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
GOP Showered Big Corporations With Tax Breaks. They Returned the Favor With Campaign Cash
"Republicans in Congress sold out many of their own constituents to help corporations get even richer," said the campaign director of Unrig Our Economy.
Jul 03, 2026
Major American corporations that benefited from tax cuts enacted last year by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are donating to the campaigns of GOP lawmakers who made the windfall possible.
A report published Friday by Unrig Our Economy spotlights seven House Republicans who voted for the sprawling and unpopular GOP budget package, which extended tax breaks for corporations and wealthy Americans while inflicting unprecedented cuts on Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance—with disastrous consequences for millions of low-income families across the country.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), one of the lawmakers featured in the new report, has received campaign donations from corporate PACs representing 3M, Amazon, Walmart, AT&T, and other companies that collectively received billions of dollars in tax breaks from the Republican law, which restored a provision allowing businesses to immediately write off new investments.
Amazon saw its US income taxes fall by more than half last year due to the GOP law, even as the company's profits grew. Unrig Our Economy noted that Amazon, whose PAC donated thousands to the Republicans spotlighted in the new report, has an effective federal tax rate of 1.37% following enactment of the budget law.
Miller-Meeks, who has received at least $57,000 in donations from the PACs of companies that benefited from the 2025 law, issued a statement Thursday bragging about supporting "the largest tax cuts in American history," not mentioning that the benefits will disproportionately flow to profitable corporations and the richest people in the country.
"Thanks to the Republican tax law, corporations are receiving tax breaks, House Republicans are getting campaign cash, and working families are getting stuck with the bill," the report states.
Another Republican lawmaker featured in the report, Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, received $2,500 in campaign donations from the PAC of FirstEnergy, which reaped $500 million in depreciation deductions thanks to the GOP tax law.
"Bresnahan voted to give FirstEnergy hundreds of millions in tax breaks even after the company raised utility prices for his constituents," Unrig Our Economy's report observes.
The report also points out that Bresnahan "owned stock in every single one" of the companies who contributed PAC money to his campaign following passage of the Republican budget package last summer.
"This comes after Bresnahan has already faced scrutiny for dumping stock in Medicaid providers and selling off bonds in Pennsylvania hospitals before voting to slash Medicaid and put rural hospitals at risk," the report notes.
Leor Tal, Unrig Our Economy's campaign director, said in a statement that "one year ago, House Republicans ripped away healthcare and food assistance from millions of Americans, so that corporations could get massive tax breaks."
"Now, many of those companies are dishing out PAC money to the Republicans listed in this report," said Tal. "Republicans in Congress sold out many of their own constituents to help corporations get even richer. It’s time that House Republicans step up, do the right thing, and start fighting for working Americans—not giant corporations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In First 2026 Senate Endorsement, AOC Backs El-Sayed in Crucial Michigan Race
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El-Sayed said.
Jul 02, 2026
As the progressive movement builds its momentum in Democratic primaries, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued her first endorsement in a competitive Senate primary on Thursday, throwing her support behind Dr. Abdul El-Sayed as he battles for the party's Senate nomination in Michigan.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a likely 2028 presidential candidate and one of the most popular figures among the Democratic base, is perhaps the biggest player yet to back El-Sayed, the former public health director for Detroit, who polls currently show leading the more establishment-friendly Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8).
The primary, which will take place on August 4, will determine who faces Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in a race that could decide whether Democrats flip the Senate in November.
AOC's support for El-Sayed—who has championed Medicare for All, an arms embargo against Israel, raising taxes on the wealthy, and overturning Citizens United—puts her at odds with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has backed Stevens, and with other progressive Democrats like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) who prefer McMorrow.
However, El-Sayed has his own share of high-profile supporters, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), as well as a host of progressive House members, including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
“Despite our ideological differences and whatever disagreements there are in the party, every single one of us sees this moment as existential,” Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times. “And I think many people are willing to put aside differences in order to give us the best chance at winning. And I think that Abdul gives us that right now.”
Though he appears to be in the driver’s seat with just over a month before the August 4 Michigan primary, El-Sayed still faces a perilous path to the nomination that AOC’s endorsement may help him to weather.
While El-Sayed has sworn off big money donors, Stevens—the candidate closest behind him—is armed with more than $16 million in super PAC spending, including millions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) political spending arm, the United Democracy Project, which has begun to blanket the airwaves with ads boosting Stevens, who also has the backing of nearly 100 other corporate PACs representing the health insurance industry, Wall Street banks, fossil fuels, and Big Tech, among others.
The alliance between AOC and El-Sayed is nearly a decade in the making. Fresh off the stunning primary upset that led her to Congress in 2018, she endorsed the doctor's then-longshot bid to become governor of Michigan.
Sharing a photo of the two at a campaign event eight years prior, El-Sayed celebrated AOC as someone who "has spent her career taking on the powerful on behalf of everyday people, and she has shown all of us what courageous, smart, values-driven leadership looks like."
He added that she "has changed the trajectory of American politics and inspired a generation to believe that government really can work for working people."
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El Sayed said.
Indeed, that movement has been winning of late.
AOC's endorsement of El-Sayed comes after three House candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—including multiple self-identified democratic socialists—cruised to victory over establishment Democrats in their primaries last week.
This week showed that the left-wing insurgency was underway nationwide, with 29-year-old democratic socialist Melat Kiros stunning longtime Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado's primary.
Pollster Adam Carlson said that El-Sayed's race in Michigan will go a long way towards demonstrating the extent to which AOC and her movement truly have reshaped the political landscape.
“If El-Sayed wins the primary and the general election in the swingiest of swing states, ahead of 2028,” he said, “it would give the progressive wing of the party a proof of concept that the conventional wisdom of 'more moderate equals more electable' has some serious holes in it, at least in the second Trump era.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Disaster for Democracy': Report Shows Surging Corporate Spending in 2026 Elections
"The intense escalation of corporate spending we are now seeing shows that it is well past time for salvaging American democracy to be treated with the urgency that it deserves."
Jun 30, 2026
As the right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court on Tuesday handed down a 6-3 ruling that campaign finance reform advocates warned would give special interest groups and rich donors yet another way to curry favor with politicians, a new report from government watchdog Public Citizen revealed how "corporate supremacist" groups have already set records for spending in this year's midterm elections.
There are still more than four months to go until the general election, but according to "The Rise of Corporate Supremacist Super PACs,” by research director Rick Claypool, this campaign cycle accounts for nearly one-third of all corporate political spending since the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling.
That decision has enabled corporations and groups including super political action committees (PACs) to spend unlimited money on elections, and in the 2026 cycle alone, they have already spent $517 million—"a figure sure to soar as the November general election approaches," said Public Citizen.
"These totals reference disclosed political spending, not any contributions from dark money organizations that keep donors secret," the group emphasized.
The amount spent this year by Big Tech, fossil fuel companies, the cryptocurrency industry, and other sectors whose bottom lines could benefit from lax government regulations represents a sizable chunk of the $1.58 billion that corporations have spent on federal elections since 2010.
The 2024 election cycle saw $461 million poured into campaigns by corporations, a sum that dwarfed previous corporate political spending.
Public Citizen released its report as the Supreme Court ruled in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, striking down regulations that for decades have restricted political parties from coordinating campaign spending with candidates.
The report offered more evidence that the high court "has reorganized America for the worse," said law professor Zephyr Teachout.
Four industries—crypto, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting companies—have spent $294 million collectively to influence the elections, said Public Citizen, accounting for 57% of the corporate spending.
In 2024, the crypto sector pioneered the playbook corporations are using this year—"prioritizing corporate priorities over parties or candidates and using their financial power to discipline sitting lawmakers and candidates."
PACs including the pro-AI Leading the Future and the sports betting industry-backed Win for America PAC are some of the top recipients of the corporate case, taking $50.1 million and $43 million, respectively.
A Win for America spokesperson told Axios in April that the super PAC's backers "seek candidates who will thoughtfully approach regulation and ensure legal sports betting can continue to support communities through billions in tax revenue and jobs across America," while Josh Vlasto of the pro-crypto PAC Fairshake said in 2025 that the committee is "building an aggressive, targeted strategy for next year to ensure that pro-crypto voices are heard in key races across the country.”
Claypool said the report shows that "a decade and a half after Citizens United, corporations are starting to spend on politics like never before."
"This corporate spending is a disaster for democracy," he said. "If the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged—and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people—these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks.”
Behind the "corporate supremacist super PACs," reads the report, the biggest beneficiary of corporate spending is the President Donald Trump-supporting MAGA Inc., which has received $120.6 million in direct contributions from companies including Crypto.com, UnitedHealthcare, and Energy Transfer Partners.
The report comes two weeks after campaigners in Montana announced they had collected signatures that far exceeded the minimum requirement to force a statewide vote on a ballot measure that, if passed, would block corporations from pouring money into elections.
"Time and time again, Americans have demonstrated they want elected officials who are willing to stand up for them against the powerful and predatory corporations that attempt to dominate our daily lives," reads the Public Citizen report. "Lawmakers can demonstrate their fearlessness and independence from corporate influence by passing legislation that empowers the public while reducing the influence of Big Business demands to prioritize profit-maximization over Americans’ health, safety, and democracy."
The group called on Congress to pass the "Abolish Super PACs Act, the DISCLOSE Act, and, ultimately, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United."
"The intense escalation of corporate spending we are now seeing," concludes the report, "shows that it is well past time for salvaging American democracy to be treated with the urgency that it deserves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Gift to Billionaires, Supreme Court Buys Vance's Argument Against Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Rule
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens," said one democracy defender.
Jun 30, 2026
Just days after Vice President JD Vance suggested that if Watergate happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone end a presidency, the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Tuesday embraced the Republican's argument against a 1974 campaign finance rule that Congress passed in response to the seismic scandal.
Specifically, the court struck down restrictions on political parties coordinating campaign spending with candidates. The ruling is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Vance, then a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio; Steve Chabot, then a GOP congressman from the same state; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and its House counterpart.
The high court had previously upheld the rule in 2021, but as with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations and ultrarich individuals via super political action committees (PACs), the majority cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution in its 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC. The three liberals dissented.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at the group Issue One, stressed that Tuesday's decision opening up "a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates" is part of "a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, similarly declared that "the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court thinks Citizens United didn't go far enough. Today they gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us."
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens in our democracy," Edkins asserted, calling on Congress to add more members to the court once President Donald Trump finishes his second term in 2029.
"Congress should rein in this rogue court once Trump leaves office by enacting major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court with justices who will defend our democracy and our fundamental freedoms," he said.
In the meantime, Americans will have to contend with the new ruling in the November midterms as well as the next presidential cycle in 2028.
Along with calling out a high court that yet again "twisted the First Amendment to help billionaires and corporations buy our elections and bend our government to their will," Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger argued Tuesday that "we have to combat this outcome by increasing transparency so voters know who’s paying for election ads, empowering small donors and public matching funds, and passing the Democracy For All Amendment to empower Congress, the states, and the voters to put in place reasonable protections to guard against campaign finance corruption."
The ruling came as Public Citizen released a report documenting the historic $517 million in corporate spending on the 2026 cycle so far—money that has largely gone to "industry-prioritizing super PACs" and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc.
Democratic Party leaders, who hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress this November, also ripped the new ruling.
In a joint statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who lead the party's campaign arms for each chamber, called it "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption."
"Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away healthcare and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November—which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers," they said.
"Democrats are fighting back for the American people," the trio added, "and in November, voters will reject Republicans' toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Montana Plan' Targeting Corporate Money in Politics Secures Enough Signatures for Ballot
"More than 500 Montanans gathered signatures in all 56 counties, without a single paid signature gatherer, and blew past the 30,121 signatures needed to qualify. That is what grassroots democracy looks like."
Jun 16, 2026
In a direct challenge to the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and a potential model for the rest of the nation, Montana campaigners announced Tuesday that they had collected nearly 20,000 more signatures than required to force a statewide vote in November on a ballot measure to block corporations from dumping money into elections.
The high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision opened the floodgates for companies and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on US politics. If approved by voters, "The Montana Plan," as advocates in the state are calling the legal strategy behind the proposed Initiative 194, would "stop corporate and dark money cold" in Big Sky Country.
Initiative 194 would bar "artificial persons," including "nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, corporations, trade associations, or unincorporated associations," from "contributing anything of value to candidate elections, supporting or opposing political parties, or supporting or opposing state or local ballot issues." Violators would be "punished by forfeiting all privileges to do business in Montana."
The Transparent Election Initiative in March got the go-ahead to start collecting signatures to put the initiative on the ballot, and as of Tuesday, TEI's all-volunteer campaign had collected nearly 50,000 across all 56 counties, "far surpassing Montana's 30,121-signature statewide qualification threshold." As of last week, the Montana Secretary of State had already verified 34,906 of them.
"This campaign has been powered by Montanans from the very beginning," said Jeff Mangan, TEI's founder, in a statement. "To the out-of-state corporate and special interests trying to spread disinformation about who we are and what we're trying to accomplish: Look at the power of this volunteer army."
"More than 500 Montanans gathered signatures in all 56 counties, without a single paid signature gatherer, and blew past the 30,121 signatures needed to qualify," he noted. "That is what grassroots democracy looks like."
Mangan, a former Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, also acknowledged that "we know the road to November will be a tough fight."
Already, the campaign secured a key legal victory earlier this year, when the Montana Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge filed by "a group of corporations and industry groups—comprising the Montana Mining Association, the Montana Chamber of Commerce, Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Petroleum Association, Montana Trucking Association, Montana Contractors Association, Treasure State Resource Association and Billings and Kalispell’s respective chambers of commerce," as the Daily Montanan reported in April.
Mangan said Tuesday that "this is David versus Goliath. Corporate and special interests are going to spend millions of dollars on TV ads, mailers, and scare tactics trying to make Montanans afraid of their own power. But the way we win is the same way we got here: real Montanans, in real communities, having real conversations."
"Over the next six months, we're going to be everywhere—answering questions, sharing the facts, and looking voters in the eye," he pledged. "The Montana Plan is about a simple principle: Real people should govern, not artificial persons created on paper. A vote for The Montana Plan (I-194) is a vote to put Montanans back in charge of Montana elections."
TEI's announcement came a month after Democratic Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signed into law a bill that also takes aim at the infamous ruling that corporations are effectively people in terms of political spending—legislation that Michael Beckel, who directs the Money in Politics project for the advocacy group Issue One, also called a "model for the country."
At the federal level, progressives have repeatedly introduced bills that would abolish super political action committees (PACS) and overturn the Citizens United decision—though, at least until the November election, both chambers are controlled by the GOP.
"Corporations are not people and money is not speech," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) stressed while introducing a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling last year. "In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country—this year, with a billionaire paying millions to buy a seat as Shadow President."
"My We the People Amendment hands power back to the people," she explained, "by finally ending corporate constitutional rights, reversing Citizens United, and ensuring that our democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
88 Corporations That Paid No US Federal Income Tax in 2025 Spent $852 Million on Recent Lobbying, Elections
"The result," said the author of a new Public Citizen analysis, "is a self-reinforcing loop where corporate cash buys policy, and policy pays cash back."
Jun 11, 2026
Eighty-eight corporations that paid no federal income tax last year spent roughly $852 million on US campaign contributions and lobbying during recent election cycles, a report published Thursday revealed.
The report, "The Current Price of Zero," was authored by Eileen O'Grady, a researcher at Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. The publication draws upon an analysis published in April by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showing that at least 88 of the nation’s largest companies paid no federal corporate income tax in fiscal year 2025, despite reporting combined US pretax income of around $105 billion.
"Using data from OpenSecrets, which compiles and publishes campaign finance and lobbying data, we found that from the 2020 election cycle through the 2024 cycle, these 88 companies have spent nearly $852 million on lobbying and campaign contributions," O'Grady wrote. "We highlight the companies that spent the most money on lobbying, hired the most lobbyists, lobbied specifically on tax issues, and contributed the most cash to political campaigns."
The federal corporate income tax rate is 21%, indicating that the 88 companies in the report dodged a combined $22.1 billion in taxes last year. Additionally, they received $4.7 billion in tax rebates, bringing their total tax breaks to approximately $26.7 billion.
“The largest and richest corporations in the country are paying zero in federal income tax, and that is a slap in the face to the American taxpayers who are struggling to afford necessities like groceries and healthcare,” O’Grady said in a statement.
"Meanwhile, these companies are spending money that could have gone to the public good on lobbying for even more special advantages and tax breaks," she added. "In this backwards, cash-fueled system, the deck is being stacked ever higher in favor of corporations, and against working people.”
The report's key findings include:
- The 88 corporations that paid no federal corporate income tax in 2025 spent $712 million on lobbying and $140 million on campaign contributions over the last three election cycles;
- Comparing the taxes the corporations saved against the cost of their political spending, they collectively made a 3,000% return on investment;
- Coinbase Global spent the most of any company—$89 million—followed by CVS Health ($66 million), Honeywell International ($56 million), American Electric Power ($47 million), and Duke Energy ($35 million);
- On average each year, these companies together have sent 1,119 lobbyists to influence the federal government, including on tax issues and legislation that changed the tax code in favor of corporate giveaways; and
- Since the beginning of 2025, these companies have collectively laid off at least 21,200 workers and announced plans to lay off thousands more.
"Our findings suggest that while Republicans lawmakers rewrote the tax code to enshrine massive giveaways to wealthy corporations, those same corporate tax dodgers poured millions into lobbying and political campaigns that yielded further tax breaks, which in turn has bankrolled even more political influence," O'Grady wrote. "The result is a self-reinforcing loop where corporate cash buys policy, and policy pays cash back."
The report singles out two related pieces of legislation—President Donald Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law by Trump last July 4—which enabled "several common strategies the companies used to get tax breaks and rebates."
"The most commonly used corporate tax giveaway, accelerated depreciation, enabled more than half of the companies to collectively avoid $11.4 billion in taxes by allowing them to write off capital investments immediately," O'Grady noted.
"In addition, a tax break supercharged under the Big Ugly Law allowed more than 30 companies to immediately write off research and development expenses, which alone netted them at least $4.4 billion in savings," she added, using a common liberal epithet for the OBBBA.
Since the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling—which affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment—nearly $20 billion has been spent on US presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
Ultrawealthy and corporate megadonors played a critical role in Trump’s 2024 victory. Fossil fuel interests spent more than $445 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign donations, lobbying, and other efforts to elect Trump and his Republican allies, plus pass policies that benefit their climate-wrecking businesses. Artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency are fast emerging as some of the most prolific lobbyists. Trump and Republicans in Congress have promoted policies and legislation boosting these sectors and shielding them from government regulation.
Elon Musk—the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and majority owner of X who could soon become the world's first trillionaire—is the most prominent of the numerous Trump donors who have been rewarded with Cabinet nominations and other key appointments in “an administration dominated by billionaires and corporate interests,” as Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass described it.
O'Grady wrote that "corporate tax dodgers spend lavishly on lobbying and campaign contributions that feed into more tax breaks, which in turn fund even more political spending on policies that serve to pad corporate profits—and the cycle continues."
To remedy this, the report asserts: "It is imperative that Congress undo the Republican tax giveaways to corporations like bonus depreciation and research and development write-offs. In addition, the corporate rate must be increased to at least the 35% rate that stood before the 2017 law."
"Corporations should not be able to deduct multimillion-dollar bonuses. And Congress must prevent multinational corporations from avoiding taxes by booking profits in offshore subsidiaries by equalizing the domestic and international tax rates," the publication concludes. "With these and other reforms to our tax code, our nation could have more than enough revenue to breinvest in American communities and make life more affordable for everyone. It’s time to finally put people over corporate profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
El-Sayed Takes Aim at Opponents’ AIPAC, For-Profit Insurance Donations in Michigan Senate Debate
"My votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them," said Abdul El-Sayed.
May 29, 2026
At Thursday evening's Democratic primary debate on Mackinac Island, Michigan, former public health official and US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed suggested the three contenders play a game: "If you're on the stage and you have never taken a corporate PAC check from Blue Cross Blue Shield, raise your hand."
The progressive Medicare for All advocate put his hand up, while his two opponents—US Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow—looked on.
El-Sayed's challenge on campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry followed McMorrow's comment that "people can't afford to wait for a revolution that may never come"—a remark on progressives' push to expand the existing Medicare program to the entire population that, as journalist David Sirota said, appeared recycled nearly verbatim from former US presidential candidate "Hillary Clinton's talking points from a decade ago."
The people of Michigan are sick and tired of politicians who tell us what we can't have and shouldn't fight for...
We can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare. pic.twitter.com/AoqNVoI4zl
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) May 28, 2026
"Well, I'll tell you this, the revolution is definitely not coming if we're not fighting for it," El-Sayed said in response to McMorrow. "Anyway, all of that is to say, I think we really can fight for a world where everybody can be guaranteed healthcare."
"It is important for us to recognize that all of these issues go back to how we finance campaigns," he added.
According to state and federal campaign finance records, Stevens' US House campaign took $2,500 from Blue Cross Blue Shield's political action committee (PAC) last year, while McMorrow took $5,500 from the PAC over the course of six years.
"The only reason we do not have Medicare for All," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has endorsed El-Sayed, "is the corruption of private health insurance money and Democrats who have been unwilling to fight for it."
One observer pointed to a recent poll showing 65% of voters support a Medicare for All system, and emphasized that "the revolution in healthcare is here despite what Mallory McMorrow thinks."
"We just need dedicated fighters like Abdul El-Sayed to make it a reality," they said.
Along with campaign donations from the for-profit healthcare industry, the topic of the powerful but increasingly toxic pro-Israel lobby came up when moderator Nolan Finley asked the candidates how they decide "how much influence" their donors have "over what you do, how you cast your vote."
"Haley Stevens, you take money from [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee]," said Finley. "Walk us through what that money means, and what it buys, and maybe what it doesn't buy."
Stevens responded by expressing her gratitude to various people whom she said had donated to her Senate campaign, including "grocery store workers" and "retired teachers," as well as pointing to political leaders who have endorsed her candidacy—but said nothing in reply to Finley's direct question about how she might be influenced by the more than $5.4 million she's received from pro-Israel lobby groups, including AIPAC, over her political career.
During a Michigan Democratic Senate debate, moderator Nolan Finley calls out Haley Stevens for completely dodging a question on how AIPAC's support of her campaign could influence her votes in the Senate.
"You're also just not answering the question." pic.twitter.com/3dGpQJ6F5R
— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) May 29, 2026
El-Sayed confronted Stevens for "just not answering the question" before offering his view on what AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby donations "buys" from lawmakers.
Such contributions ultimately pay for "$3.5 billion sent to a foreign military that can be used here to give classes here, to provide healthcare here, to build schools here," said El-Sayed, referring to the military funding the US provides to Israel each year—including at least $16.3 billion the government has sent to Israel since it began its assault on Gaza in October 2023, helping the Israel Defense Forces to kill more than 75,000 Palestinians as the country blocked humanitarian aid and destroyed over 90% of residential buildings.
Resources for Michigan and other US states, said El-Sayed, is "where our money should be used.”
As The Detroit News reported Thursday, AIPAC has not directly sent donations to Stevens' campaign during the Senate election, but has instead appealed to its direct donors to also send contributions to Stevens.
More than 30% of donors who gave at least $200 to Stevens' campaign also donated to AIPAC since the beginning of 2025, according to The Detroit News' investigation—"well above her current primary opponents and her own benchmarks from prior US House bids."
AIPAC's apparent effort to direct its supporters to also back Stevens is legal under campaign finance law, but Ryan Grim of Drop Site News argued that the group's use of "obvious backdoor vehicles to move money to Haley Stevens only ends up making her look more corrupt."
AIPAC is hosting a fundraising page on its website, "paid for and authorized by Stevens' campaign," according to The Detroit News, while ensuring its name is not attached to the donations that are sent to the candidate through the page. Since Israel began attacking Gaza, approval of both the Israeli government and AIPAC have plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
Ahead of the debate, Stevens took umbrage at being asked about AIPAC's efforts to direct contributions to her campaign.
“I’m not breaking [Federal Elections Communications] laws by any stretch of the means," said Stevens. "Look, why would you ask me that question, first of all?”
Haley Stevens when pressed about AIPAC quietly funneling a massive chunk of donations to her camping and tens of millions of outside expenditures:
"Why would you ask me that question?" 💀 pic.twitter.com/LGGBeU9bJK
— umichvoter (@umichvoter) May 28, 2026
At the debate on Thursday, El-Sayed—who has rejected donations from corporate PACs—explained "what would absolutely not shape my perception" should he win the US Senate race.
"It's AIPAC money, which is being spent already in this race to pump up one of my colleagues on this stage," said El-Sayed. "I'm the only candidate today who didn't ask AIPAC for their support. I don't think that our taxpayer dollars which we pay every April ought to be going to bomb children, to fund bombs and tanks for other countries, when we got kids who can't afford basic things in our own."
Should he be elected to the Senate, he said on social media, "my votes will never be influenced by AIPAC or any corporate PAC because I don't take money from them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Crypto, AI Industries Setting Up ‘Pop-Up Super PACs’ to Defeat Big Tech Critics in Dem Primaries
The goal of these political action committees, explained one journalist, is to make sure voters “never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens.”
May 22, 2026
Corporate interests are meddling in Democratic primaries by setting up what are being described as "pop-up super PACs" aimed at taking down candidates who are critical of Big Tech.
During a Friday episode of The Intercept Briefing podcast, political reporter Matt Sledge outlined how US campaign finance law allows for moneyed interests to swoop into political campaigns at the last minute and flood the airwaves with misleading ads about progressive candidates.
Specifically, Sledge said that Big Tech-affiliated groups have figured out how to "game campaign finance deadlines and create super PACs, or political action committees, to funnel money to other super PACs so that reporting deadlines are missed."
As a result, said Sledge, these “pop-up super PACs" can bombard voters with last-minute propaganda in the closing days of campaigns—and voters will "never find out who is funding ads before a campaign happens."
"Some of these newer industries that are getting in on the campaign spending game, like crypto and artificial intelligence, are also setting up entire networks of super PACs," Sledge added, "sometimes a mama or a papa super PAC, and then a Democratic-affiliated super PAC and a Republican-affiliated super PAC so that both donors can channel their money to one party affiliate and to make it a little harder for voters to track where all the money is coming from."
A Thursday report from Politico documented how a mysterious super PAC called Lead Left has been been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit Maureen Galindo, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Texas who has been broadly condemned for comments about transforming a local immigration detention facility into a "prison for American Zionists."
Democrats have accused GOP-backed interests of funding Lead Left, which they say is misleadingly posing as a progressive organization, to boost the prospects of fringe candidates such as Galindo.
In a video posted to social media on Friday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) noted that members of his caucus from across the ideological spectrum had condemned Galindo, and said that "Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy."
"This candidate is being propped up by a Republican shadowy super PAC to elevate her in the primary," Jeffries said, "because they know she'll be an incredibly weak general election candidate."
People of goodwill have forcefully rejected the antisemitic and anti-American candidate in the TX-35 run-off.
Republicans must immediately stop boosting her candidacy. pic.twitter.com/CUFhqvEdLQ
— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) May 22, 2026
According to Politico, such operations have been occurring throughout the country.
"Shady PACs have become a staple of the cycle, and modern campaigns generally," Politico reported. "In two House special elections last year in Virginia and Arizona, pop-up PACs spent on ads and avoided having to disclose who was behind them until after primary contests were complete. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has used shell PACs to shield its involvement in some races this year. Another group, Real Change PAC, started spending in New Jersey’s 7th District on Wednesday."
Last week, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, accusing Lead Left of both "strategically gaming federal reporting deadlines to avoid disclosing the sources of its election spending," while also violating "federal campaign finance laws requiring full transparency about the recipients of that spending" in a scheme to conceal "crucial information about how it is spending its money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Condemning 'Corruption' of Susan Collins, End Citizens United Endorses Platner in Maine
"Unlike Graham, who rejects corporate PAC money and refuses to sell out, Sen. Collins has never met a corporate PAC check she didn't like," said the head of End Citizens United.
May 13, 2026
Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, continues to rake in endorsements, and on Wednesday won support from End Citizens United, which advocates for reversing the US Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending in elections.
The oyster farmer and military combat veteran launched his campaign last August with an advertisement declaring that "billionaires" and "the oligarchy" are "the enemy." He has run on campaign finance reform, taxing the rich, Medicare for All, ending "pointless wars" and President Donald Trump's "deportation machine," tackling the childcare crisis, supporting public schools, boosting unions, raising wages, and defending democracy as well as "our air, our water, our land, and our climate."
"Graham Platner understands that people in Maine are fed up watching the same politicians make promises while life keeps getting more expensive and nothing changes," said End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller in a statement. "He's running a campaign rooted in the belief that Washington will never work for working families as long as billionaires, corporations, and special interests are able to buy access and influence at the highest levels of government."
Platner has joined End Citizens United's "Unrig Washington" program, which advocates for a ban on congressional stock trading, refusing corporate political action committee (PAC) contributions, and cracking down on dark money.
"Unlike Graham, who rejects corporate PAC money and refuses to sell out, Sen. Collins has never met a corporate PAC check she didn't like," Muller said of the five-term senator. "She has spent decades rewarding her biggest donors in exchange for campaign contributions. We’re proud to endorse Graham, and we look forward to helping expose Sen. Collins' corruption."
Platner collected $4.1 million from small donors in the first quarter of 2026, and polling has given him an edge over both Collins and Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her primary campaign late last month, citing a lack of financial resources.
"The race has never really been about me or any one person," Platner said after Mills' exit. "It's about a movement of working Mainers who are fed up with being robbed by billionaires and the politicians who own them. We are now taking back our power."
The Democrat delivered a similar message about building "a movement to get money out of politics" and "a government that represents working people" in a Wednesday statement welcoming support from a group that's long worked to overturn the 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
"We don't take a dime of corporate PAC money, and we're going to keep it that way, because our politics has been bought and paid for by billionaires for far too long," Platner said. "It's long past time to overturn Citizens United and take on establishment politicians like Susan Collins, who have enriched the ultrawealthy and themselves on the backs of working people in this country. I'm grateful to be endorsed by End Citizens United and to have their support in this fight."
In addition to taxing billionaires and getting money out of politics, Platner has taken aim at the Supreme Court—which has had some turnover since 2010, and since then faced rising public scrutiny for justices' ethics concerns as well as recent decisions from the right-wing supermajority.
Platner said last month that "if we held Supreme Court justices to the same standards that we held federal judges, there is a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two"—likely referring to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who have come under fire for covertly accepting gifts from billionaires.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Astonishing Stat’: Billionaires Gave Nearly 20% of Donations in 2024 US Federal Elections
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through... political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," said an elections expert.
Mar 09, 2026
Billionaires exerted an unprecedented amount of influence over the 2024 US federal elections, accounting for almost one-fifth of the nearly $16 billion spent to elect candidates during that cycle, according to a New York Times analysis published Monday.
Just 300 billionaires and their immediate families poured an unprecedented $3 billion into the election, either giving directly to candidates or through political action committees.
These individuals represent just about 0.0087% of the 3.46 million people who donated more than $200 to one or multiple candidates during the election cycle.
And yet, with an average donation of $10 million apiece—equivalent to what 100,000 typical donors would give—they amounted to about 19% of all spending, allowing their interests to be pushed to the center of major races.
The Times highlighted the extraordinary role that billionaire fundraisers played in pushing Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) over the finish line in his bid to unseat the three-term incumbent Democrat, then-Sen. Jon Tester.
Sheehy's long shot campaign was given a boost by Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, who donated $8 million to his super PAC after previously investing $150 million in the candidate's struggling firefighting business, which helped seed his campaign.
As the report explains, Schwarzman "was not the only financial heavyweight in Mr. Sheehy’s corner":
At least 64 billionaires and 37 of their immediate family members donated directly to his campaign, a New York Times analysis found. When also accounting for money that flowed through political committees that support Mr. Sheehy, an analysis shows that billionaires contributed about $47 million in the race that Mr. Sheehy went on to win.
Sheehy's campaign drew support from a who's who of GOP power brokers: Jeff Yass, the founder of the Pennsylvania-based trading firm Susquehanna International Group and a major funder of Trump's massive White House ballroom project; the Uihlein family, which owns Uline shipping and has been central to backing anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, and election-denialist causes; and Florida hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, who spent $12 million to stop an initiative in the state to legalize marijuana.
In installing Sheehy, the ultrawealthy bought themselves "a key ally on tax policies that benefit the wealthy" who "cosponsored a proposal to eliminate the estate tax," the Times reported.
While billionaires still have their talons in both political parties, the Times noted a distinct shift toward Republicans in 2024—for every one dollar given to Democrats, five went to the GOP in the election.
Trump, who openly begged for donations from oil tycoons on the campaign trail, was the single largest beneficiary of this avalanche of spending.
According to a study by Americans for Tax Fairness in October 2024, less than a month before election day, Trump had already received $450 million from 150 billionaire families, 75% of their $600 million total to major candidates, and three times Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's $143 million.
By the end of the campaign, Trump and his affiliated PACs would amass more than $250 million from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and more than $100 million from both the pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson and the banking heir Timothy Mellon, according to OpenSecrets.
Trump has since appointed more than a dozen billionaires to administration positions, including Musk, who was tasked with eviscerating public spending as the de facto head of the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE).
But as the Times reported, "Many of those billionaires are not only hoping to reshape the federal government... but to win influence in state legislatures, city councils, school boards, and courthouses."
"Ultrawealthy donors... have helped overhaul political leadership and policy in states across the country, expanding private charter schools, restricting abortion rights, advancing artificial intelligence in government, and blocking laws that would make it harder to evict tenants," the report explained.
As the 2026 midterm cycle begins, another spending blitz is coming. As the Times reported last month, the artificial intelligence industry, crypto industry, the pro-Israel lobby, and Trump's super PAC have each amassed war chests of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to help elect their allies to Congress.
Silicon Valley billionaires, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, meanwhile,have collectively dumped tens of millions into stopping a proposal in California for a one-time 5% tax on billionaires in the state, which would replace Medicaid funding slashed by Republicans' massive budget law last year.
The explosion in spending by the ultrarich has come quickly. Where billionaires spent just $16.6 million to influence the 2008 election cycle, that number has steadily ballooned up to $3 billion in 2024, a more than 12,000% increase when adjusted for inflation.
Daniel Weiner, the director of the Brennan Center for Justice's elections and government program, said that the "astonishing stat" was a "legacy of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision" in 2010, which allowed billionaire-funded dark money groups to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political communication advocating for candidates.
"The resulting collapse of campaign finance rules has combined with a resurgence in the sort of high-level self-dealing that was pervasive during the Gilded Age, when bribery and graft were common, and corporations used their wealth to secure monopolies, government subsidies, and other benefits," Weiner wrote for TIME on Monday.
"As in the past, the question now is who will offer Americans a real alternative, including a commitment to stamp out self-dealing in all three branches of the government," he said, recommending a constitutional amendment to restore campaign finance limits tossed aside by the Supreme Court, a ban on spending by government contractors seeking contracts, and bans on congressional stock trading.
"For a representative democracy like ours to work, citizens must have some confidence that, through voting and other forms of political engagement, they have a fighting chance to turn their priorities into government policy," he concluded. "Far too many Americans have lost that faith, and they identify pervasive corruption at the top of our government as a big part of the reason. But cycles of corruption followed by reform are an enduring feature of American history. A new round of ambitious reform is overdue."
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