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
Follow the Money: How Billionaire Wealth Became Political Power
Wealth creates political power; political power produces tax and economic policies favorable to wealth; those policies concentrate still more wealth; and some of that wealth is reinvested in politics to keep the cycle going.
Oct 16, 2026
In 1971, corporate lawyer Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memo to the US Chamber of Commerce warning that American business was under attack. Among his complaints were politicians and activists who portrayed tax breaks as benefiting “only the rich” and who dared to set the “rich” against the “poor,” and “business against the people.”
Powell’s solution was not subtle. Corporate America needed political power, and that power “must be assiduously cultivated” and, when necessary, “used aggressively and with determination.” Business should organize, influence the media and universities, build political power, and exploit what Powell called the “vast opportunity” presented by the courts.
Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? traces much of what happened next. Powell joined the Supreme Court and later wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, expanding constitutional protection for corporate spending on ballot measures. Decades later, Citizens United would further expand corporate political spending rights. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan ushered in enormous tax cuts, deregulation, attacks on organized labor, and an economic philosophy that promised prosperity would trickle down (it never did!).
That brings us to a question I think every politician promising a better future should have to answer: Tell me what you want to do—and tell me who you're willing to tax to pay for it.
More than half a century after the Powell Memo, we’ve got the receipts.
According to a new Americans for Tax Fairness analysis, America’s 977 billionaires now control a record $9.24 trillion. In just one year, their wealth increased by $2.2 trillion, or 32%, while the overall economy grew by about 6%. The richest 16 Americans alone possess nearly $4 trillion, more wealth than all US billionaires combined had less than six years ago.
But those gains look even more extraordinary when we look at what is happening to everyone else. The bottom half of American households collectively owns just over 2% of the nation’s wealth. Nearly 48 million Americans live in households struggling with food insecurity. And the divide between workers and those at the top of corporate America has exploded: CEOs at the country’s 350 largest firms made 325 times as much as the typical worker in 2025, up from 21 times as much in 1965. Since 1978, CEO compensation has risen 1,316%, while typical worker compensation increased just 28%.
Yet as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated at the top, Washington is moving in precisely the opposite direction for millions of working families: massive tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the wealthy alongside deep cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and other programs people depend on.
That brings us to a question I think every politician promising a better future should have to answer: Tell me what you want to do—and tell me who you're willing to tax to pay for it. Want universal healthcare? Affordable housing? Better schools? Modern infrastructure? A serious response to climate change? A stronger safety net? Great. How are you going to pay for it?
After decades in which an extraordinary share of America's wealth has accumulated at the very top, pretending we can adequately fund those priorities without asking substantially more from those who have accumulated that wealth is not a serious answer.
California's Proposition 40 puts that question directly before voters.
The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth, primarily to help protect healthcare from massive federal cuts. In a letter endorsing the measure, six Nobel Prize-winning economists note that California's roughly 250 billionaires now possess $2.3 trillion, up from about $700 billion a decade ago. From 2019 through 2025 alone, those billionaires gained $1.4 trillion in wealth, while the state income taxes they paid during that period amounted to just 1.6% of those gains.
The good news is that none of this is inevitable. These rules were created through political choices, and they can be changed through political choices and organized action.
How have some of California's wealthiest people responded to being asked for a small portion of those enormous gains? By spending an extraordinary amount of money to stop it.
As of October 10, billionaire-backed opposition efforts have reportedly raised approximately $300 million to fight Prop 40, vastly outspending its supporters. The opposition includes Building a Better California, which is also backing Props 41 and 42, competing measures that could potentially block the billionaire tax even if voters approve it.
Think about that for a moment. A small number of extraordinarily wealthy people can spend a quarter-billion dollars influencing an election over whether extraordinarily wealthy people should pay more in taxes.
And California is only one battlefield. American billionaires had already contributed more than $433 million to the 2026 midterms by early this year. Nearly 80% went to Republican candidates and conservative organizations.
This is the feedback loop Powell envisioned, taken to an extreme he might not have imagined: Wealth creates political power; political power produces tax and economic policies favorable to wealth; those policies concentrate still more wealth; and some of that wealth is reinvested in politics to keep the cycle going.
That is why this debate is about more than tax rates. It is about democracy.
