SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
April, 02 2014, 03:33pm EDT
Contact:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Supreme Court Establishing "Plutocrat Rights"
USA Today reports: "The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections. The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign."
WASHINGTON
USA Today reports: "The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections. The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign."
JOHN BONIFAZ, jbonifaz at freespeechforpeople.org, @FSFP
Bonifaz is president of Free Speech For People, a group that has sought to overturn the Citizens United decision.
JEFF MILCHEN, jeff.milchen at gmail.com, @JMilchen
Milchen is co-founder of the Montana-based American Independent Business Alliance, which was party to briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. He said today: "This decision, expanding the Supreme Court's 'money equals free speech' doctrine has made the democratic republic, promised to us by our Constitution, impossible. Citizens' votes are stripped of power when the wealthiest few have pre-determined which candidates and parties are acceptable for the rest of us to choose among.
"The Court majority also does immense harm to America's independent businesses. Their ruling allows corporate executives and lobbyists to easily convert their economic power into countless political favors. These favors consistently harm our small business constituents by extracting subsidies for the largest corporations, stifling enforcement of anti-trust laws, and systematically giving anti-competitive advantages to the largest donors."
RAHNA EPTING, via Adam Smith asmith at Publicampaign.org, @publicampaign
Deputy executive director at Public Campaign Action Fund, Epting said today: "The Supreme Court once again sided with the wealthiest among us at the expense of ordinary Americans. ... This makes it more important than ever that Congress moves forward on legislation like the Government By the People Act to ensure people unable to write big checks have a voice in the political process."
ROBERT WEISSMAN, via Angela Bradbery, abradbery at citizen.org, @Public_Citizen
Weissman is president of Public Citizen, which notes in a statement: "Today, in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down limits on the aggregate amounts people can donate to candidates, political parties and political committees. Demonstrations that Public Citizen helped organize are scheduled to take place throughout the country in response." For more information, visit: citizen.org/mccutcheon and moneyout-votersin.org.
Weissman said today: "Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission strikes a devastating blow at the very foundation of our democracy.
"This is truly a decision establishing plutocrat rights. The Supreme Court today holds that the purported right of a few hundred superrich individuals to spend outrageously large sums on campaign contributions outweighs the national interest in political equality and a government free of corruption.
"In practical terms, the decision means that one individual can write a single check for $5.9 million to be spent by candidates, political parties and political committees.
"Even after Citizens United, this case is absolutely stunning. It is sure to go down as one of the worst decisions in the history of American jurisprudence.
"Until today, nobody could contribute more than $123,000 total in each two-year election cycle to political candidates and parties.
"Citizens United allowed Big Business to spend literally as much as it wants - predominantly in undisclosed contributions filtered through the likes of Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - distorting our elections. But Citizens United money can go only to outside groups.
"Now McCutcheon removes meaningful limits on the total amount an individual can directly contribute to candidates, political parties and political committees. ...
"There are literally only a few hundred people who can and will take advantage of this horrendous ruling. But those are exactly the people our elected officials will now be answering to.
"That is not democracy.
"It is plutocracy.
"Today's reckless Supreme Court ruling threatens so many of the things we love about our country.
"No matter what five Supreme Court justices say, the First Amendment was never intended to provide a giant megaphone for the wealthiest to use to shout down the rest of us.
"Our only hope of overturning this McCutcheon travesty -- along with Citizens United -- is if millions of Americans band together in saying 'Enough!' to plutocracy.
"We couldn't face a starker choice: Accept rule by the few, based on wealth. Or join together to protect and reclaim our democracy - the notion that We, the People decide.
"Today, people across the nation will be responding with protests to this outrageous decision. We, the People insist that our government and our country remain of, by and for the people - all the people, not just those few who have amassed billions in wealth.
"A vibrant movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and reclaim our democracy has emerged since the 2010 issuance of that fateful decision. The demonstrations today - unprecedented as a same-day response to a Supreme Court decision - are just the latest manifestation of how that movement is now exploding across the country.
"We refuse to cede control of our country and our government to amoral multinationals and morally comprised plutocrats."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
LATEST NEWS
One-Third of Americans Skipped Meals or Cut Back on Spending to Afford Healthcare in 2025
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
Mar 12, 2026
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With No Mention of US-Israeli Aggression, UN Security Council Condemns Iranian Retaliation
"The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor," said Iran's ambassador to the UN.
Mar 12, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations without denouncing—or even mentioning—the illegal US and Israeli bombing campaign that started the war, which has hurled the region into conflict and destabilized the global economy.
The resolution, sponsored by council member and US ally Bahrain, "condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," nations that host US military bases. The text calls Iranian strikes "a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security," but contains no mention of the US or Israel, nations that have been accused of grave war crimes.
The council adopted Bahrain's measure by a vote of 13-0, with two abstentions—China and Russia. Both nations have veto power but declined to use it. Neither Iran nor Israel is currently a member of the Security Council.
The UN body also voted on a competing resolution, sponsored by Russia, that would have implored "all parties"—without naming any of them—to stop their military operations and avoid escalating the conflict. The resolution did not receive the nine votes necessary for adoption, with the US and Latvia voting against it and Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Greece, Liberia, Panama, and the United Kingdom abstaining.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the UN, said the body's adoption of Bahrain's resolution marks "a serious setback to the council’s credibility and leaves a lasting stain on its record."
"Today’s action represents a blatant misuse of the Security Council’s mandate in pursuit of the political agendas of certain members," said Iravani. "The very state responsible for this brutal war of aggression against my country—the regime of the United States—sits on the other side of this chamber as president of the council, abusing its position while obstructing every effort to bring an end to this barbaric war against the Iranian people and preventing the Council from fulfilling its Charter-based responsibilities."
"This resolution is a manifest injustice against my country, the main victim of a clear act of aggression. It distorts the realities on the ground and deliberately ignores the root causes of the current crisis," he continued. "The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor. It rewards the regimes of the United States and Israel, which have violated the UN Charter and committed acts of aggression. In doing so, it establishes impunity and sends a wrong message to the international community—emboldening the aggressors to commit further crimes."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them."
Ahead of the vote on Bahrain's resolution, which accuses Iran of "deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects," Iravani said US-Israeli bombing has killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iran and destroyed nearly 10,000 civilian structures across the country, including around 8,000 homes and dozens of schools and healthcare facilities.
Earlier on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has reached the preliminary conclusion that US forces were responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian elementary school, an attack that killed around 175 people—mostly young children.
DAWN, a nonprofit that supports human rights and democracy in the Middle East, said Wednesday that "mounting evidence" shows US and Israeli forces "have committed multiple war crimes" in Iran and Lebanon—which is facing a rapidly worsening humanitarian disaster due to Israeli attacks.
"In mere days, US and Israel forces have launched a war of choice, killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, bombed scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots, and dropped white phosphorus on civilian communities," Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said in a statement. "The international community's failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era in which civilians across the globe are at risk."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them," said Shakir. "Governments unwilling to invoke international law when their allies commit crimes have no credibility when they invoke it against rivals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Lebanon to Iran, Says Sanders, US Must End Complicity in 'Netanyahu's Wars'
"In less than two weeks, Israel has killed 570 people and displaced 750,000—over 10% of the entire country," the senator said of Lebanon. "Residential buildings are being bombed with no warning."
Mar 11, 2026
Just a day after tearing into US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "unraveling international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the legitimacy of the United Nations" with their illegal war on Iran, Sen. Bernie Sanders stressed that "it's not just Iran."
"It's Lebanon," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media Wednesday. Since Trump and Netanyahu began bombing Iran a dozen days ago, Israel has also ramped up attacks against its northern neighbor—claiming to target the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah—despite a November 2024 ceasefire deal.
That agreement to protect the Lebanese people was struck just over a year into Israel's retaliation for the October 2023 Hamas-led attack, which has also left the Gaza Strip in ruins. Despite the Lebanon truce, and another for Gaza reached this past October, Israeli forces have continued to slaughter civilians in both places.
In Lebanon, Sanders noted Wednesday, "in less than two weeks, Israel has killed 570 people and displaced 750,000—over 10% of the entire country. Residential buildings are being bombed with no warning."
"The US cannot continue to be complicit in Netanyahu's wars," declared the senator. His comments came after the White House tried to walk back Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion last week that Trump followed the Israeli prime minister's lead on Iran.
Sanders has also criticized and even attempted to curb US complicity in Netanyahu's genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza—under the Biden and Trump administrations—by forcing unsuccessful votes to cut off some weapons to Israel.
The Israeli government has used the operation against Iran—which experts argue violates the US Constitution and UN Charter—to again cut off necessary humanitarian aid to Gaza, claiming last week that "the existing stock is expected to suffice for an extended period."
Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, called the move "a new chokehold on Gaza," adding that "after more than two years of unspeakable suffering and a spreading man-made famine, people still lack the most basic supplies, despite increases in aid since the ceasefire.
As for Lebanon, Axios reported Monday that "the Lebanese government proposed direct negotiations with Israel—through the Trump administration—aimed at ending the war and reaching a peace agreement."
However, the Financial Times reported Tuesday that "Israel has rejected diplomatic overtures by Lebanon," with one unnamed source saying that the Lebanese "are ready to talk to Israel, but under the condition of a cessation of fire. Not a ceasefire, but a cessation... so talks can get going in Cyprus."
"Israel has so far refused and says it will only negotiate 'under fire,'" according to that unnamed source.
Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, made US support for Israel's bombing of Lebanon clear in his Wednesday remarks to the UN Security Council.
"The United States condemns the attacks that Hezbollah, a long-time proxy of the Iranian regime, has launched against Israel. Hezbollah has yet again made it clear that it does not represent nor does it defend the people of Lebanon. It defends the interests of the Iranian regime," Waltz said, stressing Israel's "right to defend itself."
Waltz also welcomed the Lebanese Council of Ministers' recent decision "to immediately prohibit Hezbollah’s military and security activities," and declared that "now is the time for the government of Lebanon to take back control of the entirety of its country."
Meanwhile, Tom Fletcher, United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, noted to the Security Council that UN Secretary-General António Guterres "has insisted... we need the protection of civilians, de-escalation, an immediate cessation of hostilities, and genuine dialogue and negotiations towards a peaceful settlement, in line with the charter."
Fletcher concluded his comments at the briefing on Lebanon with calls for the protection of "all civilians throughout the region," "generous funding for a principled, scaled-up humanitarian response," and "a revival of strategic, calm, rational, hopeful diplomacy."
"Lebanon is exhausted by other people's wars," he said. "It is not asking for help, but for oxygen. Its people can defy the history, the geography, even the politics. They can be stronger than the forces pulling them apart. But they can only do that if Iran and Israel stop fighting their war in Lebanon."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular