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.
Seth Hoy, seth.hoy@nyu.edu, 646-292-8369 or Laurie Kinney, lkinney@justiceatstake.org, 202-588-9454
WASHINGTON - With less than two weeks to November 4th, political parties, outside groups, and state Supreme Court candidates have spent more than $9.1 million on TV ads this election cycle, including primaries and off cycle elections, according to FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG analyzed by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake. For just the general election, TV ad spending for state Supreme Court races totals more than $6.1 million.
Political parties and outside groups have dominated TV ad spending this year with nearly 63 percent of the total ad buys since January, according to an analysis of Kantar Media/CMAG data. Michigan leads the nation in TV ad spending with approximately $2.9 million spent to date, according to FCC filings and Kantar Media/CMAG estimates.
"This high level of spending is consistent with the spending we saw in 2010 midterm judicial races," said Alicia Bannon, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Special interest groups continue to dump money into state Supreme Court races in an attempt to stack the deck in their favor. Voters should feel like our courts are fair and impartial, not political playgrounds where business interests and lawyers can tilt the scales of justice with their pocketbooks."
"Once again, large sums are being spent to buy up courts," said Executive Director Bert Brandenburg of Justice at Stake, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money and politics in judicial elections. "Dark money and hardball politics are turning judicial campaigns into auctions, and judges are trapped in the middle, pressured to answer to donors and supporters who appear before them in court. Every state that elects judges needs to take steps to keep cash out of the courtroom."
Although TV ad spending will increase dramatically in the remaining days before Election Day, activity in several states stands out:
Last Minute Spending Surge in Illinois Retention Race
A group called "Campaign for 2016" has spent $826,700 this month on a TV ad attacking Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier, who is seeking retention for a new 10-year term, according to state disclosure forms. The ad targets Justice Karmeier for overturning multimillion dollar judgments against Philip Morris and State Farm in two high-profile cases, after the companies "push[ed] four million dollars" into Justice Karmeier's 2004 election. Justice Karmeier declined requests for recusal in both cases and disputes the characterization of the companies' involvement in his campaign.
Campaign for 2016 has collected $1.3 million in contributions, all from lawyers and law firms involved in the Philip Morris and State Farm cases, according to according to state campaign disclosures.
Republican Party Spends Big in Michigan
The Michigan Republican Party has spent an estimated $1,761,200 on a TV ad supporting David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and James Robert Redford, according to data from Kantar Media/CMAG. Candidate spending in Michigan's Supreme Court race is also high -- FCC filings show David Viviano, Brian Zahra, and Richard Bernstein have booked 3,078 ads totaling $1,224,697. Together, this spending totals $2,985,897 -- the highest spending documented so far this fall.
Conservative Group Continues to Target State Judicial Races
The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), which announced a "Judicial Fairness Initiative" earlier this year to support conservative judges and candidates, continues spending on targeted state judicial races.
In Montana, the RSLC has booked more than $144,490 in TV ad purchases, according to FCC data, with a criminal justice-themed ad supporting Supreme Court candidate Lawrence VanDyke in his race against incumbent Justice Michael Wheat.
The RSLC has also infused money into a lower court race in Missouri, contributing $100,000 to Cole County circuit judge candidate Brian Stumpe through its Missouri-based PAC. The PAC is reportedly intending to spend an additional $100,000 in support of Stumpe's campaign as well. Cole County contains the state capital and hears many high-profile cases challenging state laws. In a tie-dye themed ad, the RSLC characterizes incumbent Judge Pat Joyce as siding with "radical environmentalists."
In the May 6th North Carolina Supreme Court primary, the RSLC contributed $900,000 to Justice for All NC, a group that spent significant sums on attack ads against Justice Robin Hudson. The RSLC also gave money to the Tennessee Forum during Tennessee's retention elections this summer. The Tennessee Forum aired ads accusing the Tennessee Supreme Court justices up for retention of being "liberal on crime."
Candidate Spending Up in North Carolina
Candidates for four seats on the North Carolina Supreme Court have been the only source of TV spending this fall, responsible for over $1.6 million in TV ad buys, in contrast to an avalanche of TV spending from outside groups in the state's primary. The nine North Carolina judicial candidates have raised more than $2.2 million this cycle, due in part to the elimination of the state's public financing program back in 2013. Since 2008, total candidate fundraising had not surpassed the $200,000 mark in any race.
In the state's May 6th Supreme Court primary, 76 percent of the $1.3 million spent was raised by two groups, Justice for All North Carolina and North Carolina Chamber IE PAC.
TV ads can be viewed on the Brennan Center's Buying Time 2014 page here.
GENERAL ELECTION TV AD SPENDING BY STATE
Totals reflect data from FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Illinois
Ohio
New Mexico
Montana
Michigan
North Carolina
NOTE: Many ads were booked jointly by two candidates. In some instances, this reflects the candidates' decision to run combined campaign ads together. In other instances, it reflects several TV buys that were made by one ad agency representing multiple candidates.
FCC advertising data are based on publicly available contract files uploaded to the FCC website. Please note that the FCC site is continually updated, and totals currently displayed on the FCC site may have changed since the publication of totals in this release.
Spending estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG are based on captured satellite data in the nation's largest media markets. CMAG's calculations do not reflect ad agency commissions or the costs of producing advertisements, nor do they reflect the cost of ad buys on local cable channels. Cost estimates are revised by Kantar Media/CMAG when it receives updated data, resulting in some fluctuations in the reported ad spending.
GENERAL ELECTION TV AD SPENDING BY STATE
Totals reflect data from FCC filings, campaign financial disclosures, and estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Illinois
Ohio
New Mexico
Montana
Michigan
North Carolina
NOTE: Many ads were booked jointly by two candidates. In some instances, this reflects the candidates' decision to run combined campaign ads together. In other instances, it reflects several TV buys that were made by one ad agency representing multiple candidates.
FCC advertising data are based on publicly available contract files uploaded to the FCC website. Please note that the FCC site is continually updated, and totals currently displayed on the FCC site may have changed since the publication of totals in this release.
Spending estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG are based on captured satellite data in the nation's largest media markets. CMAG's calculations do not reflect ad agency commissions or the costs of producing advertisements, nor do they reflect the cost of ad buys on local cable channels. Cost estimates are revised by Kantar Media/CMAG when it receives updated data, resulting in some fluctuations in the reported ad spending.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310"Your family gets higher energy prices and cuts to healthcare. His family gets billions," said Rep. Greg Casar.
In what Public Citizen called "the greatest corruption in presidential history," US President Donald Trump and his family added $5 billion in cash to their fortunes this Labor Day as his new cryptocurrency was opened to the public market.
The currency, known as WLFI, is owned by World Liberty Financial, a company founded by the president's sons, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump. A Trump business entity owns 60% of the company and is entitled to 75% of the revenue from coin sales.
As the Wall Street Journal reported Monday:
The trading debut was most likely the biggest financial success for the president's family since the inauguration...
WLFI is likely now the Trumps' most valuable asset, exceeding their decades-old property portfolio. While the president's family has continued to pursue property deals around the world since taking office, the fast-moving crypto business has had the biggest early impact.
Crypto is now the dominant source of Trump's wealth. As an investigation by the anti-corruption group Accountable.US found last month, "President Trump's net worth could roughly be $15.9 billion, with about $11.6 billion in uncounted crypto assets," meaning that the digital currencies now make up 73% of his total net worth.
In addition to the tokens owned by World Liberty Financial, it found that two Trump-affiliated companies owned 80% of the $TRUMP meme coin as of May and had collected over $324 million in fees since Trump took office in January.
Meanwhile, Trump Media, which owns his online platform Truth Social, bought $2 billion worth of Bitcoin in July and reserved another $300 million in Bitcoin options.
As America's self-proclaimed "first crypto president," Trump has sought to curb regulations against the volatile financial assets.
In July, Trump signed the GENIUS Act, which purports to establish the US's first regulatory framework for crypto. However, critics noted that the law designated so-called "stablecoins," of which Trump owns many, as "commodities" rather than "securities," allowing them to face much looser oversight.
Though the bill passed with support from over 100 Democrats, Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, warned that the bill "legitimizes Trump actively building the most corrupt self-dealing crypto environment this country has ever seen."
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) described Trump's latest $5 billion windfall as "blatantly corrupt and a brazen abuse of power."
"The current occupant of the White House," she said, "is putting personal profit above the people, using his power to illegally line the pockets of his family and billionaire friends while hanging everyday families out to dry by ripping away their healthcare, food assistance, raising the cost of consumer goods, gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and more."
While cryptocurrency is often billed as an asset available to everyone that levels the playing field of the finance world, in practice, its ownership is largely concentrated among the wealthiest Americans. According to a Harris poll published in April, nearly half of all crypto owners have a yearly income of over $150,000, putting them in the wealthiest 10% of the country.
"Your family gets higher energy prices and cuts to healthcare. [Trump's] family gets billions," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Corruption, plain and simple."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash), a strong advocate for crypto regulation, said that such blatant profiting from the presidency makes Trump "easily the most corrupt president in our country's history," and emphasized that "Republicans in Congress are not lifting a single finger to exercise basic oversight."
