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
corporate greed
We Need a Shoppers' Bill of Rights to Protect Us From 21st Century Price Gouging
New technology is enabling companies to reinvent the rip-off right under our noses; we need new laws to protect us.
Oct 02, 2026
Every day, companies find better, and sneakier, ways to reach deeper into our wallets.
They trap us in subscriptions, bury fees until checkout, use algorithms to collude with competitors, and mine our personal data to charge us the most we’re willing to pay. With each trick and tactic, companies are reinventing the rip-off right under our noses. And, as families strain under the rising cost of living, these practices are coming for every line of the household budget.
Algorithmic price-fixing is one of the most powerful tools in that arsenal. Price-fixing no longer requires a smoky back room. Today, technology can do CEOs’ dirty work for them. From rent to gasoline, this algorithmic price-fixing playbook is wreaking havoc on family budgets.
Putting food on the table and a roof over your head is hard enough without greedy corporations squeezing you for all you’re worth.
In June, a class-action lawsuit in California alleged that AI-powered pricing tool Kalibrate helped more than 1,700 gas stations coordinate and inflate prices at the pump. Drivers paid a hefty price, as Kalibrate allegedly pushed gas prices up by as much as 30 cents a gallon in some markets—a roughly $4 billion dollar dent in Californians’ budgets. Similar schemes could well be underway in other states.
Meanwhile, in the rental market, the blockbuster RealPage lawsuit alleged that the company’s leasing software pooled landlords’ data and spit out rent recommendations that helped landlords raise rents in lockstep. In some buildings using RealPage, rents jumped by as much as 33% in a single year—more than eight times the increase in a comparable building that didn’t use the software.
Another weapon in the gouger’s arsenal is dynamic pricing. Americans are familiar with prices that fluctuate when supply is scarce—say, seats on a plane or rooms at a hotel. But today, companies are pushing the practice well beyond contexts of scarcity.
For example, shoppers might find that sunscreen and bottled water have changed prices overnight in Las Vegas hotel lobby shops. And as stores like Walmart and Kroger install electronic shelf labels across thousands of stores, the infrastructure for high-frequency dynamic pricing in brick and mortar shopping is taking shape.
And companies aren’t just changing prices at high speed, they’re changing prices based on who’s shopping. Surveillance pricing, or the tactic of using personal data to squeeze each consumer to their breaking point, is being deployed all across the market.
Shoppers who are near a Target, for example, have been charged higher prices than those shopping at home. And on platforms like Booking.com, users from wealthier cities may see higher prices for identical hotel rooms. Companies have stopped merely pricing products. Now, they are pricing people, too.
Shoppers know the deck is stacked in corporations’ favor, and they’re tired of being spied on and ripped off.
A reckoning over what Americans are owed in the modern marketplace is long overdue. The market has changed at warp speed, but our guardrails haven’t kept up. Without new protections, the price tag we’ve taken for granted for more than 100 years is at risk of extinction.
In my new book Gouged, I offer one path forward: the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights.
From ensuring that the price you see is the price you pay to banning surveillance pricing to giving mom and pops on Main Street a fair shot against the big box stores and requiring AI assistants to act in shoppers’ best interest, it lays the baseline for a fair marketplace, putting simple guardrails around the technologies, tricks, and traps that companies are using to gouge us.
Lawmakers in some states are already taking strides independently, with roughly 90 bills introduced to counter these unfair pricing tactics in just the last two years.
But we shouldn’t settle for leaving shoppers vulnerable if they step across the street or cross state lines. Putting food on the table and a roof over your head is hard enough without greedy corporations squeezing you for all you’re worth. A Shoppers’ Bill of Rights would be a good place to start to restore the basic bargain between shoppers and corporations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
12-Point 'Shopper's Bill of Rights' Proposed to Guard Against Corporate Greed in the Digital Age
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal."
Sep 28, 2026
Groundwork Collaborative on Monday unveiled a proposal for a "Shopper's Bill of Rights," which it said would shield US consumers from rampant corporate greed.
Noting the long history of consumer protection legislation, Groundwork Collaborative makes the case that new rules are desperately needed in an era where companies can use artificial intelligence to construct elaborate pricing schemes aimed at extracting every last dollar from shoppers.
The group cites its own past work documenting Instacart's use of AI to target specific shoppers with higher prices to argue that corporate America badly needs stronger oversight to stop them from gouging consumers.
"Instacart is hardly a lone actor," the group writes. "Unchecked pricing shenanigans are spreading to every corner of our economy, and consumers are rightfully angry."
With this in mind, Groundwork Collaborative proposes 12 regulations aimed at protecting consumers from getting relentlessly nickel-and-dimed by big corporations.
The first proposal is giving consumers the right to an all-in price, meaning companies must let shoppers buy a good or service for its advertised price without tacking on assorted fees.
"The takeout order that looked like a quick fix for a hectic night can double in price once delivery fees pile up," the group explains, "while a few clicks to buy concert tickets can leave a fan staring at a final box office bill that is more than 25% higher than the base price that lured them in. This deception is lucrative, as hidden fees get shoppers to spend 20% more than they would if they saw the full price upfront."