It is also why Prop 40 matters beyond California. As the six Nobel economists wrote, passage could help “kickstart a movement” to tax extreme wealth elsewhere. They concluded that this vote could ultimately be remembered as a turning point in the struggle between democracy and oligarchy.
The good news is that none of this is inevitable. These rules were created through political choices, and they can be changed through political choices and organized action.
Vote. Demand that candidates tell us not only what they want to accomplish, but who they are willing to tax to pay for it. Join the No Kings mobilization on October 17. And watch and share Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? to understand how we got here.
Then let's stop the heist.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the Billionaires and Elon Musk Buy Our Elections and Destroy Our Democracy
Not too long ago, Musk’s splurge would have been flatly illegal. A reckless Supreme Court and moribund Federal Election Commission took care of that. It should be made illegal again.
Oct 15, 2026
On a recent episode of the Bulwark podcast, journalist Ron Brownstein described the election as a contest between “the wave versus the wall.” The wave being voter anger and President Donald Trump’s plummeting popularity. The wall being structural impediments to voters’ voices, such as gerrymanders and the Republican Party’s stark spending advantage.
Now we know that much of that money comes from one man. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.
Elon Musk has contributed at least $366 million on behalf of Republicans since the last election. As The New York Times explained yesterday, “It means that when we talk about the Republicans’ considerable outside spending advantage over Democrats in this midterm, we are talking, in large part, about Musk’s personal contributions.”
Such a blatant attempt to buy the outcome of an election should be a big scandal. As is so often the case, the scandal is not what’s illegal, but what’s legal.
Not too long ago, Musk’s splurge would have been flatly illegal. A reckless Supreme Court and moribund Federal Election Commission took care of that. It should be made illegal again.
Musk’s spending is historic, and not in a good way. It is the biggest contribution during a campaign cycle by any human being in the history of American politics. (Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spent more in 2020, but on their own doomed presidential campaigns.)
At times, cautious donors have hedged bets, as lobbyists and PAC managers gave to lawmakers from both parties. Some years, small donors favor one side or another, evening things out in partisan terms.
But this year, big money has mobilized to defend Republican control. We have not had a major election where one party’s spending so dwarfs the other’s in at least a half century, likely since the 1972 election that brought us Watergate.
So much money sloshing around can produce odd or extravagant spending, such as expensive television commercials for a Texas Senate race running on football games and the ads boosting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) that aired in Portland, Oregon, rather than Portland, Maine.
At this late date, more ads might yield minimal impact. That Musk’s contributions are paying for Republican get-out-the-vote operations may have a real impact in key states.
The Supreme Court led by John Roberts has told us that this is all glorious free speech, with campaign contributions “the whole point” of the First Amendment.
Elon Musk is a singular figure. We know of his destruction of foreign aid through DOGE, estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives already around the world, his flamboyant celebrity, his status as the world’s first trillionaire.
Let’s not overthink it. The grubby reality is he’s a big federal contractor. According to The Washington Post, “Over the years, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits, often at critical moments.”
Musk has massive investments in artificial intelligence through platforms such as Grok, just as political debate finally has erupted around that technology. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just named Musk, another billionaire, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to lead Project Meridian to reshape the use of technology in warfare.
Such a blatant attempt to buy the outcome of an election should be a big scandal. As is so often the case, the scandal is not what’s illegal, but what’s legal.
Once, there were limits on what could be donated to campaigns. No longer. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, other court cases since then, and a Federal Election Commission that lacks even a quorum to act have deregulated money in politics. Operatives need no longer pretend these funds are “independent.” Musk’s spending is public, but this year at least $1.3 billion is dark money from undisclosed donors. (The candidates and officeholders know who they are. Just not voters.)
But candidates and lawmakers must do more than decry corruption. The aftermath of this election must lead to action, to reform that follows scandal.
The Brennan Center has proposed Nine Solutions for Political Corruption as part of our series, Solutions for a Stronger Democracy. One of them is especially relevant to the Musk news.
Statutes already purport to bar campaign gifts from federal contractors, but they are more loophole than law. In an article in Just Security published Wednesday, my colleague Eric Petry explains how an expanded and toughened contractor ban would work. It should cover, for example, not just the corporation that holds the contract but the major shareholders, parent company, and other “affiliated entities.” The ban should also extend to donations to inaugural funds, presidential libraries, and vanity projects like Trump’s White House ballroom. Above all, taxpayer money should go to the best contractors chosen under strict rules, not those who best curry favor.
The Watergate election and the scandals it produced led to major reforms, including contribution caps and public financing of presidential campaigns. That response came from lawmakers from both parties, many of them newly elected, demanding change. Ultimately it was voters who responded.
This year we’ve watched the effort to undermine the balloting, and fought back. One lesson may be: Why steal an election when you can buy it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
For a Future on Our Terms
In the midterm election, American Promise seeks to return power to the American people through campaign finance reform.
Oct 09, 2026
As we approach the midterm elections, our country's most prominent voting concerns are back on the frontline. The US is experiencing historically high voter turnouts, yet voters are expressing record levels of dissatisfaction. Perhaps it is because one of the most salient topics across party lines is missing from the conversation: campaign finance reform.
The upcoming midterm election cycle is projected to be the most expensive in American history. Analysis by The New York Times found that 20 donors have already spent $1.2 billion on this year's campaigns to push candidates in battleground states and integrate corporate agendas into public policy. Special interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Musk’s America PAC are spending big to elect allies friendly to their political and economic interests. Not only do AI groups fund candidates, but increasingly dishonest and weird deepfake AI videos circulate online. Further analysis by Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) Action Fund found that 172 billionaire families spent $1.7 billion. Over $1 billion in untraceable dark money is corrupting American democracy.
Americans are unhappy with the state of campaign finance in the US. But how did we end up here? In 1976, the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo paved the way for campaign finance laws by equating campaign donations to “free speech,” protected as a First Amendment right. In, 2010, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling enabled the creation of “super PACs,” allowing unlimited corporate donations beyond the previous $5,000 limit. As a result, US elections are dominated by corporate interests and lobbyists, increasing the cost and accessibility of running for office.
The For Our Freedom Amendment is here, and campaign spending limits are not far behind.
Several polls confirm Americans’ discontent. Many in both parties and in all regions of the country have lost faith in our system, feeling elected officials cater to lobbyists rather than constituents. Nearly 80% of voters believe big donations are linked to corruption, while merely 4% of American voters believe the United States’ current political system works well. This pattern is similarly present in congressional elections;8 out of every 10 adults in the US believe that people who donate money to political campaigns have too much of an influence over congressional decisions.
However, while many remain dissatisfied with the state of campaign finance, large majorities are optimistic about reform. Approximately 60% of Americans believe in the possibility of adopting laws that limit spending on political campaigns. An even greater majority desire doing so, with 72% of Americans believing in imposing spending limits on campaigns. All around the country, Americans support enforcing limits by margins of 3-to-1 or even greater.
Although many may be skeptical, wondering how campaign finance reform can take place when unlimited spending is protected under the First Amendment, change is already underway. The pathway lies in the very foundation of the American democratic system: the United States’ Constitution. Supermajorities up to 80% across the country support an amendment to limit campaign spending. Already, the cross-partisan nonprofit American Promise has drafted and is proposing the amendment.
The For Our Freedom Amendment was developed meticulously through the collaboration of citizens, lawmakers, and scholars from all parties. Its text gets straight to the point: It empowers the government by granting it constitutional authority to enforce campaign spending limits. The full text of the amendment is as follows:
Section 1. We the People have compelling sovereign interests in the freedom of speech, representative self-government, federalism, the integrity of the electoral process, and the political equality of natural persons.
Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions and spending in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Section 3. Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, including by prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Its concise and clear language makes it accessible to the average American. It conveys a refreshing honesty and constituent-first sentiment recently missing from political debate, placing it at the heart of political and individual dignity.
Not only is it drafted, but support for the amendment is significant. Twenty-three states have passed official resolutions calling on Congress, meaning it has garnered nearly half of the three-quarters majority required for Congress to propose the amendment.
While a constitutional amendment may feel beyond reach, we must keep constitutional change at the forefront of our political imagination. The seeds of reform have already been planted by the electorate. Electing proactive candidates enables conversations and reform in Congress. Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) proposed the House Joint Resolution 191, Constitutional Campaign Finance Reform Amendment, in collaboration with American Promise. With this, Rep. Barrett expressed unwavering American democratic spirit, and this is just the beginning.
