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
campaign finance
'Texas Belongs to Us': Voters Defeat Elon Musk's Millions to Deliver 'Blue Tsunami of Epic Proportions'
"Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered," said senator-elect James Talarico.
Nov 04, 2026
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, spent nearly half a billion dollars on the 2026 midterm elections, with much of the money going to Republicans in Texas—where Democrats had not won a statewide election in more than three decades.
That changed on Tuesday when Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico defeated the state's corrupt Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, despite Musk's last-minute "rescue mission"—which took the form of a $160 million donation, a minuscule fraction of the Tesla CEO's net worth but a massive infusion of cash into a critical race. Republicans also lost the state's gubernatorial contest, with Democratic candidate Gina Hinojosa prevailing over incumbent GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who received millions of dollars from Musk.
Musk, who lives in Texas and has moved his businesses there, tried to brush off Democrats' stunning wins, writing on the social media platform he owns: "Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time."
Neither Talarico nor Hinojosa—who were just part of the "blue tsunami of epic proportions" that swept through Texas on Tuesday—mentioned Musk by name in their victory speeches, though the senator-elect accused Musk on the campaign trail of "trying to buy the race." But both decried the campaign finance system that has let Musk and other billionaires convert their obscene wealth into political power.
"The billionaires who own the social media algorithms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens—they want us at each other's throats," said Talarico. "They want us looking left and right at each other, instead of looking up at them."
"Our unity is a threat to their wealth and power," he added. "Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered."
In her victory remarks, Hinojosa said the contest against Abbott posed a fundamental question to Texas voters: Does the state belong to working families, or "the people who write the biggest check"?
"Tonight, Texas, we answered," said the Democratic governor-elect. "And we did not whisper. We answered loud enough for every billionaire, every lobbyist, and every corrupt politician in Austin to hear. Texas belongs to us."
Across the country, according to a CNBC analysis of federal filings, "Musk’s America PAC spent nearly $87 million across 44 federal races."
"By Wednesday morning, Republicans it backed had lost 29 contests and won just three, with 12 still uncalled. More than $80 million—or 93% of its spending—went toward races Republicans lost," the outlet reported. "The outcome leaves Musk with fewer allies in a Democratic-controlled Congress that could investigate his federal contracts, his past leadership of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, and his companies’ ties to Washington."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Before Citizens United, Corporations Spent $12.8 Million on 2010 Elections. In 2026? $737 Million
"This election cycle shows beyond any doubt that we desperately need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United," said the co-president of a prominent consumer advocacy group.
Oct 29, 2026
Data published Thursday by a leading consumer watchdog group revealed that corporate spending on US elections has soared by more than 5,000% since an infamous 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates of outside political contributions—a staggering increase that critics said underscored the need for major campaign finance reform.
Public Citizen released an analysis of newly filed federal campaign finance data showing that corporate political spending has grown exponentially since the 2010 midterm election cycle, the first of the Citizens United era.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission affirmed corporate personhood and that unlimited political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super political action committees (PACs)—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called “dark money.”
According to the data studied by Public Citizen, corporate spending totaled $12.8 million for the 2010 election cycle. By the 2012 cycle, it had surged to $84.9 million. During the 2016 cycle, it spiked to $117.9 million.
NEW from @publiccitizen.bsky.social:Corporate money in the 2026 midterms has reached an unprecedented $737 million, October filings show.Full report: www.citizen.org/article/corp...
[image or embed]
— Rick Claypool (@rickclaypool.bsky.social) October 29, 2026 at 10:55 AM
For 2026, spending this cycle—over $737 million—accounts for "40% of the $1.8 billion corporations have spent on federal elections" since 2010," Public Citizen said.
"Cryptocurrency, online betting, and Big Tech interests—including companies involved in [artificial intelligence] and data centers—have collectively contributed $391 million toward the 2026 elections," the group noted. "This accounts for more than half of corporate political spending reported this cycle."
The analysis shows that the 50 largest donors and organizations had collectively contributed $2.77 billion, with Republican-aligned contributors accounting for roughly 60% of that amount.
Elon Musk—the world's richest person and first trillionaire in history—led the pack, giving over $445 million to conservative candidates and causes. This, after the tech titan and former de facto head of the short-lived Department of Government Efficiency poured more than a quarter billion dollars into the campaign coffers of then-former President Donald Trump's successful reelection bid and Republican congressional candidates during the 2024 cycle.
“Corporations are exploiting Citizens United to drive their political spending to unprecedented levels,” Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president, said Thursday.
“These corporations aren’t investing this money because they are civic-minded or want to advance a particular viewpoint," he continued. "They are spending to buy influence, determine outcomes, and shape policy. This election cycle shows beyond any doubt that we desperately need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and put the people, not corporations or the super rich, back in charge of elections."
Democrats are trying to do just that. Last year, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led more than two dozen lawmakers in introducing the We the People Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would reverse Citizens United.
The following month, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) led 39 upper chamber Democrats plus Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) in reintroducing the Democracy for All Amendment. The proposal would allow Congress and state legislatures to impose some limits on money raised and spent to influence elections, distinguish between people and corporations, and prohibit corporate election spending.
But it might not take a constitutional amendment—something that is exceedingly difficult to pass, by design—to undo Citizens United.
Mother Jones reported Thursday that Montana could become a testing ground for a new legal strategy to reverse the effects of the ruling without having to overturn the decision. Instead, Montana is challenging corporations’ legal powers under state law rather than targeting their constitutionally protected political "speech" in the form of spending.
The strategy, known as the Montana Plan, will be put to voters on Election Day in the form of Initiative 194, which would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, labor unions, trade associations, and other special interests from spending money to support or oppose candidates, political parties, or state and local ballot measures. Violators could forfeit their state-granted privileges, including limited liability.
If approved, it could provide a model for other states seeking to curb corporate political spending and anonymous campaign financing.
Other efforts include a Sanders-led push for the Democratic Party to ban super PAC and dark money spending in its primaries.
"We cannot allow billionaires and powerful corporate interests to continue undermining democracy by injecting unlimited amounts of money into the political process," Sanders and seven Senate backers of his proposal asserted last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He's Desperate': AIPAC Begins Spending Against Abdul El-Sayed to Boost Mike Rogers
"You know Mike Rogers is in trouble when he begs AIPAC to start spending against me," said Abdul El-Sayed, Rogers' Democratic opponent.
Oct 10, 2026
A campaign finance report filed on Friday revealed that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's super PAC, the United Democracy Project, has resumed spending on Michigan's US Senate race, dropping $95,000 on mailers opposing Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed in a bid to help Republican Mike Rogers weeks ahead of the key midterm contest.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) report came a day after Rogers and El-Sayed clashed on the debate stage over healthcare, drug prices, military assistance to Israel, and other issues. Asked during the debate whether he would accept AIPAC's support in the race, Rogers said, "Anybody that wants to help my campaign stop [El-Sayed]... I’ll take all of that help."
In August, Axios reported that Rogers' allies asked AIPAC not to advertise on behalf of the Republican candidate, an apparent acknowledgment of the group's political toxicity amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. Rogers himself spoke with AIPAC's chair in August, according to Axios, and the group subsequently "shelved an already-cut video ad targeting" El-Sayed.
In response to the FEC report, El-Sayed wrote on social media that "you know Mike Rogers is in trouble when he begs AIPAC to start spending against me."
"Why do they hate me?" he added. "Because I want to keep your tax money here to spend on your kids rather than spend it to kill kids somewhere else."
FEC: AIPAC’s super PAC begins to spend against Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate race https://t.co/JrS7pZnkxN
— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) October 9, 2026
AIPAC's United Democracy Project (UDP), which has spent aggressively against progressive Democrats across the country in recent elections, poured tens of millions of dollars into El-Sayed's Democratic primary contest against Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.). The group signaled after El-Sayed's victory that it was prepared to spend heavily on Rogers' behalf.
While the new spending on mailers marks UDP's first financial intervention in the Senate race's general election, Rogers has attended several fundraising events hosted by AIPAC.
Speaking to reporters at a campaign stop on Friday, Rogers downplayed UDP's mailer spending and falsely attacked El-Sayed as antisemitic.
"He is so anti-Jewish that one mail piece sends him into orbit," said Rogers.
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote Friday that Rogers "was right when he dissuaded this the first time," referring to AIPAC campaign spending.
"But he's desperate now," Dayen added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters in Key States See AI Campaign Cash as More Politically Toxic Than AIPAC: Poll
"Candidates should seek support from the AI industry at their own peril."
Oct 08, 2026
Polling data released Thursday shows that American voters in several key states view campaign cash from the artificial intelligence industry and Big Tech CEOs as more politically poisonous than donations from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Wall Street executives, and cryptocurrency firms.
The poll from Data for Progress and Guardrails Action, an advocacy group that supports strong AI regulations, surveyed more than 3,000 likely voters in Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio and found "a battleground electorate that is skeptical of the AI industry across party lines, wants guardrails against its harms, and treats AI money in politics as a red flag."
Around 85% of surveyed voters in the three states said they were either very or somewhat concerned about AI companies and tech executives "spending money to influence" the 2026 midterm elections. By comparison, roughly 72% of voters in Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio expressed concern about AIPAC cash, which has become increasingly toxic amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
"This polling bears out what we have been saying all year: Candidates should seek support from the AI industry at their own peril,” said Shaunna Thomas, executive director of Guardrails Action. "What took AIPAC and the NRA years has been accomplished by the AI industry in just a few months. Candidates who sought support from corporate AI super PACs may find that support to be a huge liability in November."
Super PACs with ties the two leading AI firms in the United States, OpenAI and Anthropic, have spent more than $55 million so far on 2026 races, backing both Republicans and Democrats. Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and an outspoken supporter of strict AI regulations, has called on all of his fellow Democrats to reject campaign cash from AI industry billionaires and predicted that AI industry cash would soon be "as toxic as AIPAC."
The new polling out Thursday shows that roughly three-quarters of voters in Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio "would be less likely to support a candidate who receives funding from super PACs backed by AI companies or their executives, including about 3 in 5 Republicans."
The survey also shows that voters "take AI seriously as a force that will reshape the country, and they are skeptical that the people building it have their interests in mind," Guardrails Action and Data for Progress write in a memo.
"About 3 in 5 agree AI could eventually pose a risk to the survival of humanity (65%, 61%, and 60%), including a majority of Republicans (59%, 60%, and 54%)," the groups observed. "And a similar percentage in all three states believe AI is a threat to American democracy, though by slightly smaller margins."
Thomas of Guardrails Action said Thursday that "voters understand that the billionaires controlling this technology aren’t looking out for us, they’re only interested in accruing more money and power for themselves."
"Americans are deeply concerned about what AI will do to our society and who controls this unprecedented technology," said Thomas. "People are looking for commonsense guardrails on AI and we are seeing broad support for a wide range of policy proposals to regulate it."
The survey shows that voters across the three states support regulating AI development and taking action to mitigate the economic impacts of the technology. Around three-quarters of survey respondents said they support a "guaranteed jobs program" for Americans laid off due to AI and a system that would guarantee healthcare to everyone who loses their job due to AI advancements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details How Trump Has Handed Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card to Wall Street and Big Tech
"Americans should expect fair application of the rule of law to ensure even the most powerful and well-connected can be held accountable."
Oct 07, 2026
A report released by government watchdog Public Citizen Wednesday reveals how, under the Trump administration, a donation to or partnership with President Donald Trump "could make your legal matters disappear."
When Trump took office in January 2025, he inherited from the Biden administration hundreds of enforcement actions that were supposed to be carried out against law-breaking corporations.
