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
'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
'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
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