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
kyrsten sinema
'Good!' Declares AOC After Arizona City Council Rejects Data Center Pushed by Sinema
"She can't even be effective as a shill," said one critic of the ex-senator's lobbying.
Dec 12, 2025
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among those celebrating after the Chandler, Arizona City Council on Thursday night unanimously rejected an artificial intelligence data center project promoted by former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.
"Good!" Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) simply said on social media Friday.
The defeat of the proposed $2.5 billion project comes as hundreds of advocacy groups and progressive leaders, including US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), are urging opponents of energy-sucking AI data centers across the United States to keep pressuring local, state, and federal leaders over climate, economic, environmental, and water concerns.
In Chandler, "the nearly 43,000-square-foot data center on the corner of Price and Dobson roads would have been the 11th data center in the Price Road Corridor, an area known for employers like Intel and Wells Fargo," the Arizona Republic reported.
The newspaper noted that around 300 people attended Thursday's meeting—many holding signs protesting the project—and city spokesperson Matthew Burdick said that the government received 256 comments opposing the data center.
Although Sinema skipped the debate on Thursday, the ex-senator—who frequently thwarted Democratic priorities on Capitol Hill and ultimately ditched the party before leaving office—previously attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in Chandler to push for the project. That stunt earned her the title of "cartoon villain."
Sinema critics again took aim at her after the 7-0 vote, saying that "she can't even be effective as a shill" and "Sinema went all in to lobby for a data center in Chandler, Arizona and the council told her to get rekt."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball declared: "Kyrsten Sinema data center L. Love to see it."
Politico noted Friday that "several other Arizona cities, including Phoenix and Tucson, have written zoning rules for data centers or placed new requirements on the facilities. Local officials in cities in Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Arizona, and Indiana have also rejected planned data centers."
Janos Marton, chief advocacy officer at Dream.Org, said: "Another big win in Arizona, following Tucson's rejection of a data center. When communities are organized they can fight back and win. Don't accept data centers that hide their impacts behind NDAs, drive up energy prices, and bring pollution to local neighborhoods."
When Sinema lobbied for the Chandler data center in October, she cited President Donald Trump's push for such projects.
"The AI Action Plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said at the time. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
Trump on Thursday signed an executive order (EO) intended to block states from enforcing their own AI regulations.
"I understand the president has issued an EO. I think that is yet to play itself out," Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke reportedly said after the city vote. "Really, this is a land use question, not [about] policies related to data centers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cartoon Villain' Ex-Senator Kyrsten Sinema Now Shilling for Big Tech's Power-Sucking AI Data Centers
"Being handmaiden to the AI tech lords in strong-arming local communities to accept AI data centers... is about as low as it goes," wrote one critic.
Oct 27, 2025
A former Democratic senator once known for a purported "independent streak" now says she is working "hand in glove" with the Trump administration to force communities to allow the construction of energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers.
As reported by YourValley.Net, former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) recently attended a planning and zoning commission meeting in the city of Chandler, Arizona, in which she warned local officials that a massive data center would be built in their community whether they wanted it or not.
According to YourValley.Net, Sinema was at the meeting to advocate for plans created by New York-based developer Active Infrastructure to construct a massive 420,000-square foot data center in the city.
A video of the meeting posted on X by 12News reporter Brahm Resnik shows Sinema telling local officials that if they did not act to approve the data center, then the Trump administration would simply impose it on them without seeking their input.
"The AI action plan, set out by the Trump administration, says very clearly that we must continue to proliferate AI and AI data centers throughout the country," she said. "So federal preemption is coming. Chandler right now has the opportunity to determine how and when these new, innovative AI data centers will be built."
She then added that "when federal preemption comes, we'll no longer have that privilege, it will just occur, and it will occur in the manner in which they want it."
Former US Sen. Kyrsten Sinema lobbies for data center developer at Chandler AZ Plan Commission. Says she's working "hand in glove" w Trump Admin & warns city to embrace DCs or face federal intervention. City Council vote on Sinema's DC scheduled for Nov. 13. pic.twitter.com/KulHg594gj
— Brahm Resnik (@brahmresnik) October 24, 2025
The construction of AI data centers has provoked outrage throughout the US, as local residents have complained about the data centers consuming massive amounts of resources—increasing monthly electricity bills and, in some cases, disrupting local water supplies.