But as Public Citizen research director Rick Claypool wrote in the report, titled "Trump’s Cascade of Canceled Corporate Enforcement Against Over 200 Corporations," the president and his top officials have rolled back 212 enforcement actions against 205 corporations since taking office—closing dozens of federal investigations, dismissing 67 lawsuits that federal agencies were actively litigating, and terminating numerous other consequences for wrongdoing.
Ninety of the companies that have avoided enforcement actions—44%—were ones with ties to Trump, including 53 that contributed to the president's inaugural committee, super political action committees (PACs) that supported him, or the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for Trump's ballroom.
“Trump’s retreat from law enforcement against corporate crime is a signal to Big Business that if you’re big enough, rich enough, and connected enough with Trump’s inner circle, there are no consequences for breaking the law,” said Claypool. “The reckless experiments of AI corporations, the proliferation of scammy financial fraudsters, and the outbreaks of tainted food show that the message has clearly been received.”
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, is one of the largest beneficiaries of Trump's retreat, following his pouring of $400 million into the president's campaign and those of other Republicans in 2024. He also gave $1 million to the president's inaugural fund and $5 million to the MAGA, Inc. super PAC.
Tesla has benefited from four canceled enforcement actions, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration canceling three investigations and the Department of Labor canceling an inspection into contract compliance. Lawsuits that had been filed against SpaceX by the Department of Justice and the National Labor Relations Board were also closed, as was an Environmental Protection Agency investigation into data center pollution.
Musk himself also avoided a lawsuit over alleged misconduct when he purchased the social media platform X, when the Securities and Exchange Commission suit was dismissed.
Pfizer, which employed former Attorney General Pam Bondi before she joined the Trump administration—only to be fired earlier this year—also had three enforcement actions canceled. The pharmaceutical giant contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.
Wall Street giant Wells Fargo has also benefited from the cancellation of five enforcement actions, and Amazon, Bank of America, Meta, and Polymarket are among the corporations that have had at least two canceled.
The report explains how other corporations across the Big Tech, finance, and cryptocurrency sectors have seen investigations and lawsuits vanish after contributing to Trump's reelection efforts, including:
- Citibank, which donated $100,000 to Trump's inauguration committee and saw the 2023 consent order issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) terminated, after it had allegedly violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
- Amazon, which gave $5 million to help fund Trump's ballroom, $1 million toward the inaugural fund, and has other ties to the administration, and avoided a disparate-impact discrimination charge by the Equal Opportunity Commission and audits to prevent workplace discrimination after an executive order halted such enforcement; and
- Meta, which donated to the inaugural fund and the ballroom, and avoided a CFPB investigation into whether it improperly used financial data for its advertising business.
"Americans should expect fair application of the rule of law to ensure even the most powerful and well-connected can be held accountable," reads the report. "But with 44% (90 out of 205) of corporations with publicly known ties to the administration receiving the benefit of canceled enforcement, the pattern of favoritism toward corporate insiders is clear."
Claypool emphasized that by working unilaterally and wielding his executive power instead of collaborating with Congress, Trump has granted the "corporate wish" of canceled enforcement actions "with relative ease."
"Unlike passing friendly legislation, which requires coordination and cooperation with congressional majorities, or formal deregulation, which can require formal processes including outside input intended to ensure careful and deliberate decision making, agency leaders derelict in their duties claim canceling enforcement is a matter merely of prosecutorial discretion," reads the report.
The analysis details several executive actions and policies Trump has unilaterally adopted "to reduce enforcement against corporate crime and lawbreaking," including:
- Pardoning not just individuals but also at least nine corporations that have been convicted of a crime;
- Illegally attempting to defund the CFPB, resulting in the cancellation of at least 44 enforcement actions;
- Signing an executive order claiming that enforcement against disparate-impact liability—cases in which ostensibly neutral policies nonetheless discriminate against protected classes, even if unintentionally—is unconstitutional;
- Signing an executive order discouraging agencies from prosecuting criminal misconduct; and
- Taking a permissive approach to antitrust enforcement, particularly in regard to mergers and acquisitions, that accelerated after the firing of DOJ antitrust leader Gail Slater.
The administration has also been able to cancel enforcement in a "top-down" fashion through its "dismissal of DOJ independence" and the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which permitted the White House to seize authority from regulators.
"The result," wrote Claypool, "is that power over federal agencies is more concentrated than ever with the president’s inner circle—and that courting favor with President Trump is a distinctly powerful lever for taking advantage of the enforcement retreat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Swapping One Illegal Scheme for Another, Trump Says Super PAC Cash Will Now Fund Propaganda Ads
"Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," noted one campaign finance expert.
Oct 06, 2026
Facing widespread backlash, President Donald Trump said late Monday that he would stop unlawfully funding political ads with taxpayer dollars and instead use money from a pro-Trump super PAC—a scheme that watchdogs said would also be illegal.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that he has "decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The president's announcement came amid growing outrage over his administration's use of more than $10 million in taxpayer funds for political propaganda, a violation of federal law.
But Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said Trump's new scheme to finance the ads with super PAC cash would also run afoul of federal law.
"After charging taxpayers $10 million for thinly-veiled campaign ads, Trump now says he'll have his super PAC pay instead. One problem: Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," said Fischer, who noted that his organization "has already filed a complaint" against the president for directing MAGA Inc. spending.
CLC's complaint, filed last month, notes that Trump and his allies have openly indicated that he controls MAGA Inc., in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
“President Trump’s repeated assertions that he controls a super PAC show that he has committed a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law,” said Saurav Ghosh, CLC's director of federal campaign finance reform. “Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC. President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
The recent ads launched by the Trump White House just weeks ahead of the November midterms were funded by money from the Department of Homeland Security. Major networks, including CNN and MS NOW, faced intense backlash for airing the ads even though they were financed illegally.
"These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with. Clearly wrong. Clearly illegal," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said following Trump's announcement on Monday. "But there’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account."
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that donors to the MAGA Inc. super PAC include:
- Twenty crypto companies and executives who contributed $88.2 million;
- Four artificial intelligence (AI) and data center donors who contributed $37 million;
- Six fossil fuel companies and executives who contributed $29.75 million;
- Two health insurance and benefits companies who contributed $6 million; and
- Forty-seven nursing home companies and executives who contributed nearly $10 million.
"President Trump first ran for office promising to drain the swamp—a catchall phrase that meant rooting out corruption, conflicts of interest, and other insider dealing—but large wealthy and corporate donors to his super PAC appear to be benefiting from the official actions he is taking as president," the analysis stated. "As Americans’ screens are flooded with misleading and fearmongering advertisements in the weeks ahead, they should ask themselves who is funding those ads and how are they benefiting."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stand With the People': Progressive Caucus Leader Calls on Democrats to Reject AI Billionaire Cash
Rep. Greg Casar said progressives' effort to make a leading artificial intelligence super PAC "as toxic as AIPAC" is having an impact.
Oct 01, 2026
The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday urged all Democrats to reject campaign cash from billionaires whose wealth stems from the artificial intelligence industry, following news that the president of OpenAI abandoned plans to donate millions more to a super PAC that has funneled money to members of both parties.
The OpenAI executive, Greg Brockman, wrote in an internal message obtained by The New York Times that the super PAC, Leading the Future (LTF), "keeps reflecting on the company and [has] become so much of a distraction for people here." Brockman noted that he and his wife have donated $25 million to the super PAC—which opposes strong AI safety regulations—but "have no plans to donate more at this time."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading supporter of AI regulation in Congress, said in response to Brockman's message that "the pressure is working."
"Progressives have worked hard to make LTF as toxic as AIPAC," Casar wrote, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Now one of its biggest donors is backing out. Democrats need to stand with the people and reject AI billionaires' money."
Super PACs bankrolled by AI companies and billionaires have become some of the biggest spenders in the 2026 midterms amid widespread voter backlash against the construction of resource-draining AI data centers—and against the industry more broadly.
The Times reported on Tuesday that LTF and Public First Action, which is aligned with the AI firm Anthropic, have spent a combined $52.6 million on "safe seats—those that are unlikely to change party hands but that often feature intense intraparty contests."
"The big AI players have also spent more heavily for Democrats than Republicans," the Times noted. "They have boosted candidates who align with their agendas, helped defeat those they see as hostile to it and ingratiated themselves with front-runners who are likely to be in positions of power in the next Congress to make decisions critical to their bottom lines."
"The Times analysis of federal advertising and campaign outreach expenditures made by the four major super PACs during this cycle showed that they have spent far more money in support of Democrats—$28 million to back 21 Democrats and nearly $19 million to boost 30 Republicans—and that the candidates they backed almost always won," the newspaper added.
The Lever reported last month that a five-person commission on AI convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) "is filled with Democrats who have received outsized financial support this election cycle from AI-linked super PACs, executives, and investors."
Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) are the commission's members.
"The spending seems intended to shape the party’s policy response to AI, particularly if Democrats win a majority in November," The Lever observed.
Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump met with leading AI industry executives who have collectively donated more than $220 million to his super PAC and other projects associated with the president, according to a new analysis by the advocacy group Public Citizen. Trump said following the meeting that the AI industry shouldn't have any government guardrails and should be allowed to police itself because "they love our country."
"Big Tech executives have effectively bought themselves a seat at the AI regulatory table," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "Actually, they have bought the table. As a result, as public anxieties about AI risks—to children, political integrity, jobs, the environment—skyrocket, and as revelations mount of AI company failures to impose adequate safeguards on their own technologies, the Trump administration delivers meaningless agreements that impose no restraints on the out-of-control tech oligarchs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': White House Airs More Pro-Trump Propaganda on Taxpayer Dime
"The president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it," said a former White House special counsel.
Sep 28, 2026
The White House recycled material from President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign for a new taxpayer-funded ad that aired nationwide this past weekend, just weeks before the high-stakes November midterms.
The 30-second black-and-white ad features Trump walking down a hallway to audio of him vowing to "demolish the deep state" and "expel the warmongers from our government," even as the president wages an illegal and deeply unpopular war on Iran that has killed thousands and driven up prices at home and around the world. During the final 10 seconds of the ad, white text appears at the bottom of the screen stating, "Paid for by the US government."
The ad is just the latest taxpayer-funded, explicitly pro-Trump spot that the White House has launched in recent days, prompting alarm from lawmakers and government watchdog organizations who say the administration is using public funds to flood airwaves with the president's campaign ads shortly before an election.
Watch the newly aired ad:
The U.S. Government is up on TV with this spot --
It aired nationally on FOX yesterday during Illinois at #7 Ohio State and also during Fox News Sunday this morning pic.twitter.com/8PP9FPzUZk
— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) September 27, 2026
Richard Painter, who served as the White House's chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the taxpayer-funded campaign ads "could be an impeachable offense," noting that "Congress has expressly prohibited government-sponsored political propaganda, which is dangerous for democracy."
The federal government appears to have spent more than $1 million on pro-Trump ads in recent days, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing an estimate from AdImpact.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded ad in which Trump declares that "America will never be a communist country" and promotes tax cuts he signed into law, delivering a massive windfall to the rich and large corporations.
Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, told the Times on Sunday that "the president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it."
"The prior ad was bad enough," said Eisen, "but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct.”
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that Republicans shouldn't be taken seriously when they claim to care about "waste, fraud, and abuse" as the president and leader of their party runs campaign ads with taxpayer money.
"What a cult this party has become," Murphy added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Says Trump Control of $400 Million Political War Chest a 'Clear-Cut Violation of Campaign Finance Law'
"President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption."
Sep 25, 2026
An election spending watchdog on Friday accused President Donald Trump of committing a "clear-cut violation of campaign finance law" through his stated control over spending decisions made by the MAGA Inc. super political action committee.