Another proposal takes on the kind of surveillance pricing documented in Groundwork Collective's Instacart report, where companies use consumers' personal data to individually increase prices based on a number of factors in their personal browsing and shopping histories.
"Rapid advances in cloud computing, data collection, surveillance technologies, and artificial intelligence now equip companies to purchase, track, store, and analyze consumers’ personal data at an unimaginable scale," the group writes. "Armed with troves of personal data, companies can increasingly determine your particular pain point: how much you, specifically, can be pushed to pay."
Groundwork Collaborative recommends banning surveillance pricing altogether, while also cracking down on companies' powers to collect and sell consumers' personal browsing data.
The group also says that lawmakers should look into stopping dynamic pricing schemes, which don't target consumers on an individual basis but nonetheless make unpredictable prices changes depending on a wide number of factors.
While dynamic pricing was originally designed for industries to handle scarcities, Groundwork Collaborative notes that it has since spread to businesses that are in no danger of facing product shortages.
"Grocery stores are not rationing cans of beans and Wendy’s is not running out of fries," the group explains. "Still, shoppers have no way to tell the difference. Pricing algorithms are a black box, so when the price spikes, you have little way to know whether supply actually tightened, demand really surged, or the company simply spotted an opportunity to squeeze you."
Here is a full list of policies Groundwork Collaborative is proposing:
- Right to an All-In Price: The Price You See Is The Price You Pay
- Right to a Fair Price: Pricing Products, Not People
- Right to a Predictable Price: Reining In The Dynamic Pricing Rollercoaster
- Right to Cancellation: Cancel With a Click
- Right to Repair: If You Own It, You Can Fix It
- Right to Your Own Agent: AI That Works For You, Not The Corporate Bottom Line
- Right to Resale: What You Buy Is Yours to Sell
- Right to a Level Playing Field: Giving Small Businesses a Chance to Compete
- Right to Comparison Shop: Taking the Guesswork Out of Comparison Shopping With Unit Pricing
- Right to a Refund: Ending The Runaround on Refunds
- Right to Proper Billing: Know What You Owe and Why
- Right to a Competitive Price: Bring Antitrust Into the 21st Century
Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Collaborative, accused corporate America of "deploying a dizzying array of tricks and tactics to reinvent the ripoff and squeeze American consumers," and said it's well past time for the government to step in.
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal," Owens said. "Policymakers should put simple guardrails in place to protect consumers from the high-tech ways corporations are gouging us—the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights is a good place to start."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why You Should Boycott Starbucks
Union baristas have shown that our collective power can win meaningful change, and now we’re calling on organizations, political parties, and elected officials to stand with us and boycott Starbucks until our demands are met.
Sep 21, 2026
Walking into a Starbucks means being greeted with the sounds of lively lobby conversation, milk being steamed, and baristas chatting with customers. As a customer you might love coming to Starbucks to customize your drink, enjoy a third space, or see your favorite barista.
I thrive in this environment, and I love connecting with my customers as a barista. I love my job, but Starbucks has shown us it has forgotten about baristas like me.
That’s why I’m joining my coworkers in calling on everyone who supports working people over corporations to boycott Starbucks.
It would cost Starbucks less than a single day’s sales to agree to a fair contract that would ensure we’re treated fairly—why wouldn’t the company want that?
Starbucks has lost its way. Workers like myself are trying our hardest to show up for our customers, but Starbucks continues to make our jobs difficult—from creating massive amounts of waste, extra costs, and work for us with the company’s failed AI inventory tool to introducing new beverage components that have put our health and safety at real risk.
The most alluring benefit to many Starbucks applicants—including me—is the promise of health insurance coverage. Now, Starbucks is raising health insurance premiums, forcing some workers to pay up to twice as much as before.
Starbucks wages start at just $15.25 or $16 an hour in 43 states. Many of us already struggle to get enough hours to pay rent or even qualify for health insurance, leaving some of us to rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid because Starbucks’ coverage is out of reach.
For years, baristas have shined a light on systemic issues at Starbucks including understaffing, chaotic scheduling, low wages, and too-few hours to qualify for the company’s benefits. Over the past five years, we’ve organized over 12,000 baristas who are fighting for a fair union contract that locks in better pay, better staffing, and enough hours to live on.
Still, Starbucks refuses to finalize a fair union contract after nearly half a decade of negotiations. Starbucks has to do more to earn the moniker “the best job in retail.”
This is exactly why we’re fed up, fired up, and united more than ever in our fight for a fair union contract. It would cost Starbucks less than a single day’s sales to agree to a fair contract that would ensure we’re treated fairly—why wouldn’t the company want that?
Union baristas have shown that our collective power can win meaningful change, and now we’re calling on organizations, political parties, and elected officials to stand with us and boycott Starbucks until our demands are met. Solidarity with baristas brought the company back to the bargaining table before, and we can do it again to take negotiations over the finish line to finalize a contract.
The truth is corporate leadership at Starbucks is out of touch and the poster child of corporate greed.
As the baristas who fuel the company’s struggle to make ends meet, CEO Brian Niccol brags about a $9 coffee as he rakes in tens of millions and commutes to work in a private jet. Our CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2025 was a staggering 1,794 to 1.
For too long, Starbucks has behaved like it’s above the law, racking up more labor law violations than any company in modern US history.
We want change from Niccol, not platitudes. We want compensation for the value we create, not just a pat on the back, and we want our contract finalized.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Lawmakers Introduce Bill to 'Get Wall Street Out' of Medical Offices Across US
"Doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
Sep 16, 2026
Thanks to legislation passed in Oregon last year, physicians in the state have stopped corporate takeovers of medical practices—and six Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday introduced a bill to replicate the state law nationwide, arguing, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, that "patients want to know that decisions about their health are being made by their doctors, not by Wall Street investors."
The Massachusetts Democrat was joined by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Reps. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) in introducing the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act.
The bill would ban the corporate practice of medicine by making it illegal for private equity funds, insurance companies, and other for-profit corporations to own or control medical practices—as is increasingly the case in the profit-driven US healthcare system.
Over 80% of doctors in the US are employed by corporate entities including private equity firms—up from 62% just seven years ago, according to the lawmakers.
Corporations have also exploited legal loopholes that allow them to take over medical practices, despite laws in over 30 states banning the corporate practice of medicine.
“Americans want medical decisions to stay between patients and their doctor, not dictated by corporate actors and private equity firms focused on maximizing profits,” said Wyden. “I’m proud of Oregon’s pioneering state law that has been used by doctors to protect their independence, and it’s time to take that model to the federal level. Corporate medicine is making healthcare more expensive for everyone, and safeguards must be put in place to ensure healthcare decisions stay in the hands of physicians.”
The legislation would:
- Close the “friendly physician” loophole that has allowed investor-backed corporations to evade state-level bans on the corporate practice of medicine and control medical practices through management service organizations (MSOs);
- Prohibit an MSO from controlling a medical practice through a “friendly” or “captive” physician, or by taking over business, administrative, and clinical functions such as hiring and firing, work schedules, compensation, disbursement of revenue or setting of revenue targets, billing practices, contracting, and other services;
- Ensure that physicians retain ultimate control of medical practices by requiring that physician owners are meaningfully engaged in providing medical care in the state in which their practice is located; and
- Protect physician independence by prohibiting corporate interference with clinical decisions and banning restrictive contract terms, such as noncompete agreements, nondisclosure agreements, and nondisparagement agreements.
As the lawmakers explained, MSOs contract with medical practices under the guise of handling administrative tasks.
"But these actors often challenge the autonomy of acquired physicians once in control," they said. "For example, corporate entities often assume control over clinical operations, management and staffing decisions, and billing and coding practices—all of which can exert pressure on physicians to change care delivery."
Such entities "often cut corners, leading to patients paying more for significantly worse care," said Ocasio-Cortez. “I’m proud to co-lead the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act to get Wall Street out of Americans’ doctors’ offices."
Warren added that "doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
BREAKING: Today, I'm introducing a bill to BAN corporate takeovers of your doctor's office.
Doctors should be able to care for their patients without greedy private equity investors getting in the way.
Let's get this done. pic.twitter.com/e3gdamIotQ
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 16, 2026
The legislation is supported by several medical associations as well as economic justice advocates.
"A prohibition is only as strong as its enforcement, and this bill backs its corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) prohibition with three enforcement paths: the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general suing on behalf of residents, and physicians themselves through a private right of action with treble damages. That layered enforcement, paired with mandatory divestment, is what gives this bill teeth that earlier CPOM laws have often lacked,” said Dr. Marco Fernandez, president of the Association for Independent Medicine.
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said that the "groundbreaking legislation is absolutely needed to give health providers and patients a fighting chance against corporate greed."
"Congress must stop private equity from ripping the copper wires out of American healthcare and put patients first," said Lawson. "Social Security Works is proud to endorse this legislation."
Charles Idelson, the former communications director of National Nurses United, which advocates for Medicare for All, said the bill "would help close some, though not all, of the worst profiteering in healthcare."
"Exploiting sickness to enrich wealthy executives," said Idelson, "is obscene."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Call for End of Deadly Tactic Used by For-Profit Health Insurers to Deny Treatment
Researchers found prior authorization—which allows insurers to overrule physicians and deny coverage—acts as a “corporate care veto” that drains tens of billions of dollars each year that could go toward patients.
Aug 11, 2026
A new report is making the case for ending a widely-hated and sometimes deadly tactic used by for-profit health insurers to deny needed care.
It's called "prior authorization," and it allows health insurance companies to override physicians and decide whether certain care is medically necessary before it is covered.
The policy brief, published Monday by the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, argues that the system is a massive drag on the US healthcare system, draining doctors of their time, fueling hiring shortages, and—most importantly—worsening treatable health problems for millions of Americans.
"This practice has massive financial and human costs, as I know personally from my family’s own tragic experience,” said the report's author, Hannah Garden-Monheit—a senior fellow at the AELP, whose late father was denied rehab by UnitedHealthcare after cancer forced his leg to be amputated.
"Prior authorization may have started as a narrow cost-control tool," she explained. "But it’s mushroomed into private insurers’ strategy for diverting resources from care toward their own profits. It’s time to ban prior authorization as we know it.”
The report examines how prior authorization went from a tool used sparingly to prevent payment for unnecessary treatments to what Garden-Monheit and co-author, AELP senior healthcare fellow Emma Freer, described as a "corporate care veto."
Around 1 in 5 adults with private insurance report that they or a family member had experienced a coverage denial in the past year, with 28% reporting that it worsened their health problem, according to a June survey from the Commonwealth Fund.
While insurers claim that their decisions to deny care are "evidence-based," the authors say that "in reality, the practice empowers distant corporate entities with a financial conflict of interest to override the professional judgment of physicians with firsthand knowledge of patients’ medical needs."
"There is generally little to no transparency or accountability for these decisions," the authors wrote.
While insurers claim that denials are reviewed by qualified clinicians, one survey from the American Medical Association (AMA) found that only 16% of physicians participating in peer-to-peer reviews reported that the “peer” was often or always qualified.
Garden-Monheit said United denied her father's claim multiple times, first citing his cancer diagnosis—the reason his leg was amputated in the first place—then by claiming that he had made significant enough "progress" that paying for rehab was unnecessary. The "progress" was that he "had figured out how to hop on one leg from his hospital bed to a chair."
Garden-Monheit describes how she, her father, and their care team were forced to navigate a "bureaucratic maze" by United, which ultimately led them to give up.
"At least twice, I learned of a denial only after calling United to check on the status of their request. They hadn’t even bothered with a letter," she said. "While the lines of communication felt frustratingly unpredictable, the answers always led to the same place: 'no.'"
As she explained in a recent op-ed for MS NOW: "My family’s experience wasn’t a one-off glitch. For United, the system was working as designed."
Former United chief medical officer Dr. Archelle Georgiou estimated that across just two Medicare Advantage plans from United and Humana, the companies save an estimated $100 million per year by denying claims that never get appealed. She said that's a "conservative estimate." Across the two plans, 1.75 million people were denied care, even after appeal.
While insurers pad their profits, patients suffer, the researchers found. Among people reporting a prior authorization denial, 41% said it delayed their care and 28% said their health problem worsened, according to the Commonwealth survey.
"My family’s experience wasn’t a one-off glitch. For United, the system was working as designed."
Meanwhile, the AMA survey found that 95% of physicians said that prior authorization delays care, 79% said it causes patients to abandon recommended treatments, and more than 1 in 4 doctors said it has caused a serious adverse event, including hospitalization, permanent impairment, or death.
Denied timely treatments, many patients end up paying for costly and ineffective alternatives that only make their situations worse and cause the costs to increase down the line.
"It was extremely difficult to obtain authorizations for substance abuse treatment when I covered the emergency department as a practicing psychologist," one healthcare professional, identified in the report as Nancy, said. "Other times, in my private practice, I would get authorizations and later experience ‘clawbacks’ where Blue Cross, for example, would decide the treatment was not medically necessary and take back the money already paid."
"It is impossible at times to provide sound ethical treatment and extremely hard to make a living," she said, "when reimbursement rates kept going down, and the insurance companies could take back the money they had already paid for no obvious reason.”
Prior authorization doesn't just deny care to patients. It also creates piles of paperwork for their doctors, taking away precious time that could be dedicated to their care.
The report found that physicians and their teams now spend so much on prior authorization paperwork that it consumes the equivalent of nearly 100,000 full-time physician and advanced practice clinician workloads, plus more than 213,000 clinic staff, costing as much as $32.7 billion each year. If prior authorization were eliminated, they found, it would free up enough capacity to turn a national physician shortage into a surplus.
(Graphic: American Economic Liberties Project)
A YouGov poll for AELP found that more than two-thirds of voters in both parties want legislation banning prior authorization outright. But the researchers said both the Trump and Biden administrations have enacted only minor reforms that "fail to address the structural conflict of interest that underpins the corporate care veto strategy."
Meanwhile, the industry is making the denial process even more ruthlessly efficient, increasingly deploying artificial intelligence to deny requests en masse.
According to a 2023 class action lawsuit, United's NaviHealth system used a predictive AI model to determine whether Medicare Advantage patients should receive rehabilitation care despite knowing that the model had a 90% error rate.
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has expanded prior authorization for traditional Medicare through a pilot program that allows AI models to adjudicate claims in some states. In July, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats' attempt to end the pilot program.
As part of a national pro-AI strategy, Trump has also sought to preempt state laws banning the use of AI to deny care.
The AELP researchers called for a series of reforms to end prior authorization as it currently exists. Among other changes, they said decisions to authorize treatments should be made by independent third parties without the incentive to deny care, that denials must be evidence-based, that the use of AI tools to deny claims should be banned, and that physicians should review patients in person before denying their claims.
“For too long, prior authorization has allowed insurance companies to put profits ahead of patients by overruling doctors and delaying and denying essential care,” Freer said. “This status quo is failing patients, ratcheting up costs, and undermining the basis of effective, expert-informed care. It’s time to end this ‘corporate care veto’ and put medical decisions back where they belong: with patients and their doctors.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Emulating Dan Osborn, Nebraska Independent Targets Corporate Greed in US House Run
Austin Ahlman argued that "it's Tyson; it's Google; it's Facebook; it's every other corporation that is putting the squeeze and pressure on communities like mine and ripping us apart" that are "stealing your way of life."
May 14, 2026
As the winner of the Democratic US Senate primary in Nebraska mulls dropping out to boost Independent Dan Osborn, another congressional candidate not tied to either major political party launched a campaign for the state's 1st Congressional District on Thursday.
Joining incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Flood and Democratic primary winner Chris Backemeyer is Austin Ahlman, a 28-year-old investigative journalist, anti-monopolist, and self-described "insurgent Independent running in NE-01 to fight for the little guy."
Ahlman's launch video shares some struggles his family has faced—his parents working at the Tyson Foods meatpacking plant in Norfolk that closed in 2006, his dad's cancer battle, and his mom's suicide—and his work in journalism, "uncovering corruption among Democrats and Republicans, and taking on the corporations that are destroying our way of life."
It also features his fights for loved ones: against a bank for his family home, to assist his grandmother, "who was getting cheated by utility and insurance companies," and to help his brother "get his small business off the ground."
"My family's story isn't unique," he says in the three-minute ad. "Families all across our state are fighting, but the only ones who seem to be getting ahead are the elites on the coasts and the politicians who are selling us out to them."
The emotional ad makes Ahlman's policy priorities clear: taking on rising costs, Wall Street buying family homes, corporate monopolies, taxpayer-funded foreign wars, and health insurance companies that deny coverage.
"It's time we show the billionaires in Wall Street and Silicon Valley who are pitting us against one another that we won't let them steal our way of life out from under us," he concludes. "If you agree, then join us, and let's take Nebraska back."
As Nebraska Public Media reported Thursday:
Since Ahlman isn't running with a party affiliation, he will need to petition onto the general election ballot. According to the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office, Ahlman will need to collect at least 2,000 valid signatures from voters in the 1st Congressional District to get onto the ballot.
"I think most people these days are Independents," Ahlman said in a Thursday interview with Nebraska Public Media News. "They do feel pretty fed up with things."
He said he'd like the country's spending to refocus on the US and not in conflicts abroad.
"There is so much money from Americans' pockets being poured into other countries, armies to fight wars in places that we couldn't even find on a map. And I think this is one area where current voters in... this district don't have a choice," he said. "The blue-haired baristas are not the ones stealing people's way of life. Your uncle, who's perhaps a little gung-ho at Thanksgiving, is not the one stealing your way of life. It's Tyson; it's Google; it's Facebook; it's every other corporation that is putting the squeeze and pressure on communities like mine and ripping us apart."
On social media Thursday, Ahlman called out the GOP incumbent for taking campaign cash from corporate political action committees and special interests.
"I'm in this to beat Mike Flood—and yes, this is personal. We grew up in the same town, but Millionaire Mike's life was not like mine. I lived in trailer parks. Our whole family spent periods living in my grandmother's basement. I went to bed hungry," he explained. "Last year, Millionaire Mike... voted to hand tax cuts to big business and billionaires while gutting healthcare, education, and food programs. Those callous votes show he takes voters for granted."
Meanwhile, the Lincoln Journal Star reported Thursday that the Independent Norfolk native is already drawing vote-splitting criticism "from Republicans and Democrats alike."
In response, Ahlman said: "It seems I’ve pissed some people off! Look, taking on the establishment of both major parties was never going to be easy. They're fighting back, and that isn’t very surprising. But here's the deal—the overwhelming majority of real people in Nebraska—whether they're registered Republicans or Independents or Democrats, they all want change."
"They're sick of being looked down on, and sold out on, and lied to," he stressed. "Congressman Flood is selling us out to big money donors as he climbs the ladder in Washington. Americans are ready to elect Independents who work for them, not party bosses or corporate donors. That's why we're going to win."
The state's Democratic Party is standing by its candidate. The party chair, Jane Fleming Kleeb, told Drop Site News' Ryan Grim that "Chris Backemeyer is the clear choice for Nebraska's 1st District. He brings real federal experience from the State Department and is laser-focused on what Nebraskans actually care about—lowering costs and expanding access to affordable healthcare. Mike Flood has failed this district, and a fringe Independent won't fix that. Nebraska doesn't need noise from either extreme—we need a steady, experienced leader who will fight for fairness and protect our democracy. That's Chris Backemeyer."
Backemeyer was at the State Department under former Democratic President Joe Biden. While there, Zeteo News' Prem Thakker noted Thursday, he "helped coordinate aid to Israel amid its genocide in Gaza."
According to Thakker, the Democrat has received "much of his campaign donations from the DMV," a term for the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, which includes Maryland, and Virginia. Donors include key Biden officials, such as former Secretary of State Antony Blinken and ex-National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
The journalist also highlighted some early polling from Adam Carlson's Zenith Research that shows Ahlman doing well, particularly after respondents are introduced to candidates' biographies:
"In head-to-head matchups in these post-bios ballot tests, Ahlman (I) doesn't just outperform Backemeyer (D) overall by 16 points, but outperforms him among nearly every single subgroup," Carlson wrote. "Ahlman's largest overperformances relative to Backemeyer are among groups that Democrats have struggled with of late (especially in this part of the country)—Independents (+46), age 18-44 (+34), moderates (+26), white noncollege (+25), suburban voters (+24), white men (+21), and gun-owning households (+20)."
"In the post-bios three-way vote, Backemeyer (D) is in third place, 6 points behind Ahlman (I)," the pollster added. "But Flood still leads by 14 points despite only being at 42%. As we've seen, if Backemeyer drops out, Ahlman takes the lead if it's a 1:1 race against Flood."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Apr 27, 2026
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sinners: Real Monsters of Greed and Racism Still Stalk the Gulf South
The Riverplex Megapark planned for Louisiana's Ascension Parish threatens both the history and future of the community with the destruction of former slave cabins and the construction of a polluting ammonia plant.
Apr 12, 2026
I was pleased to see Sinners have a good night at the Oscars, picking up four trophies. It didn’t win Best Picture, but to my mind, it is the movie of the year. Sinners had far and away the greatest cultural impact, especially among Black people.
Sinners is the rare blockbuster film that explores Black history from the perspective of Black people, but I believe the reason the film has touched such a nerve is that it’s much more than a period piece. When I watched Sinners, I didn’t just see a movie about the past. I saw a mirror. The horror in the film isn’t history; the blood-sucking vampires of racism, white supremacy, and cultural erasure still haunt us today.
For me, Sinners hit literally close to home. Although it is set in Mississippi, it was filmed entirely in southeastern Louisiana, where my roots trace back to a small community called Donaldsonville. The film reminded me of my childhood when grandpa and I walked the avenue to shop. We’d walk from Smoke Bend, up the avenue, to a warehouse on the edge of town to get syrup in a yellow can—perfect for eating with fry bread. What’s funny about the movie is that Michael B. Jordan’s characters’ names were Smoke and Stack. And my grandpa told me that Smoke Bend got its name from the Indian campfires travelers saw when they came around the river bend. The scenes where Smoke and Stack go to Clarksdale to buy supplies were shot on Railroad Avenue in Donaldsonville, where I live and work. Folks from around here remember hearing the alarm and radio announcements from Ascension Parish Barn on Church street as they shopped along the Avenue.
The Jim Crow era depicted in Sinners has ended, but here in Ascension Parish, we are in a struggle to protect Black lives and preserve Black heritage. In the name of economic growth, the Parish government is planning to create a massive, 17,000-acre industrial complex—the so-called Riverplex Megapark—featuring a Hyundai plant and other pollution-producing factories. The complex will decimate the historic predominantly Black community of Modeste and part of Donaldsonville, displacing as many as 800 people.
We will not be able to protect our communities unless more should-be allies come to recognize that environmental justice is a major civil rights issue of our time.
In October, Modeste residents reported that heavy machinery had demolished some of the slave cabins on the site of the former Germania and Mulberry Plantations. The purpose of the destruction was to make way for the Hyundai facility, which could destroy both plantations as well as the neighboring Zeringue Plantation.
Those cabins hold the stories of their enslaved ancestors, the people whose labor built this land and whose spirit still breathes through it. Among the destroyed cabins was one of deep significance to me: My uncle, Cloveste, was born in one of them. Like the juke joint in Sinners, those cabins are a sacred space; they are bloodline, legacy, and love—and they were bulldozed to make room for corporate profit.
While erasing our past, this industrial complex also threatens our future. Located in the heart of “Cancer Alley,” Ascension Parish is one of the most polluted counties in the United States. Less than 3 miles from my house is the world’s largest ammonia plant, the single worst polluting factory in the country. I am a breast cancer survivor. All three of my children were born prematurely, and one of them has had respiratory problems his whole life. These kinds of sicknesses are commonplace around here. Yet plans for the complex include another ammonia plant that will spew out thousands of tons of pollution.
Down here, corporate executives don’t wear hoods or burn crosses, but their greed can kill us just the same.
We are all for development, but we want economic growth that strengthens our communities, not that erases and endangers them while creating generational wealth for others. Rural Roots Louisiana, the organization I founded, is leading an effort to block the “megapark,” and a judge recently ruled in our favor, ordering the front group behind the project to turn over relevant public records.
But we are up against forces with bottomless resources, which they are using to try to buy out and pay off people in the community. This presents people with hard choices, but as we see in Sinners, there is a cost to accommodating your oppressor. As Director Ryan Coogler said, his film explores “the deals people in oppressive situations must rationalize.”
In this struggle, as in all my work, I take heart in the example of our ancestors, who persevered in the face of even steeper odds. Their efforts and sacrifices ended American apartheid, and it is important to remember how far the country has come. Sinners itself, the fact that it got made, is a form of progress. It serves as a rebuke to those trying to erase Black history.
I also draw inspiration from activists and organizers throughout southeast Louisiana. A few years ago, in Plaquemines Parish—where most of Sinners was shot—community members blocked an oil terminal that would have destroyed a cemetery where their enslaved ancestors were buried. In St. James Parish, community groups have made headway in their lawsuit seeking a landmark moratorium on petrochemical facilities, while in St. John Parish, a historic Black community waged a heroic battle against a proposed grain elevator.
Still, we will not be able to protect our communities unless more should-be allies come to recognize that environmental justice is a major civil rights issue of our time. Put another way, environmental racism might not seem like the scariest vampire—it dresses in suits and wears nice shoes—but none have more blood on their teeth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the $165 Billion 'Annoyance Economy' That Drives You Nuts—and Sucks Us Dry—All Year Long
"While seemingly minor, these little annoyances add up."
Feb 09, 2026
Corporate profits in the US have surged in recent decades, with subscription-based businesses reporting some of the biggest revenue growth as more Americans use streaming services and sign up for "subscribe and save" models in a quest for ease and convenience.
While promising consumers that subscribing to a service will save them money and time, subscription-based businesses have made canceling the services increasingly difficult, contributing to Americans spending 60% longer on the phone with customer service lines than they did two decades ago.
And although corporations hardly need the extra money, making cancellations more arduous for customers can boost their revenue by anywhere from 14% to over 200%, according to the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, which released a report Monday on what it calls "the annoyance economy."
The labyrinthine processes that millions of Americans face each year when they try to cancel subscription services is just one part of the annoyance economy, according to Groundwork, which detailed the seemingly endless time, money, and patience people spend "just trying to get basic things done"—as well as efforts by corporations and the Trump administration to make sure it stays that way.
While millions are struggling with the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, housing, childcare, and just about everything else, the report explains how—thanks to corporate greed and a White House intent on enabling it—Americans are also shelling out at least $165 billion per year in fees as well as lost time.
In addition to cancellation processes, the annoyance economy includes the $90 billion people across the US spend every year on junk fees when they buy concert tickets, make hotel reservations, and order food delivery; rental application fees that keep people from even attempting to move to new housing that could put them closer to work or school; and administrative healthcare tasks like obtaining coverage information and resolving questions about premiums and deductibles.
"While seemingly minor, these little annoyances add up," wrote Groundwork policy fellow Chad Maisel and Stanford University economist Neale Mahoney, the authors of the report, who cited a 2019 survey that found 1 in 4 respondents delayed getting healthcare or avoided it altogether specifically because of the administrative tasks they had to complete in order to get an appointment and make sure it was covered.
"All told, American workers collectively spend about $21.6-billion-worth of time each year dealing with healthcare administration, between calls, claims, explanations, and paperwork, according to a recent analysis."
Another new poll from Data for Progress found that nearly 80% of Americans reported "at least a little frustration" when coordinating their healthcare and filling out health insurance paperwork.
"All told, American workers collectively spend about $21.6-billion-worth of time each year dealing with healthcare administration, between calls, claims, explanations, and paperwork," reads the report, citing another recent analysis. "Polling confirms this: More than 1 in 3 Americans report dealing with health insurance headaches more than 20 times per year."
With frustration over health insurance companies' practices increasingly common, reads the report, "policymakers are missing important opportunities to take on a handful of egregious and particularly annoying practices."
Lawmakers could require insurance companies to make it easy for patients to fill out and submit claims online—instead of downloading, printing, and physically mailing claim forms with itemized receipts as Cigna requires patients to do.
Congress could also create a "healthcare sludge unit" to monitor and root out "needless friction throughout the healthcare experience."
Such a project could leverage tools "like 'blind shopper' experiments, public feedback lines, and direct engagement with industry to surface and fix barriers that waste patients’ time and erode trust."
The report also takes on the spam texts and calls that have become all-to-familiar to anyone with a cellphone.
"Text messaging, once reserved for conversation with friends and family, now resembles our email spam folders, dominated by unsolicited offers from companies, politicians, and fraudsters," wrote Maisel and Mahoney, who shared that on the day they wrote about spam in the report, "one of us received five spam calls, a text from 'Victoria' offering a $500-a-day job, and two breathless fundraising messages from political candidates we’ve never supported—or even heard of."
Those spam communications were some of the more than 130 million scam and illegal marketing calls Americans receive each day and the nearly 20 billion texts that were sent each month over the past year—leading "virtually all respondents" to Data for Progress' poll to report that the calls and texts are at least "a little frustrating" and 68% call them "very frustrating."
