August, 06 2020, 12:00am EDT
Progressives Call On Democrats To Stay Firm On Election Funding, Reject Any Deal That Omits It
Today, as Congress continues negotiations this week for the next relief package, Stand Up America issued the following joint statement with Color of Change, Indivisible, Let America Vote / End Citizens United Action Fund, and Public Citizen:
"Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are willfully ignoring the threat this pandemic poses to our democracy in an effort to suppress the vote. They are threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans by holding our economy and our democracy hostage through their inaction.
WASHINGTON
Today, as Congress continues negotiations this week for the next relief package, Stand Up America issued the following joint statement with Color of Change, Indivisible, Let America Vote / End Citizens United Action Fund, and Public Citizen:
" Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans are willfully ignoring the threat this pandemic poses to our democracy in an effort to suppress the vote. They are threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans by holding our economy and our democracy hostage through their inaction.
"If Republicans believe we can afford $8 billion for defense contractors and nearly $2 billion to remodel the FBI headquarters, then we can certainly afford $3.6 billion in federal funding for safe, secure elections and a deadline extension for the Census Bureau to ensure communities of color aren't erased on the census.
"Republicans cannot be allowed to suppress the vote in the middle of a pandemic--and that's why we support Democrats in both chambers, who are staying firm and using their leverage to protect our democracy by ensuring that election funding, census funding, and an extension of the census reporting deadline are included in a final brokered deal.
"Anything less would not only hurt our elections this year, but damage our democracy for years to come--and that's why Republicans cannot be allowed to get away with census and voter suppression."
Last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that new money for election administration needs to be in the bill for it to have a chance of getting through the House.
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over two million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to strengthen our democracy and oppose Trump's corrupt agenda, Stand Up America has driven over 600,000 phone calls to Congress and mobilized tens of thousands of protestors across the country.
LATEST NEWS
'There Will Come a Day When He Faces Prosecution': Trump Condemned After US Murders Two More at Sea
"The summary execution of two more in an alleged drug boat brings the number of murders ordered by Trump to more than 210," noted one human rights defender.
Jun 22, 2026
Two people were killed, and six others survived, a strike on Sunday that the US military claimed—without providing evidence—targeted a boat full of "narco-terrorists," but that human rights defenders called another summary execution worthy of prosecution.
"On June 21, at the direction of the commander of US Southern Command, Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," USSOUTHCOM said in a statement. "Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Two male narco-terrorists were killed during this action, and there were six male survivors," the statement added. "Following the engagement, USSOUTHCOM immediately notified US Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors."
More lawless killing in the Trump administration’s boat bombing campaign.Real killing in a phony armed conflict with “narco-terrorists.”This strike reportedly left 6 survivors.US record for rescuing survivors alive is…not great.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) June 21, 2026 at 11:28 PM
According to The Intercept's Nick Turse, who has tracked all of the reported US boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, there have now been 66 such strikes, which have killed 215 people and left 12 survivors, based on USSOUTHCOM data.
The fate of previous boat strike survivors is not completely clear. After one April bombing, the US Coast Guard told UPI that search-and-rescue operations were called off after no signs of survivors were found. Last October, President Donald Trump said two strike survivors were repatriated to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia, where they faced prosecution.
Survivors of some of the strikes have accused US forces of torturing them.
Relatives of people killed in previous US boat bombings, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, have said that numerous victims were fishers who were not involved in the illicit drug trade.
In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.
"The summary execution of two more in an alleged drug boat brings the number of murders ordered by Trump to more than 210," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said on social media. "There will come a day when he faces prosecution for these crimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Finds Trump DOJ Abused Subpoenas in Attempt to ‘Coerce’ Minnesota Leaders
"I will never stop exercising my constitutional rights to stand up for Minnesotans and the American freedoms we hold dear," Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said after the ruling.
Jun 22, 2026
A federal judge on Monday quashed multiple grand jury subpoenas issued by the US Department of Justice aimed at political leaders in Minnesota, including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
In his ruling, Judge Patrick Schiltz of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota found there was "no doubt" that the DOJ had initiated "a criminal investigation in order to harass political opponents or to coerce them into taking official action," which he described as "a blatantly unlawful and unethical use of the grand-jury process."
Finding that "the evidence that the challenged subpoenas were issued for unlawful reasons is overwhelming," Schiltz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, cited multiple instances of Trump administration officials "threatening and attempting to punish states and localities that have adopted 'sanctuary' policies."
The judge then quoted several social media posts by President Donald Trump in which he warned that "retribution" was coming for Minnesota officials, as well as statements from Trump DOJ officials linking grand jury subpoenas to the state's lack of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement operations.
Schiltz also said it was "risible" for the DOJ to justify the subpoenas on the grounds that it is investigating officials' refusal to devote state and local resources to assisting federal law enforcement, which he described as "constitutionally protected conduct."
"A grand-jury subpoena cannot be issued for an improper purpose," Schiltz emphasized. "The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate."
In a statement released after Schiltz's ruling, Walz hailed the decision as "a victory for the rule of law and our democracy," depicting the DOJ probe as yet another example of the department "pursuing criminal investigations into the president's political opponents."
"I will never stop exercising my constitutional rights to stand up for Minnesotans and the American freedoms we hold dear," Walz added.
Frey also released a statement after the ruling, accusing the DOJ of "subpoenaing political opponents because they spoke out on behalf of their constituents."
"My job is not to stay silent when Minneapolis residents are killed, families are torn apart, and businesses are closed," Frey said. "My job is to stand up for the people I represent, the families who call our city home, and the thousands of people who showed up and spoke out."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) celebrated the ruling, which she said "confirms what we knew all along—that this was nothing but a baseless political attack on Minnesota’s leaders."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in a social media post just how far off the rails the Trump DOJ has gone.
"The Trump administration’s efforts to use the criminal grand jury process to retaliate against Minnesota and Minneapolis has floundered badly," he wrote. "It's a sign of how they are willing to toss aside basic rules to get at their enemies, and how the courts have largely smacked them down when they tried."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The World Is Watching': Top Economist Rips Newsom for Working to Tank Billionaire Wealth Tax
"You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health," said Gabriel Zucman.
Jun 22, 2026
A world-renowned economist and expert on wealth inequality castigated California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday for working to kill a proposed tax on billionaire fortunes in the Golden State, warning that the Democratic leader and likely 2028 candidate appears bent on handing President Donald Trump "an unexpected ideological and political victory."
Gabriel Zucman, a research professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, pointed to a recent Bloomberg story detailing Newsom's "last-ditch pressure campaign" to prevent a healthcare union-led initiative from appearing on California voters' ballots in November. Last week, organizers announced that they had collected the number of signatures required to get the initiative—a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires—on the ballot ahead of the June 25 deadline.
In a lengthy thread posted to X on Monday, Zucman wrote that he is "shocked" by Newsom's "efforts to defend Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg at the expense of Californians' health," referring to two of the state's most prominent billionaires. Thiel has donated millions to an industry group looking to defeat the ballot initiative, which would use revenue from the wealth tax to offset the impacts of federal Medicaid cuts approved last year by Trump and congressional Republicans.
"Yet you are now devoting all your energy to preventing this ballot initiative from taking place and denying Californians the opportunity to express their democratic will this November," Zucman wrote. "You have chosen to protect California's billionaires at the expense of Californians' health."
By stridently opposing the proposed billionaire tax in California, the economist warned, Newsom is lending credence to "familiar conservative arguments against taxing great fortunes: the threat of capital flight, tax avoidance, harm to growth, etc."
"Instead of reinforcing these arguments, you could have chosen to challenge them. Take the risk of tax flight, a classic objection. It is effectively nonexistent," Zucman wrote. "Beyond the ideological victory you risk handing Trump, you may also be giving him a political victory."
Politically, Zucman warned Newsom that his opposition to the proposed wealth tax—which has proven extremely popular among likely Democratic voters—risks giving Trump and his right-wing allies a political victory by blunting momentum for a wealth tax not only in California, but beyond as well.
"If the 'Yes' prevails, California's tax could quickly inspire similar efforts in other states," Zucman argued. "Ultimately, that process could pave the way for a federal tax on extreme wealth. This is precisely what happened more than a century ago with the progressive income tax."
"The world is watching," the economist added. "In the struggle between democracy and oligarchy, one must choose a side. I hope you will choose ours."
Zucman has been outspoken in support of the proposed wealth tax in California, writing in The New York Times' op-ed pages last month alongside fellow economist Emmanuel Saez that the proposed levy would "be tiny relative to billionaires’ recent wealth gains."
"In the past three years alone, the total wealth of California’s billionaires grew by a staggering 144%, to over $2 trillion," the economists wrote. "Critics of the ballot measure have voiced concerns that even a small number of billionaires leaving the state would lead to lower state tax revenues overall. Their math doesn’t add up. California’s billionaires currently pay such a low tax rate that even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments under the current set of rules to surpass the amount the state would raise if the one-time tax succeeds this fall."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California."
Last week, organizers of the wealth tax initiative offered to withdraw its proposal if Newsom threw his support behind legislation imposing a 2% tax on California's billionaires—a compromise plan that the governor swiftly rejected.
"The governor supports making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share, but this poorly designed state-only measure will defund teachers, schools, clinics, and public safety," said Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos. "Changing the tax rate doesn't change this measure's fundamental flaws that harm working Californians."
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff for the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West—the union leading the ballot initiative—hit back, accusing Newsom's office of "engaging in Trump-like misinformation tactics, which is sad and indefensible."
"The billionaire tax explicitly funds clinics, hospitals, schools, teachers, and food assistance to the tune of billions," Jimenez said in an emailed statement. "All objective reports have shown that the wealth tax raises billions to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance—and the revenue that will be raised far surpasses any potential income tax erosion—in no small part because billionaires pay very little relative income tax."
"Defending 200 billionaires at the expense of the millions of Californians who will lose healthcare absent the passage of a billionaire tax is not a tenable position for the governor or the state of California," Jimenez added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular