

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.

Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and former congressional candidate Dr. David Gill filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for flouting a federal law barring 501(c)(4) organizations from engaging in political activity. Groups such as the American Action Network (AAN) have relied on an IRS-created tax loophole to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on electioneering activity without disclosing their donors.
Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and former congressional candidate Dr. David Gill filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for flouting a federal law barring 501(c)(4) organizations from engaging in political activity. Groups such as the American Action Network (AAN) have relied on an IRS-created tax loophole to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on electioneering activity without disclosing their donors.
CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan stated, "Disgracefully, the IRS has sat on its hands for the last two election cycles while 501(c)(4) groups have been formed expressly to run negative attack ads funded by anonymous donors. When called out, the IRS has said only that it is 'aware' of the public's concern. Now the IRS can explain its deplorable inaction in federal court."
In 2012, David Gill, an emergency room physician, ran for Congress in Illinois'13th district. AAN, headed by former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), funded false and misleading negative ads and robocalls against Dr. Gill, forcing his campaign to spend significant time and money attempting to counter them. AAN reported spending nearly $1.5 million opposing Dr. Gill -- more than $1 million of which funded negative ads in the final weeks of the campaign.
AAN received substantial financial contributions from both insurance giant Aetna and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, both of which oppose the single-payer, national health care plan supported by Dr. Gill. The ads AAN ran against Dr. Gill falsely claimed he was a "mad scientist" who wanted to destroy Medicare and raise taxes. Reputable polls indicated Dr. Gill led throughout the campaign, but in the wake of the AAN ads, Dr. Gill lost by 0.3 percent of the votes, making it the third-closest House race in the country.
"Campaigns should be transparent," said Dr. Gill. "Voters should know who is funding political advertisements, so that they have the information necessary to properly evaluate the claims contained therein. By its inaction, the IRS has allowed shadowy groups to influence elections under a cloak of darkness." Gill went on to note, "I ran for office because I believe in the democratic process and public service. I am taking this action against the IRS in furtherance of those beliefs -- to ensure that anonymous dark money groups cannot continue to taint the political process by operating under the guise of social welfare organizations."
Federal law states 501(c)(4)s must operate "exclusively for purposes beneficial to the community as a whole." In contrast, IRS regulations allow a group "primarily" engaged in activities that promote the public welfare to take advantage of 501(c)(4) status. Many 501(c)(4) groups have interpreted this to mean they can spend up to 49 percent of their funds on political activities. The lawsuit, however, alleges the IRS regulation is invalid because "exclusively" and "primarily" are not synonymous and 501(c)(4) groups should be barred from engaging in political activities.
In its 2010 application to the IRS, AAN stated it expected to spend less than 20 percent of its resources on political activities. Within days of receiving IRS approval of its 501(c)(4) status, AAN acknowledged it planned far greater political activity than it had represented. Previously, CREW has filed two complaints with the IRS and one with the Federal Election Commission, alleging AAN violated tax and campaign finance laws.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life by targeting government officials -- regardless of party affiliation -- who sacrifice the common good to special interests. CREW advances its mission using a combination of research, litigation and media outreach.
"That is a confrontation of Cold War proportions," warned one observer.
Update:
US forces have now boarded and seized control of the Russian-flagged oil vessel in the North Atlantic, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
Earlier:
United States military forces on Wednesday attempted to board and seize control of a Venezuela-linked and Russian-flagged oil tanker after a weekslong pursuit across the Atlantic, sparking fears of a broader conflict stemming from US President Donald Trump's assault on the South American country.
Reuters reported that the US Coast Guard and military are leading the takeover operation, which came "after the tanker, originally known as the Bella-1, slipped through a US maritime 'blockade' of sanctioned tankers and rebuffed US Coast Guard efforts to board it." According to the Wall Street Journal, "Helicopters and at least one Coast Guard vessel were being used to take control of the tanker."
The vessel is reportedly being escorted by a Russian submarine, fueling concerns of a direct confrontation between two nuclear powers.
Video footage published Tuesday by RT purports to show US forces pursuing the tanker, whose name was recently changed to the Marinera.
BREAKING WORLD EXCLUSIVE: RT obtains FIRST footage of Russian-flagged civilian Marinera tanker being CHASED by US Coast Guard warship in the North Atlantic https://t.co/sNbqJkm5O5 pic.twitter.com/XtbBML3a6j
— RT (@RT_com) January 6, 2026
The New York Times reported that US forces first stopped the tanker in the Caribbean on December 21.
According to the Times:
The ship, which started its journey in Iran, had been on its way to pick up oil in Venezuela.
At the time, the United States said it had a seizure warrant on the vessel because it was not flying a valid national flag. But the Bella 1 refused to be boarded and sailed into the Atlantic, with the United States in pursuit.
Then came a series of moves to ward off the United States. The fleeing crew painted a Russian flag on the hull, the tanker was renamed and added to an official Russian ship database, and Russia made a formal diplomatic request that the United States stop its chase.
Observers voiced alarm over the tense and fast-moving situation.
"Don’t wish to be hyperbolic, but if—if—US special forces are intercepting and seeking to board a now Russian-flagged tanker, apparently with submarine escort, then that is a confrontation of Cold War proportions," warned British journalist Jon Sopel.
US President Donald Trump declared that Venezuela will hand over up to 50 million barrels of oil—which could be sold for around $3 billion.
US President Donald Trump claimed late Tuesday that Venezuela's interim leadership will turn over to the United States as many as 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to be sold at market price, part of a broader, unlawful administration effort to seize the South American nation's natural resources.
Trump, who authorized the illegal US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president this past weekend, said he would control the proceeds of the sale—which could amount to $3 billion.
"Just straight-up piracy and extortion from the US president," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response.