State and federal lawmakers could and should take action against spam calls and texts, said Maisel and Mahoney. Congress should modernize the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which was passed in 1991—well before companies began inundating Americans' inboxes with the newest robocalling and texting software.
"If a platform automatically dials from a stored list of numbers, it’s now exempt from the TCPA’s rules," reads the report. "The result: far more robocall and spam text operations can legally target people without their consent. Congress should update the definition of autodialer to include any callers and texters who automatically contact stored numbers, unless there’s real human involvement in sending each message."
Former President Joe Biden's Federal Communications Commission tried to close the "lead generator loophole,” which allows third-party marketers to collect people's contact information and sell it to dozens, sometimes hundreds, of businesses, but companies sued over the FCC's action and won in court.
President Donald Trump could issue an executive order directing federal agencies "to leverage all available resources and authorities to end robocalls and spam texts once and for all," said Maisel and Mahoney.
But the authors noted that the Trump administration's mass layoffs across the government would make enforcement more difficult.
"The Department of Justice also needs to prioritize enforcement against bad actors," they wrote. "While the FCC can levy fines for violations, it cannot pursue their collection without the DOJ. Of the eight robocalling forfeiture orders referred by the FCC, the DOJ has pursued only two for collection."
In the case of the hoops consumers are made to jump through in order to cancel subscriptions and services, the report emphasizes that the federal government has made significant inroads before to help the public.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) intervened in 2023 and stopped Toyota Motor Credit from continuing its practice of routing all consumer calls through a hotline "where representatives were instructed to keep promoting products until a consumer asked to cancel three times, at which point they were told cancellation was only possible by submitting a written request."
Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was lauded by consumer advocates for its click-to-cancel rule in 2024, requiring sellers to “make it as easy for consumers to cancel their enrollment as it was to sign up."
But Trump's FTC last year delayed implementation of the rule after industry groups said that "it would take a substantial amount of time to come into compliance.” A federal appeals court then effectively killed the rule altogether.
While the fees that gradually trickle out of Americans' bank accounts into the annoyance economy are often small individually, the report emphasizes that they add up—and the consequences of these business practices and the government's failure to stop them "extend beyond wasted time and money."
"When life is reduced to jumping through an endless series of hoops—just to fix a billing error, secure a refund, or cancel a subscription—it breeds cynicism and disengagement," reads the report. "If the government can remove even a few of those obstacles, we can show the American people that someone is paying attention and begin the long process of rebuilding public trust."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tax the Rich, Say Mamdani, Sanders, and NYC Inauguration Crowd
"For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it," said the new mayor. "Our City Hall will change that."
Jan 01, 2026
"Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich."
The chants broke out at City Hall in New York on Thursday as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) addressed the crowd before swearing in Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a platform that prioritized NYC's working class.
"Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes is not radical. It is exactly the right thing to do," declared Sanders—who endorsed Mamdani even before his June primary victory over former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and "the billionaire-backed status quo."
The 34-year-old mayor on Thursday described Brooklyn-born Sanders—50 years his senior—as "the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today."
During the afternoon inauguration ceremony—which followed an early morning swearing-in at the abandoned subway station beneath City Hall—Mamdani also called for taxing the rich as he reiterated the agenda that secured him over 1.1 million votes in November.
"Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed, but never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try," he said. "To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this: No longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers' lives."
"Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home," Mamdani vowed. "Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again, we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another."
The mayor said that "the cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family, because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few. Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike, because we will freeze the rent."
"Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you'll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle, because we will make buses fast and free," he continued. "These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that."
The ceremony also featured remarks from another early Mamdani supporter, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the swearing-in of Jumaane Williams for a third term as New York City's public advocate and Mark Levine, the new comptroller.
"New York, we have chosen courage over fear," said Ocasio-Cortez, whose district spans the Bronx and Queens. "We have chosen prosperity for the many over spoils for the few. And when the entrenched ways would rather have us dig in our feet and seek refuge in the past, we have chosen instead to turn towards making a new future for all of us."
AOC: New York City has chosen the ambitious pursuit of universal childcare, affordable rents and housing and clean and dignified public transit for all. We have chosen that over the distractions of bigotry and the barbarism of extreme income inequality
[image or embed]
— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) January 1, 2026 at 1:47 PM
As NYC kicked off the new year with progressive city leadership, 2025 findings from the Bloomberg Billionaire Index sparked fresh wealth tax demands. According to the tracker, the world's 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective fortunes last year. About a quarter of that went to just eight Big Tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jensen Huang, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg.
In New York, Mamdani has proposed raising the state corporate tax rate from 8.85% to 11.5% and hiking taxes for individuals who make more than $1 million a year. Achieving those goals would require cooperation from state legislators.
Mamdani acknowledged Thursday that for much of history, the response from City Hall to the question of who New York belongs to has been, "It belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power."
In the years ahead, he pledged, "City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance, where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated."
"Together, we will tell a new story of our city," the mayor said. "This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the 1%. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor. It will be a tale of 8.5 million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together."
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