It is now our job as citizens in this election cycle to keep the pressure on, which means greater voter participation. Congressional leaders are in charge of the Committee on Appropriations, which oversees and enforces campaign finance laws. Participating in the election of competent leaders can lead to higher standards of regulation; but beyond that, it may very well be a key stepping stone on the road to ratification.
Unequivocally, the facts do not lie: Americans want change. So, call your friends and family, or chat with your neighbors, and let them know: The For Our Freedom Amendment is here, and campaign spending limits are not far behind. We can make this happen
Keep ReadingShow Less
The One Issue the Midterm Victors Must Solve? Corruption
If they do not, we will be sentenced to one election after another where parties club each other with populist anger, alternating in power with little changing.
Oct 07, 2026
One of the most potent midterm election slogans was offered by the Republicans in 1946: “HAD ENOUGH?” The GOP swept into power after years of New Deal dominance.
We like to say that what counts is not what you are against, but what you are for. Not always, though. Sometimes “Had enough?” is enough.
Midterm elections often are waged as a rebuke to the party in control of the White House. Political scientists call this a thermostatic election. Voters adjust the temperature by turning the dial away from perceived overreaches.
Sometimes the floor just drops out from under a political party. This could be a year when “Had enough?” is enough.
But at times candidates have an agenda, detailed or implicit. Those are the years that produce the biggest change.
In 1974, the “Watergate Babies” ran to clean up politics and shake up a hidebound Democratic Party. Often they were Democrats from suburban districts, shifting the party’s focus away from New Deal-style economic issues toward issues of transparency and good government.
George Miller, a congressman elected that year from California, declared: “We were a conquering army. We came here to take the Bastille. We destroyed the institution by turning the lights on.”
In 1994, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich won the House for the first time in 40 years. On the Capitol steps, more than 300 candidates signed a “Contract With America,” a pledge to bring to the floor for a vote on 10 measures, such as a congressional term limits constitutional amendment, within the first 100 days of taking office.
In 2018, the midterm halfway through Donald Trump’s first term, dozens of Democrats won with an anti-corruption pledge put forward by the group End Citizens United.
The scandals of just a decade ago seem quaint. Back then, we worried that Trump would profit from guests staying at his hotel near the White House. Now he brazenly grifts, increasing his net worth by at least $2 billion. The most recent astonishing news suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin offered favorable oil concessions to investors who have donated to Trump’s super PAC or have financial ties to his son-in-law Jared Kushner as part of a bid to force a deal on Ukraine.
Today, Democrats are running on affordability. Diesel prices and exorbitant hamburgers speak for themselves. But it is not clear what the party would do about affordability if it were to win.
Corruption is the other big issue on the campaign trail. Here, the Outs have begun to say what they would do if they become the Ins.
End Citizens United, once again, has enlisted candidates to sign an “Unrig Washington” pledge. Candidates vow to ban congressional stock trading, refuse corporate PAC money, and “crack down on dark money.” Those are strong planks, though they may fall short of a Gingrich-style manifesto.
Some of the most talked-about candidates have embraced similar themes. Abdul El-Sayed, seeking a Senate seat in Michigan, calls for getting “Money Out of Politics.” James Talarico, running a surprisingly strong Senate race in Texas, rails against “billionaire mega-donors and their puppet politicians” in a “rigged system.” Jon Ossoff, the incumbent Georgia senator, has gone viral with his intensely delivered stump-speech exposés of executive branch corruption.
A survey by the Brennan Center earlier this year found an unusual and wide revulsion against corruption. It also found that voters blame Democrats as well as Republicans.
GOP candidates sense this mood too. They focus not on money in politics but on fraud in government. In Minnesota, which last year was rocked by Medicaid fraud allegations, state house Speaker Lisa Demuth, running for governor, declared that “fraud was exploding here in Minnesota.” Bobby Charles, running for governor in Maine, pledged to investigate alleged fraud in the state’s Medicaid system. Public disquiet about government waste, always lurking, could be forged into a potent issue once candidates find a way to distance themselves from the current administration.
There’s another issue heard on the hustings that reflects voter disquiet about out-of-touch institutions: Supreme Court reform. Josh Turek, running for the Senate in Iowa, has joined Talarico and others in urging action. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who would chair the Judiciary Committee in their chambers if their party won, recently roused a crowd of Turek supporters at the Polk County Steak Fry with calls for term limits for the justices.
