

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.

Brennan Center for Justice: Erik Opsal | erik.opsal@nyu.edu | 646-292-8356; Justice at Stake: Laurie Kinney | lkinney@justiceatstake.org | cell 571-882-3615 Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts: Lynn Marks | marks@pmconline.org | 215-569-1150
Pennsylvania's superheated Supreme Court election has broken the previous documented national spending record for any state Supreme Court race, even as spending figures continue to roll in.
Total documented spending in the race has now reached $15,850,297, surpassing the previous national record of $15.19 million set in the 2004 Illinois race between Lloyd Karmeier and Gordon Maag, according to an analysis of state disclosures and television advertising by the nonpartisan organizations the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake.
Pennsylvania's superheated Supreme Court election has broken the previous documented national spending record for any state Supreme Court race, even as spending figures continue to roll in.
Total documented spending in the race has now reached $15,850,297, surpassing the previous national record of $15.19 million set in the 2004 Illinois race between Lloyd Karmeier and Gordon Maag, according to an analysis of state disclosures and television advertising by the nonpartisan organizations the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake.
This year's total is very likely to rise, since spending is still being calculated as records are filed right before and after Election Day. Pennsylvania's previous record for total spending in a state Supreme Court race was $10,519,717 in 2007.
The Brennan Center for Justice, Justice at Stake, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics have documented spending in state Supreme Court elections since 2000 in the New Politics of Judicial Elections series. The groups issued their latest report last week tracking spending in the 2013-14 judicial campaign cycle.
"With three seats up for grabs, we were concerned that spending could reach historic levels," said Matt Menendez, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "Still, perhaps more troubling is that this unacceptable level of politicization is becoming the norm for judicial elections, rather than an exception. Something has to change."
"We could see this coming like a freight train in Pennsylvania," said Liz Seaton, Interim Executive Director of Justice at Stake, an organization that tracks spending in judicial elections. "Everyone should be stunned that a national spending record for state judicial elections has fallen. The problem is growing, and Pennsylvanians deserve a better system for selecting their high court judges."
"This record for high spending is a national distinction Pennsylvanians never wanted to claim," said Lynn A. Marks, Executive Director of Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts. "Expensive attack ads against judges bought and sold by special interest groups are no way to pick judges. It's the right time for Pennsylvania to get our statewide judges out of the campaign and fundraising business and move to a merit selection system, as recently reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support."
In addition to candidate spending and advertising, the Pennsylvania election has featured independent spending by two interest groups in the race, the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), supporting Republican candidates, and Pennsylvanians for Judicial Reform, supporting Democrats. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, outside spending by interest groups has grown as a phenomenon in judicial races, as documented in Bankrolling the Bench: The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2013-14.
Candidates have raised at least $12,817,377 during the 2015 primary and general election, according to publicly filed state campaign disclosures and 24-hour contribution reports. Pennsylvania's prior record for candidate fundraising, set in 2007, was $9,464,975.
Records on file before 12 p.m. ET on November 2 indicate the following fundraising totals for primary and general election candidates:
Counting ads that already have aired in both the primary and general elections, total estimated airtime spending is $9.96 million through November 1, according to the most recent estimates by CMAG/Kantar Media.
Candidate fundraising and overall spending totals do not include disclosures filed after 12 p.m. on November 2, or political ads aired after November 1.
The three top vote-getters among seven candidates will win three open seats, which each carry a 10-year term.
Justice at Stake and the Brennan Center for Justice will continue to track fundraising and spending on television advertising for this fall's Pennsylvania Supreme Court election. Videos of television ads from CMAG/Kantar Media are available at Brennan's Buying Time 2015 ad tracking website.
According to the most recent CMAG/Kantar estimates of television ads that have aired, candidates and interest groups spent the following on airtime for both the primary and general election, through November 1:
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"They’re just animals," said a local school official of the federal agents. "I've never seen people behave like this."
Federal immigration enforcement agents on Wednesday swarmed a high school in Minneapolis, where footage and photographs showed them handcuffing school staff members and firing chemical irritants at students.
According to a report from KSTP 5 Eyewitness News, the agents descended upon Roosevelt High School on Wednesday afternoon, mere hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer fatally shot 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good.
A witness who watched the raid described seeing administrators and staff trying to get the agents away from the building to stop them from apprehending students.
The witness also said that the agents began deploying pepper spray after some students started protesting against their presence on school property.
A Roosevelt High School official confirmed to MPR News that agents wearing US Border Patrol uniforms pepper sprayed students, while also firing pepper balls at them.
Video footage taken from the scene shows agents deploying chemical irritants at demonstrators.
An official from Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis told MPR News that armed U.S. Border Patrol officers came onto school property during dismissal Wednesday and began tackling people; they handcuffed two staff members and released chemical weapons on bystanders. pic.twitter.com/171JUUfew8
— CAIN (@XTechPulse) January 8, 2026
The school official also told MPR News that the agents handcuffed two staff members at the school, and they described getting into a physical confrontation with an agent as they were trying to tell them to leave school property.
"The guy, I’m telling him like, ‘Please step off the school grounds,’ and this dude comes up and bumps into me and then tells me that I pushed him, and he’s trying to push me, and he knocked me down,” the official said. "They don’t care. They’re just animals. I’ve never seen people behave like this.”
Meanwhile near where they killed Renee Good ICE was terrorizing a high school — and now Minneapolis has canceled school for the week.
None of this is about safety. A lawless regime with no guardrails. pic.twitter.com/H8l2nXn2FQ
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) January 8, 2026
In the wake of the raid on the high school, Minneapolis Public Schools announced that it would be canceling all classes for the rest of the week "out of an abundance of caution," citing "safety concerns" for faculty and students.
