

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.

Derrick Robinson, drobinson@citizen.org
David Rosen, drosen@citizen.org
Two-thirds of the "maxed-out" campaign contributions that members of Congress spend much of their time pursuing come from Americans living in the wealthiest 10% of zip codes in the United States, according to a Public Citizen study, "The Well of the Congress," released today.
Fully one-fourth of these contributions come from donors living in the wealthiest 1% of zip codes - and more than half come from the wealthiest 4%. The study found that maxed-out contributions also are highly correlated with the racial composition of neighborhoods. Zip codes with a majority white, non-Hispanic population provided four times more per person in maxed-out contributions than majority Hispanic zip codes, and five times more than majority Black zip codes.
"This study confirms that the very wealthiest Americans play an immensely greater role than regular voters in choosing our elected officials, and that members of Congress have a strong incentive to align their positions with wealthy donors' interests," said Taylor Lincoln, research director for Public Citizen's Congress Watch division and author of the study. "Anybody disputing the influence of campaign contributions should ask themselves if members of Congress would govern in the same way if they relied on the poorest 10% of zip codes for the bulk of their contributions instead of the wealthiest."
"Our representatives' reliance on the wealthiest American to finance their campaigns is inherently corrupting," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen. "The funding provisions in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would wean candidates off of their dependence on the 1% while encouraging them to listen more to the wishes of the other 99%. We stand at the precipice of historic change as we look forward towards next week's debate. We urge all Senators to vote for the democracy we deserve."
Candidates for Congress received more than $1.6 billion in maxed-out contributions in the past three election cycles. The maximum contribution in 2020 was $2,800. But maxed-out contributions come from a tiny slice of the electorate. Only about 1/33rd of 1 percent of voting age Americans made a maxed-out contribution in the past three election cycles. The entire populations of 60% of U.S. zip codes did not provide a single one.
Eight of the 10 zip codes providing the most in maxed-out contributions - out of nearly 32,000 nationwide - were located within the Manhattan borough of New York City. The zip code of Trump Tower ranked second nationally in total maxed-out contributions.
The prevalence of maxed-out contributions varies starkly between bordering communities. Residents of Manhattan, for example, gave more than 100 times more per person in maxed-out contributions than did residents of bordering boroughs Queens and the Bronx.
The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, pending in Congress, would furnish qualifying congressional candidates with a six-to-one match on small-dollar contributions in exchange for agreeing not to accept any contributions of more than $1,000.
The full study can be found here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"These are refugees who fled persecution... refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country," said the head of the Refugee Council USA.
The Trump administration has halted the distribution of green cards to around 235,000 refugees admitted during the Biden administration, requiring all their claims to be reassessed, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press.
The AP reported on Tuesday that the abrupt change will not only apply to refugees awaiting green cards, but that some who have already received them could have their permanent residency status revoked.
The memo, signed by the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, claims that during the previous administration, “expediency” and “quantity” were prioritized over the “detailed screening and vetting" of those who applied for refugee status.
Refugee status can be claimed by those outside the United States who fear persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. Most refugees who have entered the US in recent years come from nations in the midst of severe upheaval from civil war or other forms of political instability.
Between October 2021 and September 2024, the Biden administration admitted 185,640 refugees. Last year, more than 100,000 were admitted, with the largest numbers coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Syria.
The memo states that these refugees will be subject to new investigations into their claims of past persecution or fear of persecution in their home countries. It also says USCIS will review the possible grounds for inadmissibility, which could place them at risk of losing their status. Those the agency determines did not meet the criteria for admission will have "no right to appeal."
In addition to reassessing the validity of their claims of persecution, the review process will also reportedly involve an assessment of a refugee's potential for "assimilation" into the United States.
The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) said the directive violates the Refugee Act of 1980, which states that refugees shall be considered for a green card after one year of residence in the US.
"By ordering reinterviews and halting permanent residence processing for those admitted during the previous administration, the Trump administration is placing the entire resettlement system into legal limbo," the group said.
The AP reports that the lives of many refugees in the US have been thrown into chaos by the rule change. One Syrian refugee who fled the nation's deadly civil war roughly a decade ago said he now feared that he and his family would be sent back.
“It was, and it still is a dream to be in America,” said the man, who remained anonymous for fear of being targeted by US authorities. “If they start sending back people to their home countries, you don’t have the rights that you have here and the opportunities.”
Despite the administration's claims, refugees already undergo an extraordinarily long and thorough vetting process to enter the US, which can take up to 36 months. The process involves screening of biographic and biometric information, extensive interviews, and security screenings by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense.
“This administration’s disdain for refugees and newcomers is well-documented, yet it continues to find new ways to outdo itself," said Rick Santos, president and CEO of Church World Service (CWS), which provides support for refugees around the globe. "The decision to review and reinterview resettled refugees—who have already passed through the most stringent of vetting processes—is not merely a relitigation, but a retraumatizing of individuals who were assured of their safety and a chance to live free of persecution."
“Just the threat of this is unspeakably cruel," said Mark Hetfield, the president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, in a comment to CNN. "To threaten refugees with taking away their status would be retraumatizing and a vicious misuse of taxpayer money."
CWS argued that "the resources it will take to relitigate refugees’ cases could be much better spent addressing USCIS’s backlog of approximately 4 million cases."
As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted, "The same administration that redefined refugee status to cover white South Africans is now going to drown in red tape tens of thousands of refugees approved years ago, potentially even seeking to strip some of their status and deport them."