Citing decades of legal precedent, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) argued that federal office holders are prohibited from directing spending for super PACs, which raise money outside the scope of federal campaign laws.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at CLC, noted that Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he will decide where MAGA Inc.'s $400 million war chest will be deployed in the 2026 elections—which Ghosh said would be flatly illegal.
"Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC," said Ghosh. "President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption."
Last week, CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that cited statements Trump made to reporters, whom he told funds raised by MAGA Inc. were "my money that I control."
This statement alone, the group said, was "a remarkable admission of a serious campaign finance violation."
The complaint then asked the FEC to seek "appropriate sanctions for any and all violations" of campaign finance law committed by Trump and MAGA Inc., "including civil penalties sufficient to deter future violations and an injunction prohibiting the respondents from any and all violations in the future."
While MAGA Inc. has a formidable stash of campaign cash at its disposal, it is unclear how much of an impact it will have on the 2026 midterms given that polls show the president and his party are in a deep hole with voters.
A report from The New Republic published last week revealed that the pro-Trump super PAC is plugging significant money into at least 17 districts that the president won by more than five points in 2024, and six districts that he won by more than 10 points.
David Wasserman, elections analyst for Cook Political Report, told The New Republic that this spending in pro-Trump districts is "an acknowledgment that things have shifted in a huge way since 2024."
"Republicans have hemorrhaged support among independent voters, they’ve got a real enthusiasm problem," said Wasserman, "and as a result, districts that ordinarily would vote handily for Trump and Republicans are now in play."
A Friday report in The Washington Post examined the states where Trump is preparing to campaign in the coming days, and found the president is being deployed in deep-red states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.
"Oklahoma is a state Trump won in 2024 with 66% of the vote—and won all 77 counties," the Post reported. "In Alabama, Trump won with 65%."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'See You in November': Progressives Welcome the Fight as AIPAC Plots Round Two Against El-Sayed
"I’m happy to burn your money for you, and then we can get on to the business of governing," Abdul El-Sayed said in a message to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Aug 06, 2026
After setting over $30 million on fire in Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is reportedly plotting round two against progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed—this time seeking to boost his Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that the pro-Israel lobbying organization, known as AIPAC, "has told allies that it is considering a major financial campaign to support the Republican Senate nominee in the Michigan general election this fall." AIPAC said publicly following El-Sayed's victory over Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in Tuesday's primary that "our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr. El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda in November."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who endorsed and campaigned for El-Sayed, wrote in response to AIPAC's post-election statement that she appreciates the group "proving it doesn't belong in the Dem Party and especially in our primaries."
"From endorsing Jan. 6th members to ensuring Congress remains in the hands of a 34-count felon, AIPAC is an org committed to undermining democracy at home and abroad," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on social media. "See you in November."
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) noted that "a big majority of Americans want the US government to stop sending American dollars to Israel's reckless regime and to end the war in Iran."
"Yet AIPAC is threatening to spend to deliver the Republicans a critical Senate seat in Michigan, helping a Trump stooge like Mike Rogers who will keep funding Netanyahu's wars and do nothing to stop Trump's Iran war," said Deluzio. "This is exactly why so many Democrats like me have rejected AIPAC."
AIPAC cash accounted for around half of all outside spending in the contest between El-Sayed and Stevens—the most expensive Democratic primary in American history.
But the organization and its affiliated groups appear to have plenty more resources to devote to the general election, the results of which could decide control of the US Senate next year.
The United Democracy Project (UDP), AIPAC's super PAC, had over $80 million in cash in hand at the end of June, according to federal filings.
AIPAC is UDP's primary funder, but the group has also received cash from right-wing billionaires such as hedge fund manager Paul Singer and businessman Haim Saban.
During a virtual town hall days before Tuesday's election, El-Sayed—a vocal opponent of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza—dared AIPAC to keep pouring its financial resources into Michigan's Senate race.
“AIPAC, if you’re listening, burn your money. Come back and burn it again in the general,” said El-Sayed. “I’m happy to burn your money for you, and then we can get on to the business of governing and asking whether or not our foreign policy ought to be dictated to us by the interests of a foreign government.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy