

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.

Free Speech For People (FSFP) hosted a virtual briefing on Wednesday to discuss recent developments in the lawsuit Lieu v. Federal Election Commission that challenges the 2010 federal appeals court ruling in SpeechNow v. FEC, which gave rise to the current explosion of super PAC spending in US elections. Speakers included Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA-33), Supreme Court specialist Professor Jeffrey Fisher (Stanford Law School), Free Speech For People's President John Bonifaz, and Free Speech For People's Legal Director Ron Fein.
"The Supreme Court actually didn't decide the issue of whether you can have unlimited contributions through super PACs, which has really caused a flood of dark money into our political campaign system. It was a lower court decision. We believe that decision was decided wrongly. We're suing to get that decision overturned," said Rep. Ted Lieu.
"The importance of this case is so glaring, and for anybody who lives in this country and cares about our democracy, you want to have the campaign finance regulations that Congress has enacted be properly enforced. And, we've now lived for too long already where that has not been happening and the effects are very harmful...This is the right case at the right time to take up [to the Supreme Court]," said Professor Fisher, lead counsel for the Supreme Court phase of the litigation.
"A victory in the Supreme Court, by eliminating super PACs, would dramatically alter the way our elections are financed going forward from how they have been financed for the past ten years. But a victory would also upend the widely accepted notion that our current corrupt system is locked in and unchangeable," said John Bonifaz.
The national public interest organization Free Speech For People, which launched the case as lead counsel for the plaintiffs, is serving as co-counsel in the petition for Supreme Court review, alongside a bipartisan group of distinguished legal scholars which includes Professor Fisher (Stanford Law School; lead counsel for the Supreme Court phase of the litigation), Professor Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School); Professor Albert Alschuler (Univ. of Chicago Law School, emeritus); and Professor Richard Painter (Univ. of Minnesota Law School, and former chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush). The legal team also includes the law firm of Foster Garvey.
Lieu v. Federal Election Commission was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. in November 2016, on behalf of a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress and 2016 congressional candidates led by Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA-33), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and the late Representative Walter Jones (R-NC-3). The lawsuit seeks the reversal of the March 2010 federal appeals court ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC. In that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the federal law limiting contributions to political action committees to $5,000 per person per year could not, under the Constitution, apply to political committees that promised to make only "independent" expenditures, thus unleashing super PACs.
Watch the entire virtual briefing here.
Read more about Lieu v. Federal Election Commission here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
"Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling," said one healthcare campaigner.
Americans are skipping meals and falling behind on bills, lines at food banks are expanding, and millions are watching with alarm as their health insurance premiums skyrocket, but Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday that he's prepared to "let this process play out" rather than negotiate with Democrats to end the longest government shutdown in US history.
During a news conference, Johnson (R-La.) said he would not agree to hold a vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies in exchange for Democratic votes to end the shutdown.
"I am not promising anybody anything," said Johnson, confirming Democrats' warnings that the GOP can't be trusted to uphold what would amount to a pinkie promise for an ACA vote.
"I am going to let this process play out," he added.
Johnson's remarks drew swift backlash. Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "as Trump-GOP policies devastate Americans from coast to coast, and congressional Republicans continue the longest government shutdown in history, Mike Johnson's callousness is appalling."
"He won't even agree to allow a vote in the House to restore the healthcare tax credits that Republicans stripped away from millions of Americans," said Dach. "He'd rather more small businesses be financially annihilated, more hospitals vanish out of thin air, and more Americans—including in his own district—empty out their life savings just to go to a doctor."
"It's unconscionable," Dach added, "and voters, as they demonstrated in the November 4th bellwether elections across the nation, will hold the GOP to account for playing with their lives and selling out the American people—all so Republicans can provide more tax breaks to their billionaire buddies."
On Friday, as shutdown chaos and pain continues to spread nationwide, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is planning to call a vote on a plan that would temporarily fund the government and advance several appropriations bills. The proposal also includes a promise of a future vote on the ACA tax credits, which expire at the end of the year.
It's unlikely that Senate Democrats, who convened for a lengthy meeting Thursday afternoon, will accept the proposal, as they've demanded more concrete concessions from Republicans on the ACA subsidies. Republicans need at least seven Democratic senators to break ranks for the bill to pass.
Politico reported Friday that "Senate Democrats are splintered over how much stock to put into Thune's commitment, given the South Dakota Republican has also said he cannot guarantee an outcome of any such vote."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the outlet that Democrats shouldn't "proceed without knowing that these healthcare premiums are not going to go up by 200%."
"Steve Bannon motivating Democratic voters," said one historian in response to comments by the former Trump White House advisor.
Far-right podcaster and former top presidential advisor Steve Bannon told a crowd of aspiring conservative staffers on Capitol Hill this week that the job of Republicans between now and the midterm election next year is to seize complete control of government institutions and turn as many of President Donald Trump's executive orders as possible into law as a way to avoid politic defeat in the coming years and, ultimately, keep MAGA loyalists from being tried and sent to jail.
"I'll tell you right, as God as my witness, if we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison," Bannon told the crowd Wednesday at an awards event hosted by the Conservative Partnership Academy. This group offers training and certifications to aspiring right-wing ideologues working in politics and government.
Bannon, who has already served time in prison for refusing to submit to a congressional subpoena related to his role as a top aide to Trump during his first term, included himself among those who might be targeted if Republicans lost power.
In his remarks, Bannon said Tuesday's election results in New York City, Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere—where Democrats swept the GOP—should be seen as a warning to Trump's MAGA base, but called for an intensification of the agenda, not a retreat.
