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.

Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741
Karilyn Gower (202) 588-7779
Note: Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration held a hearing, "Dollars and Sense," exploring ways lawmakers can deal with "dark money" - undisclosed money funneled through trade associations and other groups to influence elections - which exploded after the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other decisions at the hearing. U.S Sen.
Note: Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration held a hearing, "Dollars and Sense," exploring ways lawmakers can deal with "dark money" - undisclosed money funneled through trade associations and other groups to influence elections - which exploded after the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and other decisions at the hearing. U.S Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that he would push for a vote on S.J. Res. 19, a constitutional amendment that would restore power to Congress and the states to control campaign spending.
This country desperately needs a constitutional amendment to reestablish the core meaning of democracy: rule by the people.
In Citizens United and McCutcheon, but also in decisions that precede them, including Buckley v. Valeo, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned the First Amendment upside down, striking down campaign spending limits that enable regular people to have an effective voice in the political process. As Justice Breyer noted in his McCutcheon dissent, Big Money in politics "derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard."
Today, Senate leaders announced plans to schedule a vote on S.J. Res. 19, which calls for a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, McCutcheon and Buckley. Crucially, that amendment establishes that it aims to advance the objective of "advanc[ing] the fundamental principle of political equality for all."
Here's one indicator of how vital that principle is: Depending on how one counts, only 600 or 1,200 people ran up against the aggregate contribution limits overturned by McCutcheon. That's the universe of people who will gain a greater ability to make campaign contributions as a result of that decision, to the detriment of the rest of the nation's citizens. Here's another indicator: The top .01 percent of the population was responsible for roughly 40 percent of campaign expenditures in 2012.
Public Citizen enthusiastically thanks Senators Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others who have led on this issue, and we pledge our strongest support for winning approval of the amendment. We may not win two-thirds passage this year, but the day is not far off when we will.
With the vote, every senator will be required to take a stand: Do you side with the forces of dark money or the American people? Are you for plutocracy or democracy?
The time is ripe for this scheduled vote. As a matter of both practical politics and constitutional jurisprudence, the McCutcheon decision was another devastating blow to the foundation of our democracy. As evidenced most recently with more than 150 demonstrations in 41 states that erupted in protest of McCutcheon on the day it was handed down, the American people are not just disgusted, they are angry and demanding far-reaching action to return control of our elections and our country to We, the People.
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) 588-1000Soaring energy costs caused by the illegal war of choice are driving up food costs and taking a toll on regional GDP, while soaring prices for US consumers could affect upcoming midterm elections.
Soaring energy prices caused by the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran is driving up global food prices while shrinking the economies of Gulf Arab states targeted in Iranian counterstrikes, according to a pair of reports published this week by United Nations agencies.
On Friday, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published its latest Food Price Index (FFPI), which measures the monthly change in international costs of a basket of basic grocery items. The FFPI rose 2.4% over February levels.
"Price indices across all commodity groups—cereals, meat, dairy, vegetable oils, and sugar—rose to varying degrees, reflecting not only underlying market fundamentals but also responses to higher energy prices linked to the conflict escalation in the Near East," FAO said in a statement.
"If the conflict stretches beyond 40 days with high input costs with current low margins, farmers will have to choose: Farm the same with fewer inputs, plant less, or switch to less intensive fertilizer crops," said FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero.
"Those choices will hit future yields and shape our food supply and commodity prices for the rest of this year and all of the next," Torero added.
As CNBC's Garrett Downs reported Thursday:
Food faces a number of new inflationary pressures due to the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The increase in oil costs is raising the price of diesel, necessary for farmers and the trucks and railroads that carry food across the country. Fertilizer is also being choked by the closure of the strait. And even plastic, a petrochemical product that’s commonly used in food packaging, could also contribute to higher checkout costs.
“The price of food is going to move quite a lot,” Kjetil Storesletten, an economist and professor at the University of Minnesota, told Downs. “If you put those things together, that it’s a big chunk of the price of producing food and that the price increased a lot, it suggests that all of the increased price in fertilizer is going to be passed through to food.”
@fao.org Food Price Index rose in March for 2nd month in a row largely due to conflict in the Near East.Pressure on fertilizer supplies & elevated energy prices add uncertainty to markets despite a comfortable global food supply situation.FAO Chief Economist @maximotorero.bsky.social explains.
[image or embed]
— Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (@fao.org) April 3, 2026 at 9:39 AM
Meanwhile, the UN Development Program (UNDP) earlier this week unveiled an assessment suggesting that the war may cost affected Mideast economies between 3.7% and 6% of their collective gross domestic product (GDP) and push as many as 4 million people into poverty.
"The escalation has exposed structural vulnerabilities of the Arab states region and underscored a stark reality that even a short-lived shock can generate profound, widespread, and persistent socioeconomic impacts across the Arab states region," UNDP said.
"While the current military escalation remains geographically concentrated, its impacts are propagating through interconnected systems—trade corridors, energy markets, financial flows, and logistics networks—transforming a localized escalation into a systemic regional shock," the agency added.
Last month, the UN World Food Program warned that the US-Israeli war on Iran and its associated impacts on the global economy could push 45 million more people around the world into acute hunger this year.
In the United States, experts warn that as the war drags on, grocery prices will continue to rise, posing a political risk to Republicans who, along with President Donald Trump, campaigned on promises to immediately lower the cost of key consumer items including food and gasoline—which now averages over $4 per gallon, up from $3.10 on the day the president returned to the White House.
Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee released a report Thursday showing that higher pump prices have cost Americans $8.4 billion over the first month of the Iran War.
Democrats are looking to capitalize on consumer angst and Republicans' broken promises—not only on prices but also on "no new wars"—in the upcoming midterm elections.
“Our messaging is affordability and accountability,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told CNBC on Thursday. “It’s a pretty tailored message, pretty narrowly focused, and on both of those pillars, Trump is making our arguments even more compelling.”
As Trump seeks an unprecedented $1.5 trillion in military spending for the next fiscal year, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) argued that voters have had enough.
“It just pisses them off more,” he said of Trump's broken promises. "When people hear that, they’re like, ‘Hey, I can’t pay for groceries and you want to go pay for a war in the Middle East?’ I think that’s going to be a tough sell.”
“From the grocery store to the doctor’s office to the gas pump, congressional Republicans are financially crushing working Americans at every turn," said one economic justice campaigner.
As President Donald Trump's Pentagon pushed Congress to approve $1.5 trillion in new military funding, including $200 billion for the US-Israeli war on Iran, congressional Democrats found that the working Americans whose taxes would fund those appropriations have spent $8.4 billion that otherwise could have gone to groceries, childcare, and other essentials—all at the gas pump.
Democratic members of the Joint Economic Committee released a report Thursday—two days after average gas prices in the US reached $4 per gallon, the highest in nearly four years—showing that those higher prices have forced Americans to pay 35% more on gas than they did a month ago, before Trump joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in attacking Iran.
A month after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the war that's killed more than 2,000 Iranians and well over 1,000 people across the Middle East as the conflict has widened, it now costs $145 to fill up just one gas tank for a Ford F-150 pickup truck—$37 more than it did in February.
An SUV costs an average of $58 to fill up, an increase of $15, while a sedan costs $52 on average—$13 more than it did before the war.
The analysis was released a day after Trump unequivocally stated that, despite his campaign pledge to make life more affordable for Americans, his administration's priority is "fighting wars," not ensuring the government provides childcare and healthcare that families can afford.
"We can’t take care of daycare," said Trump. “It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Families are paying more at the pump because Republicans in Congress would rather spend billions of dollars on a war that raises costs than find ways to actually make life more affordable."
The advocacy group Unrig Our Economy noted Friday that the war in Iran, which is supported by nearly every Republican in Congress—is just the latest way in which the GOP under the Trump administration has "raised costs and squeezed families." The Joint Economic Committee found in February that Americans had gotten stuck with the bill due to Trump's aggressive tariffs on imports, which he had claimed would generate massive revenue—but which actually cost the average family more than $1,700 in one year as companies passed off the higher cost of goods and materials to consumers.
“From the grocery store to the doctor’s office to the gas pump, congressional Republicans are financially crushing working Americans at every turn," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal.
The committee Democrats also found last month that the average US electric bill rose by $110, or 6.4%, in 2025, driven by Trump's cancellations of renewable energy projects, his push for liquefied natural gas exports, and his demand for an expansion of artificial intelligence data centers.
"Meanwhile, [Republican] attacks on Americans’ healthcare have sent premiums skyrocketing and put over 15 million Americans at risk of losing health insurance. Now, they want to cut healthcare even more to bankroll their costly and unnecessary war," said Unrig Our Economy, referring to Republicans' call to further cut federal health spending to pay for the Iran war.
As Americans have spent more at the gas pump and the White House has offered shifting explanations for why the US continues to wage war on Iran, public approval for the conflict has remained low. Nearly 60% of Americans said late last month that the war has already gone "too far" as the president threatened to escalate further, and 56% of respondents to a poll by Data for Progress said they believe the conflict will benefit Israel, not the US.
This week, two-thirds of people who responded to a CNN poll said they disapproved of the war and did not believe Trump has a clear plan. More than three-quarters said they would not support the Pentagon's request for $200 billion to fund further military action.
But Trump, who White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles admitted this week has been getting a "rose-colored view" of the war in Iran during official briefings, told reporters Thursday that Americans are so relieved that the US and Israel are attacking Iran and killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of the war that they are not concerned about the financial toll the war is taking on their families.
"We have a country that's not going to be throwing a nuclear weapon at us in six months," said Trump. "They're feeling a lot safer."
US intelligence has determined Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.
“Families are paying more at the pump," said Tal, "because Republicans in Congress would rather spend billions of dollars on a war that raises costs than find ways to actually make life more affordable."
"We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Sen. Bernie Sanders has declared artificial intelligence "a threat to everything the American people hold dear" in a Thursday editorial published by the Wall Street Journal.
Sanders (I-Vt.) began his piece by citing recent polls showing Americans are deeply apprehensive about the impact that AI will have on the economy and their lives, and he said that this feeling was entirely justified given what the people who currently control the technology aim to do with it.
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, people recognize the AI revolution is being led by some of the wealthiest people in this country," Sanders argued. "Billionaires like [Tesla CEO] Elon Musk, [Amazon founder] Jeff Bezos, [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg, and [Oracle co-founder] Larry Ellison are investing enormous sums in AI and robotics not to improve life for working families but to expand their own wealth and power."
He then cited quotes from Musk and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates explaining how AI will eliminate the need for human labor and asked, "If machines can perform most economically valuable work better than humans can, how do people earn a living and support their families?"
Sanders said that the consequences of the widespread adoption of AI aren't just economic, but social as well.
"How can we rush forward when AI is already reshaping how we as human beings relate to one another?" he asked. "According to a recent poll by Common Sense Media, 72% of US teenagers say they have used AI companions, and more than half do so regularly. What does it mean for young people to form 'friendships' with AI while becoming lonelier and more isolated from other human beings?"
Sanders said the US Congress needs to step to the plate to regulate AI—and that Big Tech's massive campaign spending is intimidating too many lawmakers from speaking out.
"The AI industry has already spent more than $185 million to make sure government does nothing to protect the American people," Sanders said. "We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Sanders has been one of the leading voices in Congress demanding the government due more to rein in AI, and last month he and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders last month also demanded that Amazon's Bezos testify publicly before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee about his plans to replace human workers with AI-powered robots, arguing that "we need to understand what will happen to these workers... Will they simply be thrown out on the street in order to make Mr. Bezos even richer?"
In the conclusion to his WSJ op-ed, Sanders called for "the future of AI" to be "decided by the American people."