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 legal center
'Fuck This Coin': Trump Crypto Gala Admission Price Plummets as Meme Coin Value Down Over 90%
The president and his family made billions off Trump meme coins while investors got fleeced.
Apr 24, 2026
The price to attend Saturday's second "VIP reception" for investors in President Donald Trump's meme coin has plunged nearly as much as the cryptocurrency itself, leaving investors bamboozled and bankrupt.
Meme coins are highly volatile cryptocurrencies inspired by internet memes, jokes, or cultural trends. While many thousands of meme coins are introduced daily, the overwhelming majority of them fail after a short period as influencer-driven hype and investor "FOMO"—fear of missing out—subside.
The president's $TRUMP meme coin debuted just before his January 2025 return to the White House. Its price soared by more than 50% after its website announced last April that the coin’s top 220 investors would be invited to a private gala dinner with the president. The watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) revealed that invitees included dozens of investors in crypto assets named after white supremacist and outright Nazi themes.
However, even then, $TRUMP was already down significantly from its high of over $75 just after its launch. On Friday, it was trading at less than $3, and the top-tier entry price to Saturday's gala at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida is indicative of that precipitous plunge.
Tomorrow, President Trump will host an event for 297 $TRUMP memecoin holders at Mar-a-Lago. It’s the second time in less than a year that the president has offered special access to people who can afford to buy enough of his memecoin—and it’s somehow even worse than the first.🧵
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) April 24, 2026 at 7:36 AM
According to the Financial Times, the 29 premier access attendees of Saturday's event held a median investment of $539,000. That's nearly 84% less than the $3.28 million median investment they had prior to last year's gala. Furthermore, the newspaper reported that many premier access winners have apparently liquidated their $TRUMP holdings since securing their VIP spots.
“Nobody likes it,” Morten Christensen, a crypto investor who went to last year's gala and plans on attending the Mar-a-Lago dinner, told Politico Thursday. “People are losing on the coin, and they are vocal. They are the people on Twitter like, ‘Fuck this coin’ or, ‘It’s a scam.’ And they’re right, basically.”
That's not stopping the gala organizers from touting what they're calling “THE MOST EXCLUSIVE CRYPTO & BUSINESS CONFERENCE IN THE WORLD!”
As Politico reported Thursday:
It is open to the top 297 $TRUMP investors, who will get the chance to hear from an eclectic lineup of speakers that includes several crypto executives, boxing legend Mike Tyson, motivational coach Tony Robbins, and Trump, who will speak during the event’s luncheon, according to promotional materials. He is expected to be in Washington later in the day for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
While $TRUMP investors may be losing big, Trump and his family have made billions of dollars in crypto profits, while the Trump family and the coin's creators raked in $320 million in trading fees, even as the coin's value tanked.
A small group of elite investors has likewise been spared severe losses, including insiders who bought up $MELANIA, First Lady Melania Trump's meme coin, prior to its launch, a practice known as "sniping" that netted them around $100 million, according to the Financial Times.
$MELANIA launched on the eve of Trump's second inauguration and soared to an all-time high of $13.73 on Inauguration Day. It's now trading at $0.12, a 99% dive. Investors subsequently sued $MELANIA's creators, alleging that it's part of a fraudulent "pump-and-dump" scheme in which they manipulated the launch of $MELANIA and other coins in order to enrich themselves while later investors got wiped out.
That's not the only lawsuit targeting the president's family over alleged crypto fraud. Billionaire investor Justin Sun is suing World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm co-founded by Trump and his sons, accusing the company of illegally blocking Sun from selling up to $1 billion worth of digital tokens. Sun said last year that he's the world's largest single holder of the president's meme coin.
Last year, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), as well as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), launched investigations into $TRUMP events.
“He’s normalized his corruption,” Blumenthal said of Trump during a Thursday interview, adding that the Mar-a-Lago gala is “simply another way to generate more money for himself, profiting directly from his office."
Trump—who once said he's "not a fan" of cryptocurrencies, "whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air"—has pushed crypto since returning to office, most notably in a January 2025 executive order calling for the establishment of a working group on digital assets to explore the possibility of creating a “national digit asset stockpile," a top crypto industry wish list item.
“It is literally cashing in on the presidency—creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president’s family in connection with his office,” Campaign Legal Center executive director Adav Noti said last year.
Experts have warned prospective investors about the dangers associated with $TRUMP.
“Two exclusive promotional events offering access to the president created temporary price increases but did not reverse the long-term downward trend,” Marquette University finance professor emeritus David Krause wrote last month.
“With approximately 80% of the token supply controlled by Trump-affiliated entities and over $324 million in trading fees accruing to insiders, the token raises significant questions about the alignment of promotional activities with retail investor protection,” Krause added. “As political meme coins continue to emerge, the $TRUMP token may serve as a cautionary case for the risks of speculative assets tied to political figures.”
Looking forward to Saturday's Mar-a-Lago gathering—which Trump may not even attend, according to small print on the event's website—CREW said Wednesday that "like the first event, Trump will almost certainly host holders of alt-right and racist coins, foreign attendees—including those with potential ties to foreign governments—and people seeking favors."
"This weekend will provide a prime example of the level of corruption and profiteering that no other president would have even dreamt of engaging in, but Trump is comfortable doing so openly," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats File Sweeping Lawsuit to Stop 'Unlawful' Trump Attack on Mail-In Voting
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power."
Apr 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's executive order placing restrictions on mail-in voting in the US is now facing a sweeping lawsuit from the Democratic Party.
In a complaint filed Wednesday with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the Democrats argued that Trump "has tried again and again to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage," this time going after mail voting, which he has baselessly claimed cost him the 2020 presidential election.
The Democrats contended, however, that Trump has no constitutional authority to single-handedly rewrite election laws, noting that the US Constitution explicitly gave states the power to administer their own elections.
"Our Constitution’s framers anticipated this kind of desire for absolute power," the complaint states. "They recognized the menace it would pose to ordered liberty and the ways in which it would corrode self-government like an acid... They left most election authority with the states, permitted state regulations to be displaced only upon the agreement of both chambers of Congress, and established an independent judiciary to repel threats to individual rights."
The complaint then dives into the contents of Trump's order, which it says "seeks to impose radical changes to the manner and conditions under which citizens may cast absentee or mail-in ballots," and would "imminently threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters."
Specifically, the lawsuit argues that Trump is asking the US Postal Service to "take actions unrelated to the agency's statutory mandate that run roughshod over established protections for voters who rely on the mail to exercise their fundamental right" to vote in US elections.
Given that the order doesn't "stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," the complaint continues, "it is an unlawful exercise of authority that must be declared invalid."
A joint statement released by Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), accused Trump of trying to restrict mail-in voting as a last-ditch effort to stop voters from ousting his Republican congressional allies.
"The American people are fed up with Republicans’ price-spiking, healthcare-gutting agenda and are ready to vote them out," they said. "That’s why Donald Trump is desperately trying to rig our elections by making it harder to vote for seniors, Americans with disabilities, members of the military, rural communities, and other working families who rely on vote-by-mail. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, and we will fight against it."
Shortly after the Democrats filed their lawsuit, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund filed a complaint against the Trump executive order on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative, and Arizona Students’ Association.
Danielle Lang, vice president of voting rights and the rule of law at the Campaign Legal Center, said that the suit was necessary to block Trump's "unprecedented" effort to "unconstitutionally assert total authority over our elections."
"Attempts to command the US Department of Homeland Security to work with independent agencies on efforts to disenfranchise eligible voters... are simply unconstitutional and violate long-standing protections for Americans," Lang added.
Elections expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, argued in a Wednesday op-ed for Slate that lawsuits against Trump's executive order would probably prove successful and that it "likely will be found unconstitutional by courts."
However, Hasen also warned that the order could still create enough chaos and uncertainty to throw the outcome of close elections into doubt.
