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
money in politics
How Israel and Its Lobby Allied With Trump and Damaged the Democratic Party
Pro-Israel PACs finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Aug 08, 2026
There are plenty of principled, humanitarian reasons for opposing US support for Israel’s current government. Multiple human right groups, United Nations bodies, international courts, Israeli politicians, and genocide organizations have accused Israel of engaging in war crimes, including genocide, in Gaza and the West Bank. The invasions of Lebanon and Iran are likewise criminal humanitarian disasters.
There are also practical foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby. Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares argue convincingly, in "Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed," that Israel encouraged most of the US foreign policy disasters in the Middle East and Africa:
In 1996, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a “Clean Break” strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
The US followed through with military actions against all those countries, which now lie in ruins, except for Iran, which Israel and the US are in the process of destroying. As Sachs and Fares wrote, “Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the US.”
Israel has corrupted US foreign policy, causing the country to fight unnecessary wars and create unnecessary enemies.
Aside from the humanitarian and foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby on American politics, there are also political reasons. Foremost among them is that Israel and the Israel lobby have repeatedly lent their substantial financial and political influence toward helping elect Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and toward electing Democrats disliked by many Democratic voters.
Multiple US presidents, including Presidents Harry S. Truman, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, made efforts to break away from staunchly pro-Israel policies but eventually succumbed to pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists threatening them with electoral opposition.
During the Republican primary debates in 2016, Trump criticized the invasion of Iraq and said that US policy in the Middle East needed more balance: more support for Palestinian rights. But during the general election campaign, Trump had a meeting with Sharon and Miriam Adelson, who promised to help fund his campaign (source). From that point on, Trump has been staunchly pro-Israel.
Sheldon and Miriam Adelson donated approximately $100 million to pro-Trump super PACs during the 2020 election cycle.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
The New York Times reported in 2021 that the Adelsons’ contributions to GOP campaigns and organizations had totaled around half a billion dollars since 2010.
In 2024 Miriam Adelson donated $100 million to help elect Trump and spent a further $500 million on other Republican causes. According to OpenSecrets, from 2023 to 2024, pro-Israel PACs gave $5.4 million to candidates, almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican Jewish Coalition spent over $14 million supporting Trump since 2020. The New Republic says that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent $45 million in the 2024 elections.
In 2024, Trump ran as the peace candidate, promising to stop the war in Gaza. Kamala Harris’ support for Israel was a significant cause of her election loss (source, source).
Polls (this and this) have shown that among Democratic voters, support for Israel has plummeted. In April 2026, Pew found that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents viewed Israel unfavorably, up from 69% in 2025 and 53% in 2022. Gallup found in July 2025 that only 8% of Democrats approved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released August 4, 2026 found that only 16% of Democrats supported continuing military and economic aid to Israel, while more than 80% of liberal Democrats considered reducing aid important or essential.
The victories of socialist and pro-Palestinian candidates (e.g., Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate primary) during the 2026 primaries—despite tens of millions of dollars spent by the Israel lobby to defeat them—further illustrate the fact that the Democratic base is rejecting mainstream Democrats who support Israel.
Of course, AIPAC does not represent the views of all American Jews. Roughly 7 in 10 Jewish respondents in a March 2026 survey identified as Democrats, and younger Jewish voters have become significantly more critical of unconditional aid.
The Democratic Party’s congressional leadership has continued defending a position overwhelmingly rejected by its own voters. That creates several electoral injuries:
- Young voters conclude that Democratic leaders do not represent them.
- Arab American and Muslim voters feel deliberately disregarded.
- Anti-war progressives see the party as morally compromised.
- Other voters see wealthy donors overriding public opinion.
- Republicans can run as outsiders or supposed “peace candidates,” however dishonestly.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
In 2024, the Israel lobby helped unseat Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Republican-aligned billionaires should not be able to determine which candidates Democrats are permitted to nominate. In 2026 the Israel lobby helped unseat Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), one of Trump’s biggest Republican critics.
Though the Israel lobby gives to Democratic candidates too, its political strategy is not simply bipartisan support for Israel. Its effect is asymmetrical: It helps Republicans win national power while policing the Democratic Party from within. It supports Republicans directly, then spends heavily in Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who challenge Republican-backed Israeli policies. Democrats therefore bear the electoral cost of unpopular policies while Republican candidates receive both financial support and an issue with which to divide the Democratic coalition.
In short, powerful pro-Israel organizations are harming the Democratic Party. This is not because support for Israel is inherently Republican, and not because Jewish voters are disloyal Democrats—many Democrats strongly oppose Israel’s policies—but because these organizations increasingly enforce a Republican-aligned foreign policy inside a Democratic electorate that rejects it. They finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Democratic Party leaders and activists should stop allowing a pro-Republican, pro-war lobby to distort its policies and chooseits candidates.
The Israel lobby, for its own sake, should think hard about whether it wants to support a quasi-fascist movement. For more on this, see "Supporters of Israel Will Eventually Regret That They Allied With Fascist Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is Leading With Respect and Decency Outdated? Colorado’s Manny Rutinel Says, 'No!'
Manny Rutinel, a young man who lives his values and upbringing, is set to help restore programs and benefits he knows his often-unseen constituents have lost under Trumpublican Rep. Gabe Evans’ tenure in Congress.
Aug 05, 2026
It was really hot in Colorado this weekend. Doing political work outdoors seemed nearly impossible, yet we gathered in Brighton, deep into Colorado’s 8th Congressional District to canvas for Manny Rutinel.
Manny won the Democratic primary and is set to unseat Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) in November. After spending just a little time more directly with Manny, his staff, and volunteers, I recognized something in him that could be called an intangible—respect for every person he spoke to, yet most especially for we elders gathered in the heat.
Respect for others cannot be faked nor can disdain. Many politicians and candidates are pushing away from people at gatherings to find more “important” faces in the crowd or bigger donors to court. Manny did not do that to me or any of the other people around him—he made direct eye contact and leaned in to hear me as I offered my ever-ready counsel on healthcare policy and messaging. That alone was remarkable in this vibrant, intensely caring, courageous young candidate—yet I was mystified in thinking about Manny Rutinel, a young man who lives his values and upbringing, helping restore programs and benefits he knows his often-unseen constituents have lost under Trumpublican Rep. Gabe Evans’ tenure in Congress.
It’s like a huge political wind is blowing here in Colorado, and that wind is clearing away the wreckage of inaction, Trumpublican loyalty, and stagnation that has allowed the House of Representatives to fail in its constitutional role. Manny Rutinel rides on the winds of change with intention. Rutinel’s intention seems clear enough—Manny will represent the people of his district. He isn’t torn by corporate loyalties or hidden agendas.
This weekend, I watched Manny show deference to elders, willingness to make space for other candidates to shine, and a sense of humor that will help us all connect as we struggle to protect this grand experiment of democracy.
One of the people I look to for close knowledge of candidates mentioned early on that he thought Manny rested too much of his success in his looks—and yes, Manny is a nice looking young man. Yet, I have not seen one example in which he expected his looks to carry the day. Women have lived with that sort of judgement for a long time—our stereotypical view is you must be good looking, but if you are, you must not be intelligent. Well, Manny even laughed when I shared that observation with him. He is Yale educated, and I think that takes some real dedication and smarts, and the ability to stand up to wealthy and intellectual snobs in ways we cannot imagine. Yet that isn’t what I felt or even the words I’ll remember from when we spoke. For me to come away with the feeling that I was in the presence of unfolding political greatness was something I hadn’t felt in a long, long time. Manny Rutinel, on a hot Saturday morning in August 2026, stands ready to not only lead, but to do so with respect, decency, and courage.
I can hear it now. How could you know anything of the kind about a candidate from a few brief hellos and one longer conversation? It’s not without comparisons to people I have been lucky enough to know along the way—those who truly helped and those who took their elected offices seriously. In Manny Rutinel, I see the same kinds of qualities I have seen as other candidates advanced in political work. Tom Daschle, Tim Wirth, Elizabeth Warren, and many others (yes, because I knew them when they were younger and less well known) became leaders and never stopped being decent, kind, courageous, and respectful—even to little-known me. Each of those people lifted me and so many others as they moved through and sometimes out of our political system that is at times more like a circus. Watching how a young candidate for office moves through a crowd or interacts with volunteers is instructive, but how that person moves to better the lives of those they represent must flow from a deeper drive, a deeper trust that we all deserve to be heard and we all deserve intelligent, courageous representation. Manny Rutinel will provide that and more. It is as plain as day when he mingles that he understands the task at hand—win the seat back from Trumpublican Gabe Evans and truly represent the people in CD8—all of them.
Policies? Is Manny ready to support all the “stuff” I support? Nope. Manny isn’t nearly as progressive as the young Dem primary winner, Melot Kiros, from Colorado's 1st Congressional District. She defeated long-time incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) with a breathtaking ground game. Manny Rutinel will need that and more to win. But he’ll have it from what I have seen so far, and he will have that campaign strength because he leads with respect, kindness, and an unwavering love for the people of Colorado's 8th District. Imagine, political power growing from that source.
This weekend, I watched Manny show deference to elders, willingness to make space for other candidates to shine, and a sense of humor that will help us all connect as we struggle to protect this grand experiment of democracy. It’s those intangible qualities in his character that will surely make him a fine congressman. We ought all look forward to our Congress, especially the (People’s) House of Representatives, better reflecting our values instead of greed and ultra loyalty to Trumpublican shenanigans.
Of the people, by the people, for the people, let’s “Give Gabe the Boot!”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big AI is Blitzing Washington; It's Time for Democratic Leadership to Choose a Side
Despite what Altman may have told legislators in Washington this week, days after OpenAI’s unprecedented cyberattack, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight and continue to play both sides.
Aug 01, 2026
Just days after OpenAI's new model went rogue in an unprecedented cyberattack on another company, where did we find CEO Sam Altman? In closed door meetings on Capitol Hill and in the White House, shaking hands across Washington.
With a looming deadline to finalize the details of the White House's AI executive order, Altman and other Big AI executives are working overtime to make sure they get their way on the most consequential AI policy in history. And they're not alone: Big AI's agenda is being shepherded by Democratic and Republican operatives alike, backed by record levels of lobbying money and super PAC spending.
Democrats now face a choice. They can stay quiet while a handful of billionaires write the rules for the most consequential technology of our time—or they can own this issue and stand up to the lobbying blitz.
The stakes could not be higher. What's on the line is nothing less than the free and open debate our democracy depends on. And rarely has doing the right thing been such good politics—voters across party lines overwhelmingly want guardrails on AI. But make no mistake, the Big Tech AI goliaths we are up against will not give up without a fight.
Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
Washington is crawling with Big AI lobbyists, whispering in the ears and stuffing the pockets of elected officials. In the first half of this year, OpenAI nearly doubled its federal lobbying to a record $2.22 million. Anthropic almost tripled theirs, topping their competitor's spending at $3.53 million. In May, OpenAI established its first lobbying office in DC called the Workshop, just blocks from the White House. In the last six months, tech companies including Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, OpenAI, and Anthropic have retained 234 lobbyists for AI policy specifically—that's about 1 lobbyist for every 1.5 members of Congress. According to a watchdog analysis, 25% of the 13,000 federal lobbyists in DC are involved in AI issues—a marked jump from 2023.
Behind the scenes, Democratic and Republican operatives alike, with deep ties in Washington, are helping to enable Big AI’s agenda. Chris Lehane, famously nicknamed a "Master of Disaster" during his time in the Clinton White House, was involved in establishing Leading the Future and plays a chief role in OpenAI's political strategy as chief global affairs officer. Also on the OpenAI side is Ann O'Leary, a longtime aide to both Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Senate, the White House, and on the campaign trail, who became Gov. Gavin Newsom's chief of staff in 2018. Today she operates as OpenAI's vice oresident of global policy.
Their efforts toward controlling influence extends beyond Washington to this cycle’s consequential midterm elections. Leading the Future—an anti-regulation corporate super PAC funded by Trump-aligned billionaire executives at OpenAI, Palantir, and Andreessen Horowitz—has so far raised $140 million toward its effort to influence the 2026 midterm elections. The goal of this lobbying is to push through OpenAI's self-interested AI narrative at the expense of a broader conversation around the future of technology in this country and the world.
The danger here is grave, and the potential impact of the success of this strategy will be lasting. Our political system depends on the free and open debate of ideas in the public sphere. If Big AI proves that they can repress that debate by crushing public servants, our democracy will crumble.
To head up Leading the Future, Lehane reportedly tapped Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto, a powerful pair with experience on both sides of the aisle. Vlasto is a Democratic strategist who formerly served as press secretary to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and chief of staff to disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Moffatt is a leading Republican strategist who also serves as the CEO of Targeted Victory. With decades of experience as political operatives, they are laser focused on defeating candidates who support AI regulation. Unfortunately, their approach may be working: New York Assemblymember Alex Bores (D-73) lost his congressional primary campaign, and they've recently seen victories for their supported candidates in Arizona.
However well-funded these groups are, they are on the wrong side of what American voters want—and Democrats should say so, loudly. In a recent Johns Hopkins poll, a broad majority of Americans—even those who trust the technology—support AI regulation. And in a recent Gallup poll, confidence in Big Tech sits at an all-time low. Voters are not waiting to be convinced that Big AI has too much power; they are waiting for a party willing to say it with them.
That’s why Democrats cannot treat AI as a niche tech debate, or quietly accept the industry's money while its super PACs pick off their colleagues one primary at a time. Some campaign veterans, including our team at Guardrails, are already standing up to push back against the autocratic takeover of the Trump administration and the tech industry. The party should put its money, its message, and its midterm strategy behind them. Bores' defeat should be a rallying cry, not a cautionary tale.
Despite what Altman may have told legislators this week in Washington, the war for the future of AI policy is not over—but it will be, quickly, if Democrats refuse to fight.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trillionaires Are Only Possible Because They Don't Pay Taxes Like Ordinary People
Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today, yet, as things stand, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
Jul 31, 2026
The valuation trends up and down, but one thing’s for sure: Elon Musk became the world’s first trillionaire this summer. At the height of the SpaceX IPO he was briefly worth around $1.45 trillion.
Then SpaceX stock tanked, rallied, then tanked again. But the most important thing about Musk’s wealth isn’t whether it stays above the 13-figure threshold—it’s that 94% of it comes from not having to pay taxes on unrealized gains.
That’s right: Musk’s fortune effectively comes from not paying taxes.
It’s no exaggeration to say that trillionaires (Musk likely won’t be the last) are creatures of the tax code. They ought to be called “taxillionaires.” If it weren’t for laws that permit the wealthy to endlessly defer paying taxes by keeping their gains unrealized, there would be no trillionaires—and many fewer billionaires.
We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes.
According to Musk’s own account, when he sold his stake in Paypal in 2002, he netted $180 million, invested it all in SpaceX and Tesla, and borrowed to pay his living expenses. To get from $180 million to a trillion today implies annual returns of over 40% (returns that would be considered impossible for ordinary investors).
Allowing these returns to compound untaxed supercharges growth.
Musk paid some taxes along the way, when he exercised stock options or sold some Tesla shares, but any taxes he paid are insignificant compared to his wealth. By contrast, for most working Americans earning a good salary, total state and federal taxes are significant—typically around 40%.
They can put limited amounts in tax-deferred IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like. But most of their savings comes from net paychecks after withholding for federal, state, local, Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare taxes. Musk is effectively exempt from these taxes.
But he doesn’t have to be.
Suppose he were subject to the same taxes on his annual wealth increase that most higher-earning Americans pay on what they make, and had to sell some Tesla and SpaceX shares to pay those taxes. We crunched the numbers based on the latest figures, and found he’d be worth around $47 billion today—rich enough to afford the most lavish lifestyle imaginable, but not a trillionaire, and not richer than the GDP of most countries.
It’s the same story for Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and other multibillionaires.
The vast bulk of their fortunes came from not paying taxes on their wealth as it grew. Without endless tax deferrals, they would have only a tiny fraction of what they own today (although that tiny fraction would still be a huge amount of money). Yet as things stand today, nothing stops them from wielding the power and influence their wealth buys to benefit themselves.
In the 2024 elections, Musk was the largest campaign donor, giving $291 million. That’s chump change for him, but it bought unprecedented power: lucrative contracts, the suspension of investigations of Musk’s businesses, access to government data, and the authority to dismantle government programs—including disruptions to foreign aid which are projected to result in over 14 million people dying from preventable diseases.
It’s a vicious cycle of wealth begetting power which begets more wealth, diverting it from the needy and vulnerable. We’re in the grip of unprecedented power accumulated by private, super-rich individuals.
We can check their power by fixing the untaxed wealth problem. We should end the practice of funding billionaires’ and trillionaires’ accumulation of power at public expense by letting them amass yet larger fortunes without paying taxes. We should adopt sensible policies requiring them to pay their fair share, such as the Billionaires Minimum Income Tax Act introduced in Congress in 2023.
Over the next decade, we will face crisis-level national debt and unmet needs for healthcare and retirement income. That will force us to decide whether to leave the vast pool of billionaire and trillionaire wealth untouched, or tax them like the rest of us to curb their influence and address public needs. The choice is ours.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sports Betting Giants Join Unprecedented Corporate Efforts to Buy 2026 Midterms
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee said the new spending was yet another reason “it’s time to get money out of politics.”
Jul 29, 2026
As corporations spend record sums to influence this November's elections, new campaign finance data shows a powerful new interest fueling the trend: sports gambling companies.
FanDuel, DraftKings, and others in the sports betting industry have spent $72 million seeking to influence the upcoming election cycle, according to a report from Reuters on Tuesday.
The industry's historic spending blitz faces growing scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and seeks to protect its turf against rising competitors in the prediction market business, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which are financially tied to the Trump administration.
Sports gambling companies have become the third-largest corporate election donor in the country during this cycle behind just the technology and cryptocurrency sectors, according to a June report by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. These two industries have spent over $100 million promoting their interests in the upcoming midterms.
That same report found that the 2026 election cycle has been influenced by more corporate money than any since 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for companies to spend unlimited sums promoting their preferred candidates via super political action committees (PACs).
These groups are not legally allowed to coordinate with candidates or give them money directly, but are allowed to advocate on their behalf, sometimes spending tens of millions of dollars to run ads aimed at influencing a single race.
As of last month, the report found that corporations have spent $517 million, mainly through super PACs, to influence the 2026 election, accounting for nearly one-third of all corporate election spending since 2010.
According to Reuters, major sportsbooks have channeled their money into the super PAC Win For America, which launched last year, and distributed it to affiliated PACs: the Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and the Democrat-focused American Future.
DraftKings has given at least $34 million to Win for America, FanDuel has given at least $27 million, and Fanatics and the UK-based bet365 have given $5.5 million apiece.
Separately, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM created the Sports Betting Alliance in 2021 to lobby Congress and state legislatures.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring sports betting in most states, at least 39 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized it in some form.
While crypto and tech have directed more attention to federal races, the battles over sports betting are raging mostly at the state level, and that’s where most of Win for America’s focus is going.
According to Reuters:
The money's impact is already evident in some state races.
Win for America spent more than $12 million in Georgia state races through two smaller PACs—Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and Democrat-focused American Future—as the legislature there weighs bills that would legalize gambling, state campaign finance records show.
The money went into 34 legislative races ahead of the primary. All but two of the candidates supported by the industry won, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in May...
Win for America is also spending heavily on races in Pennsylvania, where there was a push to raise taxes on the online sports betting industry to boost state aid for public transportation, election records show.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who introduced legislation in May that would apply the same contribution limits to super PACs that already apply to direct donations, argued that the huge sums spent by the sports betting industry were yet another reason that "it's time to get money out of politics."
"Crypto. Big tech. Now big sports betting," she wrote on social media Wednesday. "Another industry pouring tens of millions into our elections to protect its profits. Democracy shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Markey Backs 'Bold Progressive Leader' El-Sayed as Pivotal Michigan Primary Nears
"We need him in the Senate to help pass Medicare for All and guarantee health care as a human right," Markey added.
Jul 29, 2026
Sen. Ed Markey on Wednesday joined the growing list of senators backing Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in next week's critical Democratic primary in Michigan.
“Abdul El-Sayed is the bold progressive leader Michiganders need fighting for them in the Senate. As a doctor and public health leader in Detroit, Abdul has seen firsthand how our broken health care system leaves working families behind, and we need him in the Senate to help pass Medicare for All and guarantee health care as a human right,” Markey (D-Mass.) said.
“Abdul refuses to take corporate PAC money and has earned the support of organized labor because working people know he will put their interests ahead of the billionaires, private equity, and corporate interests that have rigged the system against them," added the senator. "I am proud to endorse Abdul El-Sayed.”
Markey, who is gearing up for his own competitive primary in Massachusetts against the centrist Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, is now the fifth US senator to endorse El-Sayed, who already has the backing of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).
Other stars of the progressive movement have also put their support behind El-Sayed, including potential 2028 presidential candidate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has campaigned with him in Michigan in recent weeks.
“Ed Markey has dedicated his life to making government work for the people of Massachusetts,” El-Sayed said in response to the endorsement. "He’s led on bringing climate justice to the forefront of our politics while rejecting money from corporations who want to stop him. His leadership in Congress is unparalleled, and I look forward to joining him in the Senate to get money out of politics, put money in people’s pockets, and pass Medicare for All."
The Michigan primary has grown increasingly contentious in recent weeks as affiliates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have spent a record of at least $30 million running ads boosting Stevens and bashing El-Sayed.
Another dark money group with undisclosed donors and ties to a well-known corporate lobbyist, A Stronger Michigan, has reported spending over $17 million so far to back Stevens, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
With less than a week before Michiganders head to the polls, there remains little clarity about who is favored to face former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat in a general election that could determine control of the Senate and—perhaps even more critically—serve as proof of concept for an insurgent progressive movement’s ability to win competitive elections in purple states.
A survey published on Wednesday by the Democratic polling firm Tavern Research showed El-Sayed leading 48%-37% over Stevens. This is consistent with polls commissioned earlier this month by pro-El-Sayed groups, which showed similar double-digit leads.
A Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll earlier this month by the Glengariff Group showed Stevens leading El-Sayed by seven points, though it coincided with a previous Tavern poll that showed Stevens edging out El-Sayed by a point, suggesting there could have been a shift toward El-Sayed in recent weeks.
The Tavern polls show a decline in net favorability for both candidates among Democratic voters, but the decline is dramatically worse for Stevens.
While the poll released on July 8 showed Stevens with a net favorability of +40 among Democratic voters, that had deteriorated to just +18 by July 29. El-Sayed's favorability also shrank during that time, but by much less—from +45 to +40.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Thank You, New York Voters, for Weakening AIPAC's Hold on US Politics
The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians represents a turning point.
Jun 29, 2026
For the past half century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, largely held sway in elections in both political parties. They threatened and intimidated those who opposed them and, when a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory, holding it up for others as a lesson. Last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, in which three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, point to what may be the end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.
AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and, more importantly, donors—all of whom they used effectively to influence members of Congress and Senators to embrace pro-Israel positions.
They didn’t just go to elected officials in Washington asking them to endorse particular pieces of legislation; they had local leaders in a congressperson’s district make the pitch. When new candidates were running, they’d have local representatives offer to help write their Middle East policy positions. Implicit in the visit and the offers were both the promise of support if the elected official or candidates did what was asked of them and the threat of opposition if they did not.
To back up their efforts, AIPAC spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—that would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel. AIPAC claimed they didn’t coordinate the work of the PACs (which would be a violation of election laws). But, as most of these PACs were headed by AIPAC board members or their families and their pattern of contributions were too obvious to have not been coordinated, it was clear that they were.
In this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place.
AIPAC was also strategic in the their operations. Not everyone benefited from their largesse. Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive members of Congress who faced tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would be the beneficiaries of large amounts of PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors with ties to AIPAC.
Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. Four decades ago, we found total amounts given by AIPAC’s PACs and their individual donors amounted to about $4 million in each election, with a handful of candidates receiving the bulk of this. When a few elected officials who’d been critical of Israel were defeated by opponents who’d been backed by AIPAC, the lobby would crow about their victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was to spread the message to other electeds: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”
With the end of federal regulations limiting the oversight of independent expenditures in election campaigns, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups took advantage by creating “super-PACs” that could raise and spend tens of millions of dollars in each election. Instead of the cumbersome job of stealthily coordinating dozens of federally regulated PACs limited in the amounts they could receive from individual donors and give to each candidate, these unregulated super-PACs could receive seven figure contributions from individuals and spend that same amount to help or hurt the candidates of their choosing. In 2022 and 2024 they effectively targeted a handful of candidates who were critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat each of them.
In the aftermath of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of support for Israel in public opinion—especially among Democrats. In this new environment AIPAC can no longer pick and choose a few candidates to make examples. They now face new challenges weekly. Over 110 US representatives and senators have supported stopping military assistance to Israel because of its violations of Palestinian rights. Dozens of electeds have charged Israel with genocide and hundreds of congressmembers and candidates have pledged that their campaigns will reject any support from AIPAC. In fact, AIPAC has become so toxic that they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates as repositories for the funds they raise to distribute to candidates.
Despite these adjustments, the hurdles being confronted by pro-Israel forces are proving to be too much. Israel’s behaviors continue to alienate more voters. The more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand has become—even when they win, they lose support for their heavy-handed tactics. Which brings us to last week’s New York primaries.
The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians and the victory in an open race of a candidate who’d been a leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests in New York represents a turning point in US politics. It wasn’t just that AIPAC and its allies spent millions in these failed efforts—these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.
What had been the hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past involvement in campaigns was the lengths to which they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They would raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but that would not be the topic of their expenditures. They would spend money on ads criticizing a candidate’s age, their “radical agenda,” or some of their youthful improprieties. But they’d never mention that their involvement was because of the candidate’s position on Israel. This was the case in these New York contests. Many issues were important to voters, especially frustration with the tired failed policies of the Democratic Party establishment. But they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.
The reactions from the pro-Israel side have been predictable. Some have accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—as if for decades AIPAC hadn’t boasted of its money and influence as the source of its power. Others have claimed that as a result of this election, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring the fact that in the most prominent of the three contests in which a pro-Israel Jewish member of Congress was defeated, the victor was also Jewish and a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There’s also a bizarre effort to accuse pro-Palestinian candidates and voters of fracturing the Democratic Party when for decades AIPAC did its best to fracture the party and country by forcing politicians to toe the line or face defeat. Finally, there is the desperate effort to dismiss the entire election as being just about New York and having nothing to do with the rest of the US, ignoring the fact that the national political landscape has changed with these same types of contests taking place everywhere.
The bottom line is that after a half century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but in this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place. Thank you, New York voters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Are Crypto Billionaires and AIPAC Spending $8+ Million to Elect Adrian Boafo?
Powerful interests recognize that this race represents a choice between maintaining the political status quo and building something different.
Jun 14, 2026
Every election tells us something about who holds power in America.
In Maryland's 5th Congressional District—the Democratic primary race to replace former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer—that lesson is arriving in the form of an avalanche of outside money. According to recent federal filings as of June 12, 2026, more than $8 million has been spent by outside groups to boost Adrian Boafo's congressional campaign. Nearly $4.8 million comes from Protect Progress, a crypto-industry super PAC backed by some of the wealthiest interests in the cryptocurrency world. Another $2.8 million comes from United Democracy Project, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC's) super PAC. Add another $500,000 from political organizations tied to longtime Washington power brokers, and the total exceeds $8.1 million.
That amount is staggering. It dwarfs the direct fundraising of the candidates themselves. It raises a fundamental question: Why are national special interests willing to spend so much money on a single congressional primary in Maryland?
The answer is simple. They understand what is at stake.
While outside groups spend millions trying to shape this election, Blegay has built a grassroots campaign centered on Medicare for All, universal childcare, workers' rights, housing justice, and human rights abroad and at home.
Across the country, voters are demanding a break from politics dominated by corporate influence, lobbyists, and billionaire donors. They are demanding Medicare for All instead of an insurance industry that profits from illness. They are demanding affordable housing, universal childcare, stronger labor protections, and an economy that works for working people rather than Wall Street. They are demanding an end to endless war and blank checks for militarism. They are demanding elected officials who answer to their communities instead of powerful donors.
The flood of money into Adrian Boafo's campaign is not happening because crypto billionaires or AIPAC suddenly became concerned about the everyday struggles of Maryland families. It is happening because powerful interests recognize that this race represents a choice between maintaining the political status quo and building something different.
The involvement of crypto-industry super PACs should concern anyone who believes democracy should not be for sale. The cryptocurrency industry has spent unprecedented amounts of money in recent election cycles in an effort to shape federal policy. Their goal is not a secret. They want lawmakers who will be friendly to their interests and resistant to regulations that could affect their profits. When millions of dollars from a national crypto super PAC suddenly appear in a congressional primary, voters should ask themselves what those investors expect in return.
The same question applies to AIPAC's unprecedented spending. Across the country, AIPAC and its affiliated organizations have spent heavily to defeat candidates who support a more balanced US policy toward Israel and Palestine or who have criticized the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. Whether one agrees with those candidates or not, it is impossible to ignore the broader trend: Enormous sums of money are being deployed to shape the boundaries of acceptable political debate.
The result is a political system where ordinary voters increasingly feel that their voices are drowned out by wealthy interests. Many Americans already believe that government works better for corporations and donors than it does for working families. When more than $8 million floods into a single congressional primary, it becomes harder to argue that those concerns are misplaced.
That is what makes Wala Blegay's candidacy so important.
While outside groups spend millions trying to shape this election, Blegay has built a grassroots campaign centered on Medicare for All, universal childcare, workers' rights, housing justice, and human rights abroad and at home. Long before she became a congressional candidate, she was organizing in her community, advocating for workers, and fighting for policies that put people ahead of corporate profits. She has been a consistent supporter of Medicare for All when many elected officials were unwilling to take that position. During the height of the devastation in Gaza, she stood publicly for a ceasefire and Palestinian human rights when doing so carried significant political risk.
Whether voters agree with every position she takes is beside the point. What matters is that she represents a vision of politics fundamentally different from the one being financed by outside interests. Her campaign is built on the belief that elected officials should answer to the people who elect them—not to super PACs, corporate donors, or wealthy political networks.
This election is about more than two candidates. It is about what kind of democracy we want to have. Do we want a system where a handful of powerful organizations can spend millions of dollars to shape local elections? Or do we want a system where ideas, organizing, and community support matter more than the size of a donor's bank account?
The fact that more than $8 million is being spent to influence this race tells us everything we need to know: Powerful interests are paying attention. They understand the stakes. They understand that the outcome of this election could help determine whether the next generation of Democratic leadership will answer to entrenched interests or to ordinary people.
The question now is whether voters are paying attention too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
States Have Found a Way to Fight Back Against Citizens United
Federal attempts to overturn the ruling by amending the US Constitution or legislating against corporate spending have repeatedly failed. But now several states are experimenting with new ways to get this flood of corporate money out of politics.
Jun 05, 2026
More than 15 years ago, the Supreme Court removed limits on corporate political spending in its notorious Citizens United decision, ushering in an era of unprecedented influence by moneyed interests.
As a result, a small group of ultra-wealthy donors have skewed the political system to their advantage—and today, social scientists link the growing gap between rich and poor to that seminal 2010 decision.
Federal attempts to overturn the ruling by amending the US Constitution or legislating against corporate spending have repeatedly failed. But now several states are experimenting with new ways to get this flood of corporate money out of politics.
The state of Hawaii just passed a first-of-its-kind law redefining corporations as entities that aren’t allowed to spend money in elections anywhere within the state. The effort could kick off a powerful state-by-state pushback that succeeds where federal efforts failed.
Curtailing corporate influence on the political system is essential at a time when corporations are thriving while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet.
This simple idea is the brainchild of Tom Moore, senior fellow for democracy policy at the Center for American Progress. “It’s not regulation; it’s redefinition,” Moore told me. “States create corporations, and they give powers to all the corporations that operate within their states.”
So if the federal government and the Supreme Court enable corporations to influence elections, states can counter that merely by changing the definition of a corporation. And that’s precisely what Hawaii did. Effective starting July 2027, corporations doing business in the state are redefined to “not include the power to spend money or contribute anything of value to influence elections or ballot measures.”
The novel approach is well-protected against legal challenges. Moore explained, “The Supreme Court has said consistently for 200 years that [the power to define corporations] is a matter of state law, that the federal courts don’t have anything to do with that.”
The impact of this on Hawaii’s politics are likely to be monumental. “Basically, in Hawaii politics, local, state, and federal, every dollar that’s spent will be from an individual human being,” said Moore. “It’ll be disclosed, it’ll be voluntary. And that is a gigantic difference from what we have right now.”
Hawaii’s law doesn’t overturn Citizens United—it makes the 2010 ruling meaningless within its borders.
Residents of Montana are pushing a similar effort. Activists there are gathering signatures to place a measure on the November ballot to similarly redefine corporations so they can’t spend money in elections. If the measure passes, it will go into effect in January 2027, six months before Hawaii’s law takes effect.
In fact, according to Moore, Hawaii’s legislators borrowed the language for their bill from Montana’s ballot measure and sped it through their legislative process, pleasantly surprising advocates. Moore is confident the Montana effort will succeed. “They’re in very, very good shape, they’re incredibly well-organized,” he said.
At least 14 states, including New York and California, are currently considering similar bills, and Hawaii’s new law prompted interested lawmakers from two other states to contact Moore. “We’ve had outreach from folks in almost every state,” he said. Given the fact that it’s been less than a year since Moore first published his idea, the speed at which it’s caught on has been remarkable.
Curtailing corporate influence on the political system is essential at a time when corporations are thriving while ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet. “At the end of the day, corporations don’t actually work for their shareholders, they work for us because we create them through our legislatures, through our laws,” said Moore.
“And if corporations are doing something in our state that we don’t like, we have the power as citizens and working through our legislators to do something about that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Voters Are Hungry for a Country With Consequences for Corruption at the Top
A new poll finds that large majorities of voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government and back bold reform.
Jun 03, 2026
I’ve written that corruption is the sleeper issue of 2026. Well, it’s awake. And the issue may be bigger than I realized.
That’s the implication of a new national poll released Tuesday by the Brennan Center. The survey was conducted in late April and early May, just before the president’s attempt to create a $1.8 billion slush fund to funnel taxpayer money to his political allies.
The results are striking. More than 9 in 10 voters believe corruption is a big problem across politics and government. Large majorities view corruption as endemic and deeply embedded in government institutions, from the Supreme Court to Congress to the presidency. They are dejected about the fact that scandals continuously go without consequences and shocking revelations fail to produce reform.
Margins are overwhelming among Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Vast majorities believe this corruption is part of why government doesn’t respond to major issues, including concerns like affordability and housing.
Most importantly, voters back bold reform. Eighty-three percent want a law that bars presidents from having conflicts of interest and holds them to stronger ethical standards. Eighty-one percent want a new federal ethics enforcer. Seventy-nine percent want a constitutional amendment that restores limits on money in elections, and other anti-corruption measures received similar levels of support.
It’s hard to find a set of proposals with a wider bipartisan appeal.
Yet there are notes here that should jar complacency. Listen carefully to voters. They define corruption broadly. Vast majorities see the spectacle of politicians catering to the interests of billionaires and big corporations as corrupt, not surprisingly. But to most Americans, wasting taxpayer dollars and even failing to respond to constituent needs are also forms of corruption.
Vast majorities believe this corruption is part of why government doesn’t respond to major issues, including concerns like affordability and housing. How do we connect these arcane government rules to people’s economic well-being? Voters are already doing so.
There are warning signs aplenty for politicians from both parties. Other polls have shown that voters think neither Democratic nor Republican politicians are better than the other on the issue.
Policymakers should understand that the public’s conception of what has gone wrong goes far deeper than super PACs or White House ballrooms or even slush funds. To them, it is a system that is fundamentally misfiring. A government that is not performing. And there is a willingness to name names and assign blame.
In some ways, these results are ominous. We often note that the 2024 election was the first time since the 1800s where the incumbent party lost the White House three times in a row (2016, 2020, 2024). This survey shows a deeply disquieted electorate, scornful of the political system and furious at its flaws. That environment created the conditions for President Donald Trump’s populist nationalism to emerge in 2016. It hasn’t gone away.
Yet this is also the kindling that can fuel new approaches, sharper critiques, and stronger solutions. If polls are to be believed, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has turned his political fortunes through a relentless and often stirring stump-speech focus on corruption.
The breadth of public unhappiness suggests a deeper moral critique. Even now, amid wrenching technological change and evaporating standards, people seem focused on an underlying core of personal responsibility.
My old boss, President Bill Clinton, often talked this way, especially when he was running for president in 1992. “The American dream that we were all raised on is a simple but powerful one,” he would say. “If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be given a chance to go as far as your God-given ability will take you.”
More recently, that ethos was given voice in Hungary by its new president, Péter Magyar. Running against the authoritarian kleptocrat Viktor Orbán, Magyar vowed that Hungary would no longer be “a country without consequences.” He pledged to oversee not just new policies but a thorough effort to clean house and to hold accountable those who had stolen from the people.
The new Brennan Center research suggests that voters here, too, are ready for a country with consequences. That will help shape the next political era—if we are ready to make it happen.
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