

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.

Lisa Gilbert, Public Citizen (202) 454-5188; Columbia Law School Public Affairs (212) 854-2650
At a Senate briefing today, lawmakers, prominent pension fund leaders, investors and securities law experts built a robust case for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to issue a rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending.
U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who sponsored and keynoted the briefing, said, "Investors have a right to know how corporate executives are spending investors' money. The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United that corporations are people and can spend unlimited money to influence elections has triggered a flood of secret money that undermines our democracy and often occurs without shareholders' knowledge or consent. Basic disclosure would bring much needed transparency and accountability and help ensure that corporations' political spending accurately reflects the will of the shareholders who own them."
Menendez has consistently called on the SEC to use its authority to require companies to disclose to shareholders how they spend shareholders' money to influence elections. In the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which said that corporations are people and can spend unlimited sums to influence elections, Menendez authored the Shareholder Protection Act, which not only would require full disclosure of any political spending by any public company, but would require shareholder authorization of this spending.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who also keynoted the briefing said, "Disclosure of corporate political spending is good for investors, good for business, and good for the American public. Shareholders have a right to know how the companies they own are spending their money. More disclosure would make the democratic process more accountable by making sure citizens know who is backing candidates. The SEC should require publicly traded companies to disclose secret political spending - and it should do it now."
The rulemaking petition has garnered more than 640,000 supportive comments from the general public and investors alike - more than any other petition in the SEC's history - including supportive commentary from hedge fund investors and former Vanguard CEO John Bogle. The support has made an impact; last year, the SEC added the proposal to the agency's regulatory agenda.
"We applaud the SEC and encourage the agency to continue to act decisively to protect investors by providing them with material information," said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division and moderator of the briefing. Gilbert added, "Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White has lately stressed the independence of the SEC, saying they should use their expertise to mandate transparency requirements when information about companies is truly needed by investors. This rule fits that necessity perfectly, as the information has been loudly demanded by a wide-range of investors for that reason."
"Although investors have long asked public companies to disclose when shareholder money is spent on politics, most corporate political spending remains hidden from investors," said Robert J. Jackson, Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who co-chaired the group of legal experts that petitioned the SEC to take up these rules in 2010. "The SEC should act immediately to adopt rules that would give investors the information they need to evaluate political spending at the companies they own."
The rulemaking has robust support from the investor community. Since 2010, the number of shareholder resolutions pertaining to political spending filed at companies has climbed from 58 to 128, according to the Sustainable Investments Institute. Average support for these proposals has steadily increased in the past two years.
"Investors should know how corporate dollars are being spent on politics so they can evaluate whether that spending is advancing the corporation's best interests," said New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, trustee of the $160.7 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund in a statement. "I urge the SEC to take up rulemaking to create a uniform standard for disclosure of corporate political spending."
The business community is also trending toward disclosure. More than 16 companies received top scores for their disclosure policies from the Center for Political Accountability-Zicklin Index, an increase of 150 percent from 2012. And 150 companies of the 195 surveyed received improved scores from 2012. In addition, a survey released earlier this year by the Committee for Economic Development showed that 90 percent of surveyed business leaders supported full disclosure of individual, corporate and labor contributions to political committees.
Professor John Coates of Harvard Law School, a prominent author of many studies on corporate governance and securities law, commented, "Political activity creates distinct and difficult-to-model risks. Dozens of studies have produced results inconsistent with political activity generally serving shareholder interests. Instead, they support the view that political activity can harm shareholder interests. These harms can flow through many channels - from reputational harm to dilution of strategic focus, from politically risky acquisition bets or capital investments to state laws deterring takeovers. To adequately assess those risks, shareholders need basic, standardized information about political activity - before investing, and afterwards, to monitor corporate performance and make informed decisions. Disclosure of such information is squarely within the SEC's charge, and would deliver significant benefits to investors at a low cost."
Laura Berry, executive director of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, added, "As investors and active shareowners, the members of ICCR have been instrumental in encouraging our companies to agree to full disclosure for nearly a decade. Disclosure allows investors to make the best possible decisions by underscoring a company's strategic priorities. There is good reason that so many citizens align with investors in their conviction that corporations can and should disclose their political contributions."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"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.
As the Trump-backed oligarch tries to grow even more wealthy and with longstanding rules changed to his benefit ahead of the SpaceX public offering, "retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
Billionaire Elon Musk has ambitions to become the world's first trillionaire when his company SpaceX makes what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering in history—and money unwittingly invested by ordinary Americans may help him get there.
Progressive media outlet More Perfect Union on Wednesday published a video detailing how the Nasdaq stock market exchange changed its own rules so that SpaceX can be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year "seasoning" period that used to be required for newly public companies.
The reason companies in the past had to wait a year to be included in index funds is that such funds contain a large chunk of Americans' retirement savings, and are thus supposed to be more averse to risk.
Watch the 12-minute video:
NEW: Elon Musk wants a SpaceX IPO valuing the company at upwards of $1.75 trillion.
To get there he got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in.
Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out. pic.twitter.com/DviJEt0XAu
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 27, 2026
This means that ordinary investors could see their money plunged into an unproven company while investors who have bankrolled Musk's previous ventures now rolled into SpaceX could cash out at inflated prices.
"Every piece of evidence we have is that the IPO is being engineered to rise very rapidly after it prices, and then fall very dramatically after that," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, told More Perfect Union. "That is a recipe for retail investors, especially, to take large losses."
SpaceX is a particularly risky bet, Preakes added, given that it is seeking a $1.75 trillion valuation with its IPO. For a company that made only $19 billion in profits last fiscal year, critics say a valuation 54 times larger than its projected revenue multiple, a measure of its value based on expected future earnings, is a huge red flag.
"This combination of extreme size and this extreme multiple," Peakes said, "is completely unprecedented."
Pearkes isn't in the only expert concerned about the structure of the SpaceX IPO.
Writing at Seeking Alpha, independent equity researcher Julia Ostian similarly argued that the SpaceX IPO is structured using a "calculated mechanism that will feed the artificial demand generated by the forced index fund buyers," and thus at least initially send share values soaring beyond what the company's fundamentals would suggest, and giving insiders an opportunity to quickly cash out.
Ostian added that "it is clear who is the beneficiary here and who pays the price for this engineered system," and said that "the rich are getting richer openly, without hiding it or even without trying to pretend it’s something else."
As More Perfect Union emphasized, the entire IPO was orchestrated by Musk for maximum advantage to himself and his closest allies, but he needed regular Americans to put up the money for the scheme to work.
"He got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in," the outlet noted. "Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
"We know what high-performing health systems look like—other countries have them and are building them. It’s high time the US did better.”
An annual analysis that examines healthcare systems across nearly two dozen wealthy countries around the world once again highlighted the United States' "uniquely poor performance relative to its peers," with this year's US Health Care from a Global Perspective report focusing on "insurance coverage and access to care, affordability of care, delivery of care, and equity of health outcomes."
As advocates for expanding the US Medicare system to the entire population have long warned, the country's for-profit healthcare system—which ties the ability to get care to one's employment and allows insurance companies to boost profits by denying care to patients—"The US, on average, has the poorest health outcomes of any high-income country," the Commonwealth Fund's report reads.
The report examines the US system compared with other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including the United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico.
It finds that the US spent 18% of its gross domestic product on healthcare in 2024—nearly twice the OECD average.
Life expectancy in the US reached an all-time high in 2024, but was still among the shortest when compared to the 19 other countries, nearly five years shorter than Japan, Spain, and Switzerland, and longer than the average lifespan in Turkey and Mexico.
While the US and Mexico also both rank high on the list in terms of preventable deaths, the latter nation announced last month that it would soon be joining every other country included in the analysis by shifting to a universal, government-run healthcare system.
In the United States, the for-profit health sector—which spent a record $877.69 million on lobbying last year—contributes to the high number of avoidable deaths, which stands at 312 per 100,000 people. About 27 million Americans are still uninsured, more than 16 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and the Republican Party's refusal to continue ACA subsidies last year as well as its $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, according to Thursday's report, are "projected to increase the number of uninsured Americans by an additional 17 million by 2034, potentially leading to more than 50,000 additional preventable deaths annually."
"By contrast, Mexico’s recently established Universal Health Service will provide all residents with access to free care at any public health institute, starting in 2027," the report states. "The US is one of the only countries to have enacted policies that reduce coverage."
High out-of-pocket costs may also contribute to poor outcomes and the high number of preventable deaths in the US, the Commonwealth Fund suggests. Americans spend $400 per person, per year, on out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, while people in France spend $100.
"The US is one of the only countries to have enacted policies that reduce coverage."
"In the US, where approximately 8% of the population is uninsured and one-quarter has coverage that comes with high out-of-pocket costs or deductibles, people are far more likely to forgo needed care because of costs than people in peer countries," reads the report. "This can mean not filling prescriptions, not obtaining diagnostic tests, treatment, or follow-up care, or being unable to adhere to clinician-recommended care plans."
The report also identifies the US as a country that lags behind its peers in producing new doctors, contributing to a crisis in primary care, with the US having the fewest number of primary care providers per 1,000 people. The country also has the "highest medical tuition fees of any country in our analysis," said the Commonwealth Fund.
The organization also found that in 2023, the US had nearly 19 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births, representing a decline for the country that has long had "among the highest rates of maternal deaths related to complications of pregnancy and childbirth."
"By contrast, in 11 of the 18 countries we studied there were less than five maternal deaths per 100,000 live births," reads the report, which also notes that in the US, maternal mortality is "exceptionally high" among Black women, at 50 deaths per 100,000 live births.
"This far exceeds national maternal mortality in any of the other countries," the report states. "Inequities in access to care and patients’ care experiences—often rooted in discrimination and clinician bias—may be prime contributing factors."
Dr. Joseph Betancourt, president of the Commonwealth Fund, noted that "the US has long prided itself on having the best healthcare in the world, but the population benefits from this excellence unevenly, and it remains largely out of reach for many Americans."
"We spend more than any other nation on healthcare, so our poorer health outcomes aren’t due to a lack of resources—it is about how we choose to use them," said Betancourt. "We know what high-performing health systems look like—other countries have them and are building them. It’s high time the US did better."
"Other countries have shown that alternatives work. What’s striking isn’t the absence of solutions; it’s our reluctance to implement them."
The report does not explicitly call on the US to shift to a universal, government-funded healthcare system, but studies have shown that expanding Medicare to the entire US population, as lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have consistently demanded, would address many of the problems listed in the report.
Studies by the Congressional Budget Office and Yale University have shown that Medicare for All would save an estimated $650 billion and prevent 68,000 avoidable deaths each year.
The policy, which has been proposed in Congress numerous times, is also broadly popular; 65% of US voters—including 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans—support creating a national, government-run healthcare program, according to a Data for Progress poll last year.
Despite this, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers continue to insist the proposal is unpopular and too expensive, with Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8), who is running against vehement Medicare for All advocate Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic US Senate primary, insisting recently that "the support for a true single-payer system isn't there yet."
Reginald Williams II, senior vice president at Commonwealth Fund, emphasized that it is "not inevitable" that "Americans pay more for healthcare and get less in return."
"It’s the result of different choices," he said. "Other countries have shown that alternatives work. What’s striking isn’t the absence of solutions; it’s our reluctance to implement them. The failure of the US health system is not a failure of ideas. It’s a failure of will to act on them.”