"Trump is engaging in election denialism theater," Hasen explained. "It makes voters of all sides mistrust the election process and the virtues of democracy. It convinces his supporters that Democrats have to cheat to win, something that will come in handy should Democrats take back control of the House in November with the intent of beginning investigations and potentially impeachment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconstitutional Power Grab': Missouri Voters Sue After GOP Passes Rigged Map
"If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives," said plaintiff Terrence Wise.
Sep 12, 2025
Missouri voters sued on Friday after GOP state legislators sent a new congressional map, rigged for Republicans at the request of US President Donald Trump, to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk.
Republicans' pending map for the 2026 midterm elections targets the 5th Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. Voters from the district, including Missouri Workers Center leader Terrence Wise, launched the legal challenge, represented by the Campaign Legal Center along with the state and national ACLU.
"Kansas City has been home for me my entire adult life," said Wise. "Voting is an important tool in our toolbox, so that we have the freedom to make our voices heard through a member of Congress who understands Kansas City's history of racial and economic segregation along the Troost Divide, and represents our needs. If our communities are needlessly split by these new lines, we would no longer see our strong values reflected in the priorities of our congressional representatives."
Marc Elias, the founder of Democracy Docket and an elections attorney for Democrats, also repeatedly vowed this week that "if and when the GOP enacts this map, Missouri will be sued."
"Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
The governor called a special session for the map after Texas Republicans successfully redrew their congressional districts to appease Trump last month. Kehoe said on social media Friday that "the Missouri FIRST Map has officially passed the Missouri Senate and is now headed to my desk, where we will review the legislation and sign it into law soon."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who now leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, warned in a statement that "Missouri is now poised to join North Carolina and Texas as among the most egregiously gerrymandered states in the nation. Missouri Republicans have ignored the demands of their constituents in order to follow the demands of a power-hungry administration in Washington."
"Missouri Republicans rejected a similar gerrymander just three years ago," Holder pointed out. "But now they have caved to anti-democracy politicians and powerful special interests in Washington who ordered them to rig the map. These same forces ripped away healthcare from millions of Americans and handed out a tax cut to the very wealthy."
"Republicans in Congress and the White House are terrified of a system where both parties can compete for the House majority, and instead seek a system that shields them from accountability at the ballot box," he added. "Missourians will not have fair and effective representation under this new, truly shameful gerrymander. It is not only legally indefensible, it is also morally wrong."
As The Kansas City Star reported, Democrats, who hold just 10 of the Missouri Senate's 34 seats, "attempted to block the legislation from coming to a vote through multiple filibusters," but "Republicans deployed a series of rarely used procedural maneuvers to shut down the filibusters and force a vote," ultimately passing the House-approved bill 21-11 on Friday.
"What we're seeing in Jefferson City isn't just a gerrymander, it's a dangerous precedent," said Missouri state Rep. Ray Reed (D-83), who engaged in a sit-in at the House to protest the bill. "Our institutions only work when we respect the process. Skipping debate, shutting out voices, and following orders from Donald Trump undermines the very foundation of our democracy."
Cleaver said in a Friday statement that he was "deeply disappointed" with the state Legislature, and he knows "the people of Missouri share in that disappointment."
"Despite tens of thousands of Missourians taking the time to call their state lawmakers and travel to Jefferson City to voice their opposition," Cleaver said, "Republicans in the Missouri Legislature followed the marching orders dictated by power brokers in DC and took the unprecedented step of enacting mid-decade redistricting without an updated census."
"I want to be very clear to those who are frustrated by today's outcome: This fight is far from over," he added. "Together, in the courts and in the streets, we will continue pushing to ensure the law is upheld, justice prevails, and this unconstitutional gerrymander is defeated."
In addition to court challenges, the new congressional map is also the target of People NOT Politicians, a group behind a ballot measure that aims to overturn it.
"This is nothing less than an unconstitutional power grab—a blatant attempt to rig the 2026 elections before a single vote is cast," Elsa Rainey, a spokesperson for the group, said after the Senate vote. "It violates Missouri law, slices apart communities, and strikes at the core of our democratic system."
