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.
Israeli officials say that Binyamin Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's 'vague assertion' that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. (photo/Jim Watson/AFP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to Washington next week for the annual meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. While in town, Netanyahu will meet on Monday with President Obama to demand that the President commits to military action aginst Iran.
Obama is reportedly frustrated by what he sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress. Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
Mr. Obama speaks to the AIPAC delegates Sunday morning and Netanyahu addresses the group Monday night. On Tuesday, Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will speak to AIPAC.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran.
* * *
The Guardian/UK is reporting this afternoon:
[...] Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Obama has dispatched senior officials - including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs - to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.
Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously.
The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress.
"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking.
They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress." [...]
Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use force if Iran's nuclear program advances beyond specified red lines. [...]
Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use forceThe chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress this week that during a recent visit to Jerusalem the principal difference was over the question of how long to give sanctions and diplomacy an opportunity to work. "We've had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said.
Dempsey was one of several senior US officials to travel to Israel in recent weeks, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.
Dempsey infuriated Netanyahu with comments that it is "premature" to launch an attack and that an Israeli assault on Iran would be imprudent and destabilizing, and not achieve Israel's objectives. He also said that Iran is a "rational" player and should be treated as such.
Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week, including John McCain, and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
After the meeting, McCain criticized the White House position. "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some," he said.
McCain described relations between the US and Israel as in "very bad shape right now" saying that differences over Iran have caused "significant tension". He appeared to side with the Israeli position in noting that "there is very little doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred to get nuclear weapons".
Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks. They demanded that Obama insist Iran halt its uranium enrichment program before talks begin.
More than half the members of the Senate have backed a resolution that some see as pressing for an attack in declaring that the White House should not pursue a policy of "containment".
Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices - peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program."
Critics of the resolution said that it smacks of a congressional authorization for an attack on Iran. That view was reinforced when the sponsors declined a request from some Democrats to amend it to clarify that the resolution did not imply consent for war.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran. US officials scoff at the idea that Washington would not know an assault is coming, and the Israeli position may be intended to allow the White House to deny any responsibility.
# # #
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to Washington next week for the annual meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. While in town, Netanyahu will meet on Monday with President Obama to demand that the President commits to military action aginst Iran.
Obama is reportedly frustrated by what he sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress. Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
Mr. Obama speaks to the AIPAC delegates Sunday morning and Netanyahu addresses the group Monday night. On Tuesday, Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will speak to AIPAC.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran.
* * *
The Guardian/UK is reporting this afternoon:
[...] Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Obama has dispatched senior officials - including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs - to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.
Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously.
The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress.
"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking.
They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress." [...]
Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use force if Iran's nuclear program advances beyond specified red lines. [...]
Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use forceThe chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress this week that during a recent visit to Jerusalem the principal difference was over the question of how long to give sanctions and diplomacy an opportunity to work. "We've had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said.
Dempsey was one of several senior US officials to travel to Israel in recent weeks, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.
Dempsey infuriated Netanyahu with comments that it is "premature" to launch an attack and that an Israeli assault on Iran would be imprudent and destabilizing, and not achieve Israel's objectives. He also said that Iran is a "rational" player and should be treated as such.
Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week, including John McCain, and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
After the meeting, McCain criticized the White House position. "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some," he said.
McCain described relations between the US and Israel as in "very bad shape right now" saying that differences over Iran have caused "significant tension". He appeared to side with the Israeli position in noting that "there is very little doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred to get nuclear weapons".
Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks. They demanded that Obama insist Iran halt its uranium enrichment program before talks begin.
More than half the members of the Senate have backed a resolution that some see as pressing for an attack in declaring that the White House should not pursue a policy of "containment".
Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices - peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program."
Critics of the resolution said that it smacks of a congressional authorization for an attack on Iran. That view was reinforced when the sponsors declined a request from some Democrats to amend it to clarify that the resolution did not imply consent for war.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran. US officials scoff at the idea that Washington would not know an assault is coming, and the Israeli position may be intended to allow the White House to deny any responsibility.
# # #
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to Washington next week for the annual meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. While in town, Netanyahu will meet on Monday with President Obama to demand that the President commits to military action aginst Iran.
Obama is reportedly frustrated by what he sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress. Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
Mr. Obama speaks to the AIPAC delegates Sunday morning and Netanyahu addresses the group Monday night. On Tuesday, Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will speak to AIPAC.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran.
* * *
The Guardian/UK is reporting this afternoon:
[...] Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is expected to raise the issue at a White House meeting on Monday after weeks of intense diplomacy in which Obama has dispatched senior officials - including his intelligence, national security and military chiefs - to Jerusalem to try and dampen down talk of an attack.
Diplomats say that Israel is angered by the Obama administration's public disparaging of early military action against Iran, saying that it weakens the prospect of Tehran taking the warnings from Israel seriously.
The two sides are attempting to agree a joint public statement to paper over the divide but talks will not be made easier by a deepening distrust in which the Israelis question Obama's commitment to confront Iran while the White House is frustrated by what it sees as political interference by Netanyahu to mobilize support for Israel's position in the US Congress.
"They are poles apart," said one diplomatic source. "The White House believes there is time for sanctions to work and that military threats don't help. The Israelis regard this as woolly thinking.
They see Iran as headed towards a bomb, even though they agree there is no evidence Tehran has made that decision yet, and they want the White House to up the ante. The White House has the Europeans behind its position but it's losing Congress." [...]
Israeli officials say that Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use force if Iran's nuclear program advances beyond specified red lines. [...]
Netanyahu is not happy with Obama's "vague assertion" that all options are on the table in dealing with Iran. The Israeli prime minister wants Obama to state unequivocally that Washington is prepared to use forceThe chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress this week that during a recent visit to Jerusalem the principal difference was over the question of how long to give sanctions and diplomacy an opportunity to work. "We've had a conversation with them about time, the issue of time," he said.
Dempsey was one of several senior US officials to travel to Israel in recent weeks, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper.
Dempsey infuriated Netanyahu with comments that it is "premature" to launch an attack and that an Israeli assault on Iran would be imprudent and destabilizing, and not achieve Israel's objectives. He also said that Iran is a "rational" player and should be treated as such.
Netanyahu met a group of US senators last week, including John McCain, and complained strongly about Obama administration officials publicly opposing an Israeli strike on Iran.
After the meeting, McCain criticized the White House position. "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some," he said.
McCain described relations between the US and Israel as in "very bad shape right now" saying that differences over Iran have caused "significant tension". He appeared to side with the Israeli position in noting that "there is very little doubt that Iran has so far been undeterred to get nuclear weapons".
Last week, 12 senators sent the president a letter warning that he should not allow Tehran to buy time by engaging in fruitless diplomatic negotiations, expected to begin in the coming weeks. They demanded that Obama insist Iran halt its uranium enrichment program before talks begin.
More than half the members of the Senate have backed a resolution that some see as pressing for an attack in declaring that the White House should not pursue a policy of "containment".
Senator Joe Lieberman, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices - peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program."
Critics of the resolution said that it smacks of a congressional authorization for an attack on Iran. That view was reinforced when the sponsors declined a request from some Democrats to amend it to clarify that the resolution did not imply consent for war.
Israeli officials told the Associated Press this week that Israel will not notify the US before an attack on Iran. US officials scoff at the idea that Washington would not know an assault is coming, and the Israeli position may be intended to allow the White House to deny any responsibility.
# # #
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately."
The international advocacy group Reporters Without Borders on Monday called on the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting following the massacre of six Palestinian media professionals in an Israeli strike on the Gaza Strip.
Al Jazeera reporters Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh, camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa, and independent journalist Mohammed al-Khaldi were killed Sunday in a targeted Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strike on their tent outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
The IDF claimed that al-Sharif—one of the most prominent Palestinian journalists—"was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell," repeating an allegation first made last year. However, independent assessments by United Nations experts, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) concluded that Israel's allegations were unsubstantiated.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill warned last year that the IDF's portrayal of al-Sharif and other Palestinian journalists as Hamas members was "an assassination threat and an attempt to preemptively justify their murder" for showing the world the genocidal realities of Israel's U.S.-backed war.
"Tonight Israel murdered the bravest journalistic hero in Gaza, Anas al-Sharif," Scahill said Sunday on social media. "For nearly two straight years, he documented the genocide of his people with courage and principle. Israel put him on a hit list because of his voice. Shame on this world and all who were silent."
Al Jazeera condemned Sunday's massacre as "a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza."
RSF issued a statement accusing the IDF of killing the six men "without providing solid evidence" of Hamas affiliation, a "disgraceful tactic" that is "repeatedly used against journalists to cover up war crimes."
The Paris-based nonprofit noted that Israeli forces have "already killed more than 200 media professionals"—including at least 19 Al Jazeera workers and freelancers—since the IDF began its annihilation and siege of Gaza in retaliation for the October 7, 2023 attack led by Hamas.
