

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.

A majority of members in both of Delaware's state legislative chambers have signed on to a letter seeking support and action by Delaware's Congressional delegation for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment reversing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Delaware is now the 15th state to back a constitutional amendment to curb unlimited spending in elections and adding to the national momentum to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
In its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court unleashed a flood of corporate money into our political system by ruling that, contrary to longstanding precedents, corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote or defeat candidates. The decision overturned a century of campaign finance law and led to record spending by outside groups and super PACs in the 2012 elections.
Polls show that no matter which party they identify with, Americans simply want their voices heard and listened to by lawmakers. Eight in ten Americans say they oppose the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and it's only a matter of time before public opinion becomes visible and powerful enough that a majority of Congress is moved to follow it.
"I am so pleased the public was so engaged with this issue of taking back our election process from the shadows, and that we have a majority of both houses, and colleagues of both parties, asking our federal delegation to correct this harmful Supreme Court ruling. I am especially thankful to Common Cause Delaware, Americans for Democratic Action, and Public Citizen, for successfully spreading the word throughout our state," said Rep. Paul Baumbach, who led the initiative together with Senators Bryan Townsend and Karen Peterson.
The sign-on letter states:
Dear Senator Carper, Senator Coons, and Representative Carney:
We, the Undersigned Members of the Delaware General Assembly, call upon you to join your colleagues and pass a constitutional amendment reversing the United States Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which declared that corporations enjoy the First Amendment political rights of the people, and which toppled dozens of state and federal laws and two decades of judicial precedents allowing the regulation of direct corporate (for profit, not for profit, including unions) expenditures related to political campaigns.
There is no more critical foundation to our government than citizens' confidence in fair and free elections. The Citizens United decision directly undermines this confidence, and was issued in the absence of any evidence or searching inquiry to refute the fair assumption that unbridled and opaque spending in politics harms American democracy. The Citizens United decision holds that our Congress is forbidden from regulating corporate spending related to political campaigns, and undermines critical provisions of the duly enacted McCain-Feingold Act. The United States of America's elections should not be permitted to go to the highest bidder, and yet this is the risk that rises from the ashes of the Citizens United decision.
This risk must be abated. The Constitution must be amended to make clear the authority of our Congress to regulate expenditures related to political campaigns in a manner consistent not only with principles of freedom and democracy but also with verified facts and outcomes in a quickly-changing, technology-driven world.
Article V of the United States Constitution empowers the people, the states, and our Congress to use the constitutional amendment process to reverse bad Supreme Court decisions that threaten our society. Indeed, this is the only tool available to the American people to reverse bad constitutional decisions.
As Members of the Delaware General Assembly, we sharply disagree with the narrow majority decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and call upon our United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification as soon as is practical a constitutional amendment that reverses this decision, and that makes clear the right of our elected representatives and the American people to be steadfast in pursuit of fair elections and democratic sovereignty.
Very truly yours,
The signatories to date include:
Senate (11)
Catherine Cloutier, Bruce Ennis, Bethany Hall-Long, Margaret Rose Henry, Robert Marshall, David McBride, Harris McDowell, Karen Peterson, Nicole Poore, David Sokola, Bryan Townsend
House of Representatives (24)
Michael Barbieri, Paul Baumbach, Andria Bennett, Donald Blakey, Stephanie Bolden, William Carson, Debra Heffernan, Earl Jaques, James Johnson, Quinn Johnson, Helene Keeley, John Kowalko, John L. Mitchell, Michael Mulrooney, Edward Osienski, Charles Paradee III, Charles Potter, Michael Ramone, Darryl Scott, Melanie George Smith, John Viola, Rebecca Walker, Dennis Williams, Kim Williams
The bipartisan support for the letter echoes the strong support shown in poll after poll by Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike for an amendment overturning Citizens United.
To date, fourteen other states have called for an amendment to overturn Citizens United - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia - as have Washington, D.C. and nearly 500 local municipalities including Newark, Delaware. Connecticut and Maryland also used sign-on letters, while Colorado and Montana made the call through ballot initiatives. Resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment were passed by the legislatures of California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia, as well as by the D.C. Council in Washington, D.C.
The letter represents the second major response to Citizens United in the last two years in Delaware. In 2012, Common Cause Delaware worked with Gov. Markell to pass a bill that required reporting of independent political expenditures in excess of $10,000.
The campaign in Delaware to overturn Citizens United is led by Common Cause Delaware, Americans for Democratic Action, and Public Citizen. Additional support has been provided by the Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Delaware Coalition for Open Government, Progressive Democrats of Delaware, the Delaware Chapter of the League of Women Voters, and People for the American Way.
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"Trump said he’d leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
"Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or Bitcoin? Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks," said one Democratic lawmaker.
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."