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
'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
The Rotten Stench of Elon Musk's Political Money
The mega-billionaire's promise to spend somewhere between $100 and $120 million on congressional races this year shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It should be recognized as an opportunity.
Aug 03, 2026
Elon Musk will be spending $100 million to $120 million in at least eight states to help elect Republicans in November, according to The New York Times.
Musk’s spending is set to begin next month, targeting Senate races in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio, and potentially North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas. Musk will also spend in House races in states including California, Wisconsin, and Washington.
The money won’t be spent only on TV advertising. Musk’s “America PAC” is lining up firms that focus on knocking on voters’ doors. Fake grassroots.
But Musk’s money shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It’s an opportunity.
A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Recall that Musk spent millions of dollars on a pivotal election for Wisconsin’s highest court in April 2025. It pitted Musk’s candidate — Trump-endorsed former Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel — against progressive Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. The winner would determine the supermajority of the court.
Schimel lost, largely due to Musk’s support — which backfired. The public was outraged that the richest person in the world was spending some of his massive wealth on the election. They also recoiled at the wreckage Musk wrought at DOGE. And his unbridled racism.
In Crawford’s victory speech, she acknowledged the significance of Musk’s money to the outcome of the race. “As a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin,” she said. “And we won.”
She described the election as a victory over an “unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” adding “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Musk’s support will backfire again this year, in race after race — if voters know about it.
So let’s make it a kind of smell test for any Republican that Musk and his “America PAC” are supporting. A Republican candidate who stinks of Musk must be presumed to be against average working Americans.
Keep your nose to the ground. If you get a whiff of Musk, alert your family, friends, neighbors, and associates. If they’re even slightly uncertain about whom to support, the Musk test should convince them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Don't Get to Buy the Government That You Want,' Troy Jackson Tells Elon Musk
Musk reportedly plans to spend at least $100 million to help Sen. Susan Collins and other vulnerable Republicans across the United States.
Aug 03, 2026
Troy Jackson, the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Maine, delivered a video response on Sunday to mega-billionaire Elon Musk's plan to spend at least $100 million to aid Sen. Susan Collins and other Republicans in key races across the country.
The New York Times reported that Musk, through his America PAC, intends to "spend $100 million to $120 million on a new field program in at least eight states to help elect Republicans in November." The group, according to the Times, "plans to initially target Senate races in at least five states—Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio—and is having conversations about the contests in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas."
"Apparently Elon Musk has gotten off Twitter long enough to realize that he's got a real problem here in Maine," Jackson, the former president of Maine's Senate, said in a one-minute response to the report on America PAC's spending plans. "The problem is me and you, working to try and get a government that we should have, that we deserve."
"He wants to have people that are totally beholden to him and [President] Donald Trump making sure that we're getting tax cuts for billionaires on the back of our healthcare system, on the back of our hospitals," Jackson continued. "That's what Elon Musk wants. He doesn't care about us. Really doesn't care about Susan. He cares about him. So I would say to you Elon: Maine and really the whole United States doesn't want your dirty money in our politics. You don't get to buy the government that you want. This is about all of us coming together and fighting for the government that we deserve, and you're not in it."
The Times reported that Musk's super PAC is "closely coordinating with an ecosystem of outside groups that are preparing field campaigns, including Americans for Prosperity, which is part of the billionaire Koch brothers’ political network, and the Sentinel Action Fund, another conservative organization."
Musk became the world's first trillionaire earlier this year with the public market debut of SpaceX, whose subsequent decline in market cap pushed his net worth back down to around $690 billion—still the largest individual fortune in the world.
With his intervention in Maine, Musk joins nearly 100 other billionaires who are financially supporting Collins' bid for a sixth US Senate term. Billionaire support has helped give Collins a massive fundraising advantage over Jackson, who was nominated just last month to replace Graham Platner on the general election ballot.
In the two days following his nomination, Jackson raised $2 million from 58,000 donors, including 30,000 new contributors—a major show of small-dollar support.
"We’re all getting crushed out here. Healthcare, housing, heat," Jackson says in his first general election campaign ad, which is set to begin airing this week. “We’ve gotta fight back. We’re all hungry for it. Maine is ready for a change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Stevens Dismisses Concerns About Campaign Finance, Super PAC Funding as 'Educated Issue'
"It can't be overstated how flippant and arrogant Stevens comes off when questioned about $60 million in super PAC spending for her in this race," said one observer.
Jul 31, 2026
With just days to go until the Michigan US Senate primary election, Rep. Haley Stevens, the preferred candidate of several Democratic establishment figures, suggested this week that campaign finance—a top issue in her race against former public health official Abdul El-Sayed—is a niche interest held by "educated" people and not working families, and appeared eager for voters and the press to stop asking her about the roughly $60 million outside groups have poured into the race on her behalf.
"It seems like we got the campaign finance zoomies," the Michigan Democrat told reporters at an event with business leaders in Lansing on Wednesday, appearing mystified at the suggestion that ordinary voters would be interested to know her position on super political action committees, which can raise unlimited money from corporations and other groups and individuals to support a candidate's run, and her significant backing from a super PAC affiliated with the increasingly unpopular American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"My opponent has done a great job talking about campaign finance. It’s an educated issue,” Stevens said, according to a report from Michigan Advance Thursday. “I even had someone who’s got a law degree asking me about some of the campaign finance stuff today. That’s totally fine, but you know what else? These families on paid leave? They need affordable daycare. They need good public schools to go.”
Journalist David Sirota of The Lever said that in what amounts to Steven's "final argument" ahead of the election, the candidate suggested that pro-Israel and other groups' attempt to "buy her a Senate seat—is merely an esoteric 'educated issue' that has nothing to do with corrupt lawmakers creating corrupt policies fueling the affordability crisis."
As Mother Jones reported Friday, about half of the super PAC spending on Stevens' behalf has come from United Democracy Project, which is affiliated with AIPAC, while a large chunk comes from the super PACs A Stronger Michigan and Center Forward.
Those groups have received millions of dollars from PhRHMA, a trade group representing pharmaceutical firms, and UnitedHealth Group—both key players in the for-profit healthcare industry that's raised household costs for families across the country in recent years, with UnitedHealth slashing care expenses for nursing home patients and unlawfully using an artificial intelligence algorithm to deny coverage to people with Medicare Advantage. El-Sayed has notably made Medicare for All a key priority of his campaign.
"The outside spending picture for El-Sayed looks much different," reported Mother Jones. "The biggest individual donor to Fighting for Michigan—El-Sayed’s main outside backer—is the candidate’s father-in-law, a nephrologist at a Detroit hospital who had given $300,000 as of July 15. Overall, the super PAC has expended about $2.8 million—less than one-tenth of what has been spent against El-Sayed by the United Democracy Project alone."
Stevens attempted to shift the focus to her opponent's support from his father-in-law at her meeting with the Lansing Regional Chamber on Wednesday, after she was asked about the record-breaking outside spending in the race by a business leader in the very first question of the event.
But another attendee brought up the issue again later, noting she had not specifically addressed concerns about the groups whose spending her campaign is benefiting from and asking whether she would back a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an El-Sayed supporter, to abolish super PACs.
Stevens was noncommittal once again, suggesting concerns about super PACs are part of "campaign platform" favored by Sanders.
"He’s in the independent party," she added. "I haven’t talked to him about it. I’m not trying to do any division.”
Stevens did allow that she "would love a constitutional amendment to get rid of money in politics and maybe make our elections shorter" and said she had spoken to Republicans about such a proposal.
But one observer said Stevens' overall message that the financing of her campaign is an issue only voters with "a law degree" are interested in was "flippant and arrogant."
Stevens has benefited from millions in AIPAC-backed super PAC spending as public approval has plummeted regarding the powerful pro-Israel lobby and the United States' funding of Israel's military, after nearly three years of the Israel Defense Forces' assault on Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for the US to join in attacking Iran—a conflict that has also had a direct impact on working families' household budgets as gas prices have soared.
On Thursday, Stevens took direct aim at El-Sayed, a Muslim, for his focus on AIPAC during the campaign, addressing him in a lengthy post on X in which she said, "Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans."
The remark was widely condemned as "race-baiting," and interpreted as one that conflated Jewish Americans with the pro-Israel lobby.
"When someone points out AIPAC is spending $50 million, it’s presented as 'blaming Jewish Americans,'" said podcast host Adam Johnson. "I hate this shit so much, it’s gross, it’s bad faith, it’s sleazy, and it’s more manipulative, crybully smarm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sports Betting Giants Join Unprecedented Corporate Efforts to Buy 2026 Midterms
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee said the new spending was yet another reason “it’s time to get money out of politics.”
Jul 29, 2026
As corporations spend record sums to influence this November's elections, new campaign finance data shows a powerful new interest fueling the trend: sports gambling companies.
FanDuel, DraftKings, and others in the sports betting industry have spent $72 million seeking to influence the upcoming election cycle, according to a report from Reuters on Tuesday.
The industry's historic spending blitz faces growing scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and seeks to protect its turf against rising competitors in the prediction market business, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which are financially tied to the Trump administration.
Sports gambling companies have become the third-largest corporate election donor in the country during this cycle behind just the technology and cryptocurrency sectors, according to a June report by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. These two industries have spent over $100 million promoting their interests in the upcoming midterms.
That same report found that the 2026 election cycle has been influenced by more corporate money than any since 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for companies to spend unlimited sums promoting their preferred candidates via super political action committees (PACs).
These groups are not legally allowed to coordinate with candidates or give them money directly, but are allowed to advocate on their behalf, sometimes spending tens of millions of dollars to run ads aimed at influencing a single race.
As of last month, the report found that corporations have spent $517 million, mainly through super PACs, to influence the 2026 election, accounting for nearly one-third of all corporate election spending since 2010.
According to Reuters, major sportsbooks have channeled their money into the super PAC Win For America, which launched last year, and distributed it to affiliated PACs: the Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and the Democrat-focused American Future.
DraftKings has given at least $34 million to Win for America, FanDuel has given at least $27 million, and Fanatics and the UK-based bet365 have given $5.5 million apiece.
Separately, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM created the Sports Betting Alliance in 2021 to lobby Congress and state legislatures.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring sports betting in most states, at least 39 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized it in some form.
While crypto and tech have directed more attention to federal races, the battles over sports betting are raging mostly at the state level, and that’s where most of Win for America’s focus is going.
According to Reuters:
The money's impact is already evident in some state races.
Win for America spent more than $12 million in Georgia state races through two smaller PACs—Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and Democrat-focused American Future—as the legislature there weighs bills that would legalize gambling, state campaign finance records show.
The money went into 34 legislative races ahead of the primary. All but two of the candidates supported by the industry won, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in May...
Win for America is also spending heavily on races in Pennsylvania, where there was a push to raise taxes on the online sports betting industry to boost state aid for public transportation, election records show.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who introduced legislation in May that would apply the same contribution limits to super PACs that already apply to direct donations, argued that the huge sums spent by the sports betting industry were yet another reason that "it's time to get money out of politics."
"Crypto. Big tech. Now big sports betting," she wrote on social media Wednesday. "Another industry pouring tens of millions into our elections to protect its profits. Democracy shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
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