These include Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and photographer Rami al-Rifi, who were killed in a targeted strike on the al-Shati refugee camp in July 2024 following an IDF smear campaign alleging without proof that al-Ghoul took part in the October 7 attack. The IDF claimed that al-Ghoul received Hamas military training at a time when he would have been just 10 years old.
"RSF strongly condemns the killing of six media professionals by the Israeli army, once again carried out under the guise of terrorism charges against a journalist," RSF director general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement. "One of the most famous journalists in the Gaza Strip, Anas al-Sharif, was among those killed."
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately," Bruttin continued. "The international community can no longer turn a blind eye and must react and put an end to this impunity."
"RSF calls on the U.N. Security Council to meet urgently on the basis of Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in times of armed conflict in order to stop this carnage," he added.
Israel's latest killing of media professionals sparked international condemnation. On Monday, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, called for an investigation into the massacre, saying that "journalists and media workers must be respected, they must be protected and they must be allowed to carry out their work freely, free from fear and free from harassment."
Recognizing the possibility that he would become one of the more than 61,500 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since October 2023, al-Sharif, like many Palestinian journalists, prepared a statement to be published in the event of his death.
"This is my will and my final message. If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice," he wrote. "I urge you not to let chains silence you, nor borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland."
"Make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people and my family," al-Sharif added.
Since October 2023, RSF has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court—which last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—requesting investigations into IDF killings of journalists in Gaza and accusing Israel of a deliberate "eradication of the Palestinian media."
The six journalists' killings came as Israeli forces prepared to ramp up the Gaza invasion with the stated goal of occupying the entire coastal enclave and ethnically cleansing much of its Palestinian population.
The Gaza Health Ministry said Monday afternoon that at least 69 Palestinians, including at least 10 children and 29 aid-seekers, were killed in the past 24 hours. An IDF strike on Gaza City reportedly killed nine people, including six children. Five more Palestinians also reportedly died of starvation in a burgeoning famine that officials say has claimed at least 222 lives, including 101 children.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," says the president of Democracy Forward.
A coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the U.S. Department of State over its refusal to release congressionally mandated reports on international human rights abuses.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has accused the administration of a "cover-up of a cover-up" to keep the reports buried.
Each year, the department is required to report on the practices of other countries concerning individual, civil, political, and worker rights protected under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Governments and international groups have long cited these surveys as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources on the state of human rights, informing policy surrounding foreign aid and asylum.
The Foreign Assistance Act requires that these reports be sent to Congress by February 25 each year, and they are typically released in March or April. But nearly six months later, the Trump administration has sent nothing for the calendar year 2024.
Meanwhile, NPR reported in April on a State Department memo requiring employees to "streamline" the reports by omitting many of the most common human rights violations:
The reports... will no longer call governments out for such things as denying freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. They won't condemn retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on "free and fair elections."
Forcibly returning a refugee or asylum-seeker to a home country where they may face torture or persecution will no longer be highlighted, nor will serious harassment of human rights organizations...
...reports of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people will be removed, along with all references to [diversity, equity, and inclusion] (DEI).
Among other topics ordered to be struck from the reports: involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, serious restrictions to internet freedom, extensive gender-based violence, and violence or threats of violence targeting people with disabilities.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained leaked copies of the department's reports on nations favored by the Trump administration—El Salvador, Russia, and Israel. It found that they were "significantly shorter" than the reports released by the Biden administration and that they struck references to widely documented human rights abuses in these countries.
In the case of El Salvador, where the administration earlier this year began shipping immigrants deported from the United States, the department's report stated that were "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" there, even though such abuses—including torture, physical violence, and deprivation have been widely reported, including by Trump's own deportees.
Human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people were deleted from the State Department's report on Russia, while the report on Israel deleted references to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial and to his government's threats to the country's independent judiciary.
"Secretary Rubio's overtly political rewriting of the human rights reports is a dramatic departure from even his own past commitment to protecting the fundamental human rights of LGBTQI+ people," said Keifer Buckingham, the Council for Global Equality's managing director. "Strategic omission of these abuses is also directly in contravention to Congress's requirement of a 'full and complete report' regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights."
In June, the CGE sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department calling for all communications related to these decisions to be made public. The department acknowledged the request but refused to turn over any documents.
Now CGE has turned to the courts. On Monday, the legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a complaint on CGE's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the department had violated its duties under FOIA to turn over relevant documents in a timely manner.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO.
"The world is watching the United States. We cannot risk a cover-up on top of a cover-up," Perryman continued. "If this administration is omitting or delaying the release of information about human rights abuses to gain favor with other countries, it is a shameful statement of the gross immorality of this administration."
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."