Steve Bannon: If we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison, myself included.
pic.twitter.com/O1iyPipz0n
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 6, 2025
"They're not gonna stop," Bannon said of Democrats and progressives aligned against Trump's authoritarian push and Republican economic policies that have focused on lavishing ever-larger tax cuts for corporations and the rich while gutting government programs, including cuts to Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, devastating environmental policies, and dismantling of healthcare subsidies leading to a surge in monthly premiums for millions of families.
Trump's opponents, warned Bannon, are "getting more and more and more radical, and we have to counter that."
His advice to Republicans in power and the right-wing movement that supports them is to counter "with more intense action" and more "urgency" before it's too late. "We're burning daylight," Bannon said. "We have to codify what Trump has done by executive order."
In what seemed like a reference to Trump's recent talk of going "nuclear" on the filibuster in the US Senate and other efforts, Bannon said, "We have to get beyond these structural barriers" in Washington, DC, that he believes are hindering the president from consolidating his power even further.
Speaking about discussions behind the scenes, Bannon said he has been in touch with Republicans in the Senate who he says are asking him to go through for them what he means and that in the coming days people may be surprised by who "in the conservative movement" are coming around to his thinking, mentioning "institutionalists" like Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as those he's been speaking with.
"These are what I would call heavy-hitters on the limited-government constitutionalists, in our movement," Bannon said of other unnamed individuals, "and they're about to come out in the next couple of days and make this argument because I said, 'Look, we have to understand that if we don't this to the maximum—the maximalist strategy—now, with a sense of urgency, and in doing this, seize the institutions... if we don't do this now, we're going to lose this chance forever, because you're never going to have another Trump."
In an interview with Politico following Tuesday's elections, Bannon said the win by democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City's next mayor "should be a wakeup call" to Trump's right-wing nationalist movement. "These are very serious people," Bannon said of Mamdani and others who support his affordability agenda that focuses on the needs of working people, "and they need to be addressed seriously."
As such, Bannon called for the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security to target Mamdani specifically by going after his US citizenship and calling for him to be deported. Mamdani is a naturalized US citizen who came to the United States with his parents when he was seven years old.
As the video clip of Bannon's remarks about jail time if the Republicans lose in the upcoming elections made the rounds online Thursday, reactions were predictable along partisan lines.
"Steve Bannon motivating Democratic voters," said Aviel Roshwald, a Georgetown University professor of history with a focus on nationalist movements.
Bannon's call for "seizing the institutions" has been a mainstay on his popular War Room podcast for months, but critics warn that his open embrace of the demand should not make it any less shocking or worrisome.
"He’s preparing his audience to see violence and institutional takeover as 'necessary.' And he’s counting on Democrats and independents being too divided or too polite to call it what it is," warned Christopher Webb, a left-leaning political writer on his Substack page last month.
Bannon and his allies, continued Webb, "do not give a damn about the law, the Constitution, or democracy. They only care about control. And if we keep treating their words as 'just talk,' it will be too late when it stops being talk."
He concluded: "This isn’t going to end well."
"Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice," said one retired US Army general.
Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers' assent, as required by law.
US senators voted 51-49 against the measure introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Two Republicans—Paul and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—joined Democrats and Independents in voting for the resolution.
"It's sad that only two Republicans voted in favor," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on X following the vote. "So much for 'America First' and for upholding their constitutional authority by stopping the executive branch from taking illegal military actions."
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, a senior adviser to the group VoteVets, said in a statement that President Donald Trump "is waging a war that he unilaterally declared and refuses to get approved by the American people via their representation in Congress."
"It isn't just criminal and unconstitutional, it betrays those who did fight on battlefields and spilled blood to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," Eaton added. "Shame on the Republicans who continue to shirk their duty and deny their constituents a voice."
VoteVets' MG Paul Eaton (Ret) blasts GOP Senators for rejecting Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution. He says Trump is waging a "criminal and unconstitutional" war and betraying the principle that Americans shouldn't die without having a say in the matter, through their elected representatives.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) November 6, 2025 at 3:06 PM
The War Powers Resolution was passed over then-President Richard Nixon's veto in 1973 to affirm and empower Congress to check the president’s war-making authority. The law requires the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours and requires congressional approval of troop deployments exceeding 60 days.
It's been 63 days since the first-known Trump-ordered the first strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. At least 67 people have been killed in 16 such reported strikes since September 2, according to the Trump administration, which argues that it does not need congressional approval for the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said:
As we speak, America’s largest aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford, is on its way to the Caribbean. It is part of the largest military buildup in our hemisphere that we’ve seen in decades. According to press reports, Donald Trump is considering military action on Venezuelan territory. But it also sounds like nobody really knows what the plan is, because like so many other things with Donald Trump, he keeps changing his mind. Who knows what he will do tomorrow?
Trump has also approved covert CIA action in Venezuela and has threatened to attack targets inside the oil-rich country. The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro recently claimed that his country’s security forces had captured a group of CIA-aligned mercenaries engaged in a “false-flag attack” against the nation.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said after Thursday's vote: “Today, I was proud to once again cast my vote for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution. President Trump is acting against the Constitution by moving toward imminent attacks against Venezuela without congressional authorization. In doing so, he is risking endless military conflict with Venezuela and steamrolling over the right of every American to have a say in the use of US military force."
“Asserting Congress’s constitutional role in war is not some procedural detail; it is fundamental. Our government is based on checks and balances, and Congress’s authority to declare war is a core principle of what makes America a democracy," Markey added. "Going to war without consulting the people is what monarchies and dictatorships do. Strong democracies must be willing to debate these issues in the light of day.”