Mike Jacobs, a senior energy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, last month released an analysis estimating that data centers had added billions of dollars to Americans’ electric bills across seven different states in recent years. In Virginia alone, for instance, Jacobs found that household electric bills had subsidized data center transmission costs to the tune of $1.9 billion in 2024.
Some progressive critics were quick to denounce Sinema lobbying for AI data centers, as it confirmed the view they held during her Senate career that she shilled for corporate interests.
"[I] knew Sinema would show up in some super-scummy corporate role," remarked journalist Nathan Newman in a post on Bluesky. "But being handmaiden to the AI tech lords in strong-arming local communities to accept AI data centers—or face the wrath of the Trump administration—is about as low as it goes."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argued that Sinema's comments at the meeting show why "we need a lifetime ban on members of Congress lobbying."
Ian Carrillo, a sociologist at the University of Oklahoma, expressed horror at the way major tech companies are deploying people such as Sinema to bully communities into accepting their plans.
"The AI bubble can't pop soon enough," he wrote. "These data centers are rolled out in the most anti-democratic ways, involving NDAs, shadow companies and, according to Sinema, federal preemption."
Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson condemned the former senator for "openly threatening localities."
Sinema's message to Chandler residents, said Robinson, was "Approve resource-sucking AI data centers in your communities, or I will work with the Trump administration to inflict data centers on you without consent, regardless of the harm that occursDrop Site News reporter Ryan Grim, meanwhile, simply labeled Sinema a "cartoon villain."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Crushing Blow to the Labor Agenda' as Manchin, Sinema Block Biden NLRB Nominee
"These two senators effectively handed Trump control of the board when his term begins," noted one observer.
Dec 11, 2024
In a move likely fraught with major implications for worker rights during the impending second administration of Republican President-elect Donald Trump, Democratic-turned-Independent U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday blocked Democrat Lauren McFerran's bid for a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.
With every Republican senator except Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas voting against President Joe Biden's nomination of McFerran for a new five-year term, the fate of the woman who has led the agency since 2021 was up to Manchin and Sinema—who, as More Perfect Union founder and executive director Faiz Shakir put it on social media, "consistently spoiled the story of 'what could have been'" by years of fighting to thwart their own former party's agenda.
Sinema struck first, her "no" vote on McFerran grinding the confirmation tally to a 49-49 tie. Manchin, who showed up later, cast the decisive vote, negating speculation that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Senate president who lost the presidential contest to Trump last month, would break the stalemate.
"It is deeply disappointing, a direct attack on working people, and incredibly troubling that this highly qualified nominee—with a proven track record of protecting worker rights—did not have the votes," lamented Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Chris Jackson, a former Democratic Lawrence County, Tennessee commissioner and longtime labor advocate, called Manchin and Sinema's votes "a crushing blow to the labor agenda."
"By casting decisive NO votes against President Biden's NLRB nominee, they've guaranteed Democrats will lose control of the national labor board until at least 2026," Jackson said. "Their votes effectively hand Donald Trump the keys to the board the moment he takes office again. This is a betrayal of working families—and a gift to corporate interests, which is par for the course for these two."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA union, said on social media that while "Manchin and Sinema are responsible for killing voting rights, worker rights, women's rights, LGBTQ rights, childcare, vision, and dental for seniors, and an economy built for the people," the two obstructionist senators "are not the story."
"Don't bury the lede," implored Nelson. "The entire GOP has relentlessly fought against anything good for the vast majority of the people of this country. The GOP shows once again their total disdain for their constituents."
"But they better watch what they do in implementing their plans to make it worse," she warned. "These laws are set up to mostly protect corporations and getting rid of the last pathetic bits of worker rights under the law will simply lead to more disruption and CHAOS."
Trump's first term saw relentless attacks on workers' rights. Critics fear a second Trump administration—whose officials and agenda are steeped in the anti-worker Project 2025—will roll back gains achieved under Biden and work to weaken the right to organize, water down workplace health and safety rules, and strip overtime pay, to name but a handful of GOP wish-list items.
