

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.

Mike Russo
Office: (202)461-3823
Cell: (617)835-1542
Email: mrusso@pirg.org
In congressional primaries, bigger wallets give a small set of mega-donors an outsized voice, according to new information released today by U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Demos. Just 5,485 donors who gave $1,000 or more to candidates in the primaries outspent the at least 440,362 small donors who gave less than $200, and 65 percent of all candidate contributions came from donors giving chunks of $1,000 or more.
"Some argue about which party benefits the most from the new Wild West of campaign finance, or claim that so long as both major candidates in an election are well-financed, our democracy is working the way it should," said Mike Russo, with U.S. PIRG Education Fund. "But that misses the forest for the trees: small donors' voices are increasingly drowned out by the spending of a small cadre of large donors, and ordinary citizens are the ones who lose out."
In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decisions undermining campaign finance rules, most notably Citizens United v FEC, U.S. elections have become increasingly flooded by large donations. And big money, often from out-of-district donors, can have an increased effect in primaries because often, spending in the primaries is lower than in the general election. The effect of this "money primary" is that it systematically disadvantages grassroots-fueled candidates who appeal to ordinary voters, but not to big donors.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund/Demos analysis examined contributions in congressional primaries in all states except Louisiana (which holds its primary on Election Day), and compared fund-raising from large donors (contributions of $1,000 or more in at least one race) and small donors (who gave $200 or less). Among its findings:
Nationwide, fewer than 5,500 large donors outspent at least 440,000 small donors. If that were a single race, it would mean that a candidate who got 10,000 people to give a donation would lose out in the money race to someone who only got 125 contributions.
In Texas, a single self-funded candidate contributed more than all small donors in the state, combined.
In terms of the percentage of primary funds coming from large donors, Texas also came in the highest, with 80% of contributions from $1,000-plus givers.
There are successful, proven models to empower small donors, so that their voices play a more central role in our democracy, such as providing tax credits and public matching funds for small donations. For example, in New York City's 2013 city council campaigns, small donors were responsible for 61% of participating candidates' contributions, when funds from a matching program are included. In 2009, all but two of the 51 winning candidates participated in the small donor program, showing that candidates are able to raise the money they need to win without looking for large-dollar contributions.
"If our primaries just help select the candidate with the most appeal to big donors, our democracy will suffer," said Russo. "Mega-donors shouldn't get to drown out the rest of our voices by virtue of having deeper pockets."
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
"JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors... while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke,” said one Democratic state lawmaker.
Vice President JD Vance's scheduled attendance at three $100,000-per-couple fundraisers has raised eyebrows and ire as Americans struggle to make ends meet due to the Trump administration economic policies and experts warn that the US-Israeli war on Iran could cause tens of millions of people in the Global South to suffer acute hunger.
Vance—who is widely expected to run for president in 2028—is in Texas this week for Republican National Committee fundraisers in Austin on Monday and Dallas on Tuesday. The vice president is also scheduled to attend another similar fundraising event in Nashville, Tennessee on March 30.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Joe Lonsdale, the billionaire founder of the controversial data analytics company Palantir, is hosting the Austin event. Billionaire investor and real estate developer Ray Washburne will co-host the Dallas fundraiser along with Chris Buskirk, founder of the venture capital firm where Donald Trump Jr. works. Buskirk openly advocates for an American "aristocracy" that "takes care of the country and governs it well so that everyone prospers.”
Also set to co-host the Dallas event is David Hininger, the former CEO of CoreCivic, a leading private prison firm in an industry that has gloated about the "unprecedented" profit potential of Trump's mass arrest and deportation campaign against undocumented immigrants.
Donors were reportedly asked to pay $250,000 to host one of the fundraisers.
"While Vance dines with billionaire donors, Americans are struggling to get by in the Trump-Vance economy as prices on everything from gas to groceries soar and working families dip into their savings to make ends meet," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement Monday.
"Trump and Vance’s war with Iran has already claimed the lives of 13 US service members and injured over 230, while driving up global oil prices and gas prices for Americans back home," the DNC added, without mentioning the thousands of Iranians killed or wounded by the illegal war of choice. "According to [the American Automobile Association], the average price for a gallon of gas is $3.96 nationwide, up from $2.94 just one month ago."
Trump campaigned on promises of no new wars and lower consumer prices, including gas, on "day one." Since returning to office, he has ordered the bombing of seven countries. Gas prices are up around 30% since Trump returned to the White House in January 2020.
“Prices on everything from gas to groceries to rent are soaring because of the Trump-Vance agenda, and what is JD Vance up to? He’s rubbing elbows with billionaires and special interests while working families struggle to make ends meet," DNC Chair Ken Martin said Monday. "Everyday Americans are stretching every dollar just to get by, and Vance is worried about lining his own pockets.”
Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Christina Morales (D-145) told the Houston Chronicle Monday that "JD Vance has a lot of nerve showing up in Texas to shake down wealthy donors for a quarter of a million dollars a head while Texans are paying through the nose at the pump and can’t get through the airport his party broke."
The war on Iran and its cascading global economic impacts could also fuel a sharp rise in acute hunger around the world, the United Nations World Food Program warned last week. WFP said the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is driving higher energy and fertilizer prices, which in turn can result in more expensive food.
“If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest," Carl Skau, WFP’s deputy executive director and chief operating officer, said. “Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge.”
"Fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said the speaker of the Iranian Parliament.
As the Iranian government denied President Donald Trump's claim on Monday that "productive" talks are taking place between the US and the Middle Eastern country, which the White House has joined Israel in attacking for close to a month, a top Iranian lawmaker accused the president of attempting to manipulate global markets with his claim.
"No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped," said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, in a post on X.
Ghalibaf's theory appeared to be supported by developments in the financial markets shortly after Trump's seemingly significant announcement Monday morning.
As the market analysis and commentary website The Kobeissi Letter reported, by 7:10 am Eastern—six minutes after Trump appeared to allude to diplomatic strides toward ending his unprovoked war—the S&P 500 surged by more than 240 points, adding more than $2 trillion in market capitalization.
Iran's Foreign Ministry denied Trump's claim 27 minutes later, and by 8:00 AM Eastern the S&P 500 had fallen by 120 points, erasing nearly $1 trillion in market value.
"That's a $3 TRILLION swing market cap in 56 minutes, just in the S&P 500," said The Kobeissi Letter. "What is happening here?"
Ahead of Ghalibaf's remarks, The New Republic also posited that Trump's "news" of productive discussions was "just a ploy at market manipulation."
The quick denial of talks from the Foreign Ministry raised "serious doubts as to whether the president is telling the truth or just saying whatever he can to stop gas prices from rising more and more as Iran locks down the Strait of Hormuz."
Since the US and Israel began its assault on Iran on February 28, Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil supply flows, and sent gas prices soaring to nearly $4 per gallon, up from $2.91 before the war.
The war, which has killed more than 3,200 Iranians and exploded into a larger conflict, with more than 1,000 people killed in Lebanon and at least 60 killed in Iraq, has appeared politically toxic for Trump, who campaigned on "no new wars" and making life more affordable for Americans.
Nearly 80% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 said last week that they hope for a quick end to the war.
Some observers noted that even the president's five-day deadline for negotiations to conclude—after which he suggested the US could launch strikes against Iran's energy infrastructure—appeared to revolve around the week's closing of energy markets on Friday.
"Every week, when markets open, Trump makes these kinds of statements to drive down oil prices," said Iranian academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi. "Even his five-day deadline aligns with the closure of the energy market. But in reality, there are no negotiations underway, nor does Trump have the capability to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's firm threat has once again forced Trump to back down."
On Saturday, Trump had threatened to "obliterate" Iran's power plants if it didn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday. Iran responded with a threat to target energy infrastructure across the region, including in Israel.
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site News that "no new developments have occurred” diplomatically between the US and Iran.
Iran's conditions for ending the war, the official said, include a simultaneous ceasefire in Iran, Lebanon, and Iraq. The government is also demanding an end to US sanctions on Iran's procurement of defensive weapons and equipment.
“The fact that he publicly responds to [Iran’s position] by posting a tweet," the official said, "is solely intended to manage the financial markets—nothing more."
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."