February, 09 2011, 09:19am EDT

Egypt: Investigate Arrests of Activists, Journalists
Military's Arbitrary Arrests, Beatings Are Trademark of Interior Ministry Repression
CAIRO
The Egyptian government should order military police, army officers, and State Security Investigations officers to cease arresting journalists, activists, and protesters arbitrarily, Human Rights Watch said today. Army officers and military police arbitrarily detained at least 119 people since the army took up positions in Egyptian cities and towns on the night of January 28, 2011, and in at least five cases tortured them. The government needs to ensure the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the illegal detentions and torture and ill-treatment which have occurred, Human Rights Watch said.
In the cases Human Rights Watch has documented, those detained, who have since been released, said that they were held incommunicado, did not have access to a lawyer, and could not inform their families about their detention.
"Arrests by military police of journalists, human rights defenders, and youth activists since January 31 appear intended to intimidate reporting and undermine support for the Tahrir protest," said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "These arrests and reports of abuse in detention are exactly the types of practices that sparked the demonstrations in the first place."
Egyptian army forces deployed on the streets of Egyptian cities and towns late on January 28, after the police withdrew. Since then, military police and army officers arrested or detained at least 97 journalists, activists, and protesters, according to the Front for the Defense of Egyptian Protesters (FDP), a coalition of Egyptian human rights organizations. The group has documented a list of 69 people arrested so far and has confirmed the release of only 29 to date. Most of these arrests have been short-term, lasting under 24 hours; some have lasted as long as two days.
Arrests of Protesters
Since January 31, Human Rights Watch has documented the arbitrary arrest by military police of at least 20 protesters who were leaving or heading to Tahrir Square. Most of these arrests occurred in the vicinity of the square or in other parts of Cairo from where protesters were taking supplies to the square.
One protester told Human Rights Watch that on January 31, he and a friend bought some blankets to take to protesters who were spending the night in the square. They said they put the blankets in their car and were driving through the Boulak area, not far from Tahrir. An informal neighborhood patrol of civilians set up when the police withdrew from the streets of Cairo on January 28, stopped them at 9.30 p.m. and summoned nearby military police when they saw the blankets. The military police arrested the two men and took them to the military camp in Abbasiyya, in Cairo, they said, where they detained them for two days, along with 20 other detainees, who were not detained in connection with the protest. The two said they were not ill-treated but one of them told Human Rights Watch that he saw military officers beating and using electroshocks on at least 12 other detainees on February 1. All 20 were held in the same room and one detainee told Human Rights Watch that when they spoke to each other, they found that the military had not given any of them an official reason for their detention and beyond some initial questioning, did not formally charge them.
In another case, four protesters were arrested apparently because they appeared to be foreign or accompanying a foreigner. On February 4, three Egyptian young men accompanied by a young European woman were walking from Tahrir Square to their home in nearby Garden City, one of them told Human Rights Watch. A neighborhood patrol stopped them, he said, asked for their IDs, refused to believe that they lived in the area, and voiced suspicion of the foreigner in the group. The patrol handed the group over to the military, he said, who detained the four in a room near a military checkpoint on Kasr Aini Street for 12 hours. The military blindfolded them and made them sit on the floor, he said. Another one of the group told Human Rights Watch that there were at least 10 other people detained in the same room and that he saw a military officer kick and hit several of them, although the four were not beaten themselves. The military officers told them that the group had broken the curfew, although they initially did not give this as a reason for their detention.
Torture and Ill-treatment
Human Rights Watch and the FDP have documented five cases in which persons say that military police tortured them in detention. One protester and civil society activist told Human Rights Watch that he was walking to Tahrir Square along Talaat Harb Street at 3:30 p.m. on February 4 when he encountered a gang of pro-Mubarak young men who took him to a police station off Maa'rouf Street, in downtown Cairo. There, he said, the police beat and interrogated him for around an hour about his political affiliations, why he was protesting and who had recruited him. Uniformed and plainclothes military officers then walked him over to a military post next to the Ramses Hilton for further interrogation before releasing him, he said.
When he went back out on to the street another military officer stopped him, checked his bag, and found some notes and activist documents, he told Human Rights Watch. The protester told the soldiers that he had just been interrogated and released, but they surrounded him, pushing and kicking him, he said, and then took him to a building near the Ramses Hilton. He said that they tied his hands behind his back, slapped him, beat him with sticks and rifle butts, kicked him, and threatened to torture him, accusing him of wasting the time of the military with "useless protest tactics" that were "destroying the country." The soldiers interrogated him yet again about his political affiliations, demanding to know which country was "sponsoring" him and the other protesters.
At this point a higher-ranking army officer said they would take him to a hospital, he said, and then two soldiers put him in an ambulance with his hands tied behind his back, continued to slap him and drove him to the Egyptian Museum grounds. He said that a different officer there ordered him to lie on his stomach and kicked him, along with two other soldiers. They threatened to torture him with electro-shocks and by sticking bottles up his anus as they continued to interrogate him. He said there were five others detained with him - an American journalist, an Egyptian photographer, and three Sudanese nationals. He told Human Rights Watch that the interrogation had lasted for around two hours, focusing on leaflets and documents he had collected in Tahrir Square. The military finally released him later in the evening, and called friends to pick him up and take him to a hospital.
Another protester told Human Rights Watch:
At about 2 a.m. on Friday, February 4, as I was going to my friend's apartment, I was stopped by a soldier in his neighborhood. He first asked to check my ID card, and then opened my bag. Inside, he found a political flyer from the protest and my laptop, which had pictures of the protest. Political flyers, manshura, are banned in Egypt. So the soldiers started shouting at me, 'You traitor!' and 'You are the ones who are ruining our country! You are destroying Egypt!' They started beating me up in the street, with their rubber batons and an electric device, shocking me. Then they took me to Abdin Police Station. By the time I arrived at Abdin station, the soldiers and officers there had been informed that a 'spy' was coming, and so when I arrived they gave me a 'welcome beating' that lasted some 30 minutes. Then I was put in a cell and given a blanket and some juice and told to stay quiet until the interrogator came.
When the interrogator came, he took me to a room and told me to undress. Then he started whipping me with an electric cable, and brought out an electric shock machine. He shocked me all over my body, leaving no place untouched. It wasn't a real interrogation; he didn't ask that many questions. He tortured me twice like this on Friday, and one more time on Saturday.
Targeting of Activists and Human Rights Defenders
Military police arrested at least 37 human rights defenders and activists since January 31 and held them from periods ranging from 12 to 48 hours. On the afternoon of February 3, military police, accompanied by a uniformed policeman and plainclothes security officers, raided the Hisham Mubarak Law Center (HMLC), a human rights organization, and arrested 28 Egyptian and international human rights researchers, lawyers, and journalists. The HMLC also houses the FDP, which provides legal support to arrested protesters and document the violations against them. The coalition set up emergency telephone numbers ahead of the planned January 25 demonstration so that they could dispatch lawyers when people called in to report that they had been arrested. The HMLC premises were also used for meetings by the April 6 Youth Movement.
Those arrested included Human Rights Watch researcher Daniel Williams, HMLC founder and prominent lawyer Ahmed Seif al-Islam, two researchers from Amnesty International, and two journalists from a French agency. The military detained and interrogated the group at Camp 75, a military base, before releasing the foreigners around midnight on February 4 and the Egyptians on the morning of February 5. The group was detained incommunicado and did not have access to lawyers.
Later on February 3, military police accompanied by a State Security Investigations officer arrested nine young activists who were on their way back from a meeting with opposition figure Mohamed El Baradei, on Faisal Street, in Giza. The nine included Amr Salah, a researcher at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Ahmad Douma, and Shadi Ghazali Harb, all of whom have been previously arrested for peaceful activism. One of the nine told Human Rights Watch that the officers walked the group through the crowded street, held a gun to the head of one of the group, and told the crowd that they were "spies," prompting some in the crowd start hitting them and shouting at them. He said that the officers then held the group in a military van for more than 10 hours and then drove them to military intelligence headquarters for interrogation before releasing them at around 7 pm on February 4.
Targeting Foreign and Egyptian Journalists
Human Rights Watch has compiled a list of 62 Egyptian and international journalists arrested by the military police since February 2, drawing on cases documented directly by Human Rights Watch and by the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. Many of these arrests were short-term and all related to their status as journalists; all have since been released.
One Egyptian journalist told Human Rights Watch that at 6 p.m. on February 1, as she was leaving Tahrir Square, she explained to officers at an army checkpoint that she did not have her national ID with her because her wallet had been stolen and that she was a journalist. The army officers arrested her and took her to a room in a building outside the Egyptian Museum for interrogation, she said. They asked her about her involvement in the protest and whether she was connected to Israeli journalists they said they had arrested at the same place, she said. They detained her for 12 hours before releasing her the next morning.