During Kehoe's special session, Missouri Republicans also passed an attack on citizen initiative petitions that, if approved by voters, will make it harder to pass future amendments to the state constitution—an effort inspired by GOP anger over progressive victories at the ballot box on abortion rights, Medicaid, and recreational marijuana.
"By calling this special session and targeting citizens' right to access the ballot measure process, Missouri's governor and his allies in the state Legislature are joining a growing national movement dedicated to silencing citizens and undermining our democracy," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project.
The Fairness Project, which advocates for passing progressive policy via direct democracy, earlier this week published a report detailing how "extremist" legislators across the United States are ramping up efforts to dismantle the ballot measure process.
"Sadly, what we are seeing in Missouri is nothing new, but we as Americans should all be horrified by what is happening in Jefferson City and condemn the attempts by this governor and his allies in the Legislature to further erode our cherished democracy," Hall said Friday. "With this special session, extremist politicians in Missouri have declared war on direct democracy and vowed to silence the very citizens they have sworn to represent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdogs Welcome House Introduction of Congressional Stock Trading Ban
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits," said one campaigner.
Sep 03, 2025
Government watchdog groups on Wednesday cheered the bipartisan introduction of the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would ban federal lawmakers, along with their spouses and children, from trading individual stocks.
"The legislation would require lawmakers to sell all individual stocks within 180 days," according to NPR. "Newly elected members of Congress would also have to divest of individual stock holdings before being sworn in. Members who fail to divest would face a fine equivalent to 10% of the value of the stock."
The bill's lead supporters in the House of Representatives span the full ideological spectrum: Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Seth Magaziner (D-Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).
"In a strong display of bipartisanship, leaders from both sides of the aisle in the House have worked together to produce a comprehensive and commonsense legislative measure to ban congressional stock trading," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with the group Public Citizen, which is endorsing the bill.
"These members worked for months in drafting a strong consensus bill that addresses all the key elements of an effective ban on congressional stock trading," he continued, welcoming that the prohibition applies to immediate family members and "covers a wide range of investments, including cryptocurrency, and is fortified with strong enforcement measures."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, also applauded the bill, highlighting that "our representatives in Washington have access to an enormous amount of information about our economy that isn't available to the public."
"They should not be allowed to use what they learn in the course of their legislative duties to gain an unfair advantage and enrich themselves," he said. "It's time to ban sitting members of Congress from buying and selling stocks. Members of Congress cannot be trusted to police themselves, and existing ethics laws do not go far enough to prevent members from using their insider knowledge for personal gain."
Lawmakers behind this new proposal have long advocated for a full ban, arguing that existing protections—including those in the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012—are inadequate.
Advocacy groups, including the Campaign Legal Center, have also "been fighting for years to improve laws regulating the way members of Congress trade stocks," noted Kedric Payne, CLC's vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics.
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits over the public interest," Payne said. "We applaud this bipartisan legislation that incorporates the key provisions of stock act reform CLC has fought to advance—a ban on stock ownership that is enforceable and holds lawmakers accountable."
Jamie Neikrie, legislative director at the political reform group Issue One, pointed out Wednesday that "three years have passed since House leadership made a commitment to bring a congressional stock trading ban bill to the floor for a vote."
"It's time to get this much-needed reform across the finish line—no more excuses," Neikrie declared. "Members of Congress have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and passing the Restore Trust in Congress Act is how Congress shows it's serious about restoring trust and integrity in government."
"Today is a critical step for a more transparent and stronger institution," he added, urging "leadership in both chambers to seize this moment" and send the bill to President Donald Trump's desk.
Earlier this summer, Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who worked with Democrats to advance out of committee a stock trading ban, claiming that "he is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats."
Hawley initially called his proposal the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act—a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose husband's stock trading has drawn scrutiny. After Hawley worked with Democrats on the bill, it was renamed the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions (HONEST) Act.
After the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's July vote, Pelosi said that "while I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service. The HONEST Act, as amended, rightly applies its stock trading ban not only to Members of Congress, but now to the president and vice president as well. I strongly support this legislation and look forward to voting for it on the floor of the House."
Meanwhile, Fox News' Jesse Watters at the time asked Hawley about Trump lashing out at him. The Senate Republican responded, "I had a good chat with the president earlier this evening, and he reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed today."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Advances Bill Banning Politicians From Stock Trading—While Giving Trump a Big Carveout
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
Jul 30, 2025
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear GOP Effort to Further Gut Campaign Finance Law
Watchdogs say the spending coordination limits that Republicans are challenging were put in place to "guard against the corrupting effect of large campaign contributions."
Jun 30, 2025
The Supreme Court is taking up another Republican legal case seeking to erode campaign finance law and give more power to the wealthy donors seeking to influence elections.
On Monday, the court agreed to hear a challenge to campaign finance restrictions which limit the ability of party committees to directly coordinate spending with individual candidates. The anti-corruption group Public Citizen argues that this provision was put in place to "guard against the corrupting effect of large campaign contributions."
The challenge was brought by the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees, as well as the 2022 campaigns of two Ohio Republican congressmen: former Sen. JD Vance, who has since become vice president, and former Rep. Steve Chabot, who lost his re-election bid in 2022.
The case seeks to overturn rules implemented in the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, which put strict limits on the ability of party committees to spend money in coordination with specific candidates. The Democratic National Committee will defend the rule before the court after filing a motion to intervene.
The rules were put in place, in part, to stop wealthy donors from using parties to get around rules about coordinating individual spending with candidates.
Under current law, how much coordinated spending parties can undertake is limited by the population of the state or district in question. At most, parties can coordinate nearly $4 million worth of spending for a single Senate candidate and $127,200 for a single House candidate.
The Republicans bringing the challenge have argued that the limits on coordinated spending violate the First Amendment.
The Campaign Legal Center, which has argued before the court against weakening these rules, has described them as a powerful bulwark against corruption.
"Since the party coordinated spending limits were enacted in the 1970s, these limits have checked the corruptive effect of large contributions flowing through party committees to candidates and prevented the quid pro quo exchanges that such contributions would otherwise facilitate," they wrote last year in a policy page arguing against the GOP challenge.
"Because the limits allow political parties to spend only a prescribed amount of their money in direct coordination with a candidate," the Campaign Legal Center continued, "they moderate the risk that a party committee could effectively pass on every big donation—or six-figure check collected via joint fundraising—to the donor’s chosen candidate in the form of coordinated expenditures."
"This case has nothing to do with the First Amendment and everything to do with Republicans' obsession with creating a government by and for billionaires," said Brett Edkins, a spokesperson for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America.
In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld coordination limits in another case brought by Republicans: FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.
In that case, often described as the Colorado II decision, the majority ruled 5-4 that "a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits."
Since then, however, the Supreme Court has helped the Republican Party chip away at laws that kept powerful donors in check.
Most notably, in the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case, they ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech and that individuals could spend unlimited amounts of money influencing the election process, so long as it was not directly coordinated with candidates and instead done through "independent expenditure only" committees, more commonly known as super PACs.
"In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's abysmal Citizens United decision opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate and billionaire campaign spending, the corruption of American politics has gone from bad to worse," said Jon Golinger, a spokesman for Public Citizen.
Despite the supposed wall of separation, most candidates now rely on super PACs for large amounts of their political communication and organizing. In 2015, a report by Public Citizen titled "Super Connected" found that 45% of super PACs spending over $100,000 directed that spending toward a single candidate.
The amount of election-related corporate spending directed to these largely unaccountable entities has exploded in recent years. According to OpenSecrets, outside spending reached an unprecedented $4.5 billion in the 2024 election, compared with just $555 million in 2008, the last presidential election year before Citizens United.
The top three individual spenders—the Mellon family, Elon Musk, and the Adelson family—spent a combined $369 million to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
"The right-wing supermajority on the Court already dismantled decades of campaign finance protections in Citizens United, and now they’re poised to gut what few remain, inviting billionaires to bankroll candidates through political parties with no limits," Edkins said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Win for Government Ethics' as George Santos Sentenced to 7 Years for Fraud
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said one campaign finance reform advocate.
Apr 25, 2025
Government ethics watchdogs on Friday said the sentencing of former Republican congressman George Santos to more than seven years in prison for fraud was a victory for "the many voters and donors who were deceived" by the disgraced lawmaker.
"Santos' brazen fraud and misconduct, which included serious violations of federal campaign finance laws, was an affront to his constituents, his donors, and the integrity of our democracy," said Saurav Ghosh, director of campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center. "The fact that he was held accountable should speak loudly to anyone contemplating similar actions aimed at exploiting the democratic process for personal gain."
Santos received his 87-month sentence from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in the Eastern District of New York eight months after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts and admitted to using his campaign fundraising operation for personal gain.
The former New York congressman, who flipped a blue seat in a Long Island district in 2022 and was charged by prosecutors just months later, admitted to submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission, stealing financial and personal information from elderly and cognitively impaired donors to fraudulently charge their credit cards, and using campaign contributions for luxury shopping and a hotel room in Las Vegas.
"The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Seybert said during the sentencing that Santos had committed "flagrant thievery" during his brief political career.
He is required to report to prison by July 25 and was also ordered to pay more than $373,000 in restitution.
"This accountability for his pattern of unethical and illegal conduct is a win for government ethics," said Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Ghosh praised "the diligent enforcement efforts of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which helped bring about this result."
"Now more than ever, a commitment to transparency and accountability is key to ensuring that candidates and elected officials serve the public, not their own interests," said Ghosh. "The robust enforcement of campaign finance and ethics laws is critical to ensuring that our democracy works for everyday Americans, not politicians' personal interests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Voter Coalition Sues Over Trump Trying to 'Declare Election Rules by Executive Fiat'
"This executive order, based on nothing but years of disinformation, is blatantly unlawful and a naked attempt to suppress the votes of targeted communities," said LULAC's national president.
Mar 31, 2025
A pro-voter coalition on Monday sued to block U.S. President Donald Trump's recent executive order that critics warn would make it harder for tens of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots in state and federal elections.
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) sued the executive office of the president and members of Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of three advocacy groups: the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI), and Arizona Students' Association (ASA).
"The president's executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans. It is simply not within the president's authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way," said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at CLC.
"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order."
As the complaint puts it: "Under our Constitution, the president does not dictate election rules. States and Congress do... Through the order, the president attempts to exercise powers that the Constitution withholds from him and instead assigns to the states and to Congress. The order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the president authority to declare election rules by executive fiat."
Trump's order includes provisions enabling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Department of Homeland Security to subpoena voting records for "list maintenance," restricting mail-in voting, and requiring the Election Assistance Commission to include documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voting form.
"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order. But it will not work. In America voters get to pick their president—presidents don't get to pick their voters, declared SDDF co-founder and executive chair Norm Eisen. "We are proud to stand up for the ability of every American voter to cast their ballots freely and fairly through this litigation."
Advocacy group leaders detailed how provisions in Trump's order would impact various communities if the directive isn't struck down.
"Military families, veterans, caregivers, and overseas voters deserve secure access to the very democracy we serve to protect—no matter where we're stationed or how we serve," said SFI executive director Sarah Streyder. "This new order would mean that the veteran who is a full-time caretaker at home, who has done everything right, may now be shut out of the ballot box due to outdated paperwork."
"This new order would mean that the military family stationed on the other side of the world from home, who crossed every t and dotted every i—their military ID will no longer suffice, and due to mail delays outside of their control, their ballot will never count," Streyder warned.
Roman Palomares, LULAC's national president, declared that "this executive order, based on nothing but years of disinformation, is blatantly unlawful and a naked attempt to suppress the votes of targeted communities—disproportionately impacting the Latino community."
"We are proud to join this coalition seeking to stop the effort to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate—and particularly of voters of color," Palomares continued. "Our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately."
Trump orders states to open voter files to Musk. Exec Order will cost 21 million their vote. ▶️ Get the full story: www.gregpalast.com/trump-execut...
[image or embed]
— Greg Palast (@gregpalast.bsky.social) March 30, 2025 at 1:19 PM
Kyle Nitschke, co-executive director of Arizona Students' Association, highlighted that some states have imposed voter suppression laws similar to Trump's executive order (EO).
"The Arizona Students' Association has seen firsthand what these egregious citizenship requirements really are, an attempt to suppress the vote. In Arizona we have a dual-track federal registration system, and the voters being affected by citizenship requirements are college students registering to vote for the first time, unsheltered voters, and Native voters, Nitschke said. "There are already extensive citizenship checks in place when registering to vote, Trump's EO is a clear attack on our voting rights. Our student members believe we should live in a country where it's accessible and convenient to be a part of democracy."
The Associated Press noted that "Monday's lawsuit against Trump's elections order could be just the first of many challenges. Other voting rights advocates have said they're considering legal action, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic attorney Marc Elias. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal."
Monday evening, the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced that they also filed a suit against the order in the D.C. court. They are represented by Elias Law Group.
"This executive order is an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information, and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections," they said in a joint statement. "It will even make it harder for military members serving overseas and married women who have changed their name to have their votes count."
"Donald Trump and DOGE are doing this as an attempt to rationalize their repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and set the groundwork to throw out legal votes and ignore election outcomes they do not like," they added. "It's anti-American and Democrats are using every tool at our disposal—including taking Trump to court—to stop this illegal overreach that undermines our democracy."
The pro-voter lawsuits are also among several legal challenges to Trump's long list of executive actions since January 20. As Common Dreams reported earlier Monday, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a federal suit in the same D.C. court over Trump's recent order that aims to strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government workers.
It's not just the Trump administration that's working to make it more difficult for Americans to participate in democracy. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are also planning to hold a vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act this week.
"If the bill passes, more than 21 million Americans could be blocked from voting," the Brennan Center for Justice warned on social media Monday. "The SAVE Act would be the first voter suppression bill ever passed by Congress. Lawmakers should be protecting the freedom to vote—not restricting it. We urge Congress to reject the SAVE Act."
This article has been updated to include the Democratic lawsuit.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ethics Complaint Filed Over Trump Commerce Secretary's Public Push for Tesla Stock Purchases
Campaign Legal Center wants ethics officials to probe the "apparently flagrant violation of federal law."
Mar 21, 2025
The nonpartisan legal group on Friday filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics and the designated agency ethics official at the U.S. Department of Commerce, urging them to investigate comments U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made on Fox News earlier this week when he exhorted viewers to "buy Tesla," speaking of the stock of billionaire Elon Musk's electric vehicle company.
Campaign Legal Center (CLC) wants officials to look into whether Lutnick's comments on Fox News—which the group called an "apparently flagrant violation of federal law"—did violate the federal ban on government officials using their public positions for private enrichment.
According to the complaint, executive branch employees "may not use their public office for their own private gain; [or] for the endorsement of any product, service, or enterprise."
Other critics responded to the billionaire commerce secretary's comments on Fox by pointing out that, as one watchdog leader put it, "he conveniently forgot to mention his family business empire holds nearly $840 million in the company."
Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and also the largest shareholder, has been deputized by U.S. President Donald Trump to help oversee efforts to cut federal programs and personnel and is playing a core role in his administration.
"The president's Cabinet members take an oath to serve the American people, and with that oath comes the ability and privilege to exercise a vast amount of power," said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center in a statement on Thursday.
"The Office of Government Ethics and Commerce ethics officials should hold Lutnick accountable and reassure the public that their officials will face consequences if they use their public office to enrich themselves or their allies," said Payne.
Lutnick made the comments when he was speaking on Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime" on Wednesday.
"Buy Tesla. It's unbelievable that this guy's stock is this cheap. It'll never be this cheap again... Who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk?" he told viewers.
