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.
Mary Boyle (202)736-5770
WASHINGTON - Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has received considerable press over the
years for adding so-called earmarks to defense spending bills that
benefit large campaign contributors and send no-bid contracts back to
his district in Pennsylvania, many of questionable value to the
taxpayer. A review of campaign finance reports, however, shows that the
practice of inserting earmarks on behalf of campaign contributors is
far more widespread on Rep. Murtha's appropriations subcommittee alone.
The 18 members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense,
which Rep. Murtha chairs, inserted more than $355 million in earmarks
into the 2008 defense spending bill on behalf of their campaign
contributors. Those contributors, according to campaign disclosure
reports, donated a total of $1.3 million to the individual members who
sponsored the earmarks.
Rep. Murtha inserted a total of $166.5 million worth of earmarks in
last year's defense appropriations bill, $73.6 million of which went to
some of his biggest contributors. The recipients of those earmarks
donated a total of $313,150 to Rep. Murtha's reelection campaign or his
leadership PAC during the 2008 election.
"Jack Murtha is the poster boy for pay-to-play politics," said Bob
Edgar, president of Common Cause, which has asked the House Ethics
Committee to investigate Mr. Murtha and two of his colleagues, Rep.
James Moran (D-VA) and Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-IN), on the defense
appropriations panel for allegedly steering in exchange for hefty
campaign contributions millions of dollars worth of earmarks to a
now-defunct lobbying firm staffed by former Murtha aides. "But we must
end the widespread practice of what appears to be trading earmarks for
campaign cash. This game distorts our nation's spending priorities and
erodes public trust in our government."
This report examines
the contributions that earmark seekers - often defense companies, in
the case of this report - donated to Rep. Murtha, as well as to the
rest of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and the value of
the earmarks they got in return.
This look is just another example of the conflicts of interest that
arise from our corrupting campaign finance system that pressures
elected officials and candidates to constantly raise large sums of
money, often from the special interests who want the most in return.
Questions have been raised about whether Rep. Murtha inserted earmarks
in exchange for campaign contributions. Common Cause has joined others
in calling on the House Ethics Committee and the Office of
Congressional Ethics to investigate. At the same time, Rep. Murtha is
obviously not the only member of Congress who has inserted earmarks for
companies that donated to his reelection campaign.
The real answer is to change the way America pays for its elections
with the passage of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow
candidates to swear off big money and run for office on a blend of
small donations and public funds.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200"Immigration. Medicaid. Workers' rights. Unions. Education. You name it—we're drawing the line," wrote one union.
In what one outlet has reported is slated to be the largest single-day action to resist the Trump administration since U.S. President Donald Trump's return to power, hundreds of thousands of people nationwide are planning to mobilize on Saturday to say: "Hands Off!"
A list of locations for the events, which are not all slated to start at the same time on Saturday, can be found here.
Trump and Musk "think this country belongs to them," according to a website for the Hands Off! events. "This is a nationwide mobilization to stop the most brazen power grab in modern history."
"They want to strip America for parts—shuttering Social Security offices, firing essential workers, eliminating consumer protections, and gutting Medicaid—all to bankroll their billionaire tax scam. They're handing over our tax dollars, our public services, and our democracy to the ultra-rich," according to the website's about page, which also notes nonviolent action is a "core principle" behind the events.
A spokesperson for the events told Common Dreams on Friday afternoon that the events have generated over 500,000 signups nationally, a number that is "growing rapidly," and there are over 1,000 events taking place on Saturday, a number that is "also growing steadily."
The actions are the latest warning sign for the Republican Party under Trump, who has allowed Elon Musk to play a core role in his administration, particularly in the administration's efforts to carry out cuts to federal personnel and spending.
Musk poured millions of dollars into a high-profile Wisconsin Supreme Court election that took place on April 1—helping to make it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history by one tally—only to have his preferred candidate, judge Brad Schimel, lose.
"This is a huge signal from a battleground state that Americans are genuinely upset, genuinely angry, I think, with Trump and with Musk," said John Nichols, a correspondent for That Nation, when recapping the outcome of the race on Democracy Now!
Dozens of unions, watchdogs, and advocacy groups—such as Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Americans for Tax Fairness, and Accountable.US—are supporting the action as partners.
"People nationwide are rising up at hundreds of events to say one thing loud and clear: Hands Off!" wrote SEIU on the platform X, which is owned by Musk, on Friday. "Immigration. Medicaid. Workers' rights. Unions. Education. You name it—we're drawing the line."
The environmentalist iIll McKibben wrote on Bluesky on Wednesday: "Expect to see a lot of gray hair at the April 5 Hands Off rallies—we've been organizing like crazy at Third Act," a group that mobilizes Americans over the age of 60.
In early February, anti-Trump "Movement 50501" protests took place nationwide and protestors united under the slogan #TakedownTesla have also targeted Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company, in recent weeks.
One union leader called President Donald Trump's executive order "the most significant assault on collective bargaining rights we have ever seen in the United States."
A coalition of labor unions representing federal workers across the United States sued the Trump administration on Friday over its recent order aimed at stripping union rights from more than a million government employees, a move that the lawsuit characterizes as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
The suit, brought by unions that collectively represent more than 950,000 federal workers, stems from a March 27 order titled "Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs," in which President Donald Trump cites a provision of a 1978 law to deny collective bargaining rights to certain government workers on national security grounds.
But the unions behind the new lawsuit say the national security justification is a smokescreen to hide the true intent of the order: further eroding workers' organizing rights.
"Federal employees have had the right to join a union and bargain collectively for decades—through multiple wars, international conflicts, and a global health emergency during President Trump's first term," said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. "During all that time, they served the American people with honor and distinction. No one, including President Trump, ever suggested unions were a national security concern."
"Trump's newest order to revoke union rights is a clear case of retaliation," he added. "But I've got news for him: We are not going anywhere."
The lawsuit points specifically to language included in a fact sheet the White House released in conjunction with Trump's March 27 order. The document claims that "certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda," citing AFGE lawsuits against the administration and legal actions by Veterans Affairs unions.
Shortly after Trump signed the order last week, the administration sued AFGE and many of its local affiliates in federal court in an attempt to cancel dozens of collective bargaining agreements between unions and federal agencies. Reutersnoted that the administration claimed the union contracts are impeding "Trump's abilities to purge the federal workforce and protect national security."
"The labor movement stands in solidarity, and we will not let this administration's union-busting tactics silence us."
The unions' new lawsuit states that the "avowedly retaliatory nature" of Trump's executive order and its "attempt to punish federal unions who engage in politically disfavored speech and petitioning activities and decline to 'work with' the president renders it unconstitutional under the First Amendment."
The lawsuit also notes that billionaire Elon Musk, the richest person in the world and a top Trump lieutenant, has used his social media platform to promote a recent post that attacked several federal workers' unions by name.
"The president's unlawful executive order attacking federal unions is not only an attack on a million federal workers but is a direct attack on all workers who seek a collective voice to bargain for a better future," April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement Friday. "This is blatant retaliation against brave workers who dared to exercise their First Amendment rights to criticize this administration's authoritarian overreach. The labor movement stands in solidarity, and we will not let this administration’s union-busting tactics silence us."
Randy Erwin, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), called Trump's order "the most significant assault on collective bargaining rights we have ever seen in the United States" and said it is "clear that this executive order is retaliation for federal unions fighting back against the Trump administration's attempts to dismantle the civil service."
"This is yet another direct attack by the President not only on federal employees, but also veterans, working families, and the very fabric of our democracy," said Erwin. "However, federal workers' collective bargaining rights are protected by law and President Trump does not have the right to unilaterally eliminate them. NFFE and our allies are confident the rule of law will be upheld, and the critical rights of working people will be protected."
"What AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," said one observer.
A poll released Friday from the progressive think tank Data for Progress has Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez besting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also a Democrat, by 19 points in a hypothetical matchup in the 2028 New York primary for a U.S. Senate seat.
According to the poll, which was was first shared exclusively with Politico, 55% of voters said they would cast a ballot for Ocasio-Cortez or leaned toward supporting her, and 36% said they would support Schumer or leaned toward supporting him, with 9% undecided.
The only subgroup that supported Schumer over Ocasio-Cortez were moderates, who favored Schumer 50%-35%, with 15% undecided. Ocasio-Cortez carried all other subgroups with an outright majority, except for voters over the age of 45, 49% of whom said they would support her or leaned toward supporting her.
The poll—while several years out from the actual race—comes in the wake of Schumer's decision to throw his support behind a Republican-backed spending bill in early March, a move that roiled his own party and prompted calls for him to step aside from his leadership position in the Senate.
The episode also sparked murmurs among some Democrats that Ocasio-Cortez should consider a primary bid against Schumer in 2028.
The poll was conducted March 26-31 and surveyed 767 likely Democratic primary voters in New York state. According to Data for Progress, the polling indicated that the hypothetical matchup between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer is "relatively static" and does not shift when voters are offered more information about the respective candidates.
Ocasio-Cortez recently declined to speak about a potential run for Senate in 2028, according to Politico.
"Replacing Chuck Schumer with AOC would be an incredible upgrade. I guess we'll have to wait four more years…," wrote Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation.
Zephyr Teachout, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law, shared Politico's reporting on the poll and wrote: "Good morning to leadership and fighting oligarchy!"
"What I mean is that what AOC is doing is leadership—and people see that," added Teachout, who also highlighted that the poll found that an overwhelming majority of respondents, 84%, want their leaders to do more to resist the actions of U.S. President Donald Trump.
Another observer, market researcher Adam Carlson, highlighted that despite Schumer's loss in the hypothetical race, most respondent subgroups still view him favorably, according to the poll. Besides "very liberal" voters and those between ages 18-44, Schumer stands at over 50% "favorable" among all other subgroups surveyed.
"People just want a changing of the guard," said Carlson.