Most of these arrests occurred at points of exit and entrance to Tahrir square, but there are also cases of people arrested from their homes. A group of two journalists and three protesters told Human Rights Watch that at 9:00 p.m. on February 4 military police, accompanied by ministry of interior officers, arrested them at their apartment in Giza and questioned them about their participation in the protests. They said that an officer took them to Haram police station, handcuffed and blindfolded them, and interrogated them for seven hours about their political affiliations and whether they were funded by foreign governments.
The officers detained them in police cells for 13 hours and then moved them to military police custody, traveling in the back of a jeep, they said. They told Human Rights Watch that the soldiers slapped them and hit them with the butts of their rifles while in the car. At one point, one of those arrested told Human Rights Watch that the officer asked all of the soldiers to prepare their rifles (as if preparing to shoot) and told the blindfolded, handcuffed captives to keep their heads down between their legs, or they would be shot.
"Protesters initially greeted the military as their protector from the abuses of the interior ministry," said Stork. "While the military may have promised not to shoot protesters, it must also respect their right to freedom of assembly and their right not to be arbitrarily detained."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Jun 26, 2026
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Criminalizing Dissent': Alarm Grows Over Extreme Prison Terms for Texas ICE Protesters
“Now anyone engaged in basic protests with the wrong political beliefs can be labeled a domestic terrorist, when they have no intention of violence," said one attorney.
Jun 26, 2026
Alarm and outrage mounted this week following a federal judge's lengthy prison sentences for a group of activists falsely accused by the Trump administration of being members of a nonexistent "North Texas Antifa Cell," with some observers calling the extreme punishments—including 30 years for moving a box of constitutionally protected pamphlets—a test case for criminalizing dissent.
Eight members of the "Prairieview Nine"—part of a larger group of activists who staged a July 4, 2025 protest outside a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Alvarado, Texas—were sentenced Tuesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth to between 30-100 years imprisonment.
Benjamin Song, who was convicted of shooting Alvarado Police Lt. Thomas Gross, was sentenced to 100 years for attempted murder of a law enforcement officer and lesser offenses, including discharging a firearm during a violent crime, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and rioting. Song, a former US Marine, contends that he shot Gross in self-defense after the officer drew his gun first.
The “explosives” in question were fireworks brought to the July 4 protest to show solidarity with people detained by ICE.
Savanna Batten, Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Bradford Morris, and Elizabeth Soto got 50 years each for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use and using an explosive.
Maricela Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and using an explosive, and conspiracy to conceal documents. Those documents were leftist pamphlets protected by the First Amendment.
Rueda's husband, Daniel “Des” Rolando Sanchez Estrada, was hit with a 30-year prison sentence for conspiracy to conceal documents for moving a box full of the pamphlets after speaking with his wife. He did not attend the protest.
Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a favorite of right-wing judge shoppers, told the court that the lengthy sentences are meant to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology” with the defendants, according to one observer of Tuesday’s proceedings.
The Prairieland sentences were more severe than the longest prison term for the average US murderer or rapist, as well as for the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—all of whom were later pardoned by President Donald Trump—as well as for convicted child sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
"What happened on Tuesday, it’s shocking to all of us, devastating to the families, 50- to 100-year sentences," Sufia Khalid, deputy director of the National Security Criminal Defense Center at the Muslim Legal Fund of America and lawyer to one of the Prairieland defendants, told Democracy Now! on Thursday. "Those are essentially life sentences for all of the young people in this case, largely of whom were engaged in nonviolent protest at an ICE detention facility."
A group of anti-ICE protesters in Texas were sentenced to 30 to 100 years in jail on Tuesday, after federal prosecutors accused them of being an "antifa terror cell."
The activists attended a protest and noise demonstration outside the Prairieland ICE jail in Alvarado, Texas.… pic.twitter.com/QxFMPaGsvj
— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) June 25, 2026
Khalid noted that the Department of Justice (DOJ) invoked a rarely used "material support for terrorism" statute that "does not require any connection to a domestic terrorist organization or any kind."
"Any American can be targeted that way now. It does not require ties to antifa or to any domestic terrorist organization," she said. "That’s a dangerous precedent, and what allowed them to stack these charges so high on Tuesday."
The DOJ hailed “the first sentencing of defendants affiliated with antifa following... Trump’s executive order designating the group as a domestic terrorist organization in September 2025" in the wake of the assassination of white supremacist influencer Charlie Kirk—which had nothing to do with antifa, a decentralized and leaderless international ideology opposing fascism that's more of a mindset than a movement.
Later that month, Trump also signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), a directive titled “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” that focuses exclusively on left-wing activities and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Khalid pointed to the pardoned January 6 insurrectionists, who "were involved in rioting, carrying massive arsenals of weapons, lots of discussions ahead of time—that didn’t exist in this case—about targeting law enforcement, wanting to kill members of Congress, [and] actually storming the Capitol."
"So, we have a massive, unwarranted sentencing disparity here," she said. "What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Mark Osler, a law professor and sentencing expert at the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, told The Guardian on Friday that "the 30-year sentence for Estrada is probably the one that for most people will come closest to shocking the conscience, simply because this is an activity that took place after the harm occurred."
"What happened in the court in Fort Worth was unconstitutional and should concern everybody in this country in the direction that it is taking us."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, underscored during a Friday interview in an episode of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Counterspin podcast titled "Criminalizing Dissent" that Estrada "wasn't even at the protest."
"He's somebody who allegedly transported a box of pamphlets because his wife was at the protest," Stern said. "And he believed, according to prosecutors, that the box of pamphlets might implicate his wife... so he was concealing evidence."
"Evidence of what?" he continued. "This wasn't a how-to manual... They were zines. They said nothing about this protest, about the Prairieland detention facility, about shooting this police officer... So when they say that he concealed evidence by moving these zines, evidence of what? It's evidence of an ideology. It's evidence of somebody's reading habits."
"And now they're on the same plane as terrorists, as [Islamic State], according to this administration," Stern added. "It's all pretty absurd. But at the end of the day, we have a Constitution that prohibits people from being locked up for what they think, write, or read, as long as they are not inciting imminent violence. So hopefully the appellate courts will reverse these convictions. But the law is only as good as the people who enforce it."
Jeremy Busby, an incarcerated journalist, wrote on the eve of Estrada's trial that the "homespun zines at issue contain no plans for any shooting, and under normal circumstances, they would clearly be deemed constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment."
"But the government’s concealment theory only makes sense if it views merely having the literature as criminal," he argued. “Criminalizing possession of literature is a miscarriage of justice, whether in prison or at a protester’s husband’s parents’ house. If the Trump administration is allowed to send Estrada to prison for the crime of possessing literature, members of society at large can be subjected to the same pernicious rules as the incarcerated.”
Amber Lowrey, the sister of Prairieland defendant Savanna Batten—who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars for material support for terrorism and conspiracy to use and using "explosives" (fireworks)—told The Guardian before Batten's trial that the Trump administration just wants "to make an example of people and silence anyone who... opposes the government."
"They want to silence dissent, criminalize dissent," she added.
Trump administration prosecutors have also invoked NSPM-7 in the case of 15 organizers with the groups Direct Action Minnesota and Black Cat Workers, who are accused of impeding the Department of Homeland Security’s anti-immigrant crackdown in Minneapolis, where US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti were separately killed earlier this year by ICE and Border Patrol officers.
"We live under a fascist state where ICE agents can murder us with impunity, yet we can go to prison for 50 years for protesting," socialist commentator and journalist Ryan Knight said Thursday on X. "The unjust sentences of the Prairieland protesters violate the First Amendment and infringe on our rights to fight back against a tyrannical government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Didn’t Say What Susan Collins Did Is Criminal,' Says Platner. 'I Said It SHOULD Be'
Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner accused his Republican opponent of exploiting a loophole to funnel money to the lobbying firm where her husband worked for a decade.
Jun 26, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Thursday unveiled a sweeping anti-corruption agenda featuring a plank named after incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, accusing the Maine Republican of using the power of public office to direct money to her husband's firm and enrich herself.
Platner's proposed "Collins Rule" would require senators to "recuse themselves from any vote, decision, or oversight activity involving an agency from which their spouse’s firm receives government contracts." Underlying the proposal is the Platner campaign's allegation that Collins "funneled more than $76 million in federal contracts to her husband's lobbying firm"—a claim that Collins' campaign denounced as "a lie."