Celia Mejia, a Minneapolis woman whose daughter attends the Green Central Elementary School in the southern part of the city, told KSTP 5 Eyewitness News that she had to pick up her daughter on Wednesday after the school went on lockdown after federal immigration agents were spotted in the area.
"That was way too close to school to feel comfortable," Mejia said.
Julia Haas, another local resident who picked up her child at the elementary school after it went into lockdown, told KSTP 5 Eyewitness News that she was "very" frightened by the ordeal.
"Nobody should have to deal with this ever," Haas emphasized.
The reasons for the raid on the high school were unclear, and the US Department of Homeland Security did not respond to KSTP Eyewitness 5 News' or MPR News' requests for comment.
"Oil company executives seem to know more about Trump's secret plan to 'run' Venezuela than the American people," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "We need public Senate hearings NOW."
Democrats in the US Senate on Wednesday launched a formal investigation into possible dealings between the Trump administration and oil company executives related to Saturday's military assault on Venezuela, the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro, and the effort now underway to seize and control the Latin American nation's vast oil reserves.
Led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)—ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW)—the Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and others, want to know more about "communications between major U.S. oil and oilfield services companies and the Trump Administration surrounding last week’s military action in Venezuela and efforts to exploit Venezuelan oil resources."
Following Saturday's strikes on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—which international law experts have said were clear breaches of both international law and US constitutional law–Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday that he had spoken to oil executives both "before and after" the covert military actions.
While other White House officials walked back Trump's statements, the senators behind the investigation say they want to know more about what was discussed, with whom, and when.
According to a statement, the lawmakers are "requesting documents and information regarding the companies’ knowledge of the strikes, discussions with Trump Administration officials before and since the operation, and plans to invest in Venezuela from the CEOs of BP America Inc., Baker Hughes, Chevron, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Continental Resources, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, SLB, Shell USA, Inc., and Weatherford International."
In a series of letters to the heads of those oil giants, the senators said, “President Trump’s own statements justifying the operation in terms of access to foreign energy resources and benefits to the US oil industry, reported repeated engagement between industry and government, and the suggestion that taxpayers could pay the cost of rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure raise serious concerns about how the Trump Administration engaged with the oil companies prior to his decision to use military force in Venezuela."
“We would like to know," the letters continue, "the extent to which US oil and gas companies such as yours had either advance knowledge of or the ability to shape American foreign policy decisions—especially given that Congress was kept in the dark concerning the use of force until after the strikes occurred.”
The lawmakers noted that Trump has also suggested that US taxpayer funds would be used to "help companies cover their costs to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure," spend they warned could "cost American taxpayers billions more in the form of subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, which already benefits from over $700 billion annually in subsidies," citing analysis by the International Monetary Fund.
A trio of ex-officials filed a formal complaint demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who authored the legal rationale justifying the US abduction of Venezuela's president.
A group of former US ethics officials filed a complaint Wednesday demanding an investigation into the Justice Department lawyers who crafted the legal rationale justifying the Trump administration's patently unlawful assault on Venezuela and ongoing effort to plunder the country's natural resources.
The trio of ex-officials, who worked under both Republican and Democratic presidents, specifically called for an immediate ethics probe into whether attorneys at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "violated their professional legal responsibilities in providing guidance justifying the recent invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, as well as legal advice that has apparently been given by the Department to President Trump to justify his recent threats to take additional military action against Venezuela, Columbia, Cuba, Iran, and Denmark."
"Such unilateral use of military force absent an imminent threat to the United States violates international law and furthermore unconstitutionally intrudes on the power that rests with Congress alone to declare war," wrote Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Virginia Canter in their complaint. "In sum, the president and the Department of Defense, presumably relying on yet another confidential and classified memorandum from OLC, or perhaps more than one memorandum, have engaged in illegal acts of war and threats of illegal acts of war against sovereign nations."
The complaint was announced after Trump administration officials reportedly told US lawmakers in closed-door meetings this week that the Justice Department developed a new legal opinion in an attempt to justify the abduction of Maduro, an operation that killed at least 100 people, according to Venezuelan officials.
US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he believes the OLC opinion will declare the deadly military assault on Venezuela legal "because it was assisting a law-enforcement action."
BREAKING: Trump & enablers may THINK they can get away with invading Venezuela to seize its oil
But we @DDFund_ are not going to let them
Our push for legal accountability starts with our ethics complaint against the lawyers authorizing this illegality 👇
Much more to come... pic.twitter.com/ZJYgPb0GVM
— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) January 8, 2026
The former ethics officials behind the new complaint against the Trump Justice Department said they are also filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding that the OLC memo on the Venezuela assault be made public.
"Even before the weekend’s outrageous events, that illegality was on sharp display through Trump’s attempted escalation into a conflict with Venezuela through dozens of illegal strikes on alleged drug smugglers in international waters," the former ethics officials wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "But the invasion of Venezuela represents a new—and wholly illegal—escalation."
The ex-officials emphasized that their push for transparency is just part of what must be an all-hands-on-deck effort to stop the administration's military assault on Venezuela and potentially other sovereign nations.
"Congress must look at other vehicles to limit the president’s unlawful aggression, perhaps with terms in spending bills that he could not so easily veto. The responsibility now lies with Congress to stop Trump," the former officials wrote, noting that GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate are likely to vote down War Powers Resolutions aimed at constraining the lawless president.
"But it does not end there," they added. "Others must step up as well, and that is why we are launching our dual legal actions of an ethics complaint and a FOIA demand. The cost of inaction against Trump’s forays into foreign wars is too high, and the window for safeguarding our nation from his illegal and corrupt blood for oil adventurism is narrowing."