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 power
Medicare for All: Where We're Going and How We're Getting There
Health care should be available to everyone in America as a right—automatic and free of charge when we need it. Rich or poor, sick or healthy, old or young, no matter where you live, everyone should have high-quality health care.
Sep 04, 2026
Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Nancy J. Altman's latest book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), published today and now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman's book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. "Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight," she argues, "but it is a fight we can win."
In the early morning hours of December 4, 2024, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare was gunned down outside the Hilton Hotel in midtown Manhattan in New York City. The CEO was on his way to the health insurance company’s annual investor conference. The police found the words “Delay,” “Deny,” and “Depose” carved into bullet casings at the scene.
The public reaction was swift and overwhelming. People took to social media to describe stories of mothers, fathers, spouses, children, and friends who had died from treatable illnesses, dead because UnitedHealthcare or other health insurance companies had either denied the life-saving care doctors had prescribed to their loved ones or had endlessly delayed approval of the lifesaving treatment.
Physicians posted stories of the hours they spent on the phone, seeking to convince insurance companies of the necessity of the care. The providers detailed spending countless hours advocating for their patients to insurance company doctors who had little or no expertise in their area of medicine but with the power of literal life or death to authorize or deny payment for the prescribed treatment. The frustrated providers recounted incidents of being on hold for hours and transferred among insurance executives in what felt like perpetual loops.
The United States is an outlier. Its health care is the most expensive in the industrialized world, while its outcomes rank at or near the bottom
When the treating physicians finally got through and were told they had to schedule a time to talk, the time for the so-called peer-to-peer conversation was solely at the convenience of the insurance company doctor, with no concern for the schedule of the treating physician. One doctor talked about a particular insurance company that told doctors they would get a call back but were not told when or from what number. They were told, though, that if they didn’t answer, the claim would be denied.
Then came the denials. UnitedHealthcare and other insurance companies are not required to disclose their denial rates, but anecdotal evidence and lawsuits suggest that the rates are high. And denial is a life and death matter. Virtually all treatments are prohibitively expensive without insurance. One TikTok contributor described receiving six months of chemotherapy for her dangerously advanced, stage 4 cancer, only to receive a letter from her insurer saying it would no longer pay for the treatment. She explained in her post that the treatment cost $15,000 every three weeks and the alternatives she had tried before starting the current regimen had done nothing. Only the current treatment prescribed by her oncologist worked.
America’s Outlier Healthcare System: Expensive, Wasteful, Complicated, Deficient
The delay and denial of lifesaving care doesn’t happen in other wealthy countries the way it does here. The United States is an outlier. Its health care is the most expensive in the industrialized world, while its outcomes rank at or near the bottom… Thirty million Americans—almost 10 percent of the population—have no health insurance whatsoever. Millions more are underinsured. Though they have health insurance, it does not cover the care they need at a cost they can afford. Even those with supposedly adequate coverage often have high deductibles, causing them to delay care until their health issues are too severe to ignore. The problem is that in the United States, health care is implicitly treated like a commodity, like the latest iPhone or simply a service, like plumbing or electrical work in a home. Of course, health care is not just another commodity or service. It is literally a life-and-death matter.
Like our court system, police and fire departments, public libraries, and our public schools, high-quality health care should be available to everyone in America as a right—automatic and free of charge when we need it.
Unlike the government, which has the power to tax, can control its currency, and is not going out of business, companies can only stay in business if they turn a profit. That means that health insurance corporations must ensure that they don’t pay out more in benefits than they collect in premiums, and the premiums can’t be too large or their customers will go elsewhere. To make the numbers work and earn a large enough profit to keep shareholders happy, these companies must seek to entice those who are healthy and therefore not in need of health care, by offering benefits like gym memberships. They must carefully screen to cherry-pick the healthiest of the population and avoid covering those likely to need expensive care. If their enrollees do get sick, insurance companies can restrict what treatment patients are able to get by limiting the doctors and hospitals that are in-network. The companies can delay or even deny prescribed treatments, if they are expensive and supposedly uncertain of success, by requiring pre-authorizations. Indeed, insurance companies refused to insure anyone with pre-existing conditions, such as birth defects, pregnancy, and job-related injuries, until the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibited that discriminatory practice designed to reduce expenses and bolster profits.
In short, private companies must cover their costs to remain in business. That too often translates, in the case of health insurance corporations, to denying payment for doctor-prescribed medical care. Like our court system, police and fire departments, public libraries, and our public schools, high-quality health care should be available to everyone in America as a right—automatic and free of charge when we need it. Rich or poor, sick or healthy, old or young, no matter where you live, everyone should have high-quality health care.
The Obvious Solution to Our Broken Healthcare System
The way for health insurance in the United States to be universal, affordable, and efficient is to make the federal government the insurer. Insurance is most cost-efficient and reliable when the risks can be spread across as broad a population as possible and when people cannot delay purchasing the insurance until the moment people know they are getting sick—a practice known as adverse selection. Only the national government has the power and ability to establish a nationwide, universal risk pool, with mandatory participation, making adverse selection impossible. Furthermore, when the federal government administers the insurance, overhead is minimized. Instead of high-paid CEOs wielding power over our health care, hardworking, modestly-paid civil servants are in charge. Instead of unaccountable private actors in control, federal employees, subject to transparency and oversight, are the administrators. Moreover, other costs, like advertising and marketing, are unnecessary.
Fundamentally, the government is not seeking a profit for shareholders or high salaries for executives. In addition, there is only one payer, producing more efficiency and less waste. Consequently, all of us, collectively through the government, can provide health care less expensively and more efficiently for everyone. [...] Profit should have no place in our healthcare system. Instead, there should be a single insurer that can pay for the most efficient care equitably and universally. We would spend less as a nation and have better health outcomes.
Profit should have no place in our healthcare system.
We know it works because an American institution has been paying for health care efficiently and fairly for over 60 years: Medicare. To be clear, the solution is definitely not the vastly inferior, misleadingly-named Medicare “Advantage.” […] The solution is traditional Medicare as it was designed and enacted in 1965, with it improved and expanded to everyone.
Medicare works. Americans overwhelmingly agree. After living with private health insurance or, worse, no health insurance at all, your 65th birthday is eye-opening. That birthday brings Medicare. Once you enroll in Medicare, you generally have no claims to fill out, no insurance companies to contact. It is comparatively simple.
The vision of Medicare for all is for everyone to have that simplicity and much, much more. In addition to expanding it to everyone, Medicare should be improved. Today, those with traditional Medicare who can afford supplemental private-insurance coverage (colloquially known as Medigap, because it fills in the gaps) generally must purchase it to control their costs. That will be in the rearview mirror under Improved Medicare for All. All premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and deductibles should be eliminated.
The vision is for cradle to grave, comprehensive healthcare coverage for everyone in America, automatically. It means better protection for everyone at lower cost—including for those covered under today’s Medicare. Improved Medicare for All means going to the doctor of your choice, without first checking to see if your preferred practitioner is in your insurance network. With Improved Medicare for All, there is essentially one big network of virtually every doctor and hospital in America. The result? Guaranteed health care with the provider of your choice, anywhere you happen to be, without the stress of dealing with private insurance companies. […] So how do we make that vision a reality? Medicare provides protection to the grave. But not from the cradle. At least, not yet. We are the wealthiest nation in the entire world at the wealthiest moment in our history. We are much wealthier than we were in 1965, more than a half century ago, when we enacted Medicare for those aged 65 and older. We are much wealthier than we were in 1972, when we extended Medicare coverage to people with serious, work-limiting disabilities. Seniors and people with disabilities are the segments of our population who, on average, have the highest medical costs and the most frequent need for care. Covering the rest of us should be easy. The politics make it hard, but it is achievable. As the title of the book makes clear, we are on a journey.
With Improved Medicare for All, there is essentially one big network of virtually every doctor and hospital in America. The result? Guaranteed health care with the provider of your choice, anywhere you happen to be, without the stress of dealing with private insurance companies.
Every chapter contains aspects of the discussion of how we got here—the nation’s history of health care—in order to provide context for the following points: Chapter 2 explains that the nation was on a slow path toward a single-payer system (essentially Medicare for All) during the first three-quarters of the twentieth century despite the strong opposition of powerful forces. Then, though, as Chapter 3 details, the powerful forces became more organized and pro-active. They succeeded in stopping the push for Medicare for All in its tracks. Indeed, they did not just halt progress; they partly reversed it. Perhaps most damaging, mainstream Democratic political leaders lost sight of the destination. Opportunities were lost as a result. Chapter 4 explains that where we are now is a result of having failed to enact a single-payer system. It discusses the flaws and unsustainability of the current patchwork system. The chapter explains that Democratic leaders, in the face of the election of President Ronald Reagan almost a half century ago, gave up on the destination. That was unfortunate. It has led to where the nation finds itself today. Continuing down the current road, simply tinkering with the present system, is unsustainable. Exiting the current road and getting back on track is essential.
Chapter 5 explains what the right road is. It reminds us what our North Star was prior to 1972 and what it should be again. It lays out the vision of a single-payer Improved Medicare for All system. It also explains that questioning the affordability of Medicare for All is misguided. The correct questions are (1) since the new system will save money, how should we divvy up the savings; and (2) given the complete unsustainability of the current system, how can the nation afford not to enact Improved Medicare for All. Monied interests have prevailed for the last half century, but history is not destiny. Replacing our current Rube Goldberg-style, overly complicated, dysfunctional healthcare system with a straightforward, superior system of Improved Medicare for All won’t happen without determined effort. History teaches that the commercial health insurance industry fears losing its business and will fight every initiative that jeopardizes those profits. The pharmaceutical industry will fight any initiative that will cut its exorbitant profits. Historically, physicians and hospitals have opposed government-provided health insurance. Given the powerful forces arrayed against Improved Medicare for All, its failure so far to become the law of the land is not hard to understand. Indeed, because health care is so crucial to all of us, it is easy to convince us that we will lose, not gain, from Improved Medicare for All. It is not hard to scare us into thinking that it is something foreign, un-American, inconsistent with the nation’s values, and harmful for us as individuals.
Replacing our current Rube Goldberg-style, overly complicated, dysfunctional healthcare system with a straightforward, superior system of Improved Medicare for All won’t happen without determined effort.
The concluding three chapters answer all of these challenges and fears. They provide the tools, including a roadmap, to finally reach our destination. Chapter 6 highlights the politics and how a winning coalition can be forged. It discusses why the organizations that represent hospitals and physicians may be convinced to end their opposition to Improved Medicare for All and join the other supporters working to enact it. Whether that happens or not, it is crucial to understand that the forces arrayed against Improved Medicare for All have been defeated in the past and they can be defeated again. The response to the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO is but one example spotlighting that the American people are both united and ready. The answer lies in numbers, active involvement, and determination. To the extent the electorate is engaged and clear-eyed, victory is not only achievable; it is inevitable. Chapter 7 alerts supporters to at least some of the disinformation that opponents will use to stymie and depress those engaged in the effort. The chapter adopts the premise that forewarned is forearmed. Finally, Chapter 8 provides specific actions that readers may take to join the winning fight. Universal Health Care Is a Fight We Can and Must Win And a winning fight it will be.
It may appear that the worst time to engage in this fight is now, in the shadow of the November 2024 election, when Donald Trump was returned to office together with a Republican House of Representatives and Senate. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservative forces hostile to a domestically-active federal government, and the entire judiciary will be even more conservative after the first few years of a Trump presidency. Yet this is the perfect time.
As polarized as the American people currently are, we are overwhelmingly united in our support for Medicare, as well as Social Security. Expanding both programs can lead the way to re-unite the United States. Together, we will win. We must. Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight, but it is a fight we can win. It is a fight we must win. Our lives literally depend on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Break Up Big Medicine': Taking On Healthcare Industry Greed Could Save US Families $6,000+ a Year
One expert said the options are to "watch the US healthcare system spiral into profit-driven chaos or finally treat the Big Medicine disease to create a healthcare system that puts patients and clinicians in control of care."
Aug 28, 2026
As millions of working-class Americans suffer from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' cuts to the already dysfunctional US healthcare system, a leading anti-monopoly group this week released a report with recommendations to restore "affordability and control to patients, clinicians, and communities across the country."
"The healthcare crisis didn’t happen by accident, it is the direct result of decades of neoliberal policy choices that handed more power to corporate healthcare giants while families paid the price," said Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP).
"The choice now is clear: Continue to watch the US healthcare system spiral into profit-driven chaos or finally treat the Big Medicine disease to create a healthcare system that puts patients and clinicians in control of care," she explained. "This agenda presents a roadmap for how to do it."
Harper and Emma Freer, AELP's senior policy analyst for healthcare, co-authored the new report, "Break Up Big Medicine," with contributions from a trio of other experts. One of them is Dr. Will Flanary, an independent ophthalmologist in Portland, Oregon.
"The US healthcare system, once made up of mostly independent practices like mine, is now dominated by Big Medicine behemoths—including private insurance conglomerates, Big Pharma manufacturers, pharmaceutical middlemen, megahospitals, and private equity-backed practices—whose only fiduciary duty is to executives and investors," he wrote in the foreword. "This makes it increasingly difficult to keep my practice afloat and uphold my oath, resulting in moral injury."
"So, I now have a second career as an advocate," who goes by "Dr. Glaucomflecken" on social media. "What my patients need most is bold policy reforms to break up Big Medicine and build a better healthcare system, one where they can access affordable, high-quality care and independent physicians like me can thrive."
The report notes that "between 2005 and 2025, the annual cost of employer-sponsored family coverage nearly tripled, from $12,214 to $35,119," US patients pay nearly three times as much for prescription drug prices as people in other countries, and "the United States spends more than $15,000 per person on healthcare each year—roughly one-fifth of our entire economy, and more than twice what peer nations spend, in return for worse patient outcomes on a variety of metrics."
Costs continue to rise, with The Wall Street Journal reporting last week that, according to benefits consulting giant Aon, US workers with employer-sponsored insurance are expected to spend an average of $5,297 on healthcare this year, or $388 more than last year. Another consultant, WTW, found that US employers expect their healthcare costs will rise 11.1% next year.
Meanwhile, six "corporate behemoths" in the sector—Cardinal Health, Cencora, Cigna, CVS Health, McKesson, and UnitedHealth Group—"now rank among the Fortune 15, making nearly $34 billion in annual profit," collectively, as AELP detailed Thursday. "Big Medicine now employs more than four in five US doctors," and practices must spend time completing, "on average, 40 prior authorizations per physician per week, time that would be better spent on patient care."
"Our current healthcare crisis is the result of several decades of federal policymaking by both political parties based on the flawed premise that empowering private insurers to ration access to healthcare, rather than addressing the underlying root causes of high prices, would effectively contain costs," the AELP report says.
The publication lays out a four-part "treatment plan" to save Americans $795 billion annually, or more than $6,000 per household: break up Big Medicine, bring down healthcare prices, build capacity, and bolster enforcement of existing laws.
The first section highlights how some solutions already exist in Congress, pointing to various bills, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) Break Up Big Medicine Act, their Patients Before Monopolies Act with Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) and Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Val Hoyle's (D-Ore.) Patients Over Profits Act, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon's (D-Pa.) Take Back Our Hospitals Act, and the Corporate Crimes Against Health Care Act, introduced by Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Merkley, and Warren.
The second section calls for standardizing and capping "healthcare prices across public and private payers using traditional Medicare reimbursement rates for inpatient and outpatient services and negotiated drug prices as benchmarks." It urges a ban on prior authorization, an end to patient cost-sharing obligations, investments "in public options that eliminate Big Medicine administrative waste," and passage of Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) Medicines for the People Act.
The third section calls for investments in the US prescription drug manufacturing base as well as in providers, "especially safety-net hospitals in rural and low-income metro areas, independent medical and dental practices, community pharmacies, and primary care physicians."
The final section calls on Congress to "close loopholes that allow anti-competitive business practices, which Big Medicine uses to drive up prescription drug costs," specifically promoting the repeal of the 1987 safe harbor for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other pharmaceutical middlemen, and the prohibition of "price discrimination, spread pricing, self-preferencing, network discrimination, and sole-source or exclusive contracting terms across all payers." It further advocates for an increase in funding for antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice.
"For decades, healthcare reform has focused on expanding private coverage and putting more money into a broken system while allowing corporate giants to consolidate power and drive up costs," said Freer. "Working families have paid more only to receive lower-quality care.
"Americans need a new policy paradigm that actually takes on the root causes of the crisis: consolidation, corporate control, and lack of competition," she argued. "This agenda is about moving beyond the status quo to build a healthcare system where patients come first, clinicians can thrive, and every American can afford the care they need."
The report comes amid renewed scrutiny of the president's "most favored nation" deals with Big Pharma, with Peter Maybarduk, access to medicines director for the watchdog Public Citizen, saying last week that "Trump has three kinds of drug pricing policy: fake, exaggerated, and not-real-yet, probably-won't-happen."
After pointing out on social media Wednesday that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in April agreed to publicize the deals for medicines listed on the direct-to-consumer website TrumpRx, and "months later, still crickets," Warren wondered, "Why should Americans believe this isn't just another Trump handout to fatten Big Pharma's pockets?"