In a social media post on Thursday after Platner announced his proposed "Corruption Crackdown," Collins wrote that "a man I have never met held a press conference and accused me of criminal conduct," referencing the Platner campaign's claim about the federal contract dollars flowing to her husband's firm.
"That is outrageous and false," Collins added.
Platner responded with a social media post of his own. "I didn’t say what Susan Collins did is criminal," he wrote. "I said it SHOULD be criminal."
In a nine-page document outlining its anti-corruption agenda, Platner's campaign writes that "no existing law" prevents the spouse of a US senator from "being enriched through winning contracts from agencies the senator oversees."
"Hiring your spouse is banned. Arranging for your spouse’s firm to receive millions from agencies you oversee is, apparently, fine," the document states. "This is plain corruption, and we will not stand for it."
"We’re taking this fight directly to Susan Collins and her billionaire donors, and we won’t stop until power is returned to the working people of Maine."
Collins' campaign manager rejected Platner's characterization of the senator's record and said she "has not funneled any money to Tom Daffron," her husband.
Daffron, who married Collins in 2012, was a registered lobbyist in 2006-2007 and, for the subsequent decade, served as chief operating officer for Jefferson Consulting Group, the firm that Platner's campaign says benefited from Collins' votes to the tune of $76 million.
News Center Maine noted that, "in its accounting, Platner’s campaign pointed to a list, compiled by searching the USA Spending website, of contracts awarded to Jefferson Consulting by the US Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, State, Interior, and Veterans Affairs. Fifty-five million dollars came from two contracts with USAID, the Agency for International Development, roughly three-quarters of that $76 million."
"The Collins campaign did not dispute the total amount in contracts," News Center Maine added, "but said it was the Obama administration, not Congress, that was responsible for doling out those funds between 2009 and 2016." (The executive branch awards federal contracts that are funded through congressional appropriations.)
During a press conference on Thursday, Platner rejected the notion that Collins' support for appropriations that ultimately benefited the firm that employed her husband was innocuous because she wasn't responsible for awarding the contracts.
"My entire life, I have heard from the political system that all of these very obvious mechanisms of corruption aren't actually corruption," he said. "That when we see people appropriating funds, when we see procurement systems in place, that the money comes from appropriations from the Senate and from the House, that somehow these things are entirely divorced, and it's just sheer coincidence that people who are connected to those in power wind up receiving lots of extra money."
"Obviously that's false," Platner added. "Any normal person can see that if you are directly tied to the power of the United States senator and you yourself benefit from it, and that senator's household benefits from it, that there's obviously some form of connection there."
Watch:
In addition to the "Collins Rule," Platner's anti-corruption agenda calls for barring members of Congress and their spouses from trading stocks, "under penalty of imprisonment."
"As long as sitting members of Congress are allowed to hold and trade stock connected to the industries they have a hand in regulating, the public will keep asking whether their policy decisions serve our best interest—or their own bank accounts," the agenda reads.
Collins has opposed bipartisan legislation that would ban congressional stock trading, arguing for better enforcement of existing laws such as the STOCK Act—which the Maine Republican has violated dozens of times by missing the 45-day deadline to report her husband's trades.
NOTUS reported earlier this year that Daffron "purchased a Pfizer corporate bond worth from $15,001 to $50,000 on February 3, but Collins didn’t disclose the purchase to the Senate" until late March. Collins, whose net worth skyrocketed following her marriage to Daffron, says she has never owned or traded individual stocks during her three-decade Senate career.
Platner's agenda calls for "dramatically" increasing penalties for STOCK Act violations, which typically amount to a minuscule $200 fine. The Democratic candidate argues that "criminal prosecution—including imprisonment—[must be] on the table for the worst offenses, not a $200 parking ticket."
The Platner campaign's "Corruption Crackdown" also calls for overturning the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, shuttering the revolving door between Washington and corporate America by permanently banning former lawmakers from lobbying Congress, prohibiting candidates for federal office from receiving corporate PAC money, and requiring the Pentagon to pass an audit before it receives any additional funding.
"The establishment has rigged the system with legalized corruption and poisoned our elections with billionaire money and a politics that enriches the powerful at the expense of working people," Platner said Thursday. "We’re taking this fight directly to Susan Collins and her billionaire donors, and we won’t stop until power is returned to the working people of Maine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