According to data from OpenSecrets, just three crypto industry-backed political action committees (PACs) poured over $133 million into the 2024 election. Though they spent the majority of that money supporting Republicans, nearly 40% of it went to Democrats.
But although all this money helped to buy what Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong called "America's most pro-crypto Congress ever," according to Reuters, just 3% of legislators in the US House of Representatives and Senate own these assets themselves, including Sens. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) and Tim Sheehy (R-Mon.), as well as Reps. Nick Begich (R-Ark.) and Mike Collins (R-Ga.).
But Trump's profiteering far exceeds the crypto holdings of every congressperson put together.
"We have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage that this corruption will inflict on the American people," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial reform advocate with Public Citizen. "The impact of attempts by the Trump family and others to buy and sell politics and politicians will continue to ricochet."
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," said one critic.
A federal judge's Tuesday ruling on tech giant Google has drawn criticism from anti-monopoly advocates who say that it let the company walk away without having to give up its economic stranglehold over online searches and advertising.
As reported by The New York Times, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Google had to share some of its data with competing search platforms, while also placing restrictions on the company's ability to pay to ensure its search engine receives preferential treatment on web browsers and phones.
However, these remedies fell far short of measures requested by the US Department of Justice, which had asked that Google be forced to share more of its data with competitors and to sell off its Chrome web browser.
Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, offered a scathing assessment of Mehta's ruling, and she urged the government to appeal and push for harsher penalties against Google.
"You don't find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot," she said. "Similarly, you don't find Google liable for monopolization and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolization of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."
She went on to describe Mehta's decision as "bizarre" given that he had "found Google liable for maintaining one of the most consequential and damaging monopolies of the internet era."
Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, accused Mehta of letting Google get away with a "slap on the wrist" given the scale of the damage it has caused.
"Google for years has wielded its vast power over all layers of the digital economy to crush competitors, halt innovation, and rob Americans of their right to read, watch, and buy what they want without being manipulated by one of the most powerful corporations in human history," he said. "Judge Mehta's order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs."
Like Hegde, Lynn also urged the government to appeal the ruling.
Elise Phillips, policy counsel at the freedom of expression advocacy group Public Knowledge, took aim at Mehta for letting Google maintain control of both Chrome and the Android mobile operating system, even though he concluded that Google had abused its market power to stifle competition.
Phillips also suggested that elected officials needed to pick up the slack when it comes to holding giant corporations accountable for their actions.
"Judge Mehta's remedies decision signals why the courts cannot be the end-all, be-all of antitrust," she said. "Google's anticompetitive behavior, and behavior like it, can and must be confronted by legislation that targets conflicts of interest, self-preferencing, and discrimination online. The American people need sector-specific legislation that addresses these harms and breaks down barriers of entry into online markets, fostering competition, innovation, and choice."
Agnès Callamard, secretary general of human rights organization Amnesty International, also weighed in to express disappointment with Mehta's decision.
"This ruling was a missed chance to rein in Google's power," said Callamard. "Google's toxic business model is built on pervasive surveillance. By tracking people across the web and monetizing their personal data through targeted advertising, the company has severely undermined our right to privacy."
Google was first sued for antitrust violations by the DOJ in 2020 under the first Trump administration, and then again in 2023 under the Biden administration.
The ACLU hailed the ruling for "reining in the administration's view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."
A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against a Trump administration scheme that cited an 18th-century wartime statute to justify its clandestine deportation of alleged gang members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned under harsh conditions without accountability and limited legal recourse.
The 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—among the most conservative of the US appellate courts and more likely to side with Trump—said lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security did not present a satisfying case arguing that the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows for the arrest and deportation of "enemies" by presidential authority during wartime or an active invasion, could be used to target alleged low-level gang members, in this case those of Tren de Aragua or TdA, which has roots in Venezuela.
Trump and his team had argued the gang members were being directed by the Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro, but have presented no evidence to support such claims. And while the group is known for some levels of violence and illegal drug trafficking, civil rights groups—led by ACLU—challenged the deportation of alleged members as a clear violation of domestic immigration law and principles of due process.
Critics of Trump also said it was laughable to treat a criminal gang like TdA as equivalent to an invading army. They warned that Trump's overreach was only part of his broader authoritarian push to claim wider and more dangerous power to target, intimidate, and harm immigrant communities.
"TdA was not the kind of organized force or engaged in the kind of actions necessary to constitute an invasion or predatory incursion," wrote Judge Leslie Southwick in the panel's 2-1 majority decision.
The court granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs, barring further deportations from Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—where alleged TdA members are currently being held—until the case, almost certainly destined for the US Supreme Court, is finally decided.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the Trump administration's "use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court."
The ruling, Gelernt added, was "a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."