Additionally, as Americans have started contending with the Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Republicans in Congress and signed by Trump last year, as well as the GOP's refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies, which has caused premiums to skyrocket, there have also been renewed calls for shifting the United States to a universal healthcare system.
A study published earlier this month by researchers at Yale University suggests the Medicare for All Act that's been repeatedly introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would save more than $1 trillion and over 114,000 lives annually.
"At a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ we need Medicare for All now more than ever," Sanders said in response to the study. "The time is now to end the greed of the big insurance and drug companies and pass Medicare for All."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect and the author of books including Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, noted in his Thursday coverage of AELP's report that "while it's complementary to a Medicare for All approach, single-payer insurance is not mentioned."
"In tandem with moving toward a Medicare for All system, we have to address consolidation that is the cause of healthcare being so expensive, with degraded quality, and the squeezing of healthcare professionals," Freer told Dayen. "Otherwise we end up with something like Medicare Advantage for All, which would be disastrous."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lowest-Paying US Corporations Have Poured Over $700 Billion Into Buybacks Since 2019
A new report shows that Walmart could have funded a nearly $4,000 bonus for every single one of the company's employees with the amount of money it spent buying back its own stock last year.
Aug 27, 2026
A report published Thursday shows that the top 100 lowest-wage corporations in the US pay their CEOs 614 times more than their median workers on average while also pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into stock buybacks, which further boost the wealth of top executives and rich shareholders.
The new report, released by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), examines the 100 corporations in the S&P 500 index that pay their median workers the least—a list that includes Walmart, Amazon, Target, DoorDash, and Home Depot. Between 2019 and 2025, the IPS report shows, the "Low-Wage 100" spent a combined $718 billion on stock buybacks.
IPS characterizes share repurchases as "a financial maneuver that artificially inflates CEOs’ stock-based pay and siphons resources out of worker wages and long-term investments."
"Walmart ranked No. 1 in buyback spending among Low-Wage 100 firms in 2025," the report observes. "The giant retailer spent $8.1 billion on share repurchases—a sum that could have funded a $3,851 bonus for each of the firm’s 2.1 million employees."
The CEOs at the Low-Wage 100 have seen their compensation rise by over 41% on average—without adjusting for inflation—since 2019, more than double the increase that the companies' median workers have seen during the same period, lagging behind rising costs.
"Average CEO compensation within the Low-Wage 100 hit $17.5 million in 2025. The group’s average median worker pay sat at just $36,571 last year," IPS found. "The average CEO-worker pay ratio of Low-Wage 100 firms has widened from 574 to 1 in 2019 to 614 to 1 in 2025. Seventeen of the 100 corporations reported pay ratios of 1,000 to 1 or higher."
The company with the highest CEO-worker pay ratio in 2025 was Lumentum, which paid its top executive 2,884 times as much as its median worker last year.
"Over the past year," the IPS report notes, "the CEOs of the Low-Wage 100 pocketed huge paychecks while looking the other way as their employees grappled with fears of ICE actions, the loss of vital healthcare and food assistance programs, and attempts to roll back key protections against racial and gender discrimination."
Far from wielding their power and influence to advocate on behalf of their own employees, IPS observed, the 100 leading corporations deployed their armies of lobbyists to push "tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation that slashed Medicaid and SNAP programs on which many of these firms’ employees rely."
“The Low-Wage 100 includes many of the world’s most influential CEOs,” said Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at IPS and lead author of the new report. “They could be using their political and economic clout to defend their workers against multiple threats. Instead, at this precarious moment in our democracy, they’ve chosen to remain silent.”
IPS concludes its report by recommending that lawmakers pursue three policy solutions: Increasing taxes on companies with large CEO-worker pay gaps, expanding the excise tax on stock buybacks, and "leveraging government contracts and subsidies" to force changes at major corporations.
"A bipartisan provision in the pending Senate defense authorization bill would bar military contractors from engaging in stock buybacks," the report notes. "This builds on modest Biden administration progress to use the power of the public purse to rein in CEO pay. But governments at all levels could be doing much more to leverage this power against executive excess."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Settle It': Trump Personally Intervened to Force DOJ Deal With Reviled Concert Ticket Monopoly
"The president stopped by to check on the negotiations. How is this not settled yet? asked Trump," The Wall Street Journal reported. "By the end of the meeting, it was."
Aug 24, 2026
Reporting published over the weekend revealed that US President Donald Trump personally intervened to force a Justice Department settlement with Ticketmaster owner Live Nation, which faced a high-profile antitrust trial for abusing its market power and illegally crushing competition.
The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the Justice Department, which sued Live Nation in 2024 during former President Joe Biden's administration, was "preparing to wage a legal battle more than a decade in the making against the world’s largest concert promoter. Then President Trump called." A senior DOJ official relayed to associates that the president told them to "settle it."
Trump's intervention reportedly came just days before the March 2 trial began in the antitrust case, the product of a yearslong investigation into the ticketing and concert behemoth. The Justice Department formally announced the settlement on March 9; the DOJ antitrust division's counsel in the case appeared to be unaware of the deal until he appeared in court for trial.
According to the Journal, Trump's instruction to the DOJ to settle the Live Nation case came shortly after the president met with the company's CEO, Michael Rapino, in the Oval Office in late February.
"Trump had called the meeting to discuss how to improve bookings at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, according to people familiar with the conversation," the Journal reported. "He also wanted to know why the company hadn’t reached a deal over its lawsuit."
"On March 5, Rapino was back at the White House, meeting White House Counsel David Warrington and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to put the finishing touches on a deal. He was accompanied by Sullivan & Cromwell’s James McDonald, who had little antitrust experience but had been representing Trump in two New York appeals," the newspaper added. "The president stopped by to check on the negotiations. How is this not settled yet? asked Trump... By the end of the meeting, it was."
Since the start of Trump's second White House term, the Justice Department has repeatedly settled cases against corporations accused of violating the nation's antitrust laws. MS NOW reported last month that "DOJ staff have privately complained that the Trump administration is essentially deciding not to enforce antitrust laws that are critical to keeping companies from becoming single-source providers and being able to charge enormous sums for their product or service."
The Biden Justice Department's 2024 antitrust suit against Live Nation accused the company of depriving music fans in the US of "ticketing innovation" and forcing them to "use outdated technology while paying more for tickets than fans in other countries."
The Journal reported Sunday that most of the states that joined the antitrust action against Live Nation, "including those controlled by Republicans, viewed the settlement as so favorable to the company that they refused to join it and continued to trial."
"In April, a jury found Live Nation illegally monopolized the ticketing market for major concerts in the US," the Journal noted. "The plaintiff states have asked the judge to break up the company."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Accused of Trying to 'Pull Wool Over the Eyes of the Public' With Data Center Shift
"They are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people."
Aug 20, 2026
Corporate-friendly Republicans who are typically hostile to regulation are attempting to reshape their image in the lead-up to the November midterms in what critics say is a cynical attempt to capitalize on mounting grassroots backlash against artificial intelligence data centers.
Semafor reported Wednesday that prominent Republicans, having "cheered the AI boom," are now "scrambling to find a new identity as middle-ground pragmatists," even as they receive campaign contributions from companies directly involved in or benefiting from data center construction and maintenance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee recognized in an internal memo that data centers have "become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle."
Semafor noted that "instead of a moratorium on building new facilities, a growing number of GOP candidates have called for 'guardrails' to protect skeptical communities from unchecked AI growth, as well as the rollback of industry tax breaks."
"These Republicans’ rebrand also involves a bid for the high ground by attacking Democrats with more nuanced positions on data centers," the outlet added.
Semafor points specifically to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's sudden decision in June to "audit tech companies’ use of the electric grid," as well as his vow to work with state lawmakers to repeal the companies' tax breaks. The Houston Chronicle reported last month that "several of the Republican governor’s most generous financial backers are increasingly investing in the boom that has voters in deep-red rural parts of the state up in arms... including "real estate titan Ed Roski, Jr., who gave $1 million in April, and energy executive Kelcy Warren, who gave $500,000 in June."
Abbott is facing state Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-49) in November. In an ad debuted earlier this week, Hinojosa's campaign said Abbott "took $20 million in campaign donations from data center executives and companies, and he gave them billions in tax breaks."
New entry into the data center wars: @GinaHinojosaTX going after Greg Abbott.
A woman uses an AI chatbot to ask why her electric bill is going up; it answers, Greg Abbott. pic.twitter.com/NohUKGx53o
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 18, 2026
Semafor observed Wednesday that the "Republican shift is underway in Michigan, too," but it is "most intense in Wisconsin," where Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany is attempting to posture as tough on data centers despite his voting record in the US House and fundraising history.
Tiffany's campaign has tried to label Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Wisconsin's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, as "Data Center David."
"Tiffany’s social media posts that clipped Crowley’s answers to data center questions were reshared and condemned by many progressives who had supported [democratic socialist Francesca] Hong," Semafor reported. "That obscured what are in fact minor policy differences between the candidates: Tiffany wanted community input and for data centers to pay for their electricity, and so did Crowley. Like Texas, Wisconsin has passed bipartisan tax breaks to entice companies to do business there and were losing out on revenue when the profits blew away their projections."
Charlie Blaettler, political director of the Guardrails Alliance—a coalition working to expose the AI industry's growing political influence—said in a statement Wednesday that "the Republican Party is panicking because they sold out to the AI industry—a while ago—and they know it."
"But now they are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people," said Blaettler. "The GOP and AI’s unaccountable billionaires are scrambling to backtrack and find a new way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public so they can get what they want: a Congress that will do their bidding and an AI future that benefits them, not the many."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Shows Insurance Industry Funding Third Way as It Plots 'War' on Medicare for All Backers
Third Way has received donations from CVS Health, Johnson & Johnson, and an organization that counts the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association as one of its members, tax filings reveal.
Aug 11, 2026
The investigative outlet Sludge published an analysis on Monday showing that the health insurance industry is among the corporate donors to Third Way, a think tank that is reportedly preparing to pour $15 million into an effort to combat the rise of candidates who support Medicare for All and other progressive policies.
Third Way, which has long been hostile to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and Medicare for All in particular, does not publicly disclose its donors. But Sludge's David Moore uncovered some of the group's benefactors by examining corporate tax filings, which revealed that the private insurance industry group Better Solutions for Healthcare (BSFH) donated $50,000 to Third Way's advocacy arm in 2024.
Among BSFH's members are the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the health insurance industry trade group AHIP. Moore noted that BSFH is "run out of the offices of leading Republican digital and strategy firm Targeted Victory in Arlington" and was founded by GOP operative Alexander Schriver.
Sludge's review of corporate tax filings showed other healthcare industry donors to Third Way, including CVS Health and Johnson & Johnson.
"Another corporate lobbying heavyweight, the Business Roundtable (BRT), gave $50,000 to Third Way in 2024, up from the $25,000 it gave in 2023 and down from the $75,000 it gave in 2022," Moore reported. "Each year in 2019, 2020, and 2021, BRT gave $50,000 to Third Way. The CEO group’s health insurance members include the heads of UnitedHealth, Cigna, Elevance (formerly Anthem), CVS Health—all members of AHIP (formerly America's Health Insurance Plans), save for UnitedHealth—as well as healthcare company Centene and many Big Pharma firms like Johnson & Johnson."
NEW: Who's funding the dark money Third Way, dug up in most recent tax filings:
- Republican-run insurance industry front group
- Health insurance giant
- Big Pharma
- More insurance lobbyists
...as it fights the Democratic left and Medicare for All:https://t.co/w787PVhxsH
— David Moore (@ppolitics) August 11, 2026
Moore's reporting came days Third Way president Jonathan Cowan told The New York Times that his organization is "preparing for the next war that is coming."
Cowan said that "it is deeply troubling to see radical, far-left candidates winning in places that are potentially presidential swing states"—a comment published two days after progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed, a vocal supporter of Medicare for All, won the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan.
The Times story characterized Third Way as "a leading centrist Democratic group," without mentioning the organization's corporate ties.
"Post El-Sayed’s win, Third Way has done media hits in NYT, CNN, WaPo, Vox, and not one of these outlets has mentioned who funds Third Way historically or bothered to ask who their current donors are," journalist Adam Johnson wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, praising Sludge's review of tax records.
"Journalists are, in principle, supposed to do what David did here: investigate ulterior motives, follow the money, dig deeper," Johnson wrote. "Alas what mainstream outlets have done for Third Way this past week is credulously take them at their word they are merely 'concerned about electability.'"
Earlier this year, Third Way published a memo attacking Medicare for All and its purportedly "astronomical cost." (The memo does not mention research showing that a Medicare for All system would cost less than the status quo, while providing comprehensive universal health coverage and saving tens of thousands of lives per year.)
A recent study by Yale University researchers found that a Medicare for All system would reduce US national health expenditures by more than $1 trillion a year and "save over 114,000 lives annually."
Dr. Ed Weisbart, the national board secretary of Physicians for a National Health Program, told Sludge that "anybody who chooses to attack [Medicare for All] is putting themselves out of step with what I think most people in our country see as the solution."
“People want this, even when they understand that of course it's going to mean a change in their taxes—but they also understand that for 95% of people or so, the change in taxes is smaller than the amount that they would save by not having premiums, not having co-pays, not having deductibles,” said Weisbart. “People are getting that. And if you try to market a political view that's opposite, people see right through that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani Backs Proposal to End Amazon's 'Exploitative' Delivery Model in New York City
If passed, the Delivery Protection Act would be the first law in the US to regulate Amazon's vast network of subcontractors that handle the company's deliveries.
Aug 11, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has thrown his support behind legislation that could become a first-in-the-nation law to regulate Amazon's network of subcontractors that deliver the $3 trillion company's packages—an "exploitative business model" that shields the e-commerce giant from accountability, as Mamdani said Monday.
The Democratic mayor endorsed the Delivery Protection Act, proposed by New York City Council Member Tiffany Cabán, which would establish new safety, training, and labor standards for "last-mile" warehouses and distribution facilities in New York City, and hold the companies that operate the facilities, such as Amazon and FedEx, liable for employing the workers who make hundreds of deliveries per day across the city.
As the mayor's office said Monday, at least 11 last-mile facilities have opened across New York City since 2020, with subcontractors running the warehouses as Amazon directs the hiring of delivery drivers, the routes they use, and requires them to use Amazon-branded vehicles and uniforms.
But while exerting control over the deliveries, Amazon pushes responsibility for the vehicles used onto the subcontractors, as delivery workers explained in a video released on social media by Mamdani on Monday.
"When injuries and worker accidents skyrocket, Amazon says they have nothing to do with it. They can't have it both ways," said the workers.
If it looks like an Amazon delivery and drives like an Amazon delivery, then it's an Amazon delivery, right? Not according to Amazon.
Big companies like Amazon have built a vast network of subcontractors who deliver their packages while shielding them from accountability.
It… pic.twitter.com/6hQVV8GoNH
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) August 10, 2026
According to a report by the Office of the Comptroller in New York City last year, 78% of areas surrounding last-mile facilities saw an increase in injury-causing crashes after the warehouses opened.
“Corporations like Amazon build billion-dollar business models by insulating themselves from accountability through a system of exploitative subcontracting," said Mamdani in a statement. "As last-mile delivery centers have exploded across New York, so too have traffic accidents and worker injuries. The Delivery Protection Act is commonsense regulation that protects delivery workers, safeguards the communities where these facilities operate, and ensures that the corporations benefiting from workers’ labor are responsible for the consequences of their business practices."
"The people who make these companies run deserve dignity, stability, and a safe workplace," he added. "It's time to end the subcontracting model that puts profits over people and build an economy that works for working New Yorkers.”
By using subcontractors, Amazon can avoid municipal regulations regarding minimum pay and benefits. A nationwide survey by the Shift Project at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy last year found that Amazon delivery drivers are paid an average of $19 per hour, compared with $35 per hour at UPS and $25 per hour at FedEx. Pay does not rise with tenure at Amazon, as opposed to its delivery competitors, and fewer than half of Amazon drivers have access to health insurance, paid vacation, and retirement plans that are provided to nearly all UPS delivery workers.
In New York City, pay for the drivers who make Amazon's deliveries is higher, starting at about $20 per hour and averaging close to $24 per hour. But one driver in Queens, Luc Rene, told The New York Times that Amazon controls the volume of packages he delivers and has refused to allow the subcontractor he works for, DNA Logistics, to lighten the workload during extreme heat and other inclement weather.
The company could not be reached for a comment to the Times, and Amazon did not address Rene's allegations but claimed it adjusts drivers' routes due to inclement weather.
Amazon has claimed that the Delivery Protection Act—which would require last-mile facilities to obtain licenses from the city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, ensure worker protections, and hold companies accountable for delivery quotas, schedules, and routes—would raise costs for people who use delivery services, with one Amazon-commissioned study claiming households would spend $664 more annually if the company had to comply with the law.
But Brendan Griffith, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, said the workers and communities in New York City are already "paying the price" for Amazon's reliance on subcontractors.
“The Delivery Protection Act will establish stronger protections for worker safety, employment, and responsible operations while bringing long-overdue oversight to an industry where major operators have too often hidden behind subcontractors," said Griffith. "To be clear: when these companies 'raise the alarm' of fewer jobs, higher prices, or service reductions, they are describing choices that they may make, not in the best interest of consumers and workers but to protect their bottom line. We thank Mayor Mamdani for standing with the Amazon Teamsters and the labor movement in support of this legislation that puts NYC workers—who are also consumers—first, and we urge the City Council to pass it without delay.”
Mamdani's advocacy for the legislation in New York City caught the attention of at least one lawmaker across the country.
"We should pass something like this in Colorado," said state Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-1).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Talarico Explains Infamous 'Powell Memo' to Texas Voters, Making Right-Wing 'Master Plan' a Campaign Issue
"The top 1% put the American Dream behind a paywall," said the Texas Democrat as he unveiled a framework for his economic vision.
Aug 06, 2026
Politicians from both sides of the aisle have come to realize in recent years that "affordability" and "cost of living" are key issues voters want to hear about on the campaign trail, with nearly all respondents to a Harris Poll last month reporting they believe the US is currently in an affordability crisis.
But on Wednesday, before 1,300 Texans in the city of Arlington, state Rep. James Talarico (D-50), the Democratic US Senate candidate, contextualized the crisis for voters.
Talarico provided a history lesson that explained how—while his opponent, Attorney General Ken Paxton, has blamed the Biden administration for rising costs and the struggles of working Texans—"this affordability crisis isn't something that happened over the last five years. This affordability crisis has been 50 years in the making."
While introducing his economic platform, "The New American Dream," Talarico held the audience's attention as he explained the Powell Memo—a document formally titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” which Virginia-based corporate lawyer Lewis Powell wrote in 1971 for his client, the US Chamber of Commerce.
The memo, said Talarico, provided "a blueprint for how corporations could amass political power, reverse the gains of the Great Society and the New Deal, and rig the system for themselves."
"The Powell memo outlined a strategy. Unite corporate special interests, privilege corporate perspectives in the media, appoint sympathetic judges to the court, and buy politicians in both political parties," continued Talarico. "And it worked. Republicans and some Democrats sold the false gospel of trickle-down economics."
.@JamesTalarico: 50 years ago, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell circulated a memo around DC — a blueprint for how corporations could amass political power, reverse the gains of the Great Society and the New Deal, and rig the system for themselves.
The Powell memo outlined a… pic.twitter.com/ne7f23iXP3
— Team Talarico (@TeamTalaricoHQ) August 6, 2026
In the memo, Powell—who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon just months after he delivered the blueprint to the powerful Chamber of Commerce—outlined how the interests of corporate America should be framed as "individual freedom" that the country must protect.
Private companies should use political influence "aggressively and with determination" to stop "the stampedes by politicians to support any legislation related to 'consumerism' or to the 'environment,'" wrote Powell, and should show no "reluctance to penalize politically those who oppose” the corporate effort.
“Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations," the memo argued.
"Trickle-down economics is not a theory, it is theft."
The result of that "long-range planning" and "consistency of action over an indefinite period of years," said Talarico, is the current political system—in which corporate interests pour billions of dollars into elections to support favorable candidates, Congress passes massive tax breaks for billionaires, and working families are left struggling to afford healthcare, childcare, and other essentials.
"Trickle-down economics is not a theory, it is theft," he said. "Since the late 1970s, megadonors and corporate special interests have been buying politicians in both political parties. And then those politicians turned around and rigged the economy to benefit their wealthy donors at our expense. We have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis."
He added that five decades after the Powell Memo, "the top 1% put the American Dream behind a paywall"—pointing to the extreme wealth of tech CEOs like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, while "one in five Texas children live in poverty."
The American Dream has become an American Nightmare.
It’s too expensive to buy a home.
It’s too expensive to get married and have kids.
It’s too expensive to retire comfortably.
The top 1% put the American Dream behind a paywall. pic.twitter.com/gfhM2weVY0
— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) August 6, 2026
David Sirota of The Lever, whose team produced the award-winning 2024 podcast "Master Plan," which details the history and influence of the Powell Memo, applauded Talarico for speaking directly to voters about the long history behind today's "affordability crisis."
"Talarico is recounting—and promising to fight—the master plan that we exposed. And he’s making that promise in one of America’s most high-profile Senate races," said Sirota.
Talarico's event in Arlington marked the beginning of a monthlong tour across Texas in which he plans to roll out his plans to begin reversing the decades of damage done by the Powell Memo and politicians from both major parties who have prioritized corporate interests over working Americans.
The candidate's agenda includes raising the minimum wage; closing billionaire tax loopholes and ending tax breaks for the top 1% of earners in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act; passing universal childcare; permanently expanding the child tax credit; passing an anti-corruption package to ban super political action committees; and providing down payment assistance for first-time home buyers.
"People are working hard every day," said Talarico. "They're playing by the rules. But those rules of today weren't written for us. They were written for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
El-Sayed Challenges 'Corporate Sellout' and 'Coward' Mike Rogers to Five Debates
The Michigan Democrat called his Republican opponent "a guy who spent 14 years in Congress with one goal: to figure out how to cash out the day he left," and promised to send him back to Florida in November.
Aug 05, 2026
After winning Michigan's Democratic primary contest for US Senate, Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time on Wednesday, challenging the Republican nominee, former Congressman Mike Rogers, to five debates before the November general election.
"Mike," El-Sayed said at a podium while speaking with reporters on Wednesday morning, "I know you're gonna say no 'cause you're a coward: Five debates, all right?"
"If you're willing to stand with me and have a conversation—you and I both know that you will wither in front of your own crimes. But Imma make sure Michiganders know about them," he continued. "By the time we're done, you are not gonna have safe quarter from people holding you accountable to what you've done for them here in Michigan. We will send you back to Florida where you belong."
Ripping Rogers as a "corporate sellout," El-Sayed said that he is "a guy who spent 14 years in Congress with one goal: to figure out how to cash out the day he left. And guess what he did: As soon as he left Congress, after having taken corporate check after corporate check after corporate check, to empower the corporations to pick your pockets, he went and he cashed out."
"Not in Michigan—no, winters are too cold for him," he added, eliciting chuckles from the crowd. "He's got thin skin, after all. He went to Florida. So, Mike, if you wanna be a Florida man, go be a Florida man."
Rogers‚ who was unopposed in Tuesday's GOP primary, worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation before entering politics, first at the state level and then representing Michigan's 8th District in Congress from 2001-15. In comments to Fox News late Tuesday, the Republican cited his time fighting "terrorism" in the FBI and falsely claimed that El-Sayed believes "America deserved 9/11."
"This is really about the heart and soul of our country," Rogers said of the race just minutes after El-Sayed, a son of Egyptian immigrants, declared victory over Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens. "I have never seen someone so radical, so extreme, get nominated by a political party... The Democrat party is lost to this hardcore socialist attitude."
The Democratic Socialists of America did not endorse El-Sayed, but his victory is part of a wave of recent primary wins by progressive congressional candidates, from New York and Pennsylvania to Colorado. The trend continued in other closely watched Michigan races on Tuesday, with William Lawrence winning in the 7th Congressional District and Donavan McKinney in the 13th District.
Like other victorious progressives, El-Sayed ran on a platform prioritizing working-class people; a former public health official, he especially focused on the fight for Medicare for All. Bridge Michigan reported Wednesday that "El-Sayed has said he doesn't consider himself a democratic socialist and rejects the notion that his views are extreme in today’s political climate."
"In an era where our premiums are quickly pricing people out, I think being for Medicare for All is… the moderate position," El-Sayed previously told the outlet. In an era where President Donald Trump "is weaponizing" US immigration and Customs Enforcement "against the Constitution itself," he added, "I think abolishing ICE is a moderate position."
While key party leaders nationwide have often backed establishment candidates over progressives in recent primaries, including El-Sayed v. Stevens, Democrats in Michigan and across the country are already rallying behind the victor, with even the congresswoman he defeated showing her support on Wednesday.
"Mike Rogers represents everything people hate about politics: He sold Michiganders out to the corporate special interests cutting him checks, abandoned Michigan for a Florida mansion, and got rich advising the industries he regulated in Congress," Michigan Democratic Party spokesperson Joey Hannum said in a statement after the primary election.
"As Trump's approval rating plummets to record lows, Rogers is still pledging to rubber stamp his toxic agenda, mocking Michiganders' concerns about rising costs, and saying he would focus on 'shielding' the Trump administration and billionaires like Elon Musk from accountability, rather than stand up for working families," Hannum said. "Michigan Democrats will hold Rogers accountable for his corruption, expose his price-hiking agenda, and defeat him a second time this November."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressive Chair Says 'Every Single Cent' of Trump Tariff Refunds Should Go to Consumers
Consumers bore the vast majority of the costs of Trump's illegal tariffs, but it's the large corporations that raised prices who are seeing massive refunds.
Aug 03, 2026
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said on Monday that "every single cent" of the refunds for President Donald Trump's illegal tariffs should go to consumers who bore the brunt of the financial strain rather than the large corporations currently receiving them.
"Apple got a $2.2 billion tariff refund. Amazon got $600 million," Casar wrote in a post to social media. "Trump is sending the 'refunds' to the companies, not working people."
The Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's sweeping tariffs in February, ruling that he could not impose them unilaterally using powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
A group of 25 Democratic states sued the Trump administration on Monday for once again attempting to reimpose the tariffs under a different law, the 1974 Trade Act.
According to the Congressional Budget Office report from February 2026, about 70% of the tariffs were being passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices, while businesses absorbed about 30% of the cost.
Companies were able to pass on even more of the costs to consumers by hiking prices of domestic goods as well, meaning ordinary people were forced to swallow about 95% of the overall cost.
Yale's Budget Lab estimated that Trump's full tariff regime was costing the average household about $2,400 annually. Even after the Supreme Court rolled them back, the Budget Lab estimates that households will pay an extra $1,100 per year.
But the system for refunding the approximately $166 billion taken as part of the unlawful tariff regime allows only "importers" to apply for reimbursement, meaning the refunds have largely flowed to big companies who get to decide how much, if any, of the windfall they want to trickle down. So far, it does not seem to be very much.
Amazon disclosed on Thursday that it was participating in the refund process and that it had received over $600 million from the federal government in quarter two.
Brian Olsavsky, Amazon’s finance chief, said there was a "limited set of circumstances” in which the company could find examples of it directly passing prices along to consumers, since third-parties are the importers for most products, but said it would refund them when they could be identified.
He added that the refunds would also be invested in “low prices for customers," though he provided no details on how that would work.
Apple, meanwhile, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the refunds. In a press release on Thursday, the company celebrated that the tariff refunds on their own were worth “2 percentage points” of its 50.1% gross margin, which AppleInsider calculated put the total refund at about $2.2 billion, though its most recent earnings report did not disclose the full amount.
But there's no indication that any of that windfall will be seen by consumers, even through lowered prices, let alone through any sort of reimbursement program.
"While Apple is celebrating its margins, it won’t stop your next MacBook Air from becoming more expensive and more scarce," wrote Kyle Barr on Monday for Gizmodo. "Last month, Apple increased prices for practically all its various products."
Other companies have also received or are expecting refunds in the billions or hundreds of millions, including Ford, General Motors, UPS, Nike, and Walmart, though only some have indicated plans to pass on even part of the savings to consumers.
Rep. Mark Pocan said it was "just another transfer of wealth from everyday Americans to mega-corporations."
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress aiming to provide tariff relief for consumers.
One bill introduced by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) would require companies to reduce prices in accordance with the size of the refund they receive. Another from Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) would create an individual tariff refund tax credit and tax corporations unless they absorbed tariff costs rather than passing them to consumers.
None of these bills have advanced out of committee or received a floor vote.
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