The latest votes by Manchin and Sinema—who are both leaving Congress after this term—sparked widespread outrage among workers' rights defenders on social media, with one account on X, formerly known as Twitter, posting: "Manchin is geriatric and Sinema has a long fruitful career ahead of her in a consulting firm that advocates child slave labor, but at least they kicked the working class in the teeth one last time. Nothing to do now but hope there's a hell."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the 11 Private Equity Donors Trying to Buy the 2024 Election
The financiers are spending big on candidates that will preserve the carried interest tax deduction, which allows them to pay a lower 23.8% tax rate on the capital gains passed on to them as compensation rather than the top income tax rate of up to 40.8%.
Aug 05, 2024
Eleven of the top 50 individual contributors to political campaigns this election cycle work in the finance industry—specifically in private equity—and are betting big on congressional and presidential candidates who will protect one very special federal tax break worth billions of dollars to them: the carried interest loophole.
So far this election cycle, these 11 private equity billionaires have already contributed more than double the amount that more than 147 private equity firms pumped into federal elections in all of the 2016 election cycle. Private equity—which largely entails rich investors buying and selling companies—is only a part of a larger finance industry that includes hedge funds, securities firms, banks, and investment companies and managers.
This loophole, of course, is not the only tax perk that private equity firms favor. They also push to keep the tax rate on capital gains much lower than the tax rate on ordinary income.
Finance—securities and investments—tops the list of industries giving the most money to date this round, with more than $1 billion in contributions to candidates, parties, and PACs, according to the nonpartisan political funding tracker Open Secrets.
The 11 private equity leaders have contributed more than $223 million to congressional and presidential candidates and the super PACs that support them, accounting for almost 20% of all money contributed by thousands of companies in the finance sector, according to Open Secrets data. During the 2016 election cycle, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) reported that the 147 private equity firms it analyzed contributed $92 million to candidates and super PACs.
The carried interest tax deduction allows private equity investment managers to pay a lower 23.8% tax rate on the capital gains passed on to them as compensation rather than the top income tax rate of up to 40.8% they would pay on the same amount if it were considered wage or salary income.
“Carried interest is a form of compensation paid to investment executives like private equity, hedge fund and venture capital managers,” CNBC explains. “The managers receive a share of the fund’s profits—typically 20% of the total—which is divided among them proportionally. The profit is called carried interest, and is also known as ‘carry’ or ‘profits interest.’”
The $223-million investment these 11 private equity billionaires are making in campaign contributions in hopes of keeping the loophole intact will save the industry an estimated $14 billion in taxes over 10 years, as Senate Democrats pointed out in 2022 when they were forced to let go of legislation to get rid of it.
This loophole, of course, is not the only tax perk that private equity firms favor. They also push to keep the tax rate on capital gains much lower than the tax rate on ordinary income. And some private equity managers have other public policy interests, like billionaire Jeffery Yass, the largest individual donor this election cycle, who gives millions of dollars to school choice groups and other conservative causes.
On April 15, 2024, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Carried Interest Fairness Act (S. 4123), which she co-sponsored with 14 other senators, in order to eliminate the tax loophole, something that Democrats have long sought to fix. The proposed legislation treats the buying and selling of companies as ordinary income if that is a firm’s primary business. “By closing the carried interest loophole, we’ll make our tax code fairer for working families, cut the deficit, and ensure that those at the top of the food chain aren’t exploiting the system to further enrich themselves,” Baldwin said in a press release.
While 90% of the private equity contributions made so far this election cycle have gone to Republicans or the PACs that support them, not every Democrat is opposed to eliminating the loophole.
Before Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) left the party to become an independent in 2022, she “courted private equity titans and received the maximum allowed amount from the PACs of leading private equity firms such as The Carlyle Group, along with the industry’s trade organization, the American Investment Council (AIC),” CMD reported.
Private equity billionaires have dramatically increased their spending since Sinema decided not to run for reelection this year.
In 2017, as part of then-President Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the length of time needed to trigger the long-term capital gains tax was raised from one year to three just for private equity. The loophole itself was kept in the bill because of fierce industry lobbying, even though Trump groused that those who took the tax break were “getting away with murder.”
Former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden both pledged to get rid of the unfair tax loophole. Obama never followed through, and Biden dropped the loophole fix from the Inflation Reduction Act due to opposition from Sinema. Anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist compares the situation to a dog chasing a bus. “You didn’t mean to catch the bus, you meant to whine about the bus,” he famously said.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has made few comments so far on private equity and has not yet expressed her views about the carried interest loophole.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Greg Casar Says There's an Easy Way to Show Which Party Is More Pro-Worker
"Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk," said the Texas Democrat.
Jul 16, 2024
As former U.S. President Donald Trump's new running mate and a union leader's speech spark discussions about the Republican Party and organized labor, one Democratic congressman on Tuesday suggested a test to see who is actually pro-worker.
Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat with a history of
advocating for workers, called for holding a vote on the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act when his colleagues in Congress return to Capitol Hill next week.
"If Republicans wanna talk like they're pro-worker, then let's have a vote on the PRO Act next week," Casar said on social media. "Let's see which politicians are for unions and which ones are all talk. Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the PRO Act "expands various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace." The vast majority of its co-sponsors are Democrats.
"Dems are ready to vote, how about you guys?"
Casar specifically called out House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who on Tuesday wrote for Compact Magazine about International Brotherhood of Teamsters general president Sean O'Brien's Monday night speech at the Republican National Convention (RNC), acknowledging that it "came as something of a shock."
Hawley called the speech "a watershed moment" and said that "Republicans have a chance to turn the corner on labor." He also took the opportunity to highlight some of his own positions, such as more sick days for rail workers. The senator left out that he has backed "right-to-work" laws that ban union security clauses in collective bargaining agreements and opposed the PRO Act.
O'Brien—who responded by saying that Hawley "is 100% on point"—had, as The Washington Post's Lauren Kaori Gurley put it, "showered praise" on the senator during his speech. The Teamsters leader also stressed the need for pro-worker reforms.
"Labor law must be reformed," O'Brien said. "Americans vote for a union but can never get a union contract. Companies fire workers who try to join unions and hide behind toothless laws that are meant to protect working people but are manipulated to benefit corporations. This is economic terrorism at its best. An individual cannot withstand such an assault. A fired worker cannot afford corporate delays and these greedy employers know it. There are no consequences for the company, only the worker."
He declared that "we need corporate welfare reform. Under our current system, massive companies like Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and Walmart take zero responsibilities for the workers they employ. These companies offer no real health insurance, no retirement benefits, no paid leave, relying on underfunded public assistance. And who foots the bill? The individual taxpayer. The biggest recipients of welfare in this country are corporations, and this is real corruption. We must put workers first."
O'Brien was invited to speak at the RNC by Trump, who on Monday secured enough delegates to become the Republican nominee and announced U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate—creating a ticket that Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, called "a corporate CEO's dream and a worker's nightmare."
Teamsters spokesperson Kara Deniz told the Post that the union leader requested to speak at the Democratic National Convention next month but has not yet received an invitation.
Unlike the Teamsters, several major labor groups endorsed Biden for reelection over a year ago. The Democrat describes himself as "the most pro-union President leading the most pro-union administration in American history"—and he has mostly avoided angering organized labor, other than working with Congress to block a national rail strike in December 2022.
Biden became the first sitting president in history to walk a picket line when he rallied with United Auto Workers members in September. The UAW endorsed him in January, when the group's president, Shawn Fain, sharply criticized Trump and warned that "rarely as a union do you get so clear of a choice between two candidates."
O'Brien struck a much different tone on Monday, praising the ex-president and "characterizing both parties as ambivalent about unions with room to improve," as Post reporter Jeff Stein pointed out on social media. In addition to Sanders, Stein highlighted, "there are 48 Senate sponsors of the PRO Act. They all caucus with the Democratic Party. Zero are Republicans."
Only Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.)—who ditched the Democratic Party shortly after the 2022 election—have joined with the chamber's Republicans to oppose the PRO Act. In the GOP-controlled House, the bill is backed by every Democrat but just three Republicans: Reps. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Christopher Smith (N.J.).
"On June 21, 2023, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders passed the PRO Act 11-10," Warren Gunnels, the panel's majority staff director, noted Tuesday. "Every Democrat on the committee voted yes. Every Republican on the committee voted no."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said, "To the Republicans at the RNC who want to appear to support American labor, here's an idea: Come join us to pass the PRO Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sierra Club Urges Dem Senators to Uphold Biden Clean Vehicle Standards
One campaigner from the green group decried the "dangerous attempt to roll back progress on climate, clean air, and cleaner cars" by some lawmakers skeptical of the new EPA rules.
Apr 11, 2024
The Sierra Club on Wednesday launched a multistate digital ad campaign aimed at persuading seven U.S. senators—six of them Democrats—to back the Biden administration's already weakened tailpipe pollution standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks.
The new campaign targets Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Az.), Jon Tester (D-Mt.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.), who have been critical of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recently finalized federal clean vehicle standards.
"The Sierra Club urges all senators to protect their constituents from toxic vehicle pollution and support these clean car standards that will save families money and give car buyers more choice," Will Anderson, the green group's deputy legislative director, said in a statement.
"The popular clean car standards are the latest commonsense action by the Environmental Protection Agency to tackle our nation's most polluting sector—transportation—and they work," Anderson added. "Trying to undo them is a dangerous attempt to roll back progress on climate, clean air, and cleaner cars that will benefit communities across the country."
Some of the ads are custom-tailored to individual lawmakers. Responding to Fetterman's recent criticism of the new EPA rules, one of the videos argues that "repealing this standard would harm Pennsylvania's growing clean energy economy, undermine efforts to clean up our air, and hurt children and seniors with asthma and other respiratory problems."
"We urge Sen. Fetterman to protect Pennsylvania families who will benefit from this lifesaving standard that will create jobs and give car buyers more options—not Big Polluters and their Republican allies who want to roll back climate progress," the video adds.
The EPA estimates that the new standards will prevent 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions and provide $13 billion in annualized net benefits for consumers and the climate. While some environmentalists have hailed the new rules as the strongest ever of their kind, others argue they don't go far enough.
Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, last month claimed that "the EPA caved to pressure from Big Auto, Big Oil, and car dealers and riddled the plan with loopholes big enough to drive a Ford F-150 through."
The new Sierra Club campaign launched the day after a federal appellate panel upheld the Biden administration's 2022 decision to preserve California's strict vehicle emission standards, which have been adopted by 17 states and the District of Columbia. California's mandate is more stringent than the new EPA standards, which set no quotas for zero-emission vehicle sales.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dark Money-Backed 'No Labels' Drops Third-Party Presidential Bid
One observer quipped that No Labels was calling it quits "to spend more time with their lobbyists."
Apr 04, 2024
Less than a month after No Labels announced it would nominate a "unity ticket" for the 2024 presidential election, the group said Thursday that it is abandoning its longshot third-party White House bid.
"No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House," the group said in a statement. "No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down."
As Common Dreams reported last month, No Labels—whose own leader has admitted is "not in it to win it" but rather to "give people a choice"—has poured millions of dollars in dark money contributions into a quixotic run that critics like MoveOn executive director Rahna Epting warned could "swing the election to Donald Trump," the twice-impeached former Republican president and presumptive GOP nominee, 91 federal and state criminal charges notwithstanding.
No Labels had floated former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a failed 2024 GOP presidential contender, as possible "unity ticket" candidates. However, the group ultimately found no takers.
Top No Labels donors include billionaire and multimillionaire Trump supporters like Nelson Peltz, private equity executive Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, and former 20th Century Fox CEO James Murdoch. Louis Bacon, the billionaire CEO of hedge fund Moore Capital Management, donated $1 million each to No Labels and the Republican Party after giving the maximum allowable contribution to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, formerly one of the conservative Democrats in Congress and now an Independent.
Even with all that financial backing, No Labels' path to the ballot has been dubious. MoveOn has urged states to investigate the group for allegedly misleading voters through deceptive canvassing methods that result in their disenfranchisement.
The U.S. two-party system has been criticized for monopolizing political power at the expense of democracy and voter choice by actively working to thwart all viable third-party and independent candidates. However, political pragmatists note what they say is the folly of running unwinnable races.
"Third-party candidates are the fools gold of this election," MoveOn said on social media, adding that neither No Labels nor conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy "have ballot access in all 50 states and mathematically cannot win."
"They can only play spoiler," the group added.
However, while Democrats and Republicans often automatically gain ballot access, the two parties are largely behind state laws that create often insurmountable barriers for third-party and independent challengers.
Other progressives also welcomed the news of No Labels' withdrawal—but with a warning. Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, quipped on social media that No Labels was quitting "to spend more time with their lobbyists."
"Billionaires pump millions into No Labels, and in return, their politicians push policies that transfer wealth from the working-class back to billionaires," she added. "Just because they aren't running a presidential candidate doesn't mean they aren't still a serious threat to democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Labels Denounced for 'Dangerous' Dark Money Ploy to Boost Trump in 2024
"Their decision to move forward with a dark-money, Trump donor-funded third-party fantasy bid is shameful and puts millions of Americans at risk," said one opponent.
Mar 08, 2024
With Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden expected to face former GOP President Donald Trump in the November election, No Labels on Friday confirmed it is pushing ahead with plans for a third-party "unity" ticket that critics fear could help the Republican return to the White House.
"The consequences of the next presidential election could not be more serious or more existential, and, despite this, No Labels has put their dangerous, reckless thought experiment ahead of the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans and the future of our democracy," declared MoveOn Political Action executive director Rahna Epting. "Their decision to move forward with a dark-money, Trump donor-funded third-party fantasy bid is shameful and puts millions of Americans at risk."
"Their own founder said they are 'not in it to win it,' and several current and past supporters of No Labels have implored them to stand down. And yet, they have decided to pump millions of dollars of dark money into a run that would swing the election to Donald Trump," she warned. "Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term in the White House."
"Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term."
Epting's comments came after No Labels national convention chair Mike Rawlings said in a statement that "earlier today, I led a discussion with the 800 No Labels delegates from all 50 states. These citizen leaders have spent months discussing with one another the kind of leadership they want to see in the White House in 2024. These are some of the most civic-minded, thoughtful, and patriotic Americans I have ever met. They take their responsibility seriously."
"Even though we met virtually, their emotion and desire to bring this divided nation back together came right through the screen. I wasn't sure exactly where No Labels delegates would land today but they sent an unequivocal message: Keep going," he added. "They voted near unanimously to continue our 2024 project and to move immediately to identify candidates to serve on the unity presidential ticket. Every one of our delegates had their own explanation for wanting to move ahead."
No Labels is a dark money group with secret far-right donors.
It’s not trying to find the so-called “middle ground.”
It’s trying to put Donald Trump back in the White House.
Be warned. pic.twitter.com/5cJgBTFGNj https://t.co/PCluXaWhBQ
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) March 8, 2024
While Rawlings provided some examples of delegates' statements from the call, so did journalists who obtained recordings of it. The New Republic's Greg Sargent—who got the audio from Matt Bennett, co-founder of the Democratic-centrist group Third Way—reported on concerns about a No Labels candidate being a spoiler for Trump:
For instance, a No Labels leader in Idaho said that while members are all for a run, they believe the ticket should "only" be offered to a candidate who has a "reasonable path to succeed and not be a spoiler." A leader in Iowa said the candidate must be "strong" and have "the ability to win."
Many others echoed these sentiments. At one point a party member from New Hampshire said: "We are in it to win it. But we also don't want to look like liars when we're telling people that we're not going to be a spoiler."
However, participants in the call expressed support for pursuing a unity ticket, according to Politico's Shia Kapos and Daniel Lippman, who also obtained a recording and reported that "delegates compared what No Labels was doing to Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address and the Founding Fathers during the American Revolution."
Third Way's Bennett said in a statement Friday: "What part of 'no' is so hard to understand? Time and again, voters, candidates, and election experts have told No Labels that a third-party presidential ticket can't win and would help Trump."
As Andrew Perez and Nikki McCann Ramírez detailed Friday for Rolling Stone:
Over the past year, the dark-money group has been leading a reported $70 million campaign to secure ballot access nationwide for a potential 2024 "unity" ticket. No Labels has refused to disclose who's funding this effort, claiming that this is to protect its donors from "agitators and partisan operatives." Thanks to a quirk in America's broken system of campaign finance laws, the group will never be required to disclose who funded its ballot access effort—and would only have to start reporting donors if it were to formally back candidates.
So far, No Labels has secured ballot access in 16 states, and is trying to do so in 17 other states. The group has given no concrete hints as to which two divide-spanning politicians might run on its unity ticket, or to what party they might belong.
Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—a right-winger who weighed a run for president—suggested last week that a No Labels ticket would be a spoiler, saying that "right now, if you can't get on 50 states and you're going to basically hit in some of the battleground states that could be very detrimental to what the outcome would be."
During Biden's State of the Union speech on Thursday night, Trump said that it was "interesting" that Manchin and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)—the 2012 GOP nominee—were sitting together, "and nobody wants to talk to them."
"I think they'd make a great No Labels team!" added Trump—whose only remaining primary challenger, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, dropped out earlier this week. She has also publicly opposed running with No Labels.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, an Independent who ditched the Democratic Party shortly after the 2022 election, revealed this week that she is not seeking another term in November but she is also "not running for president."
Another potential No Labels candidate, former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, recently resigned from the group's board in frustration and has decided to run for Senate. He remains opposed to both major candidates, saying Thursday that "I'm like 70% of the rest of people in America who do not want Joe Biden or Donald Trump to be president."
While No Labels searches for candidates, the group's critics continue to warn of the consequences of its potential ticket.
"There is no path to victory for No Labels. They will only ensure a second Trump presidency that serves the interests of their billionaire and corporate special interest backers," End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller said Friday. "It's why they've fought every effort to play by the rules and disclose their donors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Cheer Senate Exit of Kyrsten Sinema
Sinema's exit sets up an election between Rep. Ruben Gallego and former television anchor Kari Lake.
Mar 05, 2024
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema—infamous for voting down a federal $15 minimum wage, high-fiving Sen. Joe Manchin to kill filibuster reform, and overall kowtowing to corporate interests while hiding behind euphemistic claims of "moderation"—announced Tuesday she will not run for reelection this year, news welcomed by progressives both in her home state of Arizona and beyond.
Sinema's departure from the 2024 campaign means the Arizona Senate race will most likely be between Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego and Republican former television new anchor and unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.
Sinema claimed in a video announcing her decision not to run that moderate politicians are "not what America wants right now."
"Because I choose civility, understanding, listening, working together to get stuff done, I will leave the Senate at the end of this year," she said.
Rep. Gallego put out a statement thanking Sinema for her "nearly two decades of service," and he invited her to campaign against Kari Lake.
Other progressives took the opportunity to let their disgust be known.
"Sinema will go down in history as a feckless, corrupt egomaniac who sabotaged abortion and voting rights and destroyed her own political career in the process," said Leah Greenberg, co-founder of the advocacy group Indivisible.
"Enjoy your lobbying gig and leave the rest of us alone forever," Greenberg added.
Sinema will have served one term as a senator. She previously served in the House of Representatives for six years and the Arizona Senate for one year. Though Sinema started her career as a member of the Green Party, she later became a Democrat and then switched to being an independent in late 2022—a move that deeply wounded the Biden administration's domestic agenda by slicing the Democratic majority in the Senate to the bone.
Sinema was an obstacle to achieving progressive policy goals in Congress, blocking many key priorities, including eliminating the legislative filibuster, along with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). She infamously did a thumbs down in the Senate gallery to vote against raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour in 2021.
The group hoping to oust Sinema, the Replace Sinema campaign, put out a statement in response to the news of her not seeking reelection.
"Sinema obstructed President Biden's Build Back Better agenda, got in the way of fundamental rights like abortion care and voting, and did the bidding of her wealthy donors who fund her luxury lifestyle," the group wrote. "We succeeded in first pushing her out of the party—by making clear she couldn't win a Democratic primary—and now we've also helped push her out of the Senate. Good. Arizonans deserve better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Urge Biden to Stop 'Political Games' and End Cruelty at the Border
"The idea that 5,000 or even 10,000 people might overwhelm us trivializes both what our government is capable of and our nation's capacity to welcome. Those of us living at the border know this," said one El Paso-based advocate.
Jan 28, 2024
Progressives on Saturday urged U.S. President Joe Biden to halt his immigration-related appeals to "a voter who doesn't exist" as he promised voters at a campaign event in South Carolina that he would immediately "shut down the border" between the U.S. and Mexico if Congress passes a bipartisan immigration bill.
Senators are expected to release the legislative text of the bill this week, but Capitol Hill sources have said the bipartisan deal—negotiated chiefly by Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), and James Lankford (R-Okla.)—would include a new executive authority to halt asylum screenings on days when border crossings by undocumented immigrants reaches 5,000 over the five-day average.
Under the provision, migrants would be expelled indefinitely until crossings decreased to 3,750 per day. A set amount of asylum claims would be granted at official ports of entry, but the standard for migrants making an asylum claim would be raised, making it harder for people—many of whom have been arriving at the border after fleeing violence and poverty—to get approval to stay in the United States.
"A bipartisan bill would be good for America and help fix our broken immigration system and allow speedy access for those who deserve to be here, and Congress needs to get it done," Biden said in South Carolina, a day after the White House released a written statement on the legislation. "It'll also give me as president the emergency authority to shut down the border until it could get back under control. If that bill were the law today, I'd shut down the border right now and fix it quickly."
Immigrant rights advocates were quick to denounce Biden's promise to eliminate asylum protections for thousands of people, while U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said the bill would be "dead on arrival" if it arrives on the House floor and demanded that Biden close the border immediately with his executive authority—something Biden cannot do under federal and international law, said American Immigration Council (AIC) policy director Aaron Reichlin-Melnick.
Although Republicans have insisted on border restrictions in exchange for more military aid for Ukraine and Israel, Oklahoma Republicans passed a resolution condemning Lankford for working with Democrats on the deal.
Johnson complained that the deal would allow "as many as 150,000 illegal crossings each month (1.8 million per year) before any new 'shutdown' authority could be used. At that point, America will have already been surrendered."
"How weak do you have to think the USA is if you're claiming that adding 1.8 million undocumented immigrants a year would "surrender" the nation?" asked Reichlin-Melnick.
Meanwhile, Eleanor Acer, refugee protection director for Human Rights First, warned that former Republican President Donald Trump's anti-migration Title 42 policy already proved to "be a human rights and migration management fiasco."
The U.S. turned away migrants under Title 42 more than 2.8 million times between March 2020—when it was imposed as the coronavirus pandemic began, ostensibly to protect public health—and May 2023. Human Rights First tracked more than 10,000 cases of migrants being kidnapped or physically or sexually assaulted after being expelled under Biden's continuation of Title 42 after he took office. The Kaiser Family Foundation also reported that the policy contributed to the separation of families.
"There are real challenges at the border, and now is the moment that we need our leaders to move forward effective policy solutions that will improve port processing, support communities receiving migrants, and create lawful pathways to citizenship for Dreamers and others," said Deirdre Schifeling, chief political and advocacy officer at the ACLU, on Saturday. "But let's be clear: Cruelty is not a policy solution—and barring people from seeking protection is both callous and unworkable."
"We've already had an expulsion authority before—Title 42—and we know that it did not stop people from coming to the U.S.," added Schifeling. "Instead, we saw record numbers of families and individuals arriving at our border seeking protection, and Title 42 caused tremendous harm to people fleeing danger."
Marisa Limón Garza, executive director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas, accused Biden of playing "political games" and demanded that he keep his campaign promises to "restore a humane and orderly asylum and immigration system."
"The idea that 5,000 or even 10,000 people might overwhelm us trivializes both what our government is capable of and our nation's capacity to welcome. Those of us living at the border know this," said Limón Garza. "One's commitment to their children is a powerful force that drives parents and children to seek a better life in the U.S... Here in the Borderland we believe in supporting families and keeping them together, not turning our backs on them or tearing them apart.
“We call on Congress and the Biden administration to reverse course and turn away from the political games that drive us toward these reckless immigration proposals," she added.
Author and historian Dan Berger compared Biden's push for new anti-immigration authority to his enthusiasm for a "tough on crime" approach by the Democratic Party three decades ago.
Biden has "won no one over" with his statements on immigration since Friday, said author and podcaster Kate Willett. "It's cruelty for recreation."
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