Consistent with his administration's conduct since the weekend attack that killed at least 75 people in Venezuela, Trump provided few details on how his scheme would work or how it would comply with domestic and international law, both of which the president has repeatedly disregarded and treated with contempt.
It's also not clear that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela's acting president and an ally of Nicolás Maduro, has agreed to Trump's plan, which he announced on social media as his administration worked to entice US oil giants to take part in its effort to exploit the South American nation's vast reserves.
Ahead of the US attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers approaching or leaving Venezuela, pushing the country closer to economic collapse. The New York Times noted Tuesday that Trump's decision to "begin targeting tankers carrying Venezuelan crude to Asian markets had paralyzed the state oil company’s exports."
"To keep the wells pumping, the state oil company, known as PDVSA, had been redirecting crude oil into storage tanks and turning tankers idling in ports into floating storage facilities," the Times reported. During Trump's first White House term, he banned US companies from working with PDVSA.
Trump wrote in his social media post Tuesday that the tens of millions of barrels of oil "will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States."
"I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately," Trump wrote.
The Trump administration is also pushing Venezuela's interim leadership to meet a series of US demands before it can pump more oil, ABC News reported late Tuesday. Trump has illegally threatened to launch another attack on Venezuela, and target more of its politicians, if the country's leadership doesn't follow his administration's orders.
According to ABC, the Trump administration has instructed Venezuela to "kick out China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and sever economic ties."
"Second, Venezuela must agree to partner exclusively with the US on oil production and favor America when selling heavy crude oil," ABC added, citing unnamed sources. "According to one person, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in a private briefing on Monday that he believes the US can force Venezuela's hand because its existing oil tankers are full. Rubio also told lawmakers that the US estimates that Caracas has only a couple of weeks before it will become financially insolvent without the sale of its oil reserves."
"Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action in Greenland just to soothe the ego of a power-hungry wannabe dictator."
As leaders in Europe respond to once-unimaginable threats by the United States to take territory from a NATO ally, one US senator on Monday proposed legislation banning funding for any Trump administration military action against Greenland.
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) put forth an amendment to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill "to prohibit the use of funds for military force, the conduct of hostilities, or the preparation for war against or with respect to Greenland," a self-governing territory of Denmark.
“Families are getting crushed by rising grocery and housing costs, inflation is up, and [President Donald] Trump’s name is all over the Epstein files," Gallego said in a statement. "Instead of doing anything to fix those problems, Trump is trying to distract people by threatening to start wars and invade countries—first in Venezuela, and now against our NATO ally Denmark."
“What’s happening in Venezuela shows us that we can’t just ignore Trump’s reckless threats," Gallego added. "His dangerous behavior puts American lives and our global credibility at risk. I’m introducing this amendment to make it clear that Congress will not bankroll illegal, unnecessary military action, and to force Republicans to choose whether they’re going to finally stand up or keep enabling Trump’s chaos.”
"This is not more complicated than the fact that Trump wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong. The US military is not a toy," Gallego—a former Marine Corps infantryman—said on social media.
The illegal US invasion and bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife—which came amid a high-seas airstrike campaign against alleged drug traffickers—spooked many Greenlanders, Danes, and Europeans, who say they have no choice but to take Trump's threats seriously.
“Threats, pressure, and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Monday on social media. “That is not how you speak to a people who have shown responsibility, stability, and loyalty time and again. Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned during a Monday television interview that "if the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop—that includes NATO, and therefore the post-Second World War security."
Other European leaders have also rallied behind Greenland amid the mounting US threat.
"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the leaders of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain asserted in a statement also backed by the Netherlands and Canada—which Trump has said he wants to make the "51st state."
The White House said Tuesday that Trump and members of his national security team are weighing a “range of options” to acquire Greenland, and that military action is “always an option” for seizing the mineral-rich and strategic island.
This, after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller brushed off criticism of a social media post by his wife, who posted an image showing a map of Greenland covered in the American flag with the caption, "SOON."
"You can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else," Miller told CNN on Monday. "But we live in a world, in the real world, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power."
No war powers resolution has ever succeeded in stopping a US president from proceeding with military action, including one introduced last month by Gallego in a bid to stop the boat strikes in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has also unsuccessfully tried to get war powers resolutions passed, implied Tuesday that more measures aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Greenland may be forthcoming.
“He has repeatedly raised Greenland, Cuba, Mexico, Colombia. He’s waged military action within Nigeria,” Kaine said of Trump, who has bombed more countries than any president in history. “So I think members of the Senate should go on the record about all of it.”
In Greenland, only a handful of the island's 57,000 inhabitants want to join the United States. More than 8 in 10 favor independence amid often strained relations with their masters in Copenhagen and the legacy of a colonial history rife with abuses. Greenlanders enjoy a Nordic-style social welfare system that features universal healthcare; free higher education; and income, family, and employment benefits and protections unimaginable in today's United States.
Pro-independence figures say like-minded people must use the specter of a US takeover to wring concessions from Denmark.
"I am more nervous that we are potentially in a situation where only Denmark's wishes are taken into account and that we have not even been clarified about what we want," Aki-Matilda Tilia Ditte Høegh-Dam, a member of the pro-independence Naleraq party in Greenland's Inatsisartut, or Parliament, told Sermitsiaq on Tuesday.
"I'm in the Folketinget [Danish Parliament] right now, and I see that the Danish government is constantly making agreements with the United States," she added. "It’s not that they ask Greenland first."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was among observers who noted Tuesday that any US invasion of Greenland would oblige other NATO members to defend the island under the North Atlantic Treaty's collective defense requirement.
“That’s what Article 5 says. Article 5 did not anticipate that the invading country would be a member of NATO,” Murphy told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We’re laughing, but this is not actually something to laugh about now because I think he’s increasingly serious.”