In October, the Trump administration announced that it would limit the number of refugees accepted during this fiscal year to a historic low of 7,500, down from over 100,000 under former President Joe Biden, with most spots going to the white descendants of the Europeans who subjected South Africa's majority Black population to apartheid for decades. The first of those refugees was admitted to the US earlier this week, just before the green card freeze was announced.
“The latest refugee policy announcement from the Trump administration is astounding, unprecedented, heartbreaking, and cruel,” said John Slocum, executive director of RCUSA. "These are refugees who fled persecution on account of their religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country. Refugees who had been promised, not a temporary sojourn, but a permanent grant of freedom, safety, and opportunity."
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer."
Efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate emergency continued in Washington state this week as homeowners sued oil giants and a trade association over their decades of lies and rising insurance premium rates.
"As natural disasters become more costly, homeowners foot the bill," explains the complaint, filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington against the American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell and its subsidiary Equilon Enterprises.
"In 2023, a significant number of natural catastrophes... impacted the United States, at an estimated cost of $114 billion, of which approximately $80 billion was insured," the filing notes. "In the state of Washington alone, homeowners' rates have increased by a total of 51% over the past six years. But climate change has driven insurance premium increases throughout the country because insurance generally operates by pooling risks."
There are two named plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit. Margaret Hazard lives in Carson, an "area that is very dry and prone to forest fires." Since she began paying for home insurance in 2017, her premiums have doubled, and she recently had to switch to a policy with less coverage. Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park has also paid for homeowner's insurance since then; his premiums have gone from $1,012.10 to $2,149.18, an increase of nearly 113%.
"This case is about holding the fossil fuel defendants accountable for the increased homeowners' insurance premiums that their coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels has brought about and for their conduct contributing to climate change; a cost the highly profitable trillion-dollar industry can easily afford, and one that it should not be permitted to simply pass along to the everyday people who are presently bearing the burden of these increased premiums," the complaint states.
The document highlights that "defendants have known since at least the 1960s, based on their own internal scientific research, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution caused by the unchecked sales of its highly profitable petroleum products would inevitably lead to 'catastrophic' weather-related consequences with 'considerable significance to civilization' and that only a narrow window of time existed in which to act before severe consequences would result."
Big Oil "took this internal calculus seriously," the filing details, but "rather than inform the public, or... undertake meaningful remedial steps, defendants chose instead to protect their profits by engaging in a massive, deliberate, decadeslong misinformation campaign intended to sow doubt in the minds of the media [and] business leaders, and deceive the public and consumers about the conclusions they themselves had reached about the substantial consequences that the sale of their products would have."
As journalists and academic researchers have revealed what fossil fuel companies knew, and when, over the past decade—while extreme weather, from rapidly intensifying hurricanes to historic wildfires, ravaged US communities—various climate liability lawsuits have been filed across the country by states, municipalities, tribes, and individuals.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity's national tracker, in Washington state alone, there are at least three other cases: two brought by tribes in December 2023 and a wrongful death suit filed in May by the daughter of Juliana Leon, who died during the extreme heatwave that plagued the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The cases have often drawn comparisons to the tobacco industry's deception, and the one filed this week is no exception. In fact, the plaintiffs for the new federal suit in Washington are represented by the law firm Hagens Berman, whose managing partner and cofounder, Steve Berman, served as special assistant attorney general for 13 states against Big Tobacco.
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer," Berman said in a statement. "We see a direct correlation between Big Oil's lies and the alarming increase of homeowners insurance due to the rising threat of natural disasters."
"All those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability," said one campaigner in response to the new figures, "starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime.”
Israel's two-year assault on Gaza has left a catastrophic death toll that is even worse than most official estimates, according to research from European researchers.
A study released on Tuesday by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany and the Center for Demographic Studies in Spain found that "the current violent death toll" in Gaza "likely exceeds 100,000" since the start of the war in October 2023.
In fact, the researchers estimate that the total death toll from the war among Palestinians in Gaza is between 99,997 and 125,915, with a median estimate of over 112,000 killed. Even the lowest death toll estimate in the study is significantly higher than the death toll estimates in most media reports, which as of this week totaled roughly 70,000 Palestinians killed.
The researchers said that the wide range of death toll estimates is a reflection of "distorted and incomplete data from conflict zones" that make precise estimates difficult.
Researcher Irena Chen, who co-led the project, told Turkish publication AA that "we will never know the exact number of dead" and added that "we are only trying to estimate as accurately as possible what a realistic order of magnitude might be."
The study also found that the two-year Israeli assault led to a precipitous plunge in life expectancy. According to researcher Ana Gómez-Ugarte, life expectancy in Gaza "fell by 44% in 2023 and by 47% in 2024 compared with what it would have been without the war—equivalent to losses of 34.4 and 36.4 years, respectively."
The study's final estimates were based on data from multiple public sources, including including the Gaza Ministry of Health (GMoH), the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'Tselem), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN-IGME), and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the new study was "further evidence of genocide" being carried out by the Israeli government.
Edward Ahmed Mitchell, deputy executive director for CAIR, called the study "only the latest reason why our government must stop sending American taxpayer dollars to Israel and why international courts must hold Israel accountable for its crimes." Mitchell added that "all those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability, starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime."
A report released by UN Conference on Trade and Development earlier this week found that Israel's genocidal assault has had a devastating impact on Gaza's economy, finding that its entire population is now living below the poverty line, with per-capita gross domestic product falling to just $161, one of the lowest figures in the world.
Additionally, the report found that the unemployment rate in Gaza was as high as 80%, while inflation in the exclave surged to nearly 240%, as the Israeli military blockade caused a widespread famine by preventing basic necessities from reaching Gaza residents.