Earlier this month, Trump hosted a Tesla car show at the White House. His and Lutnick's stunts come as the company faces protests over Musk's work for the administration and falling stock prices.
Tesla stock has tumbled since it reached a post-election high in December 2024. Axios reported Thursday that shares have fallen 42% so far this year. Axios also reported that Tesla shares fell on Thursday after Lutnick made his comments on Fox News.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lutnick Urging Fox Viewers to Buy Tesla Stock Decried as 'Abuse of Power for Personal and Family Gain'
One critic noted that the billionaire commerce secretary "conveniently forgot to mention his family business empire holds nearly $840 million in the company" led by government-gutting Elon Musk.
Mar 20, 2025
"Buy Tesla. It's unbelievable that this guy's stock is this cheap. It'll never be this cheap again... Who wouldn't invest in Elon Musk?"
That's what U.S. President Donald Trump's billionaire commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, told viewers of Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime" on Wednesday—comments that watchdog groups swiftly condemned as unethical and illegal.
In addition to serving as CEO of companies including electric vehicle maker Tesla, Musk heads Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, which is leading the administration's sweeping attack on the federal bureaucracy. Musk is also the richest person on Earth, with an estimated net worth of $310-327.5 billion, some of which he put toward electing the Republican president
Earlier this month, Trump hosted a Tesla car show at the White House. His and Lutnick's stunts come as the company faces protests over Musk's work for the administration. Axios reported that "Tesla shares were down about 1.7% in premarket trading Thursday to $231.75. The stock is down 5% in the last five days, 35% in the last month, and 42% so far this year."
The commerce secretary not only urged Fox's audience to invest in Tesla, he also heaped praise on Musk, calling him "probably the best entrepreneur, the best technologist, the best leader of any set of companies in America."
Responding to Lutnick's remarks in a Thursday statement, Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center, said that "the president's Cabinet members take an oath to serve the American people, and with that oath comes the ability and privilege to exercise a vast amount of power."
"Such power is intended to promote the public interest," Payne continued, stressing that officials like the commerce leader are "legally barred" from promoting their personal business interests. "Secretary Lutnick's actions violate the ethics rules that were enacted to hold public officials accountable to the American people. His statement is part of a pattern of behavior showing that Trump's indifference to ethics is trickling down to his most senior officials."
"The American people deserve a government that prioritizes public good," he added. "Most people will conclude that promoting a stock is not tied to any public good and ethics laws agree. The Office of Government Ethics and Commerce ethics officials should hold Lutnick accountable and reassure the public that their officials will face consequences if they use their public office to enrich themselves or their allies."
Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog Accountable.US, not only criticized Lutnick's remarks but also highlighted how the Cabinet member could benefit from them, declaring that "this is what abuse of power for personal and family gain looks like."
"When the billionaire commerce secretary used the Trump administration bully pulpit to try to rocket Tesla stock value, he conveniently forgot to mention his family business empire holds nearly $840 million in the company," Carrk explained. "While Secretary Lutnick is busy making TV appearances in a government capacity to potentially enrich his family business and his close ally Elon Musk, the rollercoaster Trump tariff policies he helped orchestrate are doing little to lower costs for working people—in fact quite the opposite."
Asked about Lutnick's comments on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "I think the commerce secretary was reiterating that the president supports an American-made company like Tesla, who produces a very good product for the American people, which was beloved by the American people, particularly Democrats, until Elon Musk decided to vote for Donald Trump."
"And now we have seen despicable and unacceptable violence taking place across our country at Telsa dealerships, against workers, employees, and also innocent Americans who drive these vehicles," she added. "It's actually a scary time in our country because of this political violence from the left, and the White House and the president's entire administration condemn it wholeheartedly."
As outrage over the Trump administration's promotion of Musk's company mounted on Thursday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
recalled more than 46,000 of Tesla's Cybertrucks—or nearly all of them on U.S. roads—due to concerns about an exterior panel that can detach while driving, creating safety problems.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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