SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 13 2024, 09:26am EDT
Contact:
30+ civil rights organizations call on FTC Chair Khan to put privacy protections in place before she runs out of time
Today, over 30 organizations advocating for racial justice, privacy, and civil rights released a letter urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan and Commissioners to finally put policies in place to regulate commercial surveillance and data collection. Signers of the letter include Fight for the Future, Demand Progress Education Fund, Center on Race and Digital Justice, Athena Coalition, Free Press, MediaJustice, and Consumer Federation of America.
Frustrated with the lack of action since the agency announced an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on these issues in 2022, the organizations implore the FTC to immediately take the next step and put forth the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security (NPRM) before the current term expires in six months.“The volume, scope, and variety of sensitive information being collected and exploited has increased. It's become more common for corporations to surveil individuals that they don't have a commercial relationship with. Amazon’s Ring surveillance devices collect biometric data from bystanders going about their daily lives. Meta tracks individuals as they browse the web regardless of whether they have an account, collecting and sharing detailed information with its Facebook platform,” the organizations say in the letter.
The letter highlights the exploitation of sensitive personal information, the ability to monitor and track ones’ location, the disproportionate threats faced by communities of color, and the impacts of ‘unfair and deceptive’ surveillance and data collection on data security. It goes on to say that, given the harms, it’s incumbent on the FTC to move forward with putting forth policies that protect everyone: “ultimately, any rulemaking must ensure that people––regardless of race, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, workplace, or income––retain total and not illusory control of their personal data and cannot be pressured by personal circumstance or lack of accessible alternatives to give that control away.”Click here to read the full letter.
The complete the list of organizations signed on to the letter: Fight for the Future, Access Now, Advocacy For Principled Action In Government, Aspiration, Athena Coalition, Center on Race and Digital Justice, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Federation of America, Demand Progress Education Fund, For the Many, Free Press, Generation Justice, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Just Futures Law, Line Break Media, May First Movement Technology, Media Alliance, MediaJustice, Oakland Privacy, Open Markets Institute, Organization for Identity and Cultural Development (OICD.net), PDX Privacy, Presente.org, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Project On Government Oversight, Restore The Fourth, RootsAction.org, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, The Civil Liberties Defense Center, The Greenlining Institute, WA People's Privacy, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, and Yale Privacy Lab.
Fight for the Future issued the following statement. Please attribute it to the Director of Fight for the Future, Evan Greer (she/her/they): “We’ve been waiting two years for the FTC to make good on its commitment to protect against harmful surveillance and data corporate practices—yet nothing has been done. We can’t keep waiting, we’re running out of time with roughly six months left in the current term. If the FTC plans to follow through with putting direly needed privacy protections in place to shield everyday people from the overreaches of Big Tech, Chair Khan and the Commissioners need to take immediate action. We’ve waited way too long for the FTC to prioritize our basic human right to privacy and safety in our digital lives. It needs to act now, while it still can.”
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Senators Interrogate Big Oil Over 'Egregiously High Prices at the Pump' During Iran War
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
Jun 15, 2026
As President Donald Trump reached an interim peace deal with the Iranian government and Oxfam International revealed that 41 energy industry tycoons collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, a pair of US senators on Monday released their letters demanding answers from fossil fuel giants about their windfall profits and soaring gasoline prices during the conflict.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last Thursday wrote to BP America chair and president Orlando Alvarez, Chevron chair and CEO Mike Wirth, ConocoPhillips chair and CEO Ryan Lance, Continental Resources president and CEO Robert Lawler, ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren Woods, Occidental Petroleum president and CEO Richard Jackson, and Shell USA president Colette Hirstius.
"We write to question why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump while the fossil fuel industry collects massive windfall profits thanks to the Trump administration's war in Iran," Warren and Whitehouse wrote amid peace talks last week, noting that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for fossil fuels, led to what that the International Energy Agency (IEA) called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
"Gasoline prices rapidly increased by as much as 52%," the pair highlighted. "Before the Iran War, oil cost $71.32 per barrel. Since then, it has cost as much as $138.21 and currently sits at $98.29 per barrel. The Iran War has allowed 27 oil and gas companies to rake in over $40 billion in profit since the Iran War began."
Warren and Whitehouse also emphasized that "the opportunity to profit from high oil prices did not occur in a political vacuum. In April 2024, then-candidate Trump solicited a billion dollars from fossil fuel executives at a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, promising in exchange to roll back environmental regulations, issue desired permits, and expand drilling opportunities."
Also pointing to Trump's invasion of Venezuela, abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and takeover of the country's nationalized oil industry, the senators said that "the pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
The pair requested answers to their questions on profits, pricing, federal policy, and communications with the Trump administration about the Iran War by June 25, They explained that the information "will aid our assessment of the appropriate scope, rate structure, and enforcement mechanisms as we actively consider the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act," reintroduced by Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, just weeks in to the war.
The information will also assist with investigations into "the extent to which Trump administration military, regulatory, and policy decisions benefited the oil industry and the extent to which any of these were the product of quid pro quo solicitations," as well as "whether oil and gas companies had advance knowledge of or ability to shape the administration's decision to go to war in Iran."
"Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate each of these matters and to legislate as necessary to protect the American people," the pair added. Both chambers are controlled by the GOP and have refused—largely along party lines—to pass war powers resolutions intended to prevent or end Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal assault on Iran.
In response to Trump's new deal with Iran to extend a ceasefire reached in April and reopen the strait, oil prices dropped and the stock market rallied. Specifically, as The Associated Press detailed, "the S&P 500 rose 1.7%," while "the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 468 points, or 0.9%, to a record, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 3.1%."
Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said Monday that "any agreement that reduces further violence is welcome. But this announcement should not be mistaken as the end to the crisis, given Israel has vowed to remain in occupied areas of southern Lebanon indefinitely, while violence continues in Gaza and the West Bank. As attention turns to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and falling oil prices, we should not lose sight of the devastating human toll this conflict has inflicted across the region, nor the profound economic disruption it continues to cause around the world."
Rosenbluth continued:
The rapid rise and fall of oil prices in response to military escalation and diplomatic announcements is a reminder of how exposed the global economy is to fossil fuel volatility. For millions of people, this crisis has meant loss, displacement, food insecurity, and higher cost of living. For fossil fuel companies, it has meant windfall profits.
Oil Change International estimates that if US oil prices average around $90 per barrel through the end of the year, US oil companies could make an additional $38 billion in windfall revenues from crude oil exports alone as a result of Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran. While households around the world have been hit by higher fuel, energy, and food costs, oil companies are cashing in billions.
The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but this crisis has once again exposed fossil fuels as a source of conflict, chaos, volatility, and disruption. While communities bear the costs, oil companies profit from the instability. Once renewables are installed, sunlight or wind does not become more expensive because of geopolitical conflict. The most durable form of energy security is reducing exposure to fossil fuels altogether, and making a just transition to renewable energy.
As Group of Seven leaders, including Trump, gathered in France on Monday, and Oxfam International released its report about how G7 energy billionaires have pocketed $300 million per day since the start of the Iran War, the organization's executive director, Amitabh Behar, argued that representatives from the other six countries, or G6, "can't plead powerlessness."
"They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth. They can advocate for a new issuance of special drawing rights. They can provide poorer countries with aid," Behar added. "Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy, it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6's slide into global irrelevance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says 'We Must' Strip Section on US-Israeli Military Integration From Pentagon Budget
“The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values," said another critic, "not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty."
Jun 15, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year's military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.
A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called the section his personal plan.
"Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. "We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget."
Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump—said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie's measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee's 13 members to get a vote.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, would "expand and enhance intelligence sharing" with Israel, including "information relating to cybersecurity threats, terrorism, sanctions evasion, plans and intentions of state and nonstate actors, adversarial technology proliferation, missile threats, unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air and space domain awareness, and other aerial threats relevant to the defense of Israel, United States forces and interests in the region, and regional security partners."
Section 622, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), also limits restrictions on intelligence sharing with Israel.
"This proposal is one of several recent moves by those in Washington who carry the Israeli government’s water to keep the United States tied to Israel despite plummeting support for the country among the American public," Paul Pillar wrote last week for Responsible Statecraft.
"The most salient form of US support to Israel has been more than $300 billion in economic and especially military assistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to get ahead of the declining public support and avoid embarrassing losses by suggesting it would be fine with him to phase out the military aid," he continued.
"Israel’s strategy and that of its US supporters is now to rely on ties with, and support from, the United States that are not as salient as the military aid with its prominent price tag," Pillar added. "The strategy includes forms of military integration that are less visible than congressionally appropriated grant aid and therefore less publicly accountable. Section [219] of a defense authorization bill currently in the House of Representatives embodies this form of integration."
Sections 219 and 622 come in the wake of the Pentagon's warning of growing espionage threats posed to the United States by Israel, which has a long history of spying on the US. Recent concerns center on Israel's alleged attempts to sabotage efforts to end the Iran War.
Responding to the proposed Sections 219 and 622, Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, recently said in a statement that “Congress must act to block these Israel‑first bills that would force a deeper US and Israel military and intelligence merger, a merger that will weaken independent American oversight, compromise US national interests, and pull the country into foreign conflicts without democratic consent."
“The American people did not elect Congress to merge our military infrastructure, intelligence systems, defense technologies, artificial intelligence capabilities, cyber operations, and regional security architecture with a foreign government accused of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, torture, starvation policies, and the unlawful targeting of civilians," he continued.
"Instead of demanding accountability... Congress is seeking to reward the Israeli government with even deeper access to American military capabilities, technologies, intelligence resources, and strategic infrastructure," McCaw added. "The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values, not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty, accountability, and self-government.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Oligarchy Pours $400 Million Into Pro-Collins Ads, Platner Says: 'Ban Billionaires From Buying Elections'
"People in Maine are tired of establishment status quo politics," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They want to take on the billionaire class and fight for REAL change."
Jun 15, 2026
"Republicans are worried," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday, referring to Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner's historic primary victory in Maine last week, as local reports in the state pointed to a spending blitz as five-term GOP Sen. Susan Collins tries to hold on to her seat in the high-stakes election.
The Senate race in Maine could determine the balance of power in the Senate, and with primary voters showing clear enthusiasm for political newcomer Platner—who won the most votes in a Democratic primary in the state's history—overall spending in the race could reach an estimated $384 million, with the majority spent by pro-Collins groups, according to the media tracking company AdImpact.
If the firm's projections are accurate, the Maine Senate race could be the fourth-most expensive in the country this election cycle, after far more populous states including Texas, Michigan, and Georgia.
In response to the report, Platner said he plans to "defeat" the pro-Collins groups—and then end the campaign finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections.
One political writer based in Maine, Anthony Emerson, reported that the spending blitz was already evident over the weekend during the World Cup and Stanley Finals Cup games.
"Every single ad break had an attack ad on Platner or a Collins ad," said Emerson. "Saw only a handful of pro-Platner/anti-Collins."
Maine is home to just 1.4 million people, meaning that an election spending total of nearly $400 million would be equivalent to about $400 per registered voter, said journalist Alex Seitz-Wald of The Midcoast Villager.
Collins-aligned groups have already booked about $100 million in ads through Election Day, including dark money groups such as One Nation and Pine Tree Results Political Action Committee (PAC).
Those groups have booked more than $46 million combined in advertisements like a Pine Tree Results-funded attack ad against Platner that aired in April, seizing on comments the Democratic candidate made in 2013 on Reddit about sexual assault.
Along with Wall Street CEOs Stephen Schwarzman and Paul Singer and Palantir executive Alex Karp, the pro-Collins super PAC counts among its donors Republican legal activist Leonard Leo and hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin. Leo gave at least $1 million to Pine Tree Results PAC, while Griffin, who recently criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani over his tax on second homes, donated $2.5 million to the group.
According to The Maine Monitor, nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses have donated nearly $10 million total to pro-Collins groups since the beginning of 2025.
The spending blitz by outside groups comes as Platner has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, bringing in about $16 million as of May compared with about $12 million for Collins.
Platner's campaign has nearly $350,000 in ads booked through Election Day, while Collins is so far largely relying on the PACs that are aligned with her to run attack ads against her opponent.
Groups including Majority Forward, Unrig Our Economy, and Duty and Honor have spent about $11 million combined on ads promoting Platner's campaign, which is focusing on his support of Medicare for All; his demand that the government invest money in schools, healthcare, and communities instead of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the military each year; and his call for a billionaires' minimum tax.
Platner's platform also includes a call to "ban billionaires buying elections," by passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which struck down a centuries-old ban on corporate "independent" spending on elections—money that doesn't go directly to a candidate or party—allowing corporations and super PACs to spend unlimited amounts to help their preferred candidates.
"We have individuals spending tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns, a scheme of legalized bribery and vote-buying that drowns out the voices of regular people, effectively replacing what we used to call democracy," reads Platner's website. "Under this system, the prospects for any meaningful reform are grim. We must throw out of Washington any politician who will not commit to passing a constitutional amendment to ban billionaires buying elections!"
Journalist Zaid Jilani concurred with Sanders (I-Vt.) that Republicans appear concerned about Platner's momentum, saying their plan to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a small state does not seem like the strategy of a party that thinks "they have it in the bag."
Sanders expressed confidence that the money flowing into Maine will be no match for Platner's engagement with voters and his focus on issues that affect working people in the state.
"People in Maine are tired of establishment status quo politics," said Sanders. "They want to take on the billionaire class and fight for REAL change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular