingoism, delivered by an incompetent drunk wearing the clothes of an adolescent boy."
Journalist Patrick Henningsen ripped Hegseth for delivering a "desperate, dumbed-down message" that he predicted would "go down in history as one of the biggest own-goals yet—and the worst pieces of war propaganda we’ve ever seen."
Steven Kosiak, nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote an analysis last month of Trump's proposed $1.5 trillion military budget in which he said, "It is difficult to overstate just how massive an increase in defense spending this would represent, or how unhinged it seems to be from reality and sober policymaking."