Right now, it’s Democrats demanding reform. In the past, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have supported term limits. Could they do so again? Polls show wide and consistent public support, such as the Fox News survey showing 78% approval.
As I wrote last week, due to retirements and primary defeats in safe districts, we know that at least 83 new House members will be elected in a few weeks—and of course, depending on switches in party control, possibly many more. There already has been a wave election in both parties.
What will happen next? Ever since people stopped answering landline telephones, polling has been a struggle. In some elections, surveys underestimate Trump’s populist base. (Though in years when Trump is not on the ballot, that does not seem to be the case.)
But sometimes the floor just drops out from under a political party. This could be a year when “Had enough?” is enough.
The question for whoever wins is what they will do to try to curb corruption. Otherwise we will be sentenced to one election after another where parties club each other with populist anger, alternating in power with little changing.
And the presidential candidates who will soon dash around the country must do even more to bring these issues into focus, to say what they would do to change our politics.
The next two years could bring an even more intense debate about how to remake American democracy and renew government. As soon as the voting ends, that debate begins.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We May Never Know Who Bought the 2026 Midterms
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened.
Sep 23, 2026
Political consultants warn Democratic candidates not to talk about regulating artificial intelligence, Politico reported this week. Not because that would be unpopular—it would be very popular!. No, the consultants warned, it’s that outspoken candidates could be demolished by millions of dollars suddenly dumped into their races by tech companies.
This critical 2026 midterm election may be decided by dark money, big money, tech money. Above all, secret money. The money storm is now gathering. It could tip the outcome of many races. And we may never really know what happened. It all has received far too little attention.
According to The New York Times, “All across America, the midterm elections are drowning in dark money.” That term is used when the identity of the person giving or spending the money is kept secret from the public. So far this year, the Times reports, $1 billion of dark money is sloshing through the political system, and the real number will surely be much higher. I’ll be talking with Theodore Schleifer, one of the authors of that story, on our podcast, out Wednesday.
Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money?
Committees with vaguely patriotic names spring into being and suddenly have tens of millions of dollars to spend. Ads focus on topics far removed from the real concern of the donors. It’s not just television anymore. Money flows to digital ads and content creators as well. The public doesn’t know where all this money comes from, but candidates surely do.
Earlier this year, super PACs backed by rival AI firms dueled on the streets of Manhattan, spending tens of millions of dollars for or against a single congressional candidate, Alex Bores, an outspoken industry critic. Across the country, AI and cryptocurrency companies spent more than $127 million in primaries this year.
Too often, money in politics becomes background noise. Journalists often look at only the fully disclosed “hard money” to candidates and ignore the harder-to-quantify secret spending. Headlines focus on flashy democratic socialists or on attacks on pro-Israel groups like American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Meanwhile, big industries do what they do, pouring massive funds into the political process.
What will be the partisan impact? Twenty big donors, the Times reported, mostly billionaires, have so far spent $1.2 billion on this year’s elections. All but two favored Republicans. Elon Musk recently announced plans to spend at least $100 million through his super PAC. On the other hand, in 2024 most dark money was spent for Democrats in federal races.
After the votes are counted, we may learn if and how money made the difference in many races. But we won’t necessarily know whose spending tilted the election. Perhaps more importantly, all this money surely will have a big impact on government.
For all this, thank the Supreme Court. It has demolished the campaign finance laws, in Citizens United and other cases. According to the justices, such unlimited spending is allowed if it is disclosed (it isn’t) and if it is independent (gimme a break). At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the ability to give unlimited campaign contributions was “the whole point” of the First Amendment. Our dystopian, money-drenched politics is a product of a Supreme Court badly in need of reform.
The media could do much more to explain what’s happening. The Times and a few other outlets have done stellar work. But far too often, campaign cash totals are treated merely as part of the horse race of politics.
Politicians themselves must respond. Year after year, politicians decry corruption but fail to act to pass stronger campaign finance laws. The next Congress must make reform a central goal. We need a law to end dark money and implement small donor public financing, as well as a constitutional amendment to undo misguided rulings such as Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo.
Public outrage about corruption is extraordinarily high across party lines, as a recent Brennan Center survey showed. This time of year is when we have the full attention of those who would lead us. Voters should ask candidates: Speeches about democracy are nice, but what are you actually going to do to take on big money? And then hold them to their promises.
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
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