

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.

Some of the nation's largest and richest companies have joined forces to invest millions of dollars each year in state elections, promoting the careers of thousands of state legislators and securing passage of legislation that puts corporate interests ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans, Common Cause said in a new report released today.
Led by such firms as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Koch Industries, AT&T, Altria and ExxonMobil, the American Legislative Exchange Council has quietly made itself a force in all 50 state capitols. The 22 companies that make up ALEC's "private enterprise board," their executives and affiliated political action committees, put more than $38 million into state elections in the 2009-10 election cycle and have invested more than $370 million in state politics since 2001, according to the report, "Money, Power and the American Legislative Exchange Council."
" ALEC is a stunning example of how deeply corporate influence penetrates our democracy and undermines the public interest," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "Its corporate sponsors underwrite annual meetings, often at lavish resorts, where their executives sit side-by-side with state legislators - in meetings closed to the public and press -- to draft 'model' bills designed to enhance the companies' profits, often at a cost to the public interest.
"Then the companies put their muscle behind that legislation at state capitols and invest millions of dollars to elect and re-elect lawmakers who support it."
ALEC's agenda includes support of public subsidies for private schools, the development of privately-owned prisons, restrictions on voting rights and unlimited, secret corporate spending on behalf of political candidates and parties. ALEC opposes federal and state environmental regulations, the new federal health care reform law, state minimum wage laws, and trade and public employee unions.
ALEC's leaders claim that about 180 of the group's bills are enacted each year in various states. Common Cause asked the Internal Revenue Service last month to examine whether the group is engaged in lobbying that goes outside the bounds of its tax-exempt status.
ALEC convenes its 2011 annual meeting this week in New Orleans.
For the report released today, Common Cause examined campaign finance reports collected by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The study included political spending linked to the 22 firms represented on ALEC's "private enterprise board," the organization's corporate governing body.
Those companies and their affiliates have donated more than $141 million since 2001 to state candidates and political parties and another $229 million in support of or opposition to state ballot issues.
The report was limited to those 22 firms because ALEC does not release its full list of corporate members. The National Institute on Money in State Politics, which drew on published reports to compile a partial list of additional ALEC-affiliated companies, reported last month that those firms have put more than $500 million into state elections since 1990.
The 22 firms are: Altria, American Bail Coalition, AT&T, Bayer, centerpoint360, Coca-Cola, DIAGEO, Energy Future Holdings, ExxonMobil, GlaxoSmithKline, Intuit, Johnson & Johnson, Koch Industries, Kraft Foods, Peabody Energy, Pfizer, PhRMA, Reynolds American, Salt River Project. State Farm Insurance, UPS, and Wal-Mart. Because Kraft Foods is an Altria subsidiary, data for those firms was combined in the text and charts in the report. One firm represented on the board, centerpoint360 , reported no political spending and so it was not included in the charts; centerpoint is a lobbying firm headed by W. Preston Baldwin, a former tobacco company executive who during 2010 served as chairman of ALEC's private enterprise board.
Below is a state-by-state breakdown of the ALEC board's political spending for 2001-10.
Alabama | $1,392,278.48 |
Alaska | $550,454.87 |
Arizona | $16,567,361.37 |
Arkansas | $2,455,535.07 |
California | $204,050,828.67 |
Colorado | $2,350,626.40 |
Connecticut | $236,720.89 |
Delaware | $369,684.45 |
Florida | $10,876,784.38 |
Georgia | $8,234,767.35 |
Hawaii | $578,942.63 |
Idaho | $363,937.39 |
Illinois | $11,826,773.11 |
Indiana | $2,583,241.01 |
Iowa | $631,559.27 |
Kansas | $2,108,203.94 |
Kentucky | $726,623.82 |
Louisiana | $3,094,350.71 |
$1,812,943.70 | |
Maryland | $740,583.45 |
Massachusetts | $244,864.41 |
Michigan | $1,621,412.74 |
Minnesota | $156,372.65 |
Mississippi | $1,332,174.50 |
Missouri | $9,816,134.35 |
Montana | $165,996.77 |
Nebraska | $491,625.10 |
Nevada | $2,361,929.38 |
New Hampshire | $359,870.00 |
New Jersey | $3,729,052.17 |
New Mexico | $991,314.84 |
New York | $8,079,668.68 |
North Carolina | $2,356,929.42 |
North Dakota | $155,525.00 |
Ohio | $9,356,246.15 |
Oklahoma | $3,152,931.60 |
Oregon | $16,128,698.35 |
$3,050,549.45 | |
Rhode Island | $57,920.00 |
South Carolina | $2,408,151.57 |
South Dakota | $231,692.72 |
$1,254,434.15 | |
$16,229,613.95 | |
$840,453.17 | |
$163,450.00 | |
$5,308,509.25 | |
$6,519,173.39 | |
$812,973.14 | |
$1,327,118.86 | |
$127,175.00 | |
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"There's nothing more Orwellian than voting to send 18-year-olds to die in another forever war—and then blaming them for it."
Republican US Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was widely dragged Thursday after she responded to upstart Democratic challenger Graham Platner's criticism of her vote for the Iraq War by trying to make the issue about him.
Platner—a Marine Corps combat veteran turned staunch opponent of illegal wars of choice—told The New York Times earlier this month that "we destroyed Iraq and we destroyed Afghanistan, and all the suffering, all the killing, all the dying, all the displacement—we, the United States, did that."
"The anger that I feel is for the people that sent me, who are frankly still the same people who are sending people off right now to be in harm’s way so we can have this stupid war with Iran," the presumptive Democratic nominee continued. "Susan Collins voted to send me to Iraq, and she’s also there to help [President] Donald Trump continue this absolutely insane conflict in the Strait of Hormuz."
"If I have any anger, it is reserved for the political system itself and the people in it who view war not as a thing that has a human toll but as a political game," Platner added.
Collins, who is trailing Platner by nearly double-digits in head-to-head polling, told The Maine Wire on Thursday that the Democrat "not only enlisted twice after the war was started, but he also went to work for a security company, a controversial one, named Blackwater, after his term in the service was over."
"So I respect anyone who steps forward to serve their country," Collins added, "but the fact is, that was Platner's decision to serve. He was not drafted."
Collins has voted for US wars fought in countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimates that more than 940,000 people—including over 432,000 civilians—were killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001 and 2023.
More than 7,000 US service members died in the post-9/11 wars, which cost American taxpayers more than $8 trillion.
Collins has also backed the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran and supported the invasion of Venezuela and abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
The senator faced immediate backlash for her remarks.
"It was your decision as a senator to send Americans to fight in a dumb and pointless Iraq War," Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) said on social media. "You voted for it. Do you tell the kids and widows of the Iraq War dead that it was their fallen hero’s fault for enlisting?"
Independent journalist Nathan Bernard said on X that "voting to send thousands of soldiers to die and then blaming them for dying doesn't seem like a great way to win over voters, especially veterans."
David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, also took to X, writing: "While [Platner] was deployed in Iraq in 2007, Collins cast one of the deciding votes to block legislation to create a timetable for ending the war and bringing Platner and other troops home. She literally voted to *keep* Platner in Iraq."
Sam Seder, host of "The Majority Report With Sam Seder," accused Collins of "a stunning abdication."
"If she regrets her support of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, she should say so instead of pretending the all-volunteer military owns all responsibility," he wrote.
Platner responded to Collins' attack by noting that the senator "voted to support starting the war in Iraq."
He continued:
On three occasions after that, she voted against withdrawing troops. On at least two occasions, she voted to fund the war. Now, all these years later, instead of acknowledging that she was wrong, she's decided that she's going to blame those of us, who in our late teens and early 20s, signed up to serve our country. That somehow it's our fault that she and establishment politicians like her wanted to abuse our willingness to serve, to go send us off to fight in stupid wars that did nothing but make some people very, very rich at the expense of American taxpayer dollars.
"It's no surprise to me, because even today, she continues to not stand up against the stupid war in Iran," Platner said. "She continues to not stand up against any of the abuses or the idiocy coming out of the Trump administration."
"This is very, very expected from establishment Republican politicians who love to talk about supporting the troops, but in the end, will always desert us," he added.
While acknowledging a request for US support in fighting drug cartels, Guatemala's president on Thursday refuted reporting by The New York Times claiming his government "has agreed to carry out joint strikes with the United States military inside its territory"—action that would violate the country's Constitution.
Citing "three people familiar with the talks," the Times reported that "President Bernardo Arévalo of Guatemala agreed to both airstrikes and other military action in a call with [US] Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth... with operations to start as early as next month."
However, Arévalo's office pushed back in a statement stressing that “there is no agreement authorizing foreign military operations by any country in national territory."
The presidential statement said that Guatemalan Defense Minister Henry Sáenz wrote to Hegseth "to request US cooperation in operations led by Guatemalan security forces against narco-trafficking organizations as part of a strategy launched in 2024."
"This request falls within the framework of existing bilateral agreements on the matter, and adheres to constitutional provisions and laws regarding cooperation agreements on civil and military security," the office added.
Arévalo's office stressed that Guatemala's Constitution stipulates that foreign military forces can only be deployed in the country if authorized by a two-thirds vote of the national Legislature.
A source from Arévalo's government told El País Thursday on condition of anonymity that the Trump administration has been exerting "great pressure" for two months.
“What they offered us is to select one or two places to bomb and televise everything," the source said. "But we have been clear that this is not going to happen. It cannot operate a US military force in the country, simply because it is unconstitutional."
Arévalo's office said it is seeking US assistance in training, strategic and tactical support, and intelligence sharing, pointing to recent actions against drug trafficking, including the capture of an arsenal in Las Cruces, Petén, the seizure of a narcotics laboratory in Ayutla, San Marcos, and the capture of numerous suspected narco-traffickers.
Asked during a Thursday press conference about the possibility of joint combat operations like those reportedly carried out by US and Ecuadorian forces in the South American nation, Arévalo claimed unfamiliarity with the details of the agreement between those two countries.
Progressive US lawmakers are demanding answers about “reports of serious human rights violations and the bombing of what appear to have been civilian facilities" in Ecuador, including a "dairy and cattle farm with no known links to armed groups or drug trafficking" where unarmed civilians were allegedly tortured.
Arévalo brushed off a suggestion that his request for US cooperation could open the door to human rights violations in Guatemala, telling reporters that "the best defense against any violation of human rights is our respect and commitment to the laws of the republic and to current legislation."
While Guatemala does suffer from serious narco-trafficking issues, many Guatemalans are wary of US intervention, given past meddling including the 1954 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of reformist President Jacobo Árbenz, which was followed by decades of right-wing repression, civil war, and a US-backed genocide against Indigenous Mayan peoples during which around 200,000 people were killed.
In March, the Trump administration lifted longstanding restrictions on arms transfers to Guatemala.
“Now, our soldiers are going to have access to modern technology, radars, night viewfinders," Sáenz told La Hora on Friday.
The defense minister said he discussed closer counter-narcotics cooperation with the United States during the “Shield of the Americas” summit, during which senior officials from over a dozen nations—most of them ruled by right-wing governments—gathered at President Donald Trump's golf resort near Miami.
In addition to Guatemala, the Trump administration has been trying to pressure other Latin American nations into launching joint military operations against narco-traffickers. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico has vehemently rejected US requests, even as President Donald Trump has threatened "to do something" about cartels in her country.
“The epicenter of cartel violence is not Mexico, it’s the United States,” Sheinbaum defiantly declared in March. “The cartels are fueled by the United States’ demand for drugs and armed with US weapons, and thanks to the United States, they are able to orchestrate enormous bloodshed and chaos throughout Latin America.”
In January, Trump ordered the bombing and invasion of Venezuela, whose president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted to the United States on dubious "narco-terrorism" allegations that were then significantly walked back.
Trump has also threatened to attack Colombia, Panama, and Cuba, whose people are bracing for what many observers fear is an impending US war. If Trump does order military action against Cuba, it would be the 12th country he's attacked during the course of his two White House terms. Trump also ordered the ongoing bombing campaign targeting boats his administration claims—without providing evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Around 200 people have been killed by the US strikes.
As Nick Turse of The Intercept reported Wednesday:
Trump has turned the Western Hemisphere into a war zone as part of what he and others have called the Donroe Doctrine. This bastardization of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine has been used to justify strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean; an attack on Venezuela and the abduction of its president; CIA operations in Mexico; joint counter-cartel operations in Ecuador dubbed “Operation Total Extermination”; and increased military and intelligence operations elsewhere in Latin America.
Experts contend that, like the boat strikes, any airstrikes carried out against drug cartels would likely constitute illegal acts of murder, even if conducted with the permission of governments in targeted countries.
“As with the boat strikes, depending on the facts, further attacks could amount to premeditated killings outside of armed conflict, which some of us lawyers would refer to as murder,” former US State Department lawyer Brian Finucane told The New York Times on Thursday.
“Congress never authorized any of these strikes," he added. "So US personnel who participate in these actions could face consequences down the road, after the Trump administration.”
"The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event," claimed rapper Young MC.
Artists slated to perform at the government-sponsored 250th-anniversary celebration of the nation next month are recoiling in horror and pulling out left and right upon learning of President Donald Trump's involvement.
The lineup scheduled to perform at the "Great American State Fair"—which included the likes of Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, and Poison vocalist Bret Michaels—was already getting dragged for what the Daily Beast described as a "lack of A-list musical talent" willing to perform for the president.
But some on the setlist apparently only agreed to participate because they were unaware of the president's heavy involvement in planning the festivities, which will include—among other things—a UFC fight on his birthday, a teenage athletic competition that many compare to the Hunger Games, and an American history exhibit created by PragerU hosted by an artificial intelligence-powered George Washington.
After just over a day, three acts—a full third of those announced—have already pulled out of the festival.
“I have informed my agents that I will not be performing at the Freedom 250 event,” said the hip-hop artist Young MC in a social media post on Wednesday, mere hours after the list of performers was published.
The rapper, who is most renowned for the 1989 classic "Bust a Move," said "the artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, Spin magazine describes it as ‘Trump-backed.’ I hope to perform in DC in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”
Morris Day and the Time, most known for their work with Prince, denied ever having been part of the festivities.
“Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & the Time will not be performing at the ‘Great American State Fair,’" they said. "It's a no for me."
"Gonna Make You Sweat" singer Freedom Williams of C+C Music Factory said he was surprised to start receiving phone calls asking why he was performing for Trump.
He said his agent "didn't say nothing about Trump" when he booked the performance months before. "So I told my agent, yeah, no, I ain’t good to do that… I don’t fuck with Trump. I don’t give a fuck about Trump. I know the type of fucking anarchy he creates."
As its music festival falls apart, Freedom 250 has emphasized that it is technically an independent 501(c)3 and that the White House itself is not directly putting on the celebration.
However, the festivities are being coordinated by a White House Task Force created by Trump, and it has been relentlessly promoted on official White House social media channels.
Much of Freedom 250's programming is also overtly MAGA-coded, from its wellness-focused "Make America Healthy Again Monday" to